:.‘Yn3;.l:. L....v.
$7? I. J 0:...

, . . .. . ‘3? {a ,1. 3:.
i . , , . . . . V , . . .Il.....u. 75. I
92%. z , . ‘ V ._ ‘ ,, . .
"1w i . A
.. _ ‘ ‘ .

 

9 .i ..
.. e 1..

 

vi. f
x: (1....
. 31.7..

fl »

 

r

 

 

 

 

 

 

s
. t! .
tflxyiv!
3.. .
. .ivfl. ‘ H . 4
1.7 .. {Ln-ax!
R 5:!!!-

23.9.1.5.
.2‘3?
“[657!
1.10

1...!-
5.553.355!
a...:.pr..a\.rt. .
23.52.353.31
C :

 

33.1.7!
.L..)!i

.4133 3.} 4.. at .2253 , a
. | I. . I.

 

be . . filmed:

 

:2.

.v .3: .2

 

 

THEM?

 

; ' UBRARY
20 o MICIligm; State
I University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: HIRING
POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO DIVERSIFY FACULTY IN
THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AT A MIDWESTERN

UNIVERSITY

presented by

Rozmina Akbarali Jaffer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Higher Adult Lifelongglucation

 

 

WEEW Q9,

/ CwMajor Professor’s S—ig'nature

Dec; 3, 300 ‘25

 

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

aA_o_._.—..—.—.—.—.-.--—a--u---I-v-o-u-----u--n-o-.---

--.—.-.-.-.--.-.-----u-n-c-.—n-c—-.—.—.—.-._.---.—..—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProjIAcc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: HIRING POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO
DIVERSIFY FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AT A
MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY
By

Rozmina Akbarali Jaffer

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher Adult Lifelong Education

2008

ABSTRACT
DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: HIRING POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO
DIVERSIFY FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AT A
MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY
By
Rozmina Akbarali Jaffer

As the nation experiences a major shift in demographics, higher education
institutions are faced with the need to increase diversity on college and university
campuses to better serve today’s student population. Consequently, universities have a
greater sense of urgency to diversify their faculties and achieve an all-inclusive campus
environment. Universities generally support and believe that diversity better serves the
needs of today’s demographically different student population. However, despite the
general support for an increase in minority faculty, progress has been slow, suggesting
persistent challenges. One explanation for such slow progress is the culture and climate
that is resistant to change in embracing diversity. Consequently, the problem is that
diversification of faculty continues to be a challenge. Though there is significant research
about many obstacles faced by faculty of color and women in higher education, there is a
dearth of studies examining personnel practices at the department level in the context of
espoused theories of the university in support of diversity. Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to explore factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of the tenure-track faculty
workforce at a Midwestern university.

This study emerges from two previous studies implemented at the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources at a Midwestern university. Through the use Of a

qualitative case-study approach, open-ended and semistructured interviews were

conducted with search-committees members and administrators, followed by a focus
group. A review of university archival documents and hiring policies provided
background information. This study provides “best practices” for policy
recommendations to improve the hiring of tenure-track faculty.

The findings revealed several factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of tenure-
track diverse faculty in the college: (a) Minority faculty and women feel a lack of support
for success, feel isolated, and believe their work is devalued or marginalized, thus leading
to the feeling that the climate is “chilly” and unwelcoming in the college; (b) ineffective
“mechanical” hiring policies and practices continue to challenge diversification of the
faculty in the college; (c) top leadership support is lacking for a diversified campus; and
(d) members of the search committee lack training in understanding hiring policies and
practices or affirmative-action programs, and therefore myths continue to erode efforts to
create a diversified faculty pool. The results of this study highlight the impact on the ban
of affirmative-action programs in the state and the continued struggle minorities and
women experience in higher education institutions. Little research in the area of tenure-
track faculty recruitment and search committees has been conducted; therefore, this study

is important, as it is unique in the state.

Cepyright by
Rozmina Akbarali J affer

2008

Dedicated to my beautiful daughter,
Jasmin Akabarali Jaffer-Jones

For her love, support, and success

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Reitumetse
Obakeng Mabokela, for her guidance, mentoring, feedback, and unconditional support Of
my dissertation. Without her continued support and encouragement, I would not have
been able to complete my dissertation. I would like to also thank my advisor, Dr. Mary
Lee Davis, for her ongoing support and encouragement throughout this program. I would
like to thank Dr. John Dirkx for his ongoing support. Dr. Dirkx is a wonderful role model
and a great educator. I would like to extend my deepest thanks to Dr. Ernest Betts. Dr.
Betts has been inspirational to my academic success in pursuing both my master’s and
doctoral degrees. I would also like to my thanks to Dr. Frank Fear for all his support
academically and in my career.

I would like to thank both of my parents (Sugra and Akbar Jaffer) for
successfully relocating the entire Jaffer family to the United States from Africa, Uganda.
None of this would have been possible without their unconditional love, support, and
hard work. I would like to extend my sincere and deepest thanks to my entire Jaffer
family for their love, support, and encouragement and for being there for me: Salim A.
Jaffer, Nizar A. Jaffer, Imtiaz A. Jaffer, Mubina A. Jaffer, Narmin A. Jaffer, Karim A.
Jaffer and Murtza A. Jaffer. Also, thanks to all my nieces for their love, with special
thanks to my beautiful niece, F izza Dharsani-Jaffer. I would like to extend special thanks
to Chris Thompson for his friendship and support throughout the years. I would extend
my deepest gratitude to the faculty, staff, and administrators in the College of Agriculture
where this research was conducted. Also, I would like to extend special thanks to Dr.

Elaine Yakura for her support throughout this dissertation.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................... 3
Gaps in the Literature .......................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 9
Statement of Problem ........................................................................................................ 10
Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 11
Terms and Definitions ....................................................................................................... 11
Diversity ................................................................................................................... 12
Multiculturalism ....................................................................................................... 1 2
Affirmative Action ................................................................................................... 13
Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................................................... l4
Inclusion ................................................................................................................... l4
Scope Of Research ............................................................................................................. 14
Rationale for the Study ...................................................................................................... 15
Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education ............................................................... 15
The Need for Affirmative Action Programs in Hiring ............................................. 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 22
Changes in Student Demographics .................................................................................... 22
Demographic Changes Impact Availability of Faculty Pool ............................................. 25
Climate and Culture Of Postsecondary Institutions ........................................................... 27
Challenges in Recruitment of Diverse Faculty .................................................................. 29
Hiring Policies and Practices .................................................................................... 35
Recommended Best Practices in Hiring Diverse Faculty ................................ 37
Leadership and Support for Inclusiveness ................................................................ 39
Key Employment Court Cases ................................................................................. 39
Employment Laws and Affirmative Action Programs ...................................................... 41
Affirmative Action Programs Challenged ......................................................................... 48
Impact of Proposition 209 in California ............................................................................ 50
Impact of Initiative 1-200 in the State of Washington ...................................................... 52
University of Michigan Court Cases ................................................................................. 53
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 53
Bennett’s (1993) Model of Intercultural Sensitivity .......................................................... 54
Ethnocentric Stages .................................................................................................. 55
Ethnorelative Stages ................................................................................................. 57
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ...................................... 60
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 60
Context” ............................................................................................................. 61
Midwestern University and College of Agriculture .......................................................... 61

vii

College of Agriculture: Two Prior Assessments ............................................................... 63

Methods ............................................................................................................................. 63
Location. . . ......................................................................................................................... 64
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 65
Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................... 65

Focus Group. ......................................................................................................... 65
Participant Selection .............................................................................................. 66
Analysis of University Documents ........................................................................ 68

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 69
Triangulation ......................................................................................................... 70

Role of the Researcher ....................................................................................................... 71
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER FOUR: KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................... 74
College Level Policies and Practices ................................................................................. 75
Diversity Defined ..................................................................................................... 75
College Level Diversity ............................................................................................ 79
Hiring Policies and Practices ............................................................................................. 80
Composition of a Search Committee ....................................................................... 81
Always a Search Committee Member, Never a Chair .............................................. 83
Policy Interpretation and Implementation ......................................................................... 86
Faculty Recruitment Policies ............................................................................................. 86
Challenges in Job Postings ....................................................................................... 86
Candidate Qualifications .......................................................................................... 90

Job Description ......................................................................................................... 91

The Selection Process ............................................................................................... 93
Affirmative Action Compliance: A Mechanical Process ......................................... 99

The Role of a Diversity Advocate .......................................................................... 100
Availability of Diverse Faculty in the Pool ............................................................ 102
Student Demographics ............................................................................................ 105
Doctoral Student Graduates in the Field of Agriculture ......................................... 106

Lack of Pipeline: Need to Grow our Own ...................................................................... 109
Pipeline Challenges in Recruitment of Graduate Students ..................................... 11]
Funding Challenges in Recruitment of Graduate Students .................................... 112

The University’s Affirmative Action Programs .............................................................. 115
Challenges in Setting Affirmative Action Goals .................................................... 116

The Need for Diversity Training ..................................................................................... 117
The Need for Leadership Support ................................................................................... 119
Policies Are as Good as the Leadership .......................................................................... 122
The Campus Climate ....................................................................................................... 123
Climate Issues in Promotion and Retention .................................................................... 126
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... l 28

viii

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 128

CHAPTER FIVE: POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 131
Recommendations for Best Practices in Hiring Tenure Track Faculty ..................... 131
Bennett’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model ....................................................................... 131
Application of Bennett’s Model in Hiring ...................................................... 133
Diversity Policy and Practices ......................................................................................... 134
Diversity Defined ................................................................................................... 135
College Level Diversity .......................................................................................... 135
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices .............................. 136
Policy Interpretation and Implementation ....................................................................... 137
Composition of a Search Committee ............................................................................... 138
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices ....................................... 139
Faculty Recruitment Practices ......................................................................................... 141
Challenges in Job Postings ..................................................................................... 142
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices .............................. 143
Challenges in the Job Description, Qualification, and Selection Process .............. 145
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices .............................. 148
Diversity in the Faculty Pool and Student Pipeline ......................................................... 148
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices ....................................... 151
The Impact Of the Restrictions on Affirmative Action in the State ................................. 151
The University’s Affirmative Action Programs .............................................................. 152
The Need for Diversity Training Programs ..................................................................... 153
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices ....................................... 155
The Need for Leadership Support ................................................................................... 156
Diversity on Campus ....................................................................................................... 158
The College of Agriculture ..................................................................................... 160
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices .............................. 162
Campus Climate. ........................................................................................................... 164
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices ....................................... 166
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 166
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 169
APPENDICES A ............................................................................................................. 173
APPENDICES B ............................................................................................................. 174
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 182

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Bennett’s Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity .............................. 55
Table 2: Study Participants .............................................................................................. 68
Table 3: Tenure Track Faculty in the College of Agriculture at a Midwestern

University ......................................................................................................... 80
Table 4: Tenure-Track Faculty by Age in College of Agriculture ................................... 84
Table 5: 2003-2004 Institutions Awarding Ph.D.s in Agriculture by Race .................. 104
Table 6: Graduate Students in the College of Agriculture ............................................ 111

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Figure 6.

LIST OF FIGURES

2006 US. Population Demographics. ............................................................... 23
1990 US. Population Demographics. ............................................................... 24
US. Minorities with Ph.D.s ............................................................................ 106
Agriculture and Related Fields of Ph.D.s Awarded in 2004 ......................... 107
Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees by Race 2005-2006 .................................. .108
Bennett’s Model Applied in Hiring .................................................. 133

xi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
As the nation experiences a major shifi in demographics, higher education
institutions are equally faced with the need to increase diversity on college and university
campuses to better serve today’s student population. Consequently, diversification Of
faculty is receiving a greater sense of urgency for achieving an all-inclusive campus
environment. Universities generally support and believe that diversity better serves the
needs of today’s demographically different student population. However, despite the
general support for an increase in minority faculty, progress has been slow, suggesting
persistent challenges. One explanation for such a slow progress in diversity is the deeply
imbedded culture and climate in higher education that is resistant to change (Kayes,
2006; Miller, 1999). It has been argued that while higher education administrators have
the knowledge and expertise to attract and retain faculty of color, they have been passive
in their actions to implement changes (Clark, 2006). Despite these challenges, most
postsecondary institution administrators believe that campus diversity results in many
benefits to students, faculty, and staff alike.
Introduction
There are a number of scholars who claim that faculty in postsecondary
institutions are not representative of the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the student
body. Research suggests that there is a need for postsecondary institutions to
proportionally reflect the nation’s population of diversity. According to Turner, Myers,
and Creswell (1999), over one-half of the current US. college population is female and

30% are minorities of various races and ethnicities. However, faculty on US. colleges

and universities continue to remain predominately White, with Caucasians holding 91.7%
of all faculty positions (Colby & Foote, 1995). The racial and ethnic faculty profile is as
follows: 2.6% African American, 1.0% Mexican/Chicano, and 3.3% Asian American
(Quezada & Louque, 2004).

Faculty play a pivotal role in shaping the learning and development of students
through classroom teaching, curriculum development, mentorship, and advising, and they
provide important network and referral resources for students. Several scholars have
discovered that minority faculty members are essential in the classrooms as they engage
in the scholarship Of teaching and learning in their instruction methods, and implement
active teaching and learning methods. They introduce diversity issues in the classroom,
promote experiential and cooperative learning, facilitate more student centered and active
learning methods, and are role models to many of the minority students (Gandara,
Orfield, & Horn, 2006; Hurtado, 2001; Milem, 2001). Furthermore, minority faculty
members engage in research of race, ethnicity, and gender at a greater degree than their
White counterparts, thereby impacting the transformation of knowledge beyond
traditional views (Antonio, 2002; Hurtado, 2001; Turner & Myers, 2000; Wilds, 2000).
This suggests that a diversified faculty is needed to better serve the needs of a diverse
student population and promote many of the ideals of the scholarship of teaching,
learning, and research shared in the classroom.

Gordon (2004) indicated that while the pipeline and supply of qualified graduate
students may be used as an argument for the alleged difficulty in recruitment of minority
faculty, the real problem lies in resistance of leadership and faculty in implementing

changes in the faculty search process. In addition, Moody (2004) made a compelling

argument that cross-cultural mentorship is paramount in the success of minority graduate
students since they are less likely to receive mentoring from White faculty in
predominately white institutions. In addition, literature suggests that students have
enriched learning experiences through their contact with a greater spectrum of ethnicities
and races among faculty, staff, and students on college campuses. This suggests that a
multicultural campus is essential to the success of all students. There are several benefits
in having a diverse faculty workforce, as they bring different and varied perspectives both
in the classroom and in mentoring and advising students. This study is therefore
significant because a diverse faculty workforce is essential to the academic success of
students and their development of cross-cultural competencies as they prepare for today’s
highly diversified workforce.
Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to explore factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of
tenure-track faculty workforce at a Midwestern university.1 This study focuses on three
major themes as follows: (a) Understanding and uncovering what faculty hiring policies
and procedures exist in the College Of Agriculture at a Midwestern university; (b)
analyzing and understanding how university faculty hiring policies and procedures are
understood, interpreted, and implemented at the college and department level; and (c)
exploring the beliefs, assumptions, and values individuals hold that may impact faculty
hiring outcomes especially in light of restrictions on affirmative-action programs. The

background information in this study from the focus groups and the electronic surveys

 

l The researcher made a special effort not to identify the respondents in the study. However, due to the
sensitive nature of the topic of diversity, and for a number of reasons, a majority of the researcher’s
graduate committee highly recommended that special attention be given to protecting the identity of the
state, university, college, dean of the college researched, and references produced by the university.

that were implemented highlights the nature Of climate that impacts the College of
Agriculture and the university. By focusing on the three major areas identified above, this
study explores a deeper understanding of the climate that fosters or inhibits diversity in
College of Agriculture. Finally, by identifying factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of
tenure-track faculty workforce, this researcher offers some policy and procedural
recommendations for “best practices” in increasing the diversification of tenure-track
faculty.

The demand for access to higher education is on the rise. Students are graduating
from high schools in greater numbers than ever before, and they desire to attend colleges
and universities across the nation (Altbach, 2001; Rodriguez & Nettles, 997; Ruppert,
2003). In addition, there are major shifts in student demographics, reflecting increased
diversity that is likely to impact postsecondary institutions in many ways. According to
Rodriguez and Nettles, “By 2050 the White population is expected to decline to
approximately 53% of the total US. population, while Latinos will increase to over 21%,
African Americans to 15%, and Asian Americans to 10%” (1997, p. 248). These data
further suggest that there is a greater sense of urgency calling upon postsecondary
institutions to respond to these changes in student demographics that are resulting in an
increased demand for higher education impacting student enrollments. These data also
suggest that higher education institutions may be faced with a challenge of
accommodating a greater number of students, which may result in an increase in
infrastructure or a need to build more colleges and universities across the nation. This

shift in demographic changes will likely impact the way public research universities

operate, specifically in hiring faculty who are better able to serve the needs of today’s
highly diversified student population.
Gaps in the Literature

There is a distinctive gap in the literature about the availability of successful best
practices of faculty hiring policies and procedures at the department levels. While there is
significant research about the many obstacles faced by faculty of color and women in
higher education, little exists in the actual examination of personnel practices at the
department levels in context to the espoused theories of the university in support for
diversity. According to Turner (2002), “Efforts to diversify the faculty continue to be
amongst the least successful elements of campus commitments to diversity” (p.14).
Previous literature suggests a need to further examine the effectiveness of hiring
policies/practices and the low success rates in recruitment of faculty of color in
postsecondary institutions. Universities continue to hire as they did over 40 years ago
with greater emphasis on research and low emphasis on teaching (Indiana University,
2004; Trower & Chait, 2002). As a result, universities limit their pool of potential
candidates for faculty positions who may poses diverse teaching and learning techniques.

A few studies have discussed the roles of search committees and the myths
members hold about faculty of color. Additionally, gaps in the literature exist in
exploring the level of holistic approach utilized in screening jOb applicants based on, job
descriptions, resumes, letters of references, balance Of teaching versus research, and
diverse engagement experiences. Gordon (2004) argued that there is a need for a diverse
faculty workforce. However, progress has been very slow largely due to unsuccessful

recruitment and hiring strategies (Hale, 2004). A major problem exists in the traditional

faculty search process conducted largely by senior faculty who are often White in a
predominately White institution and who have control over final hiring decisions
(Gordon, 2004).

According to Kayes (2006), most high level administrators believe that search
committees do not possess any biases, but the slow progress in higher education to
diversify faculty and staff is largely due to the personal biases of the search committee
members that taint the search. This suggests that though hi gher-level university
administrations may advocate diversity on their college campuses, in reality such desires
maybe more complex and difficult to achieve possibly due to a high degree of resistance
to change. Literature suggests that the lack Of training of search committee members is
also a major obstacle in the hiring process (Gordon, 2004; Hale, 2004; Kayes, 2006).
Furthermore, there is a huge gap in the literature about the policy implications on
recruitment and hiring of faculty. In addition, previous literature demonstrates the
problems Of affirmative action policies as discussed in Chapter Two, specifically that
affirmative-action policies are interpreted with a high degree of variability by higher
education institutions due to varied understandings of the relevant laws. Therefore, this
study is significant as it contributes to the understanding of the aforementioned
underlying problems that are evident in minority faculty hiring and searches in
postsecondary institutions.

Previous literature suggests that this country has taken a step backward from the
progress that was made from when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
affirmative-action programs were first mandated. The effectiveness of these programs has

deteriorated due to lack of government support, resulting in a weak enforcement of

affirmative-action policies, which was especially evident during the Regan and Bush
presidential eras (Gandara et al., 2006; Hayden, 1997). Finally, though it is beyond the
scope of this study, future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of employment laws
such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their current lack of enforcement
capabilities. For example, it is no secret that discrimination cases are hard to win, and the
window of Opportunity for filing such complaints is limited. Furthermore, when an
organization is cited for discriminatory practices, the punishment is often minimal. The
government may impose corrective measures only to address past or current
discrimination, and fines charged to employers cited in violations of Civil Rights Act are
uncommon. Consequently, the government has imposed hiring goals and timelines to
rectify discriminatory practices. However, this has created stereotypes and myths that are
damaging to minority candidates. These myths extend well beyond suggestions that
minorities are unqualified for jobs, have lower educational levels, have a lack of fit for
desired positions, that availability is minimal, and that hiring standards will have to be
compromised if a minority candidate is hired. Myths continue to foster views that
minority candidates have lower credential and standards (Gordon 2004; Kayes, 2006).
This falsely suggests that high academic standards cannot be achieved by hiring minority
faculty. Hiring managers have not addressed these stereotyping issues nor have they
made any changes in their practices in promoting a more positive working environment
for an all inclusive workforce.

As the twenty-first century begins, previous research shows a continued pattern of
underrepresentation and a presence of biases towards minorities as a result of the

persistence in discrimination across the nation (Abramson, 1995; Chang, Witt, & Hakuta,

2003; Hao, 2002, 2003; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). This is a serious problem facing
higher education institutions today that must be addressed in order to respond to the
increased demand for higher education as well as the changing needs of the today’s
student population. According to Astin, Antonio, Cress, and Astin (1997) and Turner et
a1. (1999), faculty of color continue to experience subtle discrimination in postsecondary
institutions, such as degrading their academic work or passing them up for promotions
and tenure. According to Johnson (2002), privilege and oppression was not only
prevalent in the past but continues in the present. He argued that postsecondary
institutions do very little to address this problem. Moreover, previous studies have
addressed an unwelcoming climate and culture. However, they fail to thoroughly discuss
how institutions are addressing these concerns or why these conditions persist in higher
education today. This study will add to the previous studies in an attempt to understand
the underlying reasons for the slow progress in hiring faculty of color and by providing a
deeper understanding and analysis of the issues of access for faculty of color in
postsecondary institutions.

Workforce diversity is essential for colleges and universities just as it is important
in corporate America today (Bye, 2007). Moreover, there is greater access to higher
education through distance learning and online learning, providing a wide spectrum of
curriculum options and programs. As a result, US. colleges and universities are bound tO
be impacted by global competition (Duderstadt, 2003). In addition, many businesses and
companies desire to hire a diversified workforce, hence increasing the demand for
minority student graduates. Therefore, an increase of minority faculty in postsecondary

institutions is essential to the future success of US. colleges and universities.

Significance of the Study

This study contributes to the current body of literature about the topic of diversity
among the tenure-track faculty by providing a deeper understanding Of the challenges and
opportunities that exist in hiring to diversify the tenure-track faculty positions. While
there is a great deal of literature written about the slow response of higher education
institutions, this study addresses a significant gap in the literature, suggesting some Of the
reasons why higher education institutions have made such a slow progress in diversifying
their faculty pool. There is a significant gap in the literature about what hiring policies
and practices exist around diversity of tenure-track faculty positions. The findings of this
study highlight not only the current hiring policies and practices that exist at the
institution level but also provide a better understanding of how those involved in the
decisions to hire understand, interpret, and implement policies and practices to diversify
faculty hiring.

A few studies in states such as California, Washington, and Texas have explored
the impact and the ban on affirmative action in hiring of tenure-track faculty. However,
no such studies exist in light of the recent ban on affirmative action in the state in 2006.
Therefore, this study adds to the understanding of challenges Midwestern universities
have faced relevant to the impact on the ban of affirmative-action programs.

Finally, this study provides policy and procedural implications at the university,
college, and department levels on the “best practices” in hiring for tenure-track faculty
and creating diversity in higher education. It is hoped the study will encourage university

administrators to re-evaluate their hiring practices and policies to foster a more

welcoming climate, breakdown barriers that marginalize minority faculty in the hiring
process, and promote overall diversity in higher education today.
Statement of Problem

Although university administrators generally promote diversity on their
campuses, there is a continued struggle to increase faculty diversity in postsecondary
institutions. The problem is the lack of success in diversifying tenured faculty through
current hiring policies and practices. This is due in part to unsuccessful hiring policies
and procedures at the department level to support the university-wide established policies
and standards for promoting campus diversity in the tenured faculty ranks. Additionally,
university hiring policies are not clearly understood or interpreted at the department level.
Therefore, the current tension between the desired (espoused theory) hiring outcomes of
universities that promote inclusiveness and the slow progress higher education
institutions have made (theory in use) in diversifying their faculty is the focus of this
study.

As the university’s student population continues to become more diversified, the
demand for a more diverse faculty workforce will be equally important. According to
Turner (2002), “By 2015, for example, 80 percent of the anticipated 2.6 rrrillion new
college students will be African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American
Indian. Nationwide, the number of undergraduate minority students enrolled in colleges
and universities will increase from 29.4 percent to 37.2 percent” (p. 1). Consequently, the
increase in a diverse student population is likely to drive an increased demand for faculty
of color. Faculty of color add to the enrichment of the educational learning experiences

and development of all students through their contributions as role models, service

10

engagement/outreach, mentorship, advising, and in promoting a supportive climate for
students on college campuses (Chang, 2005; Clark, 1997; Inoue, 2005).
Research Questions

This study explores the following primary question: What are the factors that
inhibit or enhance the hiring of a diverse tenure-track faculty workforce at a Midwestern
university? The following three subquestions guided this research:

1. What policies and practices exist around diversity in faculty hiring at the College of
Agriculture?

2. How do those involved in the faculty hiring decisions in postsecondary education
understand, interpret and implement policies and practices to diversify faculty hiring?

3. What impact does a recent ban on the state’s affirmative-action programs have on
changes of current policies and practices in hiring diverse faculty?

This study emerges from two previous studies implemented in the College of
Agriculture at a Midwestern university. Through the use of a qualitative, case study
approach, open-ended and semi-structured interviews were conducted with search
committees members and administrators, followed by a focus group. A review of
university archival documents and hiring policies provided the background information
needed. In addition, this study provides best practices for policy recommendations to
improve the hiring of tenure-track faculty.

Terms and Definitions

There is a great body of research that suggests that the following terms have been

misunderstood by those involved in the hiring of faculty in higher education and

therefore deserve clarification. In addition, an understanding of Title VII of the Civil

11

Rights Act of 1964 which has guided the affirmative-action programs will be defined. For
the purpose of this research, the following terms will be defined: diversity,
multiculturalism, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and inclusion.
Diversity

Diversity is defined broadly across disciplines, and the literature suggests that
there are many definitions of diversity; however, for the purpose Of this dissertation, the
following definition is offered:

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means

understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our

individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race,

ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical

abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the

exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing

environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond

simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions Of

diversity contained within each individual. (University of Oregon, 2006)
Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is defined both in the terms of adaptation and

integration (see Chapter Two for details of these terms). A multicultural

person is one whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns different

from his own and who has psychologically and socially come to grips with

a multiplicity of realities. This person is not just sensitive to other cultures

as described to be in adaptation stage, but instead, the person is in the

12

“process of becoming a part of and apart from a given cultural context;”

the additional act of defining one’s relationship to cultural context is the

key identifier of integration stage of development (Alder, as cited in Paige,

1993,p.59)
Aflirmative Action

The Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OF CCP) enforces the Executive Order 11246.
These laws ban discrimination and require federal contractors and subcontractors to take
affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for
employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or
status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran.

Non-construction (service and supply) contractors with 50 or more

employees and government contracts of $50,000 or more are required,

under Executive Order 11246, to develop and implement a written

affirmative-action program (AAP) for each establishment. The regulations

define an AAP as a set of specific and result-oriented procedures to which

a contractor commits itself to apply every good faith effort. . .. The

numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified

applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s

work force. . ..the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is

used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to

eradicate and prevent discrimination. (US. Department of Labor, 2002)

13

Equal Employment Opportunity.

Affirmative action is further defined as “voluntary and mandatory efforts
undertaken by federal, state and local governments; private employers; and schools to
combat discrimination and promote equal opportunity in education and employment for
all” (Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003, p. 94). Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) is simply a system of providing equal opportunities to all individuals without
discriminating. EEO is not enforceable; it is strictly voluntary.

Inclusion
During the university President's 2005 Founder's Day Address, inclusiveness was defined
as follows:

Providing opportunity for learners from all backgrounds--bringing their

passion and talent to join a vibrant, intellectual community built on mutual

respect to experience and to multiply the benefits of the power of

knowledge throughout their lives. (Institutionz, Inclusion Defined, n.d., p.

1)

Scope of Research

This study is limited in scope to addressing ethnically, racially, and gender-based
diverse categories as described in the definition for diversity above. Furthermore, the
terms minority and faculty of color are used synonymously to describe ethnicity, race,
and national origin. Recruitment and retention are two important strategic goals in
successfully attracting the best candidates in this globally competitive era. However, it is

beyond the scope of this research to fully explore both; therefore, this study will focus on

 

2 To protect the identity of the Midwestern University, all information (including citations and references)
that might compromise confidentiality have been eliminated. The university will be generically referred to
as “Institution,” and all copyright dates changed to “n.d.”

14

the recruitment and hiring of diverse faculty in higher education. As a result, discussion
about retention issues, such as promotion and tenure, will be limited to discussions about
hiring policies and practices.
Rationale for the Study

This study that examines recruitment strategies of faculty of color is very
important in higher education, as faculty play a pivotal role in the development of all
students in the classroom instruction, in curriculum development, and in research,
outreach, and service. Furthermore, faculty members are important to the advising and
mentoring of students; thus, a diverse faculty enriches the educational experiences of all
students.
Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education

Several scholars in the field have explored the benefits of a diversified student
population on college campuses. However, research on the benefits of faculty diversity is
limited. The underlying themes of this empirical research has uncovered that there are
clear-cut, diversity-related benefits that far outweigh the costs. Such benefits range from
directly impacting an individual student and his/her learning to the overall positive
impact on society as a whole, resulting in a “public good.” These benefits include
enriched student learning outcomes, improved quality of education, enriched classroom
experiences, positive institutional climate, diverse student mentors and role models,
global readiness, competitiveness of students who are better prepared to work with
people of difference, enhanced peer networks, and enhanced leadership skills (Antonio,
2001a, 2001b; Cox, Matthews & Associates, 2006; Chang, Astin, & Kim, 2004; Gandara

et al., 2006; Maturana, 2005; Milem, 2001; Phillips, 2002; Whitla, Orfield, Siren,

15

Teperow, Howard, & Reede, 2003). In addition, there are many benefits to having
diversity in the classroom, such as promoting critical thinking and problem solving skills
(Gandara et al., 2006).

A study conducted by presidents of two Ivy League institutions revealed that
diversity was essential to higher education teaching and learning paradigms of students.
The study that involved 45,000 students from 28 prestigious universities revealed the
benefits of social integration and enhanced skills in relating with members of different
races and ethnic groups (Bowen & Bok, 1998). These scholars suggested that students
discover themselves and others around them at an accelerated level while they are in
college and are better prepared to enter a diverse workforce. Therefore, universities are
pivotal in shaping the development of young adults for the nation’s future. A study by
Chang, Denson, Saenz, and Misa (2006) further confirmed these findings. The study
revealed that students who are Open to diversity have greater cognitive and self-
ccnfidence development and thereby have larger gains in their ability to accept different
races and cultures than those students who are not exposed to a diverse college
environment.

Additionally, Kezar and Eckel (2002) interviewed 30 seasoned college and
university presidents and concluded that university strategies should make hiring faculty
Of color an institutional priority to ensure the success Of students of color. In turn, a
diverse student body improves learning outcomes through greater development of
students’ cognitive skills, critical thinking, promoting classroom discussions with greater

viewpoints, resulting in an overall enhanced student learning experience.

16

Moreover, students are affected by the level of intercultural engagement through
their contact with a diverse workforce in postsecondary institutions. A multicultural
campus positively impacts the quality of campus services such as administrative services,
advising services, faculty mentors, leadership support, quality of classroom learning, and
professional development Opportunities. These are all important aspects of services and
support in postsecondary education as they help shape student development, learning, and
outcomes. This suggests that there are benefits to a diversified student and faculty
population on college campuses; therefore, institutions should balance their
representation appropriate to the available pool in their geographic location. Moreover, it
can be inferred that an increase in diversity among the student population will result in
more demand for diversified faculty who can provide services to the varied needs of
today’s student population. Thus, a diverse and increased ethnic representation of
administrators, faculty, and support staff is paramount to the student learning outcomes,
graduation rates, and student development. The following section discusses the obstacles
and challenges in higher education institutions.

The Need for A flirmative Action Programs in Hiring

Affirmative action programs have been challenged in recent years through
controversial viewpoints. Affirmative-action programs were enacted nearly two decades
ago to give racial/ethnic faculty and women equal employment Opportunities. However,
faculty of color continue to be underrepresented in postsecondary institutions, which are
predominately comprised of White males (Aguirre, 2000; Astin at el., 1997; Blackshire-
Belay, 1998; Harvey, 2001; Pavel, Swisher & Ward, 1994; Phillips, 2002; Trower &

Chait, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000; Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi & Richards, 2004).

17

Scholars argue that the level of resistance of a new faculty member is a direct result Of
biases and perceptions that the university community assumes when a racial and/or ethnic
faculty member is hired. The racial bias that racial/ethnic and women faculty are hired as
a result of affirmative-action programs and not because of their job qualifications further
contributes to an unwelcoming and unsupportive work environment in higher education
(Aguirre, 2000; Turner et al., 1999).

The biggest problem with affirmative-action programs is that many administrators
and search committee members do not have a good understanding Of the purpose of this
program. Additionally, some may argue that this is largely due to resistance to accepting
people Of difference, thereby creating an unwelcoming climate. This resistance due to
lack of understanding Of affirmative- action programs is a very serious problem in higher
education today, as it negatively affects minority and women candidates largely due to
resentment from those making hiring decisions.

There are several myths that impact hiring decisions, including the myths that
scholars have reinforced. Ward Connerly argued that affirmative-action programs were
implemented at the federal level to provide preferential treatment for minorities (2000).
This is the main rationale that Connerly made as the supporter and leader of the ban on
affirmative-action programs in California, Washington and most recently, Michigan
(Sataline & Hechinger, 2006). Connerly argued that affirmative-action programs quite
Often result in reverse discrimination for Whites and that they affect minorities in a
“negative light,” assuming that they get jobs because of their race and not their
qualifications. This notion that affirmative-action programs were intended to give

preferential treatment is a widely misunderstood phenomenon. Connerly failed to take

18

into account other types of hires such as spousal hires, target hires, and in-network
referrals that might benefit the majority Caucasian populations. Additionally, Connerly
failed to consider the potential for discrimination in higher education even today.

Supporters of affirmative-action programs argue that a ban on these programs,
such as the most recent ban in Michigan, is likely to affect postsecondary institutions by
setting back in the progress already made in the recruitment of faculty and
underrepresented students in postsecondary institutions. This is evidenced by the current
data available due to the ban of affirmative-action programs in California and
Washington. These campus populations have been affected negatively in states where
affirmative action has been banned and the level of impact varied among states (Gandara,
at el., 2006; Gorchow, 2006).

After the passage of Proposition 209 in California, there was a decrease in the
number of minority and women faculty hired as well as a decrease in the number of
minority students admitted at the University of California (Schneider, 1998). Recent
studies have identified the differences in the interpretation and understanding of the state
and federal laws in California and in Washington that have resulted in different impacts
and outcomes in the results of diversity on college campuses. For instance, after the
passing of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, which banned “preferential treatment”
on the basis of race, color, ethnicity or national origin in the public employment,
contracting and education has had a direct impact on the drop in the numbers of faculty of
color by nearly 50% (Maturana, 2005). This suggests that the postsecondary institutions
in California most likely misinterpreted the ban on affirmative-action programs; as a

partner of federal contractor, they are still obligated to the affirmative-action programs.

19

Therefore, the reduction of minority faculty hires suggests that they most likely violated
the federal laws guiding hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
affirmative action hiring practices for institutions receiving federal grants (U.S. Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission (US EOEC, 1997).

Comparatively, the results on the number of faculty hires at Washington State
University have had minimal impact (Healy, 1998). Based on the US. constitution, state
laws cannot override federal laws. Therefore, the requirements of public universities that
are provided with federal contracts and grants to confirm to the affirmative action hiring
practices are enforceable even in states that have banned affirmative-action programs.
The impact of the ban on affirmative-action programs will most likely be based on how
policymakers and public universities understand, interpret, and implement the changes.
Consequently, university administrators are obligated to engage in affirmative-action
programs and practices in hiring minority and women faculty on their campuses despite
state legislations. Universities are obligated to abide by federal affirmative-action laws
that prohibit discrimination in personnel practices on the basis of race, sex, religion,
color, or national origin (US EOEC, 1997). This means that when hiring candidates for
faculty positions, the relevant labor market of a university is the US. pool of Ph.D.s in its
geographic area. Therefore, the faculty hiring pool should represent the availability of
candidates within a given geographic area based on the demographics. The bigger
challenge is to identify a sufficient hiring pool as a representative of the population
availability. If that criterion is met, then the federal affirmative-action laws do not apply
in mandating fairness and equality. All things being equal, diversity should be one

consideration among many in hiring decisions. However, the employment climate in the

20

state is likely to impact the success in hiring minorities as evidenced by the state of
California. This suggests that institutions will likely experience even greater difficulties
in creating all-inclusiveness on their campuses, and a similar difficulty is likely to be

experienced by minority and women candidates seeking employment.

21

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter highlights, analyzes, and presents previous studies and literature in
the following main areas of scholarly research that illuminate scholarly work related to
this study: (a) Demographic changes of student and faculty populations, (b) climate and
culture of postsecondary institutions, (c) challenges in recruitment of diversified faculty,
((1) effectiveness of current hiring policies and practices, (e) leadership and support for
success in hiring, (f) employment laws and affirmative-action programs, (g) Proposition
209 in California, (h) Initiative 1-200 in the state of Washington, and (i) University of
Michigan court cases.

The literature review in qualitative research can take a number of different forms.
Overall, the literature should position the topic in the context of a larger dialogue,
summarize significant literature related to the study, and identify gaps which may exist in
previous literature (Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Specifically, Creswell
(2003) indicated that the purpose of reviewing literature is to address and contextualize
the problem to be studied “within the ongoing dialogue in the study” (p. 81). There are
several relevant studies that have been identified which position the problem within the
context of the bigger picture.

Changes in Student Demographics

Over the last 20 years, there has been a major shift in the population
demographics in the United States, resulting in a higher level of diversity in respect to
race, ethnicity, and gender. The major shift in demographics in the US. population in

recent years has resulted in increases in the number of Hispanics, Asians, Native

22

Americans, and African Americans. This shift in the US. demographics has impacted the
US. economy in many ways, specifically increasingly greater availability of a diverse
labor force. Based on 2006 and 1990 data (see figure 1 and 2), the largest trend is that the
Hispanic/Latino population has increased at a greater rate from (9% in 1990 to 15% in
2006) than any other population while the White population has been steadily declining

from (from 75% in 1990 to 66% in 2006) (U .5. Bureau of Census, 2006).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      
 
  

 

  
   
   
 
  

American Native. Some other
Indian and Hawaiian .& race alone 0%
Alaska Native Other Pacrfic
Alone 1% Islander
\ alone 0% z
x Two or E
- ‘ . Asian 4% more races
Hispanic or alone 2%

 

 

 

 

Latino 1 5%

 

Black or
African
American
alone 12%

 

 
   

White alone
66%

 

 

Figure 1. 2006 US. Population Demographics.

From US. Census Bureau. (2006 July 15). Annual estimates of the population by race alone and Hispanic
or Latino origin for the United States and States: July I, 2005 (SC-EST2005-04). Washington
DC: Author.

Another trend in 2006 is that the race categories have been expanded to allow
individuals to report more than one race as indicated on the first pie chart below,
suggesting a trend of a higher number of individuals with multiple race memberships.

This suggests that the increases from 1990 to 2006 in US. demographics will most likely

23

increase the availability of diverse candidates for faculty positions. Therefore,

universities today should reflect the composition of the US. population.

 

       
 
   

  
 

American Indian /Alaska Native

Native Alone 1% Hawaiian
Pacific 0 Some other
alone OA’ race alone 0%

 

 

 

 

Hispanic Asian 3%
or Latino
9%

 

Two or more
races 0%

 

 

Black or
African
American
alone 12%

 

 

 

 

White alone
75%

 
   

 

Figure 2. 1990 US. Population Demographics
From US. Census Bureau. (1990). Difference in Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino
Origin, for the United States: 1990 to 2000. Retrieved April 30, 2008, fi'om

LL [It ‘1. J II_ I L
“up“ census 0 . . hfml

According to Rodriguez and Nettles (1997), “By 2050 the White population is
expected to decline to approximately 53% of the total US. population, while Latinos will
increase to over 21%, African Americans to 15%, and Asian Americans to 10%” (p. 248).
In addition, a recent study by the Education Commission for the States reported that
enrollment nationwide is projected to reach 27.6 million American citizens by 2015
(Ruppert, 2003). Furthermore, it is estimated that the current enrollment capacity for
2015 will be 19.6 million (Ruppert, 2003). These data suggest that a high number of
qualified students of all races and ethnicity will be denied access to higher education in

the near future. However, despite the increase of minorities in the US. population today,

24

the number of minority faculty in higher education has not kept pace. Moreover, this
suggests a huge emerging crisis of access in the forthcoming years of postsecondary
institutions’ ability to effectively address the increased demand for a college education.
Swail (2002) argued that by 2015 White students will continue to be overrepresented by
more than 400,000 students, while African-American and Hispanic populations will be
underrepresented by over 200,000 and 500,000 respectively (p. 19). It can be argued that
a lack of qualified candidates may not be the real reasons for the lack of diversity.

Perhaps the bigger issues today may be problems of supply and demand, resulting
in the continued struggle of equity to get access to higher education for minorities.
Consequently, a smaller pool of minority students in higher education would most likely
impact the pipeline issues of recruitment Of qualified diverse faculty. F urtherrnore, these
data suggest that there will be a need for additional infrastructure and universities in the
US. to accommodate the increase demand for a college education.

Demographic Changes Impact Availability of Faculty Pool

According to Chapa (2006), the trend of underrepresented minority faculty
continued only with small increases well into 2000. In 2000-2001, African American
represented 5% in faculty ranks of the 6.1% (1,656) of the total US. African-American
Ph.D. population; and Latinos represented 3% in the faculty ranks of the 4.2% (1,157) of
Latinos U.S. Ph.D. population (Chapa, 2006). These data suggest that the arguments
about lack of qualified minority candidates and low availability are in part supported.
Though these data suggest that there is an underrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups
in faculty positions, there are major gaps in the literature explaining the nature of these

disparities. Additionally, the increased level of diversification of students in higher

25

education institutions today will most likely increase the availability of a diversified labor
market in hiring faculty, staff, and administrators in postsecondary institutions.

While there is a significant body of the literature addressing diversity in higher
education that focuses on issues of women and African Americans, research is limited
that addresses issues of other racial and ethnic groups such as Asians, Hispanics, and
Native Americans. Quezada and Louque (2004) asserted that a major problem in
recruitment of faculty of color is the lack of a pipeline due to insufficient levels of
minority students in graduate programs. Additionally, Lowell and Long provided data
that revealed that, although women constituted 25% of the sociologists employed full
time by US colleges and universities in 1975, today they represent only 27% despite the
increase in Ph.D.s awarded to women (as cited in Roos, 1997). According to Cantor
(2001), only 4.9% of US. college teachers are Black. Even though the number of women
in faculty positions is much greater than minorities, these data suggest that there is a slow
progress made in the inclusiveness of women and racial and ethnic faculty in higher
education.

Similar trends are identified across the nation that highlights the disproportional
representation of the general population to the population makeup of colleges and
universities. For instance, in 2001 the University of Illinois ranked 42nd among flagship
universities in relation to the Black faculty hires, with African Americans making up only
2.6% of the total faculty pool (Hamilton, 2004). A recent study by Nelson (as cited in
Hamilton, 2004) revealed that women and underrepresented racial and ethnic students are
graduating with doctoral degrees in record high numbers. In 2000, women received 45%

of all doctoral degrees and racial/ethnic graduates received 19%. Nelson argued that

26

while women and racial/ethnic students are graduating in record high numbers, the
number of racial/ethnic applicants appears to be decreasing in the candidate pools for
tenure-track positions. This disparity between qualified women and racial/ethnic groups
and their representation in higher education is apparent among major universities and
colleges.
Climate and Culture of Postsecondary Institutions

The growing body of literature on racial/ethnic diversity places great emphasis on
increasing the representation of women and racial/ethnic faculty. A study by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) called for organizational
change in adjusting the curriculum, tenure hiring practices, reward and incentives, and
admission practices in order to make diversity an inclusive idea to achieving excellence
(Adam, 2006a). Adam (2006a) further revealed that current efforts to increase diversity
on most campuses are unsuccessful. Consequently, universities are faced with many
challenges. A study by Turner, Myers, and Creswell (1999) conducted at eight
Midwestern universities found evidence of isolation, alienation, and racism towards
faculty of color. This was largely due to the assumption that racial and ethnic faculty
members were hired without sufficient qualifications and credentials. However, Quezada
and Louque (2004) argued that the criteria for “collegiality” emphasizes “favoring...
candidates with backgrounds, interests, and political and social perspectives similar to
one’s own” (p.215). This suggests that if one’s credentials and qualifications do not
mirror those of the recruiter, then the candidate is screened out as unqualified and

eliminated for further consideration. Furthermore, it stands to reason that if diversity is

27

valued in higher education, then individuals with diverse backgrounds hold diverse
experiences, and those experiences and qualifications should also be valued.

According to Aguirre (2000), even though racial and ethnic groups and women
have been graduating in record numbers with bachelor and graduate degrees, the
representation of racial/ethnic and women in faculty ranks has remained unchanged. In
addition, there are many concerns about the availability of qualified faculty candidate
pool. As previously explained, there are several scholars who argue that this is due to the
“chilly climate,” resulting in isolation and exclusion faced by racial, ethnic, and women
faculty in higher education and not due to lack of qualified racial and ethnic candidates
(Aguirre, 2000; Turner et al., 1999). This suggests that recruitment efforts to attract
qualified racial and ethnic candidates are not effective due to unwelcoming climates for
racial and ethnic faculty. According to a study by Turner et al. (1999), a chilly climate
was described by respondents as

being denied or overlooked for the tenure and promotion process, being held to

standards higher than those for White faculty, having color be more important

than credentials, being a “token” faculty member, being expected to handle racial
and ethnic affairs, and, overall, expected to be the diverse spokesperson for the

department. (p. 9)

Quezada and Louque (2004) stated that, although generally faculty of color
engage in a high level of service to the community and spend a great deal of time to
mentoring students of color, their efforts are not recognized as important in evaluating
their overall performance for tenure consideration. Additionally, this suggests that

university members of the community may not be welcoming of racial and ethnic faculty,

28

as their workload may hinder their tenure success. Though there is a great deal of
literature about the climate and culture challenges in higher education, not much has been
written on what institutions are doing to change the nature of the “chilly climate.”
Challenges in Recruitment of Diverse Faculty

Universities are faced with many obstacles in their faculty recruitment efforts
such as lack of top leadership commitment to support diversity, lack of training provided
to search committees in regard to the importance of actively hiring for a diversified
faculty, lack of understanding of affirmative action and the Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, perceived shortage and pipeline problems, lack of clear expectations of
policies and procedures in hiring for diversity, lack of congruence between job
description and qualifications, low recruitment efforts exerted in hiring faculty from
diversified posting sources to improve candidate pools, and a hostile climate for faculty
of color. In addition, there is a persistent need for postsecondary institutions to hire
individuals who “fit in,” thereby leading to the hiring individuals who think, act, and look
like the rest of their academic environment. Gordon (2004) and Hale (2004) argued that
search committees find ways to circumvent the affirmative action system, including the
appointment of a women or minority as “tokens” on the search panel so they can pass the
affirmative action requirements. It can be argued that if universities only hire those who
“fit in,” then nothing will change in the overall make up of the current population on
college campuses, which continues to favor Caucasian males. This is supported by
statistical data that show that 80% to 90% of faculty and staff are primarily Caucasians at

most colleges and universities (Turner, 2002).

29

Although higher education institutions have exerted a great deal of effort in
improving diversity overall, there are still major shortfalls when hiring and promoting
racial and ethnic faculty and administrators on college campuses (Ataiyero, 2006). In a
study by Turner et al. (1999), 77% of respondents indicated that diversity was a priority
at their institutions; however, a very small percentage of those institutions had any form
of policy or procedure in place to support racial and ethnic retention efforts. In the same
study, the survey revealed a major disconnect between the desire for institutions in the
recruitment and retention of faculty of color (77% respondents) and the low structural
support to achieve these goals (p.10). The study further revealed that only 1% of those
surveyed had allocated funding for racial and ethnic faculty recruitment. This suggests
that support from top leadership is paramount to increasing diversity on college
campuses.

Furthermore, Turner et al. (1999) revealed that recruitment of racial and ethnic
faculty presented three main obstacles: a lack of qualified minority candidates, low
representation of racial and ethnic groups on campuses, and incompatible salary offers to
racial and ethnic candidates. However, a different study by the same scholars uncovered
that most of the institutions surveyed in the Midwest reported that a high number of
Ph.D. graduates transferred to other parts of the nation (Turner, et al., 1999). These data
further indicated that the most challenging barrier to recruitment efforts is the myth that
racial and ethnic faculty are unavailable in the Midwest, when in reality they are leaving
the Midwest, perhaps due to lack of job offers. In a report by Trower and Chait (2002),
data revealed that though there has been a steady increase of students of color and women

in higher education, faculty of color have not increased at the same rate in the United

30

States. Yet a different report from Indiana University revealed that while there have been
great increases in the number of minority doctoral recipients in certain fields of study, the
representation of minority faculty remains constant (Drake, 2004).

In 2002, 1019 (19.4%) of the total US. doctoral recipients were minority in
education, with only 10.6% representation in Big Ten universities; 358 (13.2%) were in
Psychology, with only 5.1% in Big Ten faculty representation; and 79 (13.3%) were in
Business and Management, with only 2.7% representation of minority faculty in Big Ten
universities of all minority doctoral graduates in the US. (Indiana University, 2004).
These data suggest that minority faculty in the Big Ten universities are underrepresented
compared to the availability of doctoral graduates in the US. However, several
opponents of affirmative-action programs argue that faculty of color are not qualified.
Although based on the above data, this argument can no longer be supported because
there are more qualified diverse candidates available for hire in the market today than
ever before (Borden & Brown, 2006). In addition, these data suggest that even in the
Midwest, where there are sufficient qualified candidate pools, faculty recruitment efforts
are ineffective and hold a lower priority despite university beliefs about the importance of
diversification of their workforce. Thus, the availability of qualified candidates in any
given geographic location is often a reason given for not hiring a minority candidate not
substantiated.

Today, compared to 20 years ago, an increasingly large number of students are
graduating with both a master’s and a doctoral degree, including students of color
(Chang, 2005). However, myths about lack of qualified minority faculty candidates

continue to erode the efforts needed to diversify the search process. Based on data from

31

the American Association of University Professors (AAUC), today there are more
candidates with graduate degrees than ever before, yet underrepresentation of faculty of
color persists at the university level. Using the National Center for Educational Statistics
data, Quezada and Louque (2004) found that (of all the full time appointments) 84% of
faculty positions are held by White males compared to 5.5% Asian Americans, 4.9%
Afiican Americans, 2.6% Hispanics, and .4% Native Americans.

Another explanation for the low minority faculty representation is a disconnect
between the desired goals of public research universities in balancing the triad mission of
teaching, research, and service. Yet, actual recruitment objectives focus heavily on
research. Many faculty of color tend to have greater experience in teaching and
engagement in service; yet, universities rarely give any substantial weight to these two
missions (Hayden, 1997). Consequently, there is lower value placed on teaching and,
therefore, undergraduate education holds a lower priority in most research institutions
(Altbach, 2001).

According to Miller (1999), academic climate and culture does not support
diversity among students, faculty, or staff. The lack of diversity on college campuses is
most likely impacting students who lack role models and networks that can help them
succeed in pursuing their careers in academia. Miller (1999) argued that this has resulted
in a revolving door problem of retentions, both for students and faculty, as neither group
finds the climate welcoming on college campuses. This suggests that the lack of diversity
in the student and faculty body can have negative impacts on the success of minority
students and faculty of color in academia. According to 2003 data reported in the Digest

of Educational Statistics (2004), only 15% of the total US. faculty in colleges and

32

universities were minority faculty-~of which 6% were African American, 5% were
Asian/Pacific Islander, 4% were Hispanic, and .5% were Native American/Alaska Native
(2004). These data further revealed the disparity between faculty of color hired in faculty
positions and the availability of candidates in a given geographic location. The same
source also revealed that nearly half of the faculty were White males (47%) and 36%
were White females. In addition, according to Stack (1991) women and racial and ethnic
professors make considerably less than their White male counterparts. These data
revealed that (with all things being equal), women make on the average about 6% less
than White men, and minorities make about 8% less. Here again, all things being equal,
the above data suggest that despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
affirmative-action policies, minorities and women continue to earn less in salary than
their White male counterparts. As this salary disparity continues, so will the treatment of
women and racial and ethnic minority groups, compounding the issues of access and
equity in postsecondary institutions.

Higher education institutions are faced with many challenges in recruiting a
diverse faculty workforce. These challenges are not limited to ineffective recruitment
efforts, lack of pipeline and partnerships with the K-12 system, lack of effective
admissions policies, and lack of clear hiring standards. According to the majority opinion
of the Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) case, access to higher education for an all-inclusive
diverse student population will continue to be a challenge for the minority students until
improvements are made to the K-12 system. The US. Supreme Court in Grutter v.
Bollinger (2003) asserted that inequality and inadequate readiness for college of minority

students will continue especially in lower quality schools of K-12 school systems

33

(Gandara at el., 2006). These scholars argue that postsecondary institutions need to
partner with K-12 school systems, maintain close relationships to improve the pipeline,
and assist to enhance their education standards and quality. The lack of effective
recruitment policies in higher education admissions, poor educational standards in K-12
schools, and absence of effective pipelines in preparing undergraduate students for
graduate studies (and eventually for faculty jobs) further damages the availability of
qualified faculty of color.

Previous research suggests that the shortage of faculty of color is due to the low
numbers of doctoral students in higher education (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2002; Phillips, 2002; Smith at el., 2004). The lack of academic pipelines is one
explanation given for the underrepresentation of minority faculty in higher education.
According to American Council on Education, of the 482,256 master’s degrees in 2001-
2002, 17% were awarded to minority students, and of the 44,179 doctoral degrees, 13%
were awarded to minority students (Ataiyero, 2006). Moreover, institutions are ranked
based on their elite status; therefore, a degree from a prestigious institution is most likely
to result in employment at a prestigious institution. This is problematic for minority
graduate students who aspire to become faculty members. For example, since the
representation of African American students in high prestige doctoral programs is low,
there tends to be a low percent in hiring of African American faculty at those elite
institutions (Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, & Bonous-Hammarth, 2000). While there is a
continued lack of effective pipeline strategies to address the need to improve diversity in
higher education, students of color are graduating in greater numbers today than ever

before. Despite the increase in students of color earning doctoral degrees, faculty of color

34

remain underrepresented in higher education (Aguirre, 2000; Opp & Smith, 1994; Roach,
1999; Smith et al., 2004).

It is a well documented fact that African-American faculty in US. colleges and
universities are underrepresented (Allen et al. 2000). In addition, Smith et al. (2004)
argued that even in fields where there is a large pool of faculty of color such as
psychology or education, faculty demographics are not diverse. This suggests that the
recruitment and hiring policies and procedures are ineffective in reaching out in diverse
job posting sources for attracting qualified faculty of color in higher education.
Postsecondary institutions are unique in that they can affect the supply and demand of
faculty as they educate students and then hire them for faculty positions. Therefore, it can
be inferred that they have the ultimate control over who eventually make the faculty
ranks.

Hiring Policies and Practices

In the last 10 years, there has been an increase in efforts among universities to
hire more faculty of color in predominately White intuitions. Despite these efforts,
government data revealed that little improvement has been made in diversifying faculty
(Kayes & Singley, 2005). This suggests that efforts to hire more minority faculty have
been ineffective. Kayes and Singley (2005) recommended that higher-level
administrators convey their expectations of the hiring process more explicitly with search
committees, but unfortunately such discussions are rarely a part of search process. The
authors argued that universities make several assumptions when search committees are

identified and

35

that members of the search committees will not bring biases in the selection process.
Another assumption is that search committee members are well trained and well qualified
to engage in the recruitment of faculty. However, these assumptions continue to erode the
hiring of a diverse workforce. According to Kayes and Singley (2005), the hiring
committee needs professional development training in order to understand how one’s
own stereotypes can undermine the hiring of faculty of color and how to create a diverse
candidate pool. Furthermore, the key to a successful search is the involvement of faculty
in the hiring process.

In a different study, Knowles and Harleston (as cited in Holcomb-McCoy and
Bradley, 2003) reviewed 11 major research universities and uncovered that department
chairperson and search committees lacked the proper training in the recruitment and
retention of a diverse faculty. The study concluded that it was not surprising that
universities have not been successful in hiring, retaining, and increasing diverse faculty
as a result. There is a large body of research highlighting the many obstacles and
predictors of minority underrepresentation (Holcomb-McCoy & Bradley, 2003; Opp &
Smith, 1994). Phillips’ (2002) study of 12 American universities revealed that hiring
policies may require review. According to Richard Tapia, professor of Computational
and Applied Mathematics at Rice University’s George R. Brown School of Engineering,
“Faculty hiring is the most traditional, most conservative, and most out of date of
processes of any process we use in universities” (Phillips, 2002, p. 20). In the same study,
surveys indicated overwhelmingly that search committees were not well trained and
lacked the human resource skills necessary to conduct effective searches for candidates.

This suggests that hiring policies and procedures need to be reviewed and updated to

36

address the new evaluation criteria that can better reflect a variety of experiences and
skills that candidates possess today.

While the literature is extensive with respect to the challenges women and racial
and ethnic faculty face in higher education institutions, studies on racial and ethnic
faculty recruitment on the effectiveness of hiring policies and practices are limited.
Policies and procedures vary greatly among the various higher education institutions, and
there is no set of “best practices” in hiring or promotion of faculty that has been proven to
be effective. A study of 300 participants undertaken by Tierney and Bensimon revealed
that the standards and criteria that institutions use--both in selection of tenure faculty and
tenure promotions--lack standardized process and have created procedural problems in
academe (Aguirre, 2000). They contended that it is not unusual for individuals to be hired
or promoted to a position without a search, even when they are not qualified. This
practice passes established policies in place. This suggests that a search committee may
ignore established policies and procedures when opportunities exist for hiring referrals,
thereby bypassing posting requirements, which may further put minorities at a
disadvantage.

Recommended Best Practices in Hiring Diverse Faculty

Opp and Smith (1994) suggested that institutions that are successful in the
recruitment of diverse faculty engage in the following practices: (a) Search committees
are comprised with a minority professional, (b) diverse job posting sources are utilized,
and (c) the process is linked to a strong network with other universities to assist with
referrals. Furthermore, higher-level administration support is imperative in the success of

hiring and retaining diversity in the faculty ranks. Furthermore, there have been few

37

empirical studies that consider the hiring conditions under which a diverse faculty is
hired. A study by Smith, et al. (2004) suggests that there are three main conditions under
which minority faculty is hired. These are (a) the job description used to recruit faculty
where diversity is a compelling unit interest, (b) special hires waive the search and/or
offer opportunity for targeted hires or spousal hires, and (c) the search is conducted by a
diverse search committee. This suggests that without the existence of one of these
conditions, diverse faculty may have difficulty being hired through the regular hire
process. It is important to note that the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP) has developed clear, standardized procedures for such issues as faculty
appointments, faculty evaluations, and student evaluations (Adam, 2006b). Twenty-eight
years have elapsed since AAUP made the recommendation to use affirmative-action
programs as a means to achieve diversity in the faculty ranks in higher education;
however, women and ethnically diverse faculty remain underrepresented (Cockrell,
Mitchell, Middleton & Campbell, 1999; Dooley, 2003). Despite these established
guidelines, scholars suggest that these policies are not utilized in the hiring process,
thereby resulting in disparity between the desired goals to diversify and the actual
outcomes of a hiring process.

There are several challenges associated with leveling the playing field of
fostering and creating a diversified workforce in higher education. Many argue that
recruitment should be focused on hiring the “best qualified” candidate. It seems,
however, the criteria for the “best qualified” is subjective and varies widely among search
committees. Springer and Baez (2002) argued that “hiring a well-qualified minority

candidate who brings the additional quality of a different experience, rather than an

38

equally qualified White applicant who does not bring that added benefit is not
discrimination; continuing a system that consistently replicates the overwhelming White
composition of the faculty is.” (p. 1) This suggests that although universities often have
campus-wide hiring policies, hiring at the department level may be lacking such policies,
or the policies may not be explicitly stated.
Leadership Support for Inclusiveness

Hiring policies and practices are effective when they are supported and
implemented by university leadership at various different levels throughout the
organization. Without strong leadership support to embrace an all inclusive climate,
faculty success and retention is likely to be affected. According to Aguirre (2000), there
are several scholars who found that racial and ethnic faculty felt supported and were
generally satisfied with their academic workplace. In contrast, other scholars argued that
diversity among faculty, staff, and students is not supported on college campuses (Miller,
1999). Moreover, some argue that this unwelcoming climate is evidenced by the
increased levels of employment discrimination law suits in recent years that suggest that
the academic environment is not supportive to the racial and ethnic faculty.
Key Employment Court Cases

Several court cases have resulted from perceived lack of support. This is
highlighted in the case of Marcy Wand v. University of California at Berkeley (1990)
where Ms. Wand, an Asian-American faculty member, was denied tenure twice with no
concrete reason. The university settled for a $1 million out of court (Wong, 1996). In a
similar law suit, Professor Clark was awarded $1.4 million in a race discrimination

lawsuit for disparate treatment in tenure promotion (Leap, 1995). In these cases, the

39

courts recognized that the subjective nature of the tenure process in the evaluation of
academic personnel creates a higher probability for race and other illegal forms of
discrimination in higher education. In another case, an associate professor at University
of Texas filed a lawsuit against the university because she was declined tenure and was
bypassed for a promotional opportunity. The plaintiff claimed that the university’s
policies in granting tenure and promotions was not consistent with current practices and
lacked clear standards of measurement resulting in discrimination. In this case (pending
resolution), the university argued that the plaintiff was not qualified for the promotion
because she was not a full professor. She asserted that the university promoted a White
female who was also an associate professor to a chair position in the College of
Communications. The data further revealed that 83 similar cases against the university
were filed through EEOC (Evans, 2002).

Similarly, a professor and chairperson of the English department at Mills College
was denied tenure. The faculty member filed a lawsuit with charges that no African
American had been granted tenure in the college’s 145 years (Norris, 1995). Many other
lawsuits and cases have been filed against various public universities where the
universities’ recruitment, tenure, and promotional policies and processes were subjective
and inconsistent, which resulted in disparate treatment to racial and ethnic faculty and
administrators (Din, 2002; Peabody, 1998; Sundararn, 2000a; Sundaram, 2000b; Weiss,
2001). Major compensatory damages were awarded to plaintiffs in the above cases. It is
also likely that cases of discrimination go unreported; faculty may not always report

instances of discrimination in hiring practices due to obvious reason of repercussions.

4o

Faculty of color may face racism and sexism. Haag (2005) indicated that an
institutional climate that fosters a sense of isolation and lack of collegial support is the
main reason for this form of blatant discrimination. According to Shoop and Dunkee
(2001), “The majority of litigations are based on failure to know relevant laws and
practice sound management based on an understanding of existing court decisions” (p.
13). Though universities need to recognize legal implications, employment practices
should reflect a fair and equitable system. Unfortunately, despite past employer
violations, the courts have traditionally supported universities that claim “lack of
collegiality in a candidate” as the main reason for discharge with the claims of not
“fitting in” (Shoop & Dunkee, 2001). This suggests that postsecondary institutions have a
great deal of work to do in creating an all inclusive fair and equitable climate. A strong
top leadership that can be supportive is essential in achieving good practices and in
establishing a welcoming climate for all individuals.

Employment Laws and Affirmative Action Programs

Affirmative-action programs have been long established to aid in taking
corrective actions to prevent discrimination in hiring practices. Affirmative action was
intended to provide equal employment opportunity to individuals regardless of one’s
race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin in regards to the recruitment, selection, employee
benefits, promotions, and hiring practices. Although affirmative-action programs were
intended to prevent past effects of ongoing discrimination, there are many
misconceptions about the intention of these programs (Blanks, 2005; Heilman, Block, &
Stathatos, 1997). This is largely due to govemment-mandated compliance requirements

of establishing “reasonable goals and timetables” when contractors or universities

41

receiving grants were cited with discriminatory practices. Consequently, there are many
negative opinions of such requirements, forming misconceptions of goals as quotas and
preferential treatment given to minorities and women and resulting in controversial
debates about the effectiveness of these programs (Blanks, 2005).

Today, enforcement of violations are uncommon, mainly because affirrnative-
action programs are often misinterpreted to give “preferential treatment or quotas” to
minorities and women, which some claim to resulting in reverse discrimination
(Muchinsky, 2000). Despite such controversies, many United States presidents have
recognized the need to enact laws and or policies that could address the high levels of
inequality among citizens in the US. President Kennedy in 1961 and President Johnson
in 1965 enacted executive orders (Order 10925 and Order 11246 respectively) to address
equality in hiring for government contractors and others receiving government funding
including universities.

Johnson’s Order 11246 required all contractors securing federal contacts,
including universities who secure research contracts and grants, to sign an agreement to
not discriminate in hiring of applicants for employment based on race, color, religion, or
national origin. Based on the need to enact this order, it can be inferred that racial
discrimination was prevalent and necessitated affirmative-action programs. On October
1968, sex was also added to this provision via Executive Order #11246 (Department of
Labor, 2002). The order impacted all government contractors with 50 employees or more
and who received $50,000 or more in funding. All government contractors were required
to develop and implement affirmative-action programs to be monitored by the Federal

Compliance Agency. Executive Order 11246 specifically required affirmative action in

42

order to insure employment neutrality in hiring practices in regards to one’s race,
religion, sex, color, and national origin.

Executive Order 11246 required employers to take additional action to assure
recruitment, employment, and promotions of qualified individuals who were previously
excluded. In addition, the order required higher education institutions to address the
problem of underutilization with the development of affirmative-action programs with
specific goals and timetables to overcome underutilization of minorities and women. The
executive order defines underutilization as “having fewer women and minorities in a
particular job than would reasonably be expected by their availability” (Department of
Labor, 2002). Beneficiaries, such as universities of federally supported contracts and
grants, are expected to exert a good faith effort to monitor compliance of affirmative-
action programs at their institutions. This is due to the alleged systematic institutional
' exclusions and discriminations in higher education. These orders were effective during
the Kennedy and Johnson era, yet they lost their impact during the Bush and Reagan eras
because of the change in from a Democratic to a Republican political party.

Previous studies suggest that the Executive Orders and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, including Equal Employment Act of 1972, have not been effective in
achieving their intended goals and objectives. This is largely due to the misinterpretations
by the proponents and opponents of affirmative action and inconsistencies of the laws
(Brett, 1992; Hill, 1987; Jenkins, 1999; Rhodes, 2001). Moreover, government laws and
Supreme Court decisions in the area of diversity have failed to provide a clear-cut guide
to addressing these controversial viewpoints (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v.

Bollinger, 2003). Many of the laws were implemented to address the societal pressures

43

during any given era of the nation. Such was the case with the challenge of “separate but
equal” opportunities and facilities to African Americans in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In
this 1896 Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Louisiana’s
Constitution Civil Rights Act of 1875, which promoted “separate but equal” railway car
accommodations (Jenkins, 1999). In addition, the court maintained firm “separate but
equal” laws guiding the nation for almost 20 years. Although racial tensions continued to
erode equality through the “Jim Crow” laws in different states where “facilities provided
for Negros, particularly in the crucial field of free public education, were separate but not
equal” (Latham, as cited in Jenkins, 1999, p.8).

According to Jenkins (1999), these “separate but equal” laws worked until another
controversial case landed on the Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education (1954),
wherein the African American plaintiffs from various states (Kansas, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Delaware) challenged the “separate but equal” through the use of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all Americans. The
Supreme Court of Delaware ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that “separate but
equal” was in reality not equal, thereby overturning the lower courts’ decisions.
Delaware’s Supreme Court ruling stated that students in public schools should be granted
equal opportunity and access to quality education without being discriminated against.
The Brown v. Board (1954) decision along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guided the
nation for well over 40 years without major incidents in higher education. This is
evidenced by several court decisions, which upheld the Brown decision endorsing equal
opportunities and protection for citizens in the United States without regard to their race,

sex or ethnicity (Jenkins, 1999).

44

Federally-mandated laws including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were
enacted to prevent discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin
(Shoop & Dunklee, 2001). The provisions of this act extend to the following
organizations:

a. All private employers of 15 or more employees;

b. All educational institutions, public and private;

c. State and local government agencies;

(1. Labor unions with 15 or more employees; and

e. Joint labor-management committees for apprenticeship and training.

(Wingfield, 1982, p. 17)

There are many problems with Title VII. For one, the burden of proof for
discrimination rests with the employee; therefore, such cases are hard to prove and take a
long time to resolve. This could be one reason why President Johnson implemented the
affirmative action order in 1965 right after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, the
following laws have been enacted to prevent discrimination in employment: The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prevents discrimination based on one’s
disability when reasonable accommodations can be provided; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits illegal employment discrimination of individuals
over the age of 40; and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits wage discrimination of
individuals who perform the same job duties (Shoop & Dunklee, 2001). These laws have
been enacted to assure that all individuals are afforded equal employment opportunities,
and they have addressed the impacts of disparate treatment or disparate impact. Disparate

treatment is a result of unlawful discrimination by an employer in the hiring, promotion,

45

salary or benefits of employment based on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin; it
is the result of employer policies, which have an adverse impact on the protected group
(Wolkinson & Block, 1996). In addition, employment tests and requirements set by the
employer may affect a minority group in an adverse manner, thereby influencing his/her
chance of being hired.

Discrimination cases are extremely hard to prove and can be a costly undertaking
for plaintiffs. Two cases court cases--Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) and McDonnell
Douglas v. Green (1973)--are landmark cases that have guided discrimination court cases
in recent years. These cases were filed through the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. In Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
plaintiff that the intelligence test used in reemployment screening had a disparate impact
on African Americans and therefore was discriminatory. Griggs v. Duke Power set a
standard on the use of employment tests that adversely impacted minority candidates in
acquiring a job. Unlike in Griggs v. Duke Power, the Supreme Court ruled against the
plaintiff in the McDonnell Douglas v. Green. The employee’s protest actions against the
employer who had laid him off resulted in a defeat even though the employer
discriminated against Douglas. While the plaintiff had a strong case, he lost the case due
to retaliatory actions against the employer. In both cases, the burden of proof is on the
employee to establish a prima facie case demonstrating without a doubt that the employee
was discriminated against. Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
plaintiff must establish the prima facie case, defined in the McDonnell Douglas v. Green

(1973) case as follows:

46

I. He/she belongs to the racial minority group;

II. He/she applied for a job for which they were qualified and for which the
employer was seeking applicants;

III. He/she was rejected for the position despite their qualifications;

IV. The employer continued to seek for candidates to hire for the position that

the person is suing about.

This standard is applied even today in discrimination cases. The order

defines affirmative action in the context of equal opportunities to all

candidates: “The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or

applicant for employment because of race, creed, color or national origin,

and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their

race, creed, color or national origin” (Cose, as cited in Wolkinson &

Block, 1996, p. 33).

According to President Roosevelt, “Sooner or later, affirmative action will die a
natural dea ” (Wolkinson & Block, 1996, p. 14). This is due to the sentiments of many
individuals that programs based on racial preferences--even though they are intended to
bring fairness and equity into the employment and recruitment arenas-- often result in a
disparate impact on the protected group (Wolkinson & Block, 1996). In addition, several
court cases have challenged the affirmative-action programs and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964by asserting the notion of reverse discrimination. Such was the case in
University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978), wherein the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the White male student candidate who challenged the quota system in the

university’s medical school. However, the Supreme Court supported the higher education

47

institution in using race as a “plus factor” and as one of many factors in admissions. It
also provided a strong opinion that a diverse student body of many races is a compelling
government interest.
Affirmative Action Programs Challenged

During the same time period, affirmative-action programs were also being
challenged in the private sector via United Steel Workers v. Weber (1979). Though the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer’s affirmative-action program to achieve a
certain number of blacks in craft, the craft’s training program was legal in order to
achieve parity with the labor pool. However, the plan was only approved for a short
period to rectify the disparate impact of past discrimination in crafi trades. Furthermore,
the court affirmed in both United Steel Workers v. Weber (1979) as well as Johnson v.
Transportation Agency (1987) that no White employees shall lose their jobs as a result of
affirmative programs, and this program was approved for short term duration only. The
courts generally supported affirmative-action programs that provided evidence of need of
such programs to provide remedies for past discrimination in a very narrowly tailored
manner. Even then, the comts were reluctant to support affirmative-action programs.

This is highlighted in several Supreme Court decisions including in the case of
Wygant v. Jackson (1986), wherein the court rejected the Jackson Board of Education.
Jackson Board of Education’s argument was based in support of their collective
bargaining agreement which provided for layoff of a more senior White employee over
the less senior minority employees on the grounds that minority students needed role
models. There was no evidence of prior discrimination for the court to support a race-

based remedy in this case. The courts hold a strict test to allow affirmative-action

48

programs with very specific exceptions. To remedy present effects of past discrimination,
programs cannot negatively impact non-minorities, and the programs have to be short
lived (Hopwood v. State of Texas, 1996; Jenkins, 1999). The test of affirmative-action
programs was further challenged in the case of Middleton v. City of F lint (1996) in which
an affirmative-action program was implemented in the city of Flint, Michigan, to allocate
50% of all promotions to minority police officers (Jenkins, 1999). The city argued that
minorities were underrepresented in higher level positions; however, the court rejected
the argument, stating that underrepresentation does not necessarily mean discrimination.
The city had failed to establish the strict and narrowly tailored test based on current
effects of past discrimination. Additionally, data reflected that the city was making
progress in promoting minorities; therefore, affirmative-action programs were not
supported by the court. It is evident as in the case of Flint that the courts impose very
narrowly tailed tests to qualify for affirmative-action programs; in this case the court
imposed a five-prong test, which, if because it was not met, did not gain the support of
the court.

In addition, the courts have not been consistent in their approach to addressing the
percent of representation in a firm of any given group to reflect the labor pool as in the
case of Podberesky v. Kirwan (1994), wherein the court argued that one can make the
comparison to achieving parity of the labor pool to one’s own organization in respect to
unskilled labor. However, when a job requires specific skills, then the relevant labor pool
is individuals who are qualified. This suggests that affirnrative-action programs may have
been more effective in unskilled labor pools, but these programs may not have been

enforceable in the skilled labor nor were they supported in the court room.

49

Impact of Proposition 209 in California

Proposition 209 in California negatively impacted student admissions and
subsequently has impacted minority faculty hires. Generally, in the absence of
affirmative-action programs, there is a higher degree of disparate impact on the
minorities, especially in student admission in higher education as evidenced by the
consequences of Proposition 209 in California. In 1995 just prior to Proposition 209, of
the 7.5% graduating African American seniors, 4.3% were entering University of
California. After the passage of Proposition 209, 2.9% African Americans were admitted
at the university. Similarly, Chicanos (Mexican origin) while they made up 26% of high
school graduates only 11.1% entered University of California after Proposition 2; this
number dropped to 8.8% (Brett, 1992; Gandara et al., 2006). The second major impact of
Proposition 209 was a greater enrollment of minority students in 2-year community
colleges; thus, California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC)
have become engaged with developing effective transfer agreements with community
colleges (Gandara et al., 2006). These data suggest that the decrease in minority student
enrollment specifically in prestigious institutions is likely to result in the lack of pipeline
in the recruitment of faculty of color at public research universities.

Experts assert that the impact of the ban on affirmative-action programs in a state
will likely be determined by how the state’s local government and public universities
handle those programs that may be impacted (Gorchow, 2006). For instance, in
California, several areas of public employment, education, and contracting were impacted
by the affirmative-action ban, whereas in Washington, recruitment and outreach

programs remained intact (Gorchow, 2006). Quezada and Louque (2004) reported that

50

California State University is comprised of over 22,814 faculty of which 76% are White,
13% Asians, 7% Latino, and .6% are Native American in the tenure-track system. This
suggests that the outcome, impact, and changes in affirmative-action programs depend on
the views of current leadership and their interpretation of the law, both at the state levels
as well as the institutional level.

Furthermore, opponents of the affirmative-action programs claim that the
programs gave an unfair advantage to minorities and women, resulting in reverse
discrimination. However, supporters claim that the nation has not reached a point in time
where one is judged on his/her own merits without regard to color or ethnicity. Therefore,
the current ban of the affirmative-action programs has not resolved many of the problems
facing the nation today. Specifically, the issues of discrimination resulting in disparate
treatment and disparate impact need to be resolved as many policies have an adverse
impact on the minority group. Decisions in some states, including Michigan, have been
made to ban affirrnative- action programs, yet no solutions have been provided regarding
how these issues can be addressed. The issue of disparate impact is a major topic of
discussion among policy makers and education administrators alike. Many have argued
that the US has not resolved the imbalance of equality in regards to the quality of
education in K-12 that will likely impact access in higher education for diverse students.
This continues to result in an unfair playing field for minorities and underrepresented
groups alike; they often come from underprivileged school systems with poor education
systems, yet they are expected to have the same credentials, such as test scores that are
weighted heavily in admissions (Bowen & Bok, 2000; Marable, 1995). Some may argue

that the college entry exams have an adverse impact on students from low socio-

51

economic backgrounds and who attend poor K-12 education system. Moreover, these
students are unable to compete with students from well-to—do families who may have
experienced a high quality education system. For instance, students who attend good
schools may have access to computers in school, whereas students from poor
neighborhoods may not have had access to technology.

In the last 10 years, the courts have resisted granting awards in favor of
affirmative actions on the basis of providing remedy to past impact of discrimination.
This is largely due to allegations of reverse discrimination. However, there have been
several cases involving higher education that have been challenged with the changing
demographics, resulting in increased debates over access and equity in higher education.
For instance, in the case of Hopwood v. Texas (1996), unlike in Bakke case, the Circuit
Court ruled against the Texas education system and stated that diversity is not a
compelling government interest, especially when race in itself is used to diversify the
student body. In addition, the court asserted that state universities and law schools must
evaluate students on an individual basis rather than resorting to quotas to increase
diversity. This approach, however, fails to adhere to the state’s compelling interest to
diversity as established through strict scrutiny.

Impact of Initiative 1-200 in the State of Washington

In November of 1998, residents in the state of Washington voted to approve to
ban affirmative action by 59%. By spring of 1999, the impact was already evident as
college officials started to see a drop in the Black student’s applicants at the university’s
law school by 41%, Filipino students by 26%, and Hispanics by 21% from the prior year

(Healy, 1998). Prior to the passing of the initiative, the president of the university,

52

Richard L. McCormick, announced, “We would be taking a step backwards and turning
our back on a tool that’s been so productive in transforming society” (Healy, 1998, p.2).
It is evident that without affirmative-action initiatives, access to higher education is
problematic for all citizens.
University of Michigan Court Cases

The two most recent Supreme Court landmark cases at the University of Michigan
have paved the way to the future policies and practices that will affect the way higher
education institutions address the issues of access and equity both in student admissions
and faculty hires. The Supreme Court rulings in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v.
Bollinger (2003) have most likely altered how public research universities address
current admissions policies regarding the recruitment of minority students ( Gratz v.
Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger. 2003). In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court
ruled that the use of point or quota system as part of the institution’s affirmative-action
initiatives in undergraduate admissions is likely to result in reverse discrimination.
However, in Grutter v. Bollinger the Supreme Court supported the benefits of diversity as
a compelling government interest in higher education. The use of diversity as a “plus
factor,” one of the many factors in considered in law school admissions was therefore
legal. As a result, concerns about affirmative-action policies that influence access and
equity are likely to continue in the years ahead. This chapter concludes with Bennett’s
Model (1993), a conceptual framework considered in this study.

Conceptual Framework
Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity provides a

lens to capture the most applicable theory in analyzing and evaluating the successes or

53

failures of hiring practices. Bennett’s theory provides three levels of intercultural
sensitivity in examining the hiring processes: (a) the acceptance level, (b) the
minimization level, and (c) the defense level (Kayes, 2006). Bennett’s theory also
provides a perspective to better understand the level of acceptance or resistance to diverse
hiring. The theory provides a lens for reactions towards candidates (applicants) to explain
why individuals are accepted or avoided by others in a selection process based on their
personality (e.g., ethnicity, race, sex, and national origin). It also explains the avoidance
of persons who are different from themselves with respect to race, religion, or political
philosophy. Consequently, candidates may be denied employment opportunities because
of their national origin rather than job qualifications.
Bennett’s Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Bennett’s (1993) model of intercultural sensitivity provides an overview of the
various stages of an individual’s development (see Table 1). Bennett’s theoretical lens
has great potential in identifying reasons why certain candidates that apply for jobs may
have a better chance of being hired over other candidates. The level of acceptance or
rejection of a candidate due to their ethnicity or minority status can be explored. The
theory will further aid in addressing disparities in pay offers, levels, and promotions of
candidates who are hired and accepted in an organization versus those candidates who are
not welcomed in an organization. Therefore, Bennett’s theory has many applications in
analyzing and explaining the factors that inhibit or enhance final tenure faculty hiring
decisions, as well as identifying the level of resistance evident in organizational culture or

climate.

54

Table 1

Bennett ’s Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

 

THE ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

 

Denial Isolation Separation Rejection
Defense Denigration Superiority Reversal
Minimization Physical Universalism Transcendent

Universalism

 

THE ETHNORELATIVES STAGES

 

Acceptance Respect for behavior Respect for value
difference
difference
Adaptation Empathy Pluralism
Integration Contextual Evaluation Constructive Marginality

 

From Bennett, M.J. (1993). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M.
Paige (Ed), Education for the Intercultural Experience, p.29. Boston: Intercultural Press.

The Ethnocentric Stages

Bennett’s ethnocentric stage is defined as “assuming that the worldview of one’s
own culture is central to all reality” (1993, p. 30). Any deviation from one’s own culture
results in a variety of meanings learners attach to the cultural differences from complete
denial, rejection of a different culture, to minimizing the existence of one’s culture and its
importance. Therefore, someone who may be in the complete ethnocentric stage is likely
to not consider any cultural differences of another. Bennett asserted that physical
isolation is likely to occur among a homogeneous population, thereby leading to a
preference to distance oneself from others who are different. The isolation stage results in
separation of oneself from difference when confronted: “The term defense refers to a

posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural differences perceived as

55

threatening” (1993, p. 34). Bennett suggested that culture is likely ignored in the defense
and denial stage. However, individuals in denial ignore issues and hope they will go
away, while individuals in the defense stage of development normally recognize cultural
differences but choose to ignore them by putting up defenses. The defense stage occurs
within three categories: (a) denigration, (b) superiority, and (c) reversal. According to
Bennett (1993), denigration occurs when individuals counter their defense against
cultural differences by evaluating it negatively or engaging in negative stereotyping. The
superiority stage of defense occurs when individuals perceive other cultures as occupying
to a lower-status position. On the other hand, the reverse stage is the beginning stages of
development where individuals help others achieve the superiority status and embracing
of host-culture (reversal). This stage also help individuals in recognizing that one’s own
culture may not be all too superior after all.

The move away from defense to the development stage occurs when individuals
perceive some general good in all cultures. According to Bennett (1993), the last stage of
one’s view of superiority of one’s own culture is the stage of minimization. Minimization
occurs when other cultures are trivialized even when cultural differences are recognized;
they are labeled as unimportant compared to the acknowledgement of cultural
similarities. In this stage, differences are minimized and similarities are reinforced.
Minimization can be categorized as physical universalism and transcendent universalism.
In physical universalism, similarities are recognized that everyone has to eat, work, and
so on, by emphasizing physical similarities among individuals. Individuals in this stage
fail to consider cultural context as they view the world from their own cultural framework

in making general assumptions about human beings. In the transcendent universalism,

56

general universal statements are made in an attempt to find common ground among
cultures (e. g., We are all children of God; Bennett, 1993).
The Ethnorelative Stages

In Bennett’s ethnorelative stage, meaning-making of cultures can only be
understood within the cultural context (1993). In adaptation, appreciating cultural
differences is essential in recognizing that there may be good or bad differences. Cultural
adaptation may occur based on cultural behaviors. This stage of development emphasizes
one’s development in recognizing that there are good and bad people in all cultures, and
that one’s own culture is not superior or central to the reality of the worldviews.
Understanding the reality of what individuals have by virtue of their own culture helps
the development of empathy and a sense of respect for reality and experiencing the world
differently. Pluralism is defined through the perspectives of intercultural sensitivity,
which suggests that “culture is not only different, but that such differences must always
be understood totally within the context of the relevant culture” (p.55). This means that
cultural differences are better experienced and understood within one’s cultural frame
with two or more cultures. Therefore, pluralism is better understood when categorized
based on “bicultural” or “multiculturalism” (p. 55). The development of multiculturalism
is gained through in-depth experiences, such as living with another culture for an
extended period of time. Pluralism is achieved through internationalization by having
more than one cultural frame of reference, and it is completely achieved when an
individual reaches the point of development where he/she respects his/her own culture

and the culture of others.

57

Finally, Bennett claimed that integration occurs when the person experiences true
multiculturalism. “Integration occurs when a person understands that his or her identity
emerges from the act of defining identity itself. The goal is not to re-affiliate with one
culture, nor is it simply to reestablish comfort with a multiplicity of worldviews” (1993,
p. 60). Integration is fully achieved through both contextual evaluation and constructive
marginality. “Contextual evaluation is a development beyond adaptation where one
attains the ability to analyze and evaluate situations from one or more chosen cultural
perspectives” (p.61). Constructive marginality, on the other hand, is understood by
describing “marginality, where someone who operates outside of normal cultural
boundaries” (p. 63). Bennett describes an individual’s development in this final stage as
someone who is outside all cultural frames of reference, one who can see things from
many different perspectives and therefore has no natural cultural identity.

According to Bennett, intercultural sensitivity is not a natural phenomenon.
However, with some education and training in intercultural communication, individuals
can move towards changing and accepting other cultures. According to Hoopes,
“Intercultural learning is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning, communication and human
relations has been mastered” (as cited in Paige, 1993, p.20). Bennett asserted that
cultural competences can be developed by having more exposure to individuals of
different cultures, thereby increasing one’s cognitive development in cultural sensitivity.
This suggests that hiring a diverse workforce will most likely increase one’s cultural
development and competences. Other Opportunities of one’s cultural sensitivity and

development occur when by comparing and contrasting worldviews or bicultural

58

experiences. This form of sense-making of the world aids in understanding cultural
differences. Finally, making meaning and sense of one’s own identity increases one’s
experiences as constructs of oneself by increasing one’s consciousness of others. The end
results are a greater sense of respect for other cultures, values, and behavior differences,
thereby leading to the acceptance stage of development. In the acceptance stage, cultural
differences are recognized and respected (Bennett, 1993).

This chapter provided the relevant literature that exists in the area of diversity,
affirmative action, and hiring policies and practices. Additionally, the chapter
highlighted the challenges faced by postsecondary institutions and the way they are
coping with the evolving and changing of state laws in reference to the affirmative-action
programs. The chapter concluded with an introduction of Bennett’s Model of

Intercultural Sensitivity that would most likely impact recruitment efforts.

59

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study focuses on three major themes: (a) understanding and uncovering what
faculty hiring policies and procedures exist in the College of Agriculture at a Midwestern
university; (b) analyzing and understanding how university faculty hiring policies and
procedures are understood, interpreted, and implemented at the college and department
level; and (c) exploring the beliefs, assumptions, and values of individuals that may
affect faculty hiring outcomes, especially in light of the most recent ban on affirmative-
action programs in the state. By studying the three major areas listed above, the study
uncovers the climate issues as well as provides recommendations for best practices in
hiring tenured faculty. This chapter is organized as follows: research design, contextual
framework, methods, role of the researcher, and limitations of the study.

Research Design

The primary question is as follows: What are the factors that inhibit or enhance
the hiring of a diverse tenure-track faculty workforce at a Midwestern university? The
following sub-questions that were utilized to guide this research are as follows:

1. What policies and practices exist around diversity in faculty hiring at the College
of Agriculture?

2. How do those involved in the faculty hiring decisions in postsecondary education
understand, interpret, and implement policies and practices to diversify faculty
hiring?

3. What impact does a recent ban on the state’s affirmative-action programs have on

changes of current policies and practices in hiring diverse faculty?

60

This study used a case study design through qualitative method for data collection
and analysis. A single case study approach was used to gain a deeper and more complete
understanding of the phenomenon (Yin, 2003) by focusing on a college within the
university. A qualitative approach in data gathering, data analysis, site selection and
participant selection enriches the study by concentrating within a specific discipline at a
Midwestern university, thereby capturing participants’ deeper feelings about issues of
diversity through the use of thick, rich description to strengthen the overall study
(Creswell, 2003; Yin, 2003).

Context

This study was situated on the campus of a Midwestern university at the College
of Agriculture. There are a total of three departments within the college that were used
for data collection through semi-structured interviews followed by a focus group. The
following background information will serve as a context for the study.

Midwestern University and College of Agriculture

The institution is well known for its global outreach and applied research while
providing over 200 nationally recognized programs on campus (McGlynn, 2006). The
university actively engages in federally-funded research and outreach activities though its
affiliates with federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, US.
Department of Health and Human Services, and US. Department of Agriculture. In
addition to the experimental station, the College of Agriculture is also well recognized for
its international and extension engagement and partnerships. The land-grant mission of
teaching, research, and service was established through the Morrill Act of 1962. As a

land-grant institution, the university is well known for its contributions to the nation and

61

the world in scientific discoveries ranging from anti-cancer prevention drugs to plant and
animal pesticides and disease control including but not limited to wheat, cherry trees, and
Christmas trees (McGlynn, 2006).

Today, the institution continues to value the core values of the university
emphasized by its current president, who inspires to move the university from a land-
grant institution to a globally-focused institution. The university’s ongoing, integrated
initiatives are to improve and develop innovation in teaching, research, and public service
with an emphasis on social responsibility. Based on the Institution’s registrar data
(Institution Facts, n.d.), in the fall of 2007 enrollment reached 46,045, of which 34,018 or
73.9% were Caucasian, 7,414 or 16.1% were minority, 3,869 or 8.4% were international
students, and 744 or 1.6% were other. Of the 7,414 minority students, 3,408 were Black,
400 Chicano, 909 Hispanic, 329 American Indian, and 2,368 Asian/Pacific Islander.
While international student enrollment increased 9.7% over last year, national student
diversity decreased by 19.1%. This is most likely due to the impact from the ban of
affirmative action in the state in 2006.

The university strives to embrace diversity not only in the student population but
also in its faculty. According to the Institution (Oflice of Planning and Budget, n.d.), in
fall 2005 the university employed 2,621 ranked faculty, of which 71.2% of its total
faculty was comprised of full-time tenure-track faculty. Minorities comprised of 19.6%
and women 44.1% of new faculty hires in 2005-2006; however, this percent includes
visiting international scholars. In fall 2006, the College of Agriculture had a total of 287
tenure-track faculty in 2007-2008 school year of which 23.7% were women and 14.6%

were minority tenure track faculty. In fall of 2007, a total of 19 tenure-track faculty were

62

hired in the college, of which 15.8% or 3 were women and 5.3% or 1 was a minority
tenure-track hire.
College of Agriculture: Two Prior Assessments

Two prior studies3 were conducted in the College of Agriculture and were utilized
to provide a fundamental contextual framework for this study. First, in 2006, eight focus
groups were utilized to gather preliminary data through structured conversation to assess
the diversity needs of the college. Second, in spring 2007 as a follow-up to the focus
groups, an electronic survey of the entire college was distributed. These two studies were
conducted by the Office of Diversity and Pluralism in the College of Agriculture to assess
the needs of the college constitution and to assess the challenges of diversification in the
college. The themes that have emerged from the two studies highlight many of the
obstacles and opportunities the college continues to experience in diversifying its faculty,
student, and staff population. This study has emerged from the key findings from these
two studies. As one of the main researchers in these two studies, this researcher has
access to the data in both studies.

Methods

Creswell (2003) suggested that a researcher should utilize a data collection
method that is most appropriate in answering one’s research question and intended
analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that a researcher’s approach to data

collection will ultimately affect the outcomes and analysis of data in answering the

 

3 The researcher was on the team that implemented both the focus group diversity study, and the college
wide electronic surveys.

63

research questions. Therefore, a qualitative, case study approach was utilized in
collecting a rich, thick description of the phenomenon in the study.
Location

A Midwestern university was purposefully selected based on its past experiences
with the issues of diversity, size, and the triad missions of research, teaching, and service.
Data were collected from three primary departments within College of Agriculture, which
will remain nameless for the purpose of this research, as follows: (a) Department A; (b)
Department B; and (c) Department C. Moreover, the site was purposefully selected given
the ease of access and entry to the information and the participants due to this
researcher’s position as the diversity specialist in the college. This case study was
conducted in the College of Agriculture at this institution, and the preliminary findings
through two studies executed during 2006-2007 school year that set the contextual
framework for the study. In addition, the two most recent Supreme Court rulings about
the University of Michigan are likely to impact postsecondary institutions that are now
grappling with changes to university policies and procedures to comply with to the court
decisions. Site location and participants were purposefully selected to explore a deeper
understanding of the research problem and in addressing the research questions
(Creswell, 2005).

Several characteristics of the American public research university define its
character: “substantial size, prominence of research, significant graduate student
enrollment, and success in attracting external, especially federal, funding” (Rhodes, 2001,
p.22). A three-pronged mission of teaching, research, and service has made the American

public research university the most important institution in the creation and distribution

64

of knowledge (Altbach, 2001). Public research universities are viewed as a public benefit
to society, promoting the ideals of access and affordable education to all students.
Therefore, a public research university like this one is an appropriate research site for this
study.
Data Collection Procedures

This study utilized a two-phase approach in collecting the data. First, semi-
structured interviews were conducted in three of the college’s departments. Next, a small
focus group was utilized through semi-structured conversations to validate the interview
findings as well as collect additional information about the study.
Semi-Structured Interviews

A qualitative, case study design was utilized to explore the factors that inhibit and
enhance the hiring of a diverse tenured-faculty workforce. In phase one, indepth, face- to-
face, individual interviews provided a deeper understanding of a general phenomenon
while enriching the data (Creswell, 2003; Yin, 2003).
Focus Group

In phase two, a small focus group was held in order to validate interview data
from phase one, and additional data were collected as it emerged. Conversations were
semi-structured to discuss general themes that emerged from the individual interviews.
One member from each of the three departments who was interviewed in the first phase
was identified for the focus group; a diversity representative from the college and a
search committee chair were utilized in phase two to further clarify the findings of this

study. The use of a focus group promoted for the triangulation approach to qualitative

65

research, thereby strengthening the validity of the findings through the use of the member
check techniques (Creswell, 2003; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Participant Selection

Participants were selected based on their role in hiring faculty and in the College
of Agriculture to gain a deeper insight into the obstacles and or Opportunities that may
exist within each department. It is standard practice at most higher education institutions
that faculty search committees are established to conduct most faculty hires. Search
committees affect most decisions including determining job descriptions, posting
announcements, screening applicants, granting interviews, and making final
recommendations for hire (Hill, 1987). Participants were identified by utilizing the
institution’s academic hiring website that lists current and past faculty job postings, by
the university’s affirmative action hiring forms, and by referral from participants.

The institution’s academic website was utilized to identify three departments
within College of Agriculture that had recently engaged in faculty hires in different
disciplines. In addition, departments were identified by consulting with the diversity
advocate for the college, who provided some insight information to the level of difficulty
departments experience when hiring diverse faculty. Moreover, university administrators
who influence faculty hiring decisions were consulted. The sample was purposefully
selected for this study: the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2
Associate Deans for College of Agriculture; 3 department chairs, 3 search committee
chairs, 12 search committee members, 6 diversity advocates, 1 college-wide diversity
advocate, the university’s diversity representative, the university’s academic human

resource vice president, the College of Agriculture’s Extension director, and the College

66

of Agriculture’s Experiment Station Director. A purposefully selected sample was the

best approach as it aided the researcher in understanding the research problem and the

research questions (Creswell, 2003). A total of 32 participants were interviewed through

the semi-structured interviews (see Table 2). Miles and Huberman (1994) asserted that,
A conceptual framework Explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the
main things to be studied the key factors, constructs or variables-—and the

presumed relationships among them. (p. 18)

According to Miles and Huberman (1994) a visual map can explain the key
constructs and relationships within a study. Without a visual map, it is difficult for the
reader to understand how the researcher’s conceptual framework adheres to the criteria
used in the selection of the sample or how the results connect to her research questions
and purpose statement.

Participants were selected through a formal letter describing the purpose of the
study, procedures, and steps taken to assure confidentiality and anonymity of data. They
were also informed of the availability of the feedback report upon completion of the
study. The interview protocol was utilized in order to seek to address the main question
followed by probing sub-questions. Specifically, this study explored the main question to
uncover a deeper understanding of the factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of a
diverse faculty workforce at the college. Open-ended sub-questions and probing
questions were developed in an attempt to get rich, thick, descriptive data (Denzin &

Lincoln, 1998). The sample instrument is described in details in Appendix A.

67

Table 2

Study Participants

 

College of Agriculture

Participant Pool

 

Categories

Dept A

Dept B Dept C

Total

 

Department Chair

Search Committee Chair
Search Committee Member
Dept. Diversity Advocate

College of Agriculture
Diversity Advocate

Dean

Associate Dean

Experimental Station Director

Extension Director

Human Resource Administrator

Diversity Administrator

Total Study Participants

1-2

1 l

l 1

4 4

12

3-6

32

 

Analysis of University Documents

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), documents include any personal or public

written records, recordings, or physical communications both audio and video. For the

purpose of this study, personal records were utilized such as resumes, cover letters, job

applications, references, research portfolios, and other information of personal nature.

Due to the hiring policy implications and nature of the topic of recruitment, it was

essential to utilize various university documents including hiring forms, hiring policies,

procedures, affirmative action and compliance forms, the university’s mission and vision,

68

procedures, affirmative action and compliance forms, the university’s mission and vision,
and personnel data and archival documents to gain a holistic perspective on the research
topic. General university information, such as the mission and values of the university,
provided a deeper understanding of the past and future goals, values, and beliefs of the
institution. Equally important, this information helped the researcher get a better
understanding of the campus climate and culture in regards to diversity. Similarly,
university policies and procedures aided the researcher in the development of the research
questions and overall survey instrument. Information such as documents, policies,
procedures, access to information should not pose a problem due to the Freedom of
Information Act. However, when this researcher requested the affirmative action results
document for the last 3 years, the request for access to data was denied by the
institution’s Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives.
Data Analysis

The data were gathered from field notes and through the use of audiotapes of the
interviews with participants in to assure greater accuracy and reliability of information
gathered. The audio taped data were transcribed in a verbatim form, sorted, and organized
based on the major themes from the study. First, the data were recorded verbatim from
the participants. Next, through the use of ATLAS software, the data was sorted, coded,
and categorized based on the major themes that emerged from the face-to-face interviews
and from the focus group interview. The transcribed interviews were coded, and subcodes
emerged in the details of words, phrases, and key words relevant to the major themes.
This thematic approach to data collection was appropriate for the inductive nature in

qualitative research (Patton, 2002). Additionally, field notes, university affirmative action

69

documents, university hiring forms, university historical and archival data, and budget
and personnel data were utilized in analyzing the data.

Creswell (2003) suggested the use of supplementary documents as a way to
validate, enrich, confirm, reinforce, and gain a holistic view of the problem. In addition,
observational techniques were effective during the interviews due to the sensitive nature
of the topic of diversity as captured in participants’ feelings, emotions, and expressions.
Through the use of observation techniques, nonverbal signals and voice elevations were
captured as they related to the participants’ comfort levels and power relations in
discussing issues and sensitivity due to the topic on diversity. This approach was used to
further understand and interpret meanings and in analyzing how participants make sense
of the world around them.

Triangulation

In qualitative research, a researcher’s study is strengthened by discussing
limitations of data, specifically interview biases, reliability or validity (Creswell, 2003;
Patton, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Therefore, while collecting and analyzing data,
Creswell’s (2003) eight-step process was utilized as appropriate for maximum data
validity, including member checks, peer debriefing, and researcher limitations and biases.

The use of triangulation in qualitative research further aides in limiting researcher
biases. This also increases the chances for greater data validity and reliability, and
increases the accuracy of data interpretation. In addition, a thick, rich description of
participant responses in regards to their real life experiences further aides in the accuracy
of the data in the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Therefore, this study utilized several

different methods and resources in gathering data. Through the use of peer debriefing

70

techniques, the emerging themes and interpretation of the data were adjusted to avoid the
researcher’s personal biases due to her status as an Asian-American female. Finally,
through the use of audit trails (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), detailed records were kept about
the participants, interview dates, times, field notes and participant e-mails during the
study.

Role of the Researcher

At the start of this dissertation, the researcher was employed with the College of
Agriculture in the Office of Diversity and Pluralism. It was critical that her role as a
researcher was not influenced by her role as a staff member of the college. Therefore, it is
important to address the potential conflicts of interest between the role of researcher and
the role of staff member of the college. In order to protect the confidentiality and
anonymity of the participants in the college, the data gathered, collected, and analyzed
will in no way be utilized in the college.

As an Asian American, East Indian woman in the capacity of a diversity specialist
in the college, this researcher has seen and experienced subtle forms of disparate
treatment in the college and on this campus. Because of the researcher’s experiences as
the employee of the university for over 23 years in various different units on campus, it is
difficult to approach this study from a totally neutral viewpoint. Based on this
researcher’s experience on campus, although in the past, the institution has exerted more
efforts to build campus diversity, today diversity does not appear to be an important
institutional commitment. This lack of structural support for diversity is also evident
among the sentiments of the Asian members in this researcher’s role as the President of

the Asian Pacific, Asian American, Faculty Staff Association (APAAF SA). Therefore, it

71

was imperative to utilize the opinions of other colleagues and faculty, so that the
researcher’s biases were checked against the data that were collected and analyzed.
Limitations of the Study

In qualitative research, it is essential for a researcher to discuss limitations
(specifically weaknesses of the study) and to address interview biases and methods used
for reliability or validity check (Creswell, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002).
There are several limitations of this study based on the nature of the study. First, while
recruitment and retention are both major components of any hiring practices and one has
a direct impact on the other, this study only focused on faculty recruitment. Second,
while it is essential to understand the state and federal laws that govern hiring practices in
a public university, it is equally important to analyze the effectiveness and impact of such
policies when studying human resource functions, such as the hiring of tenure-track
faculty. This study is limited in sc0pe to the analysis of current state and federal hiring
policies and practices. Third, due to the shear nature of the topic of diversity in higher
education and the researcher’s identity as an Asian American female, certain interview
questions were a source of discomfort for the participants and therefore were not
thoroughly answered, as the participants were not willing to fully disclose their true
emotions and deeply-rooted feelings. In addition, some participants refused to participate
in this study or failed to respond to requests for their participation in the study. Fourth,
this study was limited to only 3 of the 13 departments within one college. While the
College of Agriculture is deeply rooted in the university, it may not be representative of
other colleges in the university or other institutions in the United States. Fifth, the

participant selection was limited to only 3 of the 13 departments in the college and

72

comprised only of the search committee members or administrators, thereby limiting the
perspectives of the candidates themselves or others who might also impact searches such
as graduate students and staff. Finally, the availability of minority faculty was limited

especially in regards to minority females in the college.

73

CHAPTER FOUR
KEY FINDINGS

“I have a dream...that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” (King, 1963).

This chapter presents the findings that emerged from the interviews regarding the
recruitment of tenure-track faculty in the College of Agriculture at a Midwestern
university. The primary question informing this study is: What are the factors that inhibit
or enhance the hiring of a diverse tenure-track faculty workforce at a Midwestern
university? Although the study found that diversification of faculty is a major challenge
in the College of Agriculture at a Midwestern university, it is important to note that many
of the issues reported are probably not unique to that institution. The thematic findings
from this study have provided the answers to the following three main subquestions:

1. What policies and practices exist around diversity in faculty hiring at the College of
Agriculture?

2. How do those involved in the faculty hiring decisions in postsecondary education
understand, interpret, and implement policies and practices to diversify faculty
hiring?

3. What impact does a recent ban on the state’s affirmative-action programs have on

changes of current policies and practices in hiring diverse faculty?

74

College Level Policies and Practices

The study uncovered several factors that continue to enhance or inhibit the hiring
of diverse tenure-track faculty in the college. This chapter is organized around the major
themes that emerged from the subquestions. Two major themes emerged from the first
subquestion: (a) diversity defined and (b) college-level diversity.
Diversity Defined

Most study participants expressed that diversity is an essential ingredient for the
future success of the college. However, the study revealed significant variations in the
definition of diversity among participants. This was not surprising given that preliminary
data from the college’s eight focus groups and electronic surveys conducted the previous
year, suggested that a number of participants really did not have a common understanding
of what is meant by diversity. Higher level administrators appeared to hold the broadest
interpretation of diversity. For most of the minority and women participants, diversity
corresponded to race, ethnicity, and gender differences, whereas, to some Caucasian
participants, diversity was referenced solely in terms of White women. Yet to others,
diversity meant diversity of differences in intellectual perspectives, research,
personalities, life experiences, teaching styles, outreach, and service. Following is a
definition of diversity provided by a Caucasian male participant:

You’ve got to define that better because I think there are probably seven

or eight “diversity” considerations. We need diversities of experience,

need diversities of personalities. We need diversities of ethics and faith

75

and all kinds of structures because that’s what graduate school’s all about.

(Larer’

As the quote above demonstrates, the meaning, understanding, and value of
diversity can vary significantly. Most of the participants at the administrative levels
agreed that the college should reflect a diversified climate that welcomed all races,
ethnicity, experiences, and viewpoints. However, when asked to describe their diversity
experiences in the department, many of the participants made reference largely to White
women in the college. Some participants defined diversity to include women, foreign
students, and foreign faculty. One participant described his perspective in the college on
diversity as follows:

Typically, here diversity is female, White female or international. And not

to diminish the impact that females or international individuals have

within the department, but it certainly lacks the diversity and inclusion

from the perspective of people of color or underrepresented groups within

the US. continent. (Don)

While the institution has a broad definition of diversity to encompass
inclusiveness, it was evident that women and foreign faculty have made greater progress
in the college. The findings from this study are similar to the findings from the college-
wide electronic survey that diversity is a widely misunderstood phenomenon. Based on
the institution’s electronic survey in 2007 (Public Sector Consultants, 2007), 11% of the
deans and 8% of faculty disagree that diversity can be defined by age. Additionally, the

definition and understanding of diversity among the participants of the electronic survey

 

4 Names that appear at the end of the quotations in this chapter have been changed to protect the
confidentiality of the participants.

76

(deans, faculty, academic/support staff, and graduate students) varied uniformly. There
appears to be a lack of common understanding of diversity which could result in
misunderstanding of other cultures, and races that could affect the success of hiring a
diverse faculty. For example, below is a quote from a participant who explained
misunderstandings of diversity in race and ethnicity:

I think that people have the interpretation that diversity means. Well, if

it’s African Americans from Louisiana versus an African from Ghana, 1

think people tend to lump that all into one and count that as diversity and

Black. I think to a same degree from the people from here, Mexican

Americans, which really is the largest concentration of Hispanics in the

United States, is Mexican Americans. They bring people from

Columbia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and you classify them all as... I can’t

say Americans, but they’re classified as a race. (Hank)

While these misunderstanding about people from different countries and their
race/ethnicity may appear to be a minor problem, it has a great deal of influence on hiring
policies and practices of tenure-track faculty, especially when goals are established for
underuse of one group over another. Additionally, how diversity is defined will most
likely mean different things to different committee members, thereby adding to the
challenge of achieving diversity in the department. This challenge about participant’s
understandings about the meaning of diversity may also affect their lack of knowledge
about the current university policies on diversity. An overwhelmingly large number of
participants did not know or understand the university’s policies on hiring. In addition,

most of the committee members were not sure if there were any department or college

77

policies when asked about the knowledge of the tenure-track hiring policies of the
department, college, or university. Tom, a department chair, stated,

I do not know the content of the policies and procedures; that was not in

my purview as member of the committee. There are three persons charged

with applying the policies and procedures: the chairperson of the

department, the chair of the search committee, and the person (specialized

in diversity procedures) assigned to the committee by the university. . ..

and that it was the job of the diversity representative to make sure of

compliance. ...Were I appointed to be a head of a search committee, I

would learn of all the regulations, among them those pertaining to

diversity, that I needed to know. (Tom)
The above response is typical of many of the participants when asked what policies exist
at the department, college, or university level. Additionally, a diversity advocate
commented on his understanding of the hiring policies:

I’m not sure what the policies are. I’m not sure what the policies are both

at the department level and even at the university level. I don’t have the

time to find out what the policies are, what the university’s policies are. I

really have not looked them up because I just don’t have that kind of time

to be able to do this type of research. (Peter)

Many of the participants in this study were not knowledgeable about affirmative-
action policies or the university’s hiring policies. The consensus was that someone on the
search committee must have a good understanding of all the policies, but most

participants did not understand all of the policies as they relate to faculty hiring. This

78

suggests that while the university has extensive policies for hiring and promoting
diversity on campus, search committees members are often unaware of such policies.
Hence, the lack of understanding of university policies is likely to impact the
effectiveness of the recruitment process, especially in terms of increasing diversity. The
various meanings and understanding about diversity may explain the current low level of
diversity in the college, as described in the next section.
College Level Diversity

The findings of this study are consistent with earlier findings from two studies
(focus groups and college-wide electronic surveys) that the level of diversity among
faculty, staff, and students continues to be a challenge for the college. The faculty profile
compiled from the institution’s budget and planning website indicated the makeup of the
current faculty by race, ethnicity, and gender in the College of Agriculture, including all
departments (see Table 3). This data reflects a slight increase in diversity in the college.

According to the data from the US. census bureau, the White population in
United States in 2006 was 66% while the college’s White faculty population is currently
81% in 2007—2008. In addition, the college’s White faculty has decreased from 91% in
1995—1996 to 81% currently. This suggests that while the college has made some
progress, it continues to struggle to diversify its faculty pool to reflect demographic
changes in the US. population. For instance, based on the Census Bureau, the US.
demographics for the Hispanic/Latino population in 2006 was 15% and African
Americans composed 12%; however, in the 2007-2008 school year, College of
Agriculture faculty was comprised of 1% (4) Hispanic and 4% (11) Afiican American

members. The overall level of diversity among these two groups in the college is below

79

their diversity level in the US. population, suggesting a need to increase their

representation in the college.

Table 3

Tenure-Track Faculty in the College of Agriculture at a Midwestern University

 

 

Faculty and Staff 1995-996 1995—996 2007-2008 2007-2008
Numbers % Numbers %

Faculty-Total 265 297

Faculty-Men 237 89% 231 78%
F aculty-Women“ 28 l 1% 66 22%
Faculty-White 241 91% 242 81%
Faculty-Black 8 3% l 1 4%
Faculty-Asian l l 4% 25 8%
Faculty-Hispanic 3 1% 4 1%
Faculty-Nat American 1 0% 4 1%
Faculty-Intemational l 0% 1 l 5%

 

*The count indicated for women consists of predominately White women.
From “The Office of Planning and Budget at [lnstitution],” by [Institution], n.d., retrieved
January 7, 2008 from [website withheld for confidentiality]

Additionally, the largest demographic increase in the college over the period from
1995 to 2008 has been among women, an increase from 28 to 66 women, and among
international hires, an increase from 1 to 11. These data suggest that while the college has
made some progress in hiring women, Asians, and international scholars, it has fallen
short of achieving overall parity with the US. population.

Hiring Policies and Practices

This section addresses the themes that emerged in response to the second sub-
question in this study. The university has extensive policies and practices around hiring
tenure-track faculty; however for the purpose of this study, discussions emphasized how

search committees understood, interpreted, and implemented policies throughout the

80

hiring process. Next, themes from this study highlight challenges in faculty recruitment
practices. Discussion addresses the composition of the search committee because of its
importance, emphasized by study participants with respect to the overall hiring process.
Composition of a Search Committee

The composition of the search committee is critical in the hiring process because
search committees generally make final recommendations for hiring tenure-track faculty.
Additionally, search committees often engage actively in the administration and
implementation of policies and procedures for hiring faculty. However, one of the major
challenges facing search committees is the availability of ethnic and racial minority
faculty to serve on such committees. As indicated earlier, 81% of all tenure track-faculty
in the College of Agriculture today are White; therefore, the representation of diverse
faculty on the search committees is typically minimal. Consequently, the few minorities
who are in the college often serve on several search committees, as indicated by one
participant:

Well, the idea (was that) they needed a minority. So, there weren’t many

minorities around. So I had a full time job, being on search committees.

so I had two jobs: One to be the minority representation on all these

committees. . .committee work is a lot of work; you don’t get much credit

for it. But I was a team player. (Fox)

This study found that the composition of the search committees is likely to have a
major influence on the outcome of the tenure-track faculty hires. Most of the participants
felt that there is currently a lack of enough minority faculty in the college to effectively

participate on search committees. This is likely to influence the effectiveness of current

81

affirmative-action policies because individuals often interpret such policies from different
perspectives. Fox, a participant from the College of Agriculture, also described how the
composition of the search committee influences the final outcome of the search:

Usually your search committees are a certain way, that’s what you’re

gonna get, in terms of the (candidate) pool. If it’s all European, American

males, or if the committee has a female or minority. ...well, the pools are

going to be slanted that way. What you’re not going to get is many

minorities that will be able to make the pool or to make the final pool,

because they are going to be excluded. that’s one of the sad

commentaries in terms of search committees. ...And for someone to think

that they can have a fair shake with a committee that does not represent

the population in the state, they have their heads in the sand, literally.

(Fox)
Such statements suggest that the composition of search committees could have a direct
affect on the success rates of finalists in hiring diverse faculty. This also suggests that if
the committee is predominantly White, minorities are likely to be underrepresented in the
final pool. Here is a reflection of a committee member’s experience in a search:

Our conversation went to in a search committee that if your search

committee reflects diversity, that’s more than just one person of difference

sitting at the table. That the end result of that search could be better

aligned with a commitment to diversity because those individuals-~again,

it’s got to be more than one--those individuals are able to then talk directly

about their experiences when it comes to questioning the person’s, you

82

know, experiences. They can most directly speak to how this person

might fit into the department related to their research, or their publications,

or whatever. (Don)

The selection of the finalist for a faculty position may be the result of discussions
of fit, hence, if the search committee members are predominately White, it is likely that
their selection will unintentionally mirror those who are most like themselves. These
findings correspond with a study by Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) that revealed that
government contractors (advertising as equal-opportunity employers and promoting
affirmative action in their job description) often engaged in the practice of using race as a
factor in screening candidates and were most likely to engage in discrimination practices
in recruitment than were their private-sector counterparts.

Always a Search Committee Member, Never a Chair

Another major challenge facing search committees in the College of Agriculture
is that the faculty are predominantly older Caucasian males. The percent of faculty aged
45 and older in the College of Agriculture has increased from 67% in the 1994—1995
school year to 78% in 2006—2007. As a result, search committees are typically composed
of members from this one group (see Table 4).

Based on the data in the table below, over 60% of the faculty in the College of
Agriculture was between the ages of 50-65 in 2006-2007. This is likely due to low levels

of retirements among the faculty in the college.

83

Table 4

Tenure- Track Faculty by Age in College of Agriculture

 

 

Age of Faculty 1994-1995 2006-2007
Percent Tenure System Age less than 35 2 3
Percent Tenure System Age from 35 to 40 12 7
Percent Tenure System Age from 40 to 45 19 12
Percent Tenure System Age from 45 to 50 17 19
Percent Tenure System Age from 50 to 55 20 21
Percent Tenure System Age from 55 to 60 13 15
Percent Tenure System Age from 60 to 65 11 15
Percent Tenure System Age 65 or older 6 8
Percent Tenure System over Age 45 67 78

 

From “The Office of Planning and Budget at [Institution],” by [Institution], n.d., retrieved January 7, 2008
from [website withheld for confidentiality]

Similarly, many participants expressed concerns that the committee chair had
access to many covert discussions (unwritten rules) about candidates and were privileged
to information that might not be disclosed to others on the committee. A member on
committee stated,

See, when you’re a chair to some extent you can control the outcome. You

can’t control, maybe not the selection, not in all cases, but you can control,

become a main contact person and you have access to information about
what goes on behind closed doors. that goes on, you know, behind the
scenes. Information such as why a candidate may be a great candidate, one
that may not be a candidate. What you have, you don’t have, and you

don’t have everything that men talk about. It’s like having a meeting after

the meeting. You’ve heard that before, huh? (Fox)

84

When asked if Fox had ever served as a committee chair, he replied, “No, never.” Fox
also indicated that although minority faculty were often asked to serve on search
committees, they were rarely appointed as the committee chair. It is likely that the
availability of minorities and women to serve on the search committees is limited, and in
turn it is feasible that a decision to appoint a chair is made prior to identifying a diverse
committee. A tenured faculty member, a Caucasian female, had similar experiences on
search committees:

It is a judgment call on the people that are on the search committee. One

of the issues that continues to be a challenge in the hiring of faculty of

diversity, of faculty for tenure-track positions, is that that there is not

enough representation of women in higher administrative positions who

can have a stronger say on who is selected at the various different stages

of the interview. I am a good example of that for search committees. I am

always asked to be a member, but never a chair. This is very similar to

being bridesmaid, but never a bride; because I am a woman, my voice is

not heard as strongly as the other White males’ in the final decision

making processes. (Nancy)

If minority and women faculty are rarely appointed as the chair of the search
committee, it is likely that their influence on the overall final hire is also limited.
Consequently, it is feasible that the majority rules in the final decisions, thereby, possibly

resulting in a continuous cycle of hiring a homogenous faculty in the college.

85

Policy Interpretation and Implementation

The section continues to address the second research question of how
participants’ understand, interpret, and implement hiring policies and procedures. This
study revealed that the institution has an extensive set of policies and practices in place
for the hiring of all academic personnel; these policies have been established to aid
departments with greater opportunities enhance hiring practices at the college.
Additionally, the current hiring process involves a number of key stages, some of which
are discussed in depth aligned with the major themes that emerged in this study:
(a) faculty recruitment policies and practices (job postings, job description, candidate
qualifications, selection process, availability of diverse faculty in the pool),
(b) affirmative action policies and effectiveness of the diversity advocate, and (c) student
demographics and pipeline challenges.

Faculty Recruitment Policies and Practices

This study uncovered persistent challenges in hiring of a diverse faculty on
campus, thereby suggesting problems emanating from ineffective recruitment practices.
These challenges were highlighted in the following major themes that emerged in this
study: job postings, job descriptions, job qualifications, selection, and availability of a
diverse candidate pool.
Challenges in Job Posting

The availability of a tenure-track faculty position is submitted by the department
to the dean for approval. Upon approval, the department chair facilitates the advertising
of faculty positions. In addition, according to the university’s academic human-resource

posting requirements, most of the positions are to be posted through the university’s

86

hiring website and elsewhere at the discretion of the department chairs. Many of the
participants in this study assumed that postings were also advertised in popular journals.
One male Caucasian department chair described in detail how tenure-track jobs are
posted and candidates recruited:

Well, yeah, that’s college policy that we have to advertise in women’s

journals. So we’re advertising in venues and periodicals way beyond our

normal science. So, if for example, I have a horticulture position, faculty
position to hire. . .sure we will go ahead and advertise in the American

Society for Horticulture Science, periodicals of the American Society for

Horticulture Science. I will go to the American Society for Horticulture

Science meeting, advertise it and talk to potential candidates. We’ll

advertise in Crops and Soil Science. . .so these are all the science

jom'nals and organizations, but we will also advertise at the various

institutions, making sure that they know that we have a position open, so it

goes way beyond the normal journals so sometimes it will catch an

eye. . . .and internationally as well. (Sam)

In recent searches, the university’s affirmative-action forms reveal that some
openings were minimally advertised. For instance, based on the institution’s affirmative
action hiring form (#AAR0901), Department A posts job announcements primarily
through networks and organizations such as the American Agriculture Economic
Association, the Committee on Women in Agriculture Economics, Agriculture

Economics, department chairs at other universities, Jobs for Economics, and Institutions

Minority F aculty/Staff Association resources (APAAF SA, BFSAA, ChiLa, EAGLE,

87

NAIF SA). In addition, Department A claims to have advertised faculty jobs through their
minority faculty and staff associations. As the President of the Asian Pacific, Asian
American Faculty Staff Association (APAAF SA) on campus, this researcher has personal
knowledge that job postings in recent years on behalf of Department A had not been
requested, contrary to what was submitted on their affirmative-action form. This suggests
that a closer monitoring of actual practices may be in order. This lack may also violate
the federal affirmative-action program requirements, where a “good faith” effort to
promote equal employment opportunities to all candidates is encouraged (US.
Department of Labor, 2002). A counterargument about inadequate posting efforts is
presented below by a diversity advocate on the search committee, claiming

Effort is not sufficient. And it’s not because of just postings. They post

in diverse issues in higher education. It’s because we haven’t extended

ourselves and really gone out and recruited personally at these institutions.

We should be going to institutions that have a predominate number of

people of color, you know, the Hispanics, the African-American

institutions. And we don’t. (Hank)

Many participants felt that in order to recruit qualified individuals, search-
committee members must engage in vigorous recruitment and networking efforts with
other universities to be more successful. A Caucasian female expressed her concerns that
final applicant pools are often largely composed of Caucasian applicants despite the
department’s claims of posting in various sources in an attempt to access diverse
candidates: “We post in various and different sources, we get a variety of applicants in

the applicant pool, but in reality what ends up on the interview pool, the first interview

88

pool is mostly White males” (Nancy). It is likely that these traditional posting sources
may need to be evaluated for effectiveness in recruitment for a diverse candidate pool.

A recurring theme that emerged in this study was that many believe minorities
have a serious disadvantage because they are not in the mainstream of professional
networks, are not publishing in top journals, and are not engaging in mainstream
research, whereas their White counterparts have more access to top-tier research
universities and top-tier publication venues, resulting in more publications in desired
journals and publications. One participant described the challenges facing faculty of
color, acknowledging

Yeah, yeah, that’s where the pool is coming from, and so I’ve sat on

enough committees to hear. If you are not in the network know that

major faculty person at that particular college doing research in that

particular discipline, which tends to be dominated by White males and

networks of White males. If your experience as a graduate student

doesn’t get you into what a faculty person or hiring committee sees as a

top notch school, a top notch researcher, doing research with their primary

area of interest then you are at a disadvantage. Because one of the other

factors that seems to be a determining factor about moving through

the process is also whether or not you are publishing in primary journals

and whether or not your area of specialization is connected to a leader in

the department. (Don)

While networking to recruit candidates was suggested by many as illustrated by

one participant above, a problem that also needs to be addressed is how institutions can

89

provide minorities and women a better network so they feel more connected to
mainstream professionals in the field.
Candidate qualifications

One of the most controversial topics related to hiring tenure-track faculty is the
notion of what constitutes a “qualified candidate.” Teaching, research, and service are the
core values of the university’s overall mission. Research experience is a major
qualification requirement at any public research institution, however, equally important
should be the need to emphasize candidates who can teach. By primarily emphasizing
research in every job posting for tenure-track faculty positions, a large number of
candidates with diverse skills and talent are excluded from consideration. Opponents of
affirmative action strongly oppose preferences based on race and gender, desiring the use
of meritocratic criteria that emphasizes scholarship and teaching ability to promote a
perspective that is undisputed (Cahn, 1993). However, the above notion suggesting that
minorities and women cannot compete in a meritocratic system of selection further
deteriorates the recruitment efforts.

A Caucasian male participant below captured the emphasis of teaching over
research in academia, stating, “The other thing is that we can’t forget teaching, and,
increasingly, I think, throughout the college if not throughout the university, teaching is
taking a lower and lower priority. Administrators reward research more than good
teaching” (Fan). Like their Caucasian counterparts, faculty of color may excel at
researching their respective interests through their engagement of diverse research topics.
Additionally, it is likely they excel at instruction with experiences in diverse active

methods of teaching and learning, community and outreach services (Antonio, 2002;

90

Gandara, Orfield, & Horn, 2006; Hurtado, 2001; Maturana, 2005; Quezada & Louque,
2004; Turner, 2000 & 2002; Wilds, 2000). Therefore, minority faculty are likely to add a
dimension of diverse research, teaching methods, and instruction in higher education. In
addition, Boyer emphasized the need to look beyond the traditional lecture styles to a
more creative ways of teaching, such as active learning, service learning, and creative
thinking (Boyer, 1990; Turner, 2000). Hence, job qualifications should reflect a diverse
set of job duties, research interests, and outreach, rather than focusing strictly on
mainstream research expertise. This would likely increase the pool of candidates
qualified for tenure-track faculty positions.
Job description

The results show that job descriptions posed several challenges in the recruitment
process. There appeared to be tension between the specialized needs of the college in
filling a gap or position and the complexity of the needs to address normal operational
issues, such as diversification of faculty. At the college level, job descriptions are
generally developed by faculty, reviewed by the department chair, and forwarded to the
dean for approval. According to several participants, job descriptions are written with
very specific requirements, as depicted by Sara:

The best thing to do is to write a job description that is broader so that it

can attract a wider range of diversity in the candidate pools. There was one

instance where the first round of applicants for the first interview was all

White males. And when she (a colleague search committee member)

voiced this concern that maybe, perhaps, a White female should be given

an opportunity for the interview, the department chairperson called her

91

views ridiculous and stupid. He said that she did not understand what

kinds of qualifications are needed for the candidates. She was very

shocked because in her opinion the female was just as qualified, equally

qualified. . . just had a different range of experiences.

This suggests that search committees can be resistant to changes in the
traditionally narrow focus on job descriptions, which is likely to have a continuing
negative effect on women and minority candidates. Many participants suggested that a
broader range of skills and accomplishments should be considered during selection
because no candidates are ever the same in variety or the level of experiences they bring
to the job that is being posted. The following is a sample of a job description written for a
faculty position in Agriculture Economics:

Research 70% and Teaching 30% to develop an international reputation

for scholarship in agriculture economics enhance the department’s

outreach commitment to state, national and global stakeholders develop

a well funded program that results in high quality journal publications

expected to focus on experimental economics and game theory with

contest theory, probabilistic contests spatial models of price

competition, anti-trust policy, and risk attitudes. However, specifics of the

research program will largely depend on the individual’s expertise and

interests, as our overriding objective in this search will be to appoint an
individual who enhances our outstanding faculty and programs.

(Institution, Academic Human Resources, n.d)

92

Although this job description appears to be written broadly, in reality the resulting
applicant pool was very limited. One explanation could be that the job description is
broad yet requires very specific skills, such as game theory, contest theory, and spatial
model of price competition, thus, is likely to limit the candidate pool. One participant felt
that job descriptions are narrowly prescribed and often restrictive:

Job description, we look at a vacant position and then we write a very tight

job description such as, we want people working with fruits and

vegetables but then we ask for people who have worked in cherries. Then

we ignore fields where women are more prevalent, but we stay away from

those areas when hiring. Some of our job descriptions are so narrow we

look at them and say, “That’s not what we do.” We write the job

description so narrow that we don’t get too many applicants. (Ed)

In many cases, positions are posted to fill a specific gap in research or teaching,
thereby creating competing interests between a desire to increase the candidate pool and
filling a gap for the department. The study found that an overwhelming number of
participants felt that a job description should be written broadly (highlighting general
skills) to attract a large number of diverse applicants. In a culture that promotes faculty
freedom, a high degree of flexibility is feasible, hence, job descriptions could be written
with more latitude. Selection and job qualifications are equally problematic, as discussed
in the next section.

The selection process
Many of the female and minority participants indicated that the interpretation of

one’s qualifications was problematic due to inconsistencies in adherence to the specified

93

job description. This study supports previous literature: while the institution’s hiring
policies are established to promote a fair and equitable system of hiring, actual practices
may be unintentionally biased in some cases. This was supported with testimonials from
participants that the screening process suggested discriminatory practices, stating

Now the thing you want to remember though is sometimes they go

through these searches and can’t find a person that meets that job

description. What they’ll do if they find another person they think has

great skills They’ll hire that person, and the job description becomes

secondary. But through the process of putting the job description together,

that group of people can’t get that person’s expertise in the job

description. They don’t give up, they go through a process and they

weed out people, you know. They may not like the color of their hair

and/or like the color of their skin. They may not like their philosophy.

Remember, the person that they really wanted all along was here. And

then they say, well we couldn’t find anyone that was, based on the job

description, but we do have the person over here that has these great skills.

And I’ve seen that happen. You know, again, now this person was

always in the background. That there was some means they waived to

get this person floated up and, sometimes, even hired. (Fox)

Another participant described the unfair practices in the use of job description in
the recruitment for tenure-track faculty positions as follows:

They changed the job description based on who applied. What a lot of

times departments will do is they will cast this net to see who will apply,

94

and then, they will say, “Oh, this person looks interesting,” so they will

change the job description or qualifications based on who applied. ...Had

they stuck with the original description, I think the outcome would have

been different in terms of who was hired. (Randy)

The aforementioned hiring practices indicate that, whether intentional or
unintentional, selection biases may exist. Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004)
revealed that with all things being equal, a White male candidate is more likely to
be granted an interview over an African-American candidate. Their study
revealed that African American candidates were often eliminated based on their
names on the resume.

As previously described, participants pointed out cases where candidate
qualifications requirements were occasionally tailored based on who applied for the job,
as evidenced by a participant’s testimony below. The type of practice described is
problematic, as it undermines the core intentions of affirmative-action programs that were
initiated to assure a fair and equal employment opportunity to all candidates. In the
example below, not all faculty on the search committee agreed with the final selection,
who was a Caucasian male and a recent doctoral-student graduate, while there were at
least three other candidates who had extensive experience as faculty at other universities.
One participant describes the selection, stating

Two of which, you could consider minorities because they were women

and three were White males. One was from China and then the other

woman was an existing faculty member at a public research institution.

She was originally Russian but was a US. citizen. One was a person

95

who was a successful applicant, was a White male, a Ph.D. student,
actually, originally from (University X). He was finishing his Ph.D. at
the time. I knew the person (potential faculty candidate), not well, but I
knew him in flora culture and I knew his major professor very well. What
I would say was a solid flora culture background. So, that was
important, for me. Now for a couple other committee members, it was not,
but it was for me. So, even though he didn’t have the track record, he had
the expertise in terms of flora culture, and we thought he had the skills to
be successful. Another person was an existing faculty member at a
university in (state name). And the last person was an existing faculty
member at (University Y). (Fan)

In the preceding example, despite the lack of solid research track record or grant-

writing experience, a White male doctoral student was hired largely because he knew

someone in the department and was in the mainstream of the networks between his

university and this institution. In the search referenced above, not all faculty on the search

committee agreed with the final selection (a Caucasian male and a recent graduate); this

was largely due to the tension in selection based on qualifications and network referrals.

In the same selection process, the decision to eliminate a female candidate in the

following example was based on whether she would act and behave like others in the

department.

We had some concerns. Her seminar was interesting. She was, on paper, a

very strong candidate. When she interviewed, to be honest, what really

96

hurt her most was her personality. She wouldn’t be a team player

it’s a big commitment. (Tammy)

This suggests that in addition to job qualification, other subjective forms of screening are
used, which could be problematic. It is nearly impossible to totally eliminate subjectivity
in the selection process; however the level of subjectivity can be minimized if candidate’s
skills, knowledge, and abilities are reviewed holistically in the evaluation process. For
example, journal articles written for lower tier publications do not necessarily indicate a
lack of ability to write or publish journal articles.

A participant noted that the job description matched well with the qualifications
of an African-American candidate, but this candidate was still deemed unqualified by the
committee. He stated,

We had this African-American female. She had [a] great resume, great

transcript, you know. So, first of all, the chair of the committee called me

and he said, “Fox, I like this candidate, but she’s an African-American

male, ah, female,” he said, “I like this candidate, but she didn’t have any

farming experience.” I said to him, “The job description didn’t say

anything about farming experience. She doesn’t have to be a farmer;

you’re not looking for a farmer. You’re looking for a scientist.” So he got

upset and hung up the phone. Then, the chair of the department called me.

“Fox, I like this candidate, but she doesn’t have any farming experience.”

I said, “Now, there’s nothing in the job description that talks about having

farming experience” So he got pretty intense. He left the country for a

while, when he came back, somebody in the administration in the college

97

made a decision and hired her. But they were trying to find some

reason not to give her the job. (Fox)

Some of the participants interviewed asserted that the screening criteria were
much stricter for diverse candidates, compared to the standards applied to Caucasian
candidates. The above discussion from Fox depicts how the candidate met the job
qualifications; however both the department chair and the search-committee chair
attempted to expand the minimum qualifications stated in the job description. This was
captured in one participant’s testimony about an offer letter that was sent to an African-
American candidate for the department-chair position:

This position was for a chairperson There were six (committee)

members. One was a woman, me Caucasian and three other men, all

White. There was some diversity of age. The other two were senior

professors. I think the junior faculty was a diversity rep. Tenure and a

professorship was the open position—so we are looking for a senior

person. In addition, we as a committee, we directly contacted

candidates of faculty in economics across the country. So we focused

on bringing in a large diverse pool. A White male was hired. The person

we offered it to first, turned us down, he was an African American. He

already had a program of his own, and he was offered a counter offer at

I think some of the faculty in the college and even at the department

went out of their way to make him feel unwelcome. He was working

internationally and he worked in the South in agriculture co-ops. He had a

98

strong foundation in his own scholarship and background; he got his

degree from here. (Charlie)

Other biases in the selection process are depicted above, suggesting that search-
committee members may reject candidates who have different experiences from theirs.
Diversity is usually not a consideration in the selection process, but the challenge is to
give unbiased consideration to all candidates based on their qualifications. It is a
disappointment to see that even though a concerted effort to diversify the candidate pool
was exerted, the minority candidate was probably discouraged. Moreover, participants
felt that candidates should contribute a rich and diverse research and publication portfolio
to encourage a variety of topics, including issues that are central to minorities and
women.

Affirmative Action Compliance: A Mechanical Process

While most participants in this study believed that the university’s hiring policies
are extensive, many felt that they were ineffective. According to the university’s
diversity-office administrator, audit checks to monitor the accuracy of the data are not
conducted. Rather, information is checked to see whether or not the department lists
diverse sources on the forms simply to pass the diversity office’s requirements. As a
result, based on the findings of this study, the hiring policies are interpreted as a
“mechanical” process at best because there is no way of knowing if the postings are
actually placed at the various sources indicated on the forms.

Many participants suggested that to successfully recruit a diverse pool of

candidates, universities must exert extra effort to build relationships and networks with a

99

diverse set of universities rather than a select few. The diversity advocate commented on
the efforts in posting for a tenure-track position:

The policies are not working in reality; they are more mechanical at the

university level than anything. As long as departments are posting, for

instance, in diverse posting sites then they can pass the stages required by

But the institution does not follow through to see if the hiring is

effective and diverse candidates fall through the cracks and do not make it

in the finalist or in the selection pool. If you work a little harder, you can

find a qualified candidate who is diverse. We put the job announcement

in places where you’d say, “Well that looks pretty diverse.” You know the

women’s network and the Black network. And a big place you put ‘em for

agriculture economist, but if you actively picked up the phone talk to

people, you get a more diverse pool. ...So then this idea of, cause I’ve

heard some people say there is just not enough candidates out there.

...That’s a crock! (Rose)
Departments seem to post repeatedly in the same sites, which includes networking with
the same universities. Unable to break out of the patterns of job posting recreates
predominately, if not exclusively, Caucasian pools for interviews.
The Role of a Diversity Advocate

Another challenge in the recruitment process is the role of the diversity advocate.
The role of the diversity advocate is to provide assistance in the hiring process, act as an
advocate for diversity, and provide a perspective in identifying potential qualified

candidates. It is evident from this study that the role of the diversity advocate is

100

ineffective due to the lack of importance placed on the role. When asked when a diversity
advocate is assigned in the search process, many participants responded that there was no
consistent procedure of assigning a diversity advocate. Although university policy clearly
encourages the presence of a diversity advocate in the job-search process, some search
committees do not have a diversity advocate identified at the beginning of the process;
the assignment often evolves during the process. Other committees simply assign a
diversity advocate in order to adhere to the policies; however, generally the diversity
advocate does not have a vote in the selection of the final candidate. Diversity advocates
described an environment in which properly completed paperwork “passed muster,” and
additional justification for actions was typically not required. A typical response from
participants is captured below:

The university policies to me come across (as) “very surface.” I would

call them mechanical. It’s very mechanical, it’s very mechanical. I’ll be

a head of the search committee; I will say where did I advertise? I make

sure that a couple advertisements must use the word “Black” or “women.”

Maybe Hispanic, if I’m lucky. I will justify that. Then I will get my final

candidates and send them over. If there’s a woman or a Black or Hispanic

on the list, the Diversity Office doesn’t bother me. If there isn’t, they ask

me to justify why there isn’t. I can write anything I want. Nearly as I can

tell and feel I can go ahead and search. They cover the ground, but they

don’t do much. (Rose)

This remark validates the findings from this study that most diversity advocates

and a great number of female faculty believed that the affirmative-action compliance

101

paperwork was not effective in addressing the lack of diversity in any department. When
asked if the diversity advocate had a voice (a vote) in the final selection, the above
advocate said, “No.” Below is yet another diversity participant’s view of hiring
procedures and policies described as mostly a compliance issue:

Making sure we had the right verbiage in the position description. Well

the reasons that the policies get followed is that paperwork has to be

submitted. Oftentimes what my experience is that the committee wants

me there and wants me to assist with the paperwork because it’s, to them,

an issue of compliance. That’s an issue of just wanting to sure that they

dotted the is and crossed the ts so that the process isn’t scrutinized any

differently and the process is able to move forward in a smooth fashion.

So that we always had some paperwork in case we were ever challenged,

establish a paper trail. (Phil)
The diversity advocates felt that their presence was requested on the committee to help
process the affirmative-action paperwork to assure compliance and so that any lack of
diversity efforts would not be challenged by the university’s affirmative-action officer.
Perceptions that the diversity advocate’s presence is only to fulfill a formality would
seem to erode the effectiveness of the hiring process and risk mitigating the effectiveness
of the diversity advocate on search committees.
Availability of Diverse Faculty in the Pool

One of the strongest arguments made by many of the participants in this study
concerns the lack of availability of faculty of color in the hiring pool. There are several

challenges in creating a diverse pool of available instructors. Based on the review of the

102

institution’s most recent affirmative-action hiring forms, the college and some of its
departments hired from only a select few universities. In addition, data provided on
affirmative-action forms indicated that while departments claimed to post job positions in
departments such as horticulture, they do not identify at which universities positions are
posted. Yet, this passes the affirmative-action requirements of the institution’s diversity
office. Similarly, a study revealed that Midwestern universities are among the sample of
12 level-one research universities that typically recruit for tenure-track faculty from only
20 to 30 select U.S. universities out of 236 that grant doctoral programs (Hayden, 1997).
While this may be partially due to the limited number of universities that offer agriculture
majors, it is evident that recruitment efforts could be expanded to include those
universities currently not engaged.

Additionally, based on the institution’s affirmative-action forms, institutions that
have a high number of minority doctoral students are often not considered (Hayden,
1997; Turner, 2002). One explanation maybe that research universities do not recruit
from lower tier institutions. This is likely to result in qualified faculty being left
untapped. Additionally, it may limit students with majors in the fields of Agriculture
Science and Natural Resources who may be available at universities where positions are
not recruited. Table 5 highlights universities offering subfields (majors) in various areas
of Agriculture and Natural Resources and identifies the concentration of doctoral
graduates in 2004 by race. While the data collected from this study suggests some
departments are exerting efforts to recruit from these institutions, overall the college is

likely to recruit for faculty positions only from a few universities (see Table 5).

103

These data identify graduate students by race and ethnicity and are useful in the -
recruitment of a diverse faculty.
Table 5

2003-2004 Institutions Awarding Ph. Us in Agriculture by Race

 

 

University American Asians Hispanics African
Indians Americans

University of California —Berkeley X X X X
Texas A & M University X X

Washington State University X X

University of Mississippi X X X
North Carolina State University X
University of Florida X X X
University of Georgia X X
University of Califomia-Davis X X

Yale University X X X
University of Arkansas X
Iowa State University X
Connell University-NY X X X X
Ohio State University X X
University of Washington X X X X
University of Wisconsin X X

University of Maryland X X X
University of Minnesota X X
University of Hawaii-Manoa X

Mississippi State University X
University of Michigan X X X
University of Florida X

 

From “Top Degree Producers,” 2004, Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(11), p. 34-37.

104

The data (see Table 5) is useful because not only does this data identify student by
race and ethnicity, but also by institution. For instance, if an institution desires to increase
its pool of African American candidates for faculty positions, then, they should place job
postings at universities such as, University of California--Berkeley and University of
Mississippi. Alternatively, if an institution desires to increase their faculty candidate pool
among the Hispanics, then, they should place job postings at universities such as, Texas
A & M University and University of Florida. These data could be helpful in identifying
where more rigorous job posting efforts can be exerted, targeting certain institutions
based on the needs of each posting.

This study found that the challenge in the availability of faculty in the recruitment
pool is related to the availability of a diverse student pool. One major theme discussed
below was the dearth in the number of students in the pipeline that affects the availability
of candidates for faculty positions. Discussions begin with the availability of diversity in
the US. population.

Student Demographics

The increases in the population demographics of students attending and
graduating from colleges today should provide greater opportunities for the College of
Agriculture to diversify their students, faculty, and staff populations. Mabokela (2007)
emphasized, “Colleges and universities need to actively pursue opportunities to recruit
and retain faculty members who can meet the needs of this diverse student population”
(p. 3).

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (N CES; Borden &

Brown, 2005), there has been a steady increase of minority graduates with doctoral

105

degrees (see Figure #3). The trend shows an increase in the last 10 years of all minorities
earning doctoral degrees, especially African American students, with the largest percent
increase in American Indian students. Based on the census data provided in Figure #3,
between 1993 and 2003, African American doctoral-student graduates have increased
48%, Asian Americans have increased 57%, Hispanic students 46%, and American
Indian 19%. The findings of this study support earlier findings that reveal an increase in
the diversity of graduates both with masters and doctoral degrees, suggesting greater
availability of qualified faculty candidates (Chang, 2005).

Figure 3

 

PhD's by Race

2500

 

  

20007 _
1] [oxianAmerican

1500 I African American

 

1000 I ‘ I IHispanic

 

I111 American Indian

 

500 < i

 

 

 

1992-93 1 9197-98 2002-03

 

 

 

Figure 3. US. minorities with Ph.D.s.
From “The Top 100: Interpreting The Data,” by V. M. H. Borden & P. C. Brown, 2004, Black Issues in
Higher Education, 21 (12), p. 34-93.

Doctoral Student Graduates in the Field of Agriculture

Recent trends show an increase among all races, sexes, and ethnicities among Ph.D.
students graduating from US. universities (See Figure 4). African Americans, Hispanics,
and Native Americans have had the greatest increases in degrees awarded in Agricultural

fields, yet this increase is not reflected in this college’s faculty pool.

106

Recent trends show increases of all races, sexes, and ethnicities among Ph.D.
students graduating from US. universities (See Figure 4). Suggesting the need to assess
the effectiveness of student recruitment policies, and practices in higher education and
the availability of minority students for doctoral programs

Figure 4

 

Percentage Change of Doctoral Degrees - Disciplines by
Race/Ethnicity

300%
250%
200%
1 50%
1 00%
50%
0%
-50%

 

El Business

I Social and Behavioral
Science

B Humanities and Fine
Arts

[II Science Tech.
Engineering and Math

 

1:! Agricultural Sciences

 

 

Asian African Hispanic American
American American Indian

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Agriculture and related fields of Ph. D.s awarded in 2004.
From Borden, V.M.H., Brown, P.C., & Garver, A.K. (2005 April 14). The top 100: Interpreting the data.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(1 1) 35.

Figure 4 shows increases in recent years among the African American and
American Indian students with Ph.D.’s in agriculture Science. In addition, for example, in
the 2006 National Opinion Resource Council (N ORC) survey of earned doctorates,
students self-reported “economics” and “agri-business” as majors under the “business”
category listed above, thus, there is an increase of African American and Hispanic
students in these categories. But these doctoral candidates are most likely not in the
faculty recruitment pool for future positions since the department does not recruit from

the above categories. According to the human-resource representative, some departments,

107

such as Department A, limit their field codes or categories to one (i.e., Agricultural
Science) when recruiting doctoral students for faculty position. Consequently, the
availability data reflect lower numbers of minority candidates for tenure-track jobs,
which results in less likeliness of attaining affirmative-action goals.

In addition, based on the 2005—2006 data presented in Figure 5, even though there
has been an increase of diverse undergraduate-student graduates, students graduating
with master’s degrees are progressing slowly. This comparison is useful in assessing the
current availability of doctoral students for faculty positions because there continued to
be a perception of lack of availability.

Figure 5

 

 

Bachelor's & Master's Degrees by Race 2005-06

 

160000
140000
120000 ‘
100000 ‘
80000 ‘
60000 “
40000 ‘
20000 ‘
oi

 

 

 

 

 

I Bachelor: Degrees
Master’s Degree:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Bachelors and master ’s degrees by race, 2005—2006.
From Postsecondary institutions in the United States: Fall 2006 and degree and other awards conferred:
2005—06, by US. Department of Education, 2007, Washington, DC: Author.

108

While these increases reflect the US. population increase over the past decade,
unfortunately the same increase is not reflected in the recent trends for the College of
Agriculture, especially in diversifying U.S. minority students. There is a general trend in
the increase of noncitizens or international students in the master’s programs. As
indicated in Figure 5 above for school year 2005—2006, 71,761 master’s degrees were
awarded to nonresident aliens compared to 51,795 master’s degrees awarded to domestic
minority students in the US. Based on the data presented above, this suggests persistent
challenges in recruitment of domestic diverse graduate students in higher education
institutions.

Lack of Pipeline: Need to Grow our Own

Another major theme that emerged repeatedly from this study was the lack of an
effective student pipeline for diverse graduate students in the College of Agriculture,
which is likely to have a direct affect on the availability of candidates for tenure-track
faculty positions. Because universities are both producers and consumers of graduate
students, equally important in the faculty-recruitment process is the need for the
recruitment of a diverse student population. This section highlights the major themes that
emerged from this study about challenges in the recruitment of diverse graduate students
who are potential candidates for faculty positions.

Most participants expressed that there is a shortage of diversity among graduate
and undergraduate students in the college. This challenge in lack of diversity among the
student population is likely to affect the availability of the diverse faculty for positions in

the field of Agriculture. One department chair argued that this shortage is due to lack of

109

effective graduate-student recruitment efforts. He suggested the following to address the
pipeline shortage:

Yes, there is a problem with the pipeline and it is not just here at It is

everywhere. Some of it is systemic and generational. We need to expose

students to programs such as MAP, AIMES (high school) or 4-H. We need

to reach younger age groups. We need to expose them to the college

environment and let them see it is safe here and we need to expose them to

all the 15,000 programs we have, show them all the opportunities and then

recruit them.

There is a disconnect; the dean’s office should not be getting

involved in the recruiting of graduate students. It is the departments that

have the responsibility. The departments may not support the efforts of

who is recruited at the dean level. I think the department should be doing

the recruitment of graduate students. (Charlie)

This college’s diversity office is separate from the institution’s diversity office
and is located in the college. Currently, the college’s diversity office takes the lead in
recruiting a diverse body of graduate students. Some participants argued that this is not
the most effective way, given the resistance from individual departments described
above, especially because departments have to work closely with students once admitted.
The participant’s comment above describes the sentiment of many of the participants in
the study—that the college’s efforts to recruit graduate students will continue to be

ineffective without acceptance in the departments. This suggests a need for a more

110

collaborative recruitment effort between the college and the department, especially
because funding comes from both places.
Pipeline Challenges in Recruitment of Graduate Students

Similar to the national data presented in Table 6, this study found that a high
number of international students are in the college, both at the graduate and
undergraduate levels. Based on the university data below (see Table 6), there has been a
steady increase of international graduate students from 38% in the 1995—1996 school
year to 42% in the 2007—2008 school year. This data comparing national trends with
college trends, shows similar trends in the increase of international students, suggesting
that most universities may be facing similar challenges in the recruitment of domestic
minority students. Stricter requirements on visas for international students do not appear
to have affected international student participation in US. colleges and universities.

Table 6
Graduate Students in the College of A griculture

1995-96 l995—96 2007—08 2007-08

 

Student Bad‘gmund Numbers % Numbers %

Masters 364 297

Doctoral 353 297

Total Graduate Students 717 594

Graduate lntemational 269 38% 249 42%
Total Graduate Caucasian 372 52% 282 47%
Graduate —US Minorities 74 10% 49 8%

Graduate Other & Blank 2 0% l4 2%

Graduate Caucasian Men 215 30% 135 23%
Graduate Caucasian Women 157 22% 147 25%

 

Data is based on fall 2007 counts.

From “The Office of Planning and Budget at [Institution],” by [Institution], n.d., retrieved January 7, 2008
fi'om [website withheld for confidentiality]

lll

Meanwhile, the domestic U.S. minority graduate-student population in the
College of Agriculture has decreased in those same years from 10% in 1995—1996 to 8%
in 2007—2008 school years. In addition, White male students have decreased in numbers
over the years likely due to the recent changes in the US. demographic.

Moreover, these data reveal that women are making progress in the college, but
minorities continue to be underused. One possible explanation provided by a participant
suggests that domestic U.S. minorities are simply not interested in the field of agriculture:

I have to say that our biggest challenge is getting more students coming

out of high school be more interested in majoring in an agricultural area of

work, and I think you have to understand that if you go to the African

American community their ethnic history is so anti agricultural. Because

of the experience they’ve had, they are not interested. They may come

from the inner-city. They have no personal experiences other than eating

food. So how do they have an interest in Agriculture? It is a real big jump

for them. OK The Hispanics same thing. They possibly were raised

in a migrant family especially your Mexicans. (Sam)

While Sam suggests a lack of interest by potential minority students, it can also be
argued that the college may need to increase its recruitment efforts among the high school
students.

Funding Challenges in Recruitment of Graduate Students

As discussed earlier, many of the participants felt that the lack of a diverse

faculty-candidate pool was largely due to the lack of students in the pipeline. This study

found that there is a problem with sufficient levels of diverse students in the graduate and

112

undergraduate programs. One explanation for this decrease is likely due to the lack of
funds that were once available to recruit diverse students, which can no longer be used
due to the most recent ban on affirmative action in the state (Abdrabboh et al., 2007).
These challenges include lack of funding to recruit graduate students due to decreased
state funding and scarcity of graduate-student funding resources at the department levels.
Below one of the college’s top-level administrators spoke about the current funding
challenges in the recruitment of graduate students:

Grad students are in low numbers. Grad school for students is a problem.

The problem is funding, we don’t have as much in state funds.

Departments are transitioning to moving towards soft dollars and moving

away from state funds. ...Some departments have been without support

for graduate students for a while now. And some departments are moving

to sofi dollars. I don’t think we have chairs who don’t want to support

diversity. Some are trying but they don’t know what to do. (Darren)

Most women participants explained that the success in being admitted to graduate
school is strongly based on the whether students are awarded assistantships and grants to
attend graduate programs. This is described below by Caucasian female regarding
problems in the pipeline, because student frmding is largely controlled by the faculty in
the departments:

For instance, here are two examples. One student was an African American

working on her Ph.D. and that she probably would have never been offered this

assistantship had it not been for me supporting and promoting her to get it,

because I had worked with this student specifically as an undergrad. This

113

indicates that graduate students, normally hand-selected, hand-picked and that

there are students who may be selected, even White females who have poor

grades, but the faculty are normally willing to work with them. (Nancy)

According to the participant quoted above, graduate students are normally
selected by the faculty who may have a grant or assistantship to offer students, suggesting
that this is likely to adversely impact students of color. A female participant provided a
similar argument for lack of student diversity, asserting that the biggest challenge is
funding to recruit diverse students:

The best thing that the college can do to change so that we can bring in more

diversity is to give opportunities to all students by providing funding for a diverse

population of students. No the grants and assistantships and stipends are
offered by faculty to students that they hand pick themselves. So many of the
minority students, students of color do not get opportunities for this type of
stipends because faculty have control over who [they] offer these to. Until there is
an increase in the diversity of the student population in [the] pool, this is going to
be a revolving problem in the recruitment of faculty in tenure track positions.

(Nancy)

The graduate-funding shortage is a major problem because students may not be
accepted into the college programs without being awarded a grant or assistantship.
Additionally, Nancy suggested that lack of funding to attend college is likely to affect a
greater number of US. domestic minority students. While participants in this study

expressed that funding of graduate students is a challenge in recruitment of diverse

114

students, it is important to note that due to the scope of this research, data have not been
presented to verify these assertions.
The University’s Affirmative Action Programs

This section is organized based on the major themes that emerged in response to
the third main question: What impact does a recent ban on the state’s affirmative-action
programs have on current policies and practices in hiring diverse faculty? Four major
themes emerged and will be discussed comprehensively in this section: the university’s
affirmative—action programs, the need for diversity training, the need for leadership
support, and the campus climate.

This study found that most of the participants did not know that affirmative-action
programs are still a requirement for the university in the hiring of tenure-track faculty
positions because the university is still a benefactor of federal funds; therefore,
departments are required to adhere to the affirmative-action programs under federal
guidelines (US. Department of Labor, 2002). Additionally, faculty did not seem to
understand the role and impact of the ban on affirmative action in the hiring process.

Many participants in this study did not understand the purpose of affirmative-
action programs. As indicated in the diversity-training section below, the university
diversity administrator related several negative myths held by many on campus that she
attempts to debunk. Negative myths persist that affirmative action requires “quotas” or
“preferential treatment” to minorities and women. Based on the literature, myths due to
lack of understanding about affirmative-action programs can erode the effectiveness of
the tenure-track faculty-recruitrnent process (Blanks, 2005; Heilman et al., 1997; Kravitz

& Platania, 1993). As a result, the college continues to struggle in establishing race-

115

neutral standards in the recruitment process. “Academic institutions often have extremely
explicit processes for hiring tenure-track faculty and resistance to anything that interferes
with academic freedom,” said Laura Hertzog, EEO/diversity, acting director at Cornell
University (as cited in Hastings, 2008). Therefore, just because the university’s process to
recruit for diversity is extensive does not necessarily mean that the hiring practices will
result in a diverse faculty.
Challenges in Setting Affirmative Action Goals

Another major challenge found in this study is that the university struggles in
setting affirmative-action goals. Part of this struggle could be due to the use of data
obtained from the NORC dataka in establishing affirmative-action hiring goals.
Graduating students self-report their degrees and majors to the NORC data bank as part
of their exit survey. According to the administrator who oversees the university’s
affirmative action hiring procedures, colleges often look at only a limited number of
reported majors when identifying the number of new Ph.D.’s available. These numbers
are then used to establish affirmative-action goals for tenure-track faculty hiring. This
could mean that goals for recruitment of diverse tenure-track faculty are set below actual
availability levels. In addition, the institution’s affirmative-action form reveals that the
goals for international hires are often combined with domestic hires, which further
reduces the targeted goals for domestic Asian faculty hires.

Misunderstandings about the scope of the recent statewide ban on affirmative
action could also affect the views of those doing the hiring. One university administrator

described the general lack of understanding of affirmative-action programs:

116

One of the most common misconceptions is that [the ban on affirmative action]

changed something. [The university] is a federal contract and therefore has a

contractual obligation for affirmative action. There are some folks out there who

think that maybe we don’t have to do anything anymore and don’t have to

conform to affirmative action. (Charlie)
Comments such as this suggest a need for training or workshops about the impact from
the ban on affirmative-action programs to inform those making hiring decisions.

The Need for Diversity Training

An overwhelming number of participants felt that search committee training is
needed, given the recent ban on affirmative-action programs in the state. Most
participants in this study did not appear to understand the current affirmative—action
obligations of their departments in light of the ban on affirmative action in the state.
When asked what impact the ban on affirmative action has on hiring tenure-track faculty,
one department chair responded

So there has to be a re-education of people to understand that we are an

affirmative—action employer, which means we receive federal firnds that dictate

that we need to be conscious as a steward of federal monies. That we can’t

discriminate based on race or gender or religion, or ethnicity, and that at the end

of the year, we have an obligation to report our processes and how they relate to

working for versus working against affirmative action. (Peter)

Many of the participants felt that the university should hold training and
information sessions to inform search committees about what is required as an

affirmative-action employer receiving federal grants. Search committees are often not

117

well trained for the recruitment of tenure-track faculty. A Caucasian female candidate
described the challenges of affirmative-action programs:

No, I think many people think affirmative action means you might be

forced to hire an inferior candidate. I don’t think people understand it. I

don’t think we’re trained in what it means. I think if we had an

affirmative-action diversity program, which the university puts a lot on,

but what happens is [that only] the people that don’t need it go. And the

people that need it resent it and don’t go, don’t even care, you know.

(Rose)

Most participants felt that search-committee members believe affirmative-action
programs give preferential treatment to minorities or women. Consequently, many
participants believed a great deal of resentment exists among faculty toward minority and
women candidates who presumably took the place of “a more qualified” candidate. These
findings are consistent with previous studies (Holcomb—McCoy & Bradley, 2003;
Phillips, 2002). One top-level diversity administrator felt that there are many departments
that consistently find reasons and excuses for why they have trouble hiring a diverse
faculty body. She felt her job often requires informing or educating people across campus
by debunking many of the myths search committee members hold about diversity. She
spoke about her efforts in helping the departments diversify the campus:

You have to take the philosophy that whatever arguments that anyone may

have why we have not been very successful—that’s what we have to go

after. We have some who say it is [this state] and its too cold here;

people won’t come. Well, we know that is not true. There is not enough in

118

the pipeline that is a part of it. Availability is always a concern, but people

are out there. There is not a discipline that does not have a labor market,

there is a labor market. You may need to think differently about potential

candidates to the extent that people do not come from an Ivy League, for

example, but perhaps come from HBCU. They should be given reasons

why it is okay to at least think differently about who you might invite for

an interview, and it doesn’t mean that you are sacrificing quality because

even in the world of affirmative action, before [it was banned], you

couldn’t say the only reason why I am hiring someone is because of their

race or gender. (Patty)
The administrator captured what most participants described as reasons they often heard
for lack of diversity in the college. These myths may continue to erode the climate of
support on campus unless they are addressed through the various training programs.

The Need for Leadership Support

The most repeated concern among faculty and administrators alike in this study
was a belief that top leadership was not committed to diversifying the campus or the
college. This study found that top-level leadership support is essential to create a greater
level of diversity among faculty, staff, and students. Additionally, several participants at
all levels (from administrators to faculty) felt that without specific goals and measurable
outcomes, diversity advocacy will continue to lack sincerity:

It’s lip service; as a matter of fact, I think it’s kind of demeaning for the

university. When they say that the university is an equal employment

opportunity employer, that is false advertisement because it has never

119

been an equal employment opportunity employer, so the president and her

leadership team have to agree on that but the commitment at higher

levels is not there. (Fox)

Overall, participants at all levels were disappointed in the lack of accountability
and commitment to diversity both on campus and in the college. These findings confirm
the two earlier studies implemented at the college.

Well, now, you have to understand that diversity has never been a high

priority. It’s never been a high priority. If it was, we would have better

gains. See there’s, there is not much accountability around diversity. Lots

of papers, lots of discussions, lots of talk, lots of meetings, but at the end

of the day, you’re lucky if you would make a small gain or you might even

lose. (Fox)

Several of the participants in this study stated that the dean needed to hold
department chairs more accountable for increasing diversity in the departments. This
could include goals that are tied to one’s performance appraisal for diversifying a
department. One department chair expressed that the dean of the college should make
diversity a priority, stating

There is nothing within their tenure system and there is nothing that is

motivating them that is performance-based. Nothing is putting a value on

them diversifying their networks, diversifying their student body, or
diversifying those that they would hire, who then become positioned for
faculty positions or for research grants or for a number of other

measurable things that become the criteria by which we hire people into

120

faculty positions. So, if our ultimate goal is to have diversity in the finalist

pool. ...If I am a faculty person or a researcher, there’s nothing that is

motivating me or that I’m being held accountable or its part of my

performance appraisal that says I will be measured for tenure on your

numbers of diverse people in my department or as research assistants or

whatever. (Dan)

Comments often revolved around issues of whether there are sufficient incentives
to promote diversity on campus. If so, that suggests a disconnect between the desire for
diversity and structural support for diversity. The problem with equal employment
Opportunities on college campuses is that this concept needs to be aligned with the
strategic plans, mission statements and initiatives (Hayton & Paczuska, 2002). Incentive
programs that are part of the overall diversity initiatives could be an effective motivator
in diversifying the college. Previous studies report that leadership support is essential to
achieving successful diversity on college campuses, yet it is often absent (Ataiyero, 2006;
Turner et al., 1999).

This study also found that while race/ethnic diversity is problematic. To some, it
appears that there have been great advances in promoting Caucasian women on campus,
reflected in one participant’s comments:

Of course women are promoted by design from top to bottom. OK, the

president has said, “White women need a voice and I’m going to be their

voice.” And [the president] has made great gains in that area. But she

knows what the constitution says, right? All men are created equal, but

she’s saying well, White women are created equal too. So I’m gonna

121

strategically push administrators in the university to hire more White

females, and she’s had great success in that area. (Fox)

This suggests that the gender gap on campus is being addressed from the top
down, hence more progress in promoting women is expected in the near future. The key
to success is perceived as the initial support from the board of trustees or president.

Policies Are as Good as the Leadership

Most participants indicated that lack of accountability in the hiring process was
one of the major reasons why diversity policies are often ineffective. Specifically, even
though improvements have been made in the number of sources departments use in
posting jobs, little follow-up appears to be initiated by the university’s diversity office
with the departments to assure a process free of bias and in promoting fairness. For
instance, when a department disqualifies a candidate for lack of fit, the university may
not be aware of the reasons. A participant described how the hiring process lacks
accountability and fairness:

Basically the university policy around diversity and pluralism is rather

weak. There’s just not an accountability factor there. SO I don’t think the

university needs any more policies, you can forget that. They can cut the

number of policies they have in place and just focus in on leadership to get
some results, top to bottom. I mean, I’ve seen candidates come in here

make the final cuts. Great people, but then you always hear a thing like,

well “fit,” maybe was not a “good fit.” Well that tells you that man, we

gone through all of this, and we have this ludicrous, bogus statement of a

fit is not good. They might say if it’s not fit, they may say, well you

122

know they haven’t had enough experience, the scope of their work has

been limited. SO rather than a hundred dollars worth of feed, you may

need ten thousand dollars worth of feed. SO when they talk about scope,

that’s another ludicrous statement. Yeah. (Fox)
As evidenced by the quote above, some minority participants felt that even when the
candidate made it to the final stage, there was always a question of “lack of fit” used as a
reason tO disqualify minority candidates. Equally problematic is the climate on campus,
described in the next section.

The Campus Climate

This study found that an overwhelmingly large number of participants described
the college climate as “chilly” for minority faculty and women. These findings support
two internal studies done in the college and create a major challenge to the recruitment
and retention of candidates in the college:

It’s still a White male’s world. It’s an Old boy’s network. There was one

incident when she asked [a Caucasian female colleague] the male

counterpart about an affirmative-action policy whether that is going to

impact recruitment. The White male replied back to her that he will find

out the new policy as he has a couple of beers with the “Good Ole Boys.”

I asked who the “Good Ole Boys” were and my counterpart replied that he

was having a beer with the dean of the college. (Nancy)

Several participants also described how difficult it is for minority faculty to be
mentored, coached, or supported by others in the college. As discussed earlier, this also

suggests that in addition to possible biases in the selection process, perhaps minorities,

123

more than women, are not as well connected with the proper networks to attain faculty
jobs. These challenges are depicted below by one faculty member:

What happens there, especially with so few minorities, is that you get put

out on an island in departments, and I have counseled many minority

faculty members who are, who have been, out on that island over the

years. I’ve counseled them, helped them form joint support groups.

Whether it’s the Asian Americans Faculty Association so that they

know that there are others out there like themselves we have to say,

“We understand where you are, you’re out on an island, let’s work

together to try to overcome this.” And we’ve done that year after year after

year. Probably 10 or 15 people that I knew of, who just don’t feel as

though they fit, feel as though they are out on an island and don’t feel

understood or respected. And the other thing that is really reflective of this

being out on an island is people not appreciating the research that others of
color are doing. (Hank)

The views above express an unwelcoming climate experienced by many minority
and women faculty. The lack of proper guidance and mentoring of junior faculty is not
unique to this institution, as is evident in many large research universities across the
nation (Turner et al., 1999). The findings of this study are consistent with earlier findings
of a study implemented at eight Midwestern states, describing the campus climate as
“chilly” for minorities and women (Turner et al., 1999). That unwelcoming climate was

detected; this study revealed that faculty of color experience exclusion, isolation,

124

alienation, and racism in predominantly White universities. This is captured by the
diversity representative in her statement on the subject:

I have spoken with several faculty, staff and students in this college and at

at large, and the consistent themes that are emerging are that people of

color on this campus are not supported or mentored for success. And they

experience feelings of isolation, exclusion, alienation and racism at [the
university]. (Sara)

This is representative of the assertions made by many participants in this study
that the university climate has regressed in diversifying the campus from the previous
decade. The existing literature also supports this study’s findings of a “chilly climate” for
both minorities and women (Aguirre, 2000; Gordon, 2004; Hale, 2004; Hao, 2003;
Turner et al., 1999). Similar concerns about an unwelcorrring climate were stated by
another female participant:

The trouble with the discrimination with females is it’s subtle, and it is not

recognized by the people who do it. So they can take the high ground.

They can say, “We’ll fight for quality. You people are trying to pull us

down in this morass of inferiority with this diversity talk. If there had been

a superior diversity candidate, we would have hired them. That is their

shield.” And they believe it. I’m not trying to be too harsh on them, but

just trying to break that expectation by saying give me 1 month, and I’ll

change that pool, and I think I can come up with a candidate that will out

compete some of the ones in the pool. But it’s a hell of a lot Of work.

125

Yeah, so we have this rural culture we also tend to have the older

faculty here. I think if you look at the age of faculty here, many of our

faculty are very defensive. I think their time has come and gone. Maybe

they were excellent, probably in extension, when extension was what you

were supposed to be excellent in, and they feel threatened. And the last

thing they want to be threatened with is somebody of color or a woman.

...Yeah, and its basically, it’s diversity of any kind, the bulk of diversity,

of subject matter, that’s why we have this fight in our department,

business versus economics. The diversity that moves away from the

mainstream culture is resistant. (Rose)
Most faculty may not intentionally promote an unwelcoming climate in the
coHege.

Climate Issues in Promotion and Retention

This study found that retention of tenure-track faculty was equally problematic
due to potential biases in the promotion and tenure process. While outside the scope of
this study, several participants voiced similar concerns about the lack of supportive
climate in the promotion and tenure process. Retention has a direct impact on recruitment
and the success of a new faculty member, as noted by a participant:

It goes exactly to what I was talking about as far as marginalizing people

and their research for promotion and tenure. You didn’t publish in this

journal or this wasn’t a good journal. But I’ve written five books. Yeah,

but they weren’t good books. But he didn’t write five books. No, he

applied to a referee journal, didn’t get accepted, but it was a good effort

126

and a good journal. I’ve seen people who have chapters in books. A lot

of weight given to that, but I’ve seen people who have written books with

no weight whatsoever given to it. (Steve)
The above quote is representative of how of the women and minority participants felt that
both minorities and women candidates are often marginalized and their research and
publication work devalued in the tenure-and-promotion process. These findings are
similar to the findings in the previous literature that indicate that minorities and women
are marginalized and their work devalued (Turner, 2002). Female and minority
candidates are likely to be more highly scrutinized than their White male counterparts.
Below is yet another participant who described the nature of tenure politics, pointing out
how a “chilly climate” might impact the successes of new faculty:

The tenure process is quite political; you have good people who don’t

make tenure because some faculty do not like them and they didn’t play

their cards right. I know this does not happen all the time, as most people

who get tenure deserve it. I will tell you this; I was in a tenure track in

another institution and was not given tenure. One member on the review

board was livid that I was not given tenure; basically they concluded that I

had done my job but I didn’t fratemize and scratch backs as I should.

(Randy)
Overall, the support, mentoring, coaching, and promotion of faculty of color and women
are problematic in the college. If qualified women and minority candidates are recruited

for faculty positions but are not supported in achieving tenure, there is a two-way

127

problem of both recruitment and retention. The success or failure of one’s tenure and
promotion achievement has a major impact on recruitment efforts.
Conclusion

This chapter provided an overview of the challenges and opportunities that exist
for the College of Agriculture in diversification. The findings provide a troubling picture
of the current climate toward diversity at this Midwestern university and at the College of
Agriculture. There were several important findings about the problematic recruitment
process and the many challenges facing search committees. Additionally, this chapter
presented the major findings of this study on policies and practices at the university.
While the college has made some efforts to diversify its faculty, it has far to go to create
an all-inclusive and welcoming climate, and in providing leadership and support for
diversity in its hiring policies and practices. The overall themes provide a disturbing
picture Of the current state of the climate, culture, and level of diversity at this
Midwestern University in the College of Agriculture. This study found that the climate at
the college and at the university at large is unwelcoming, described by many as “chilly”
for both minorities and women. As evidenced by the cited interviews, racial/ethnic
minorities and women are unintentionally marginalized through the devaluing of their
scholarly work or disqualification of their previous work experiences. These findings
support earlier findings about the unsupportive academic climate and culture for diverse
populations at postsecondary institutions.

The institution struggles to balance its identity as a land-grant institution
promoting research, teaching, and service and the desire to achieve elite status in higher

education. The problem in recruitment of diverse faculty is also compounded by a lack of

128

knowledge and misinterpretation of policies and procedures in the hiring of tenure-track
faculty positions. Consequently, the hiring process is not effective in the recruitment of
diverse faculty. With respect to increasing faculty diversity, the university is currently in
a state of transition due to the recent realignment of the mission of the Office of diversity,
as evidenced by its recent name change, which is likely due to the statewide ban on
affirmative-action programs. Top-level leadership is also in search ‘Of answers from the
state and federal government about the impact of the recent ban on the university’s
obligations as a federal contractor.

The study has uncovered a general lack of understanding among the members of
the search committee about the impact of the ban on affirmative—action programs.
Furthermore, the recent ban on affirmative action is compounded by the overall lack of
understanding about affirmative-action and hiring policies. Currently, there are no clear
guidelines regarding affirmative action or about how departments must deal with the
impact of the ban on affirmative-action programs in the state. Consequently, the
effectiveness of affirmative-action programs is compromised in the recruitment of tenure-
track faculty.

In addition, the study revealed that current university policies are not monitored
closely, which is probably due to labor resources that are too limited to manage a large
number of search committees on campus at any given time. While the university has
good policies in place, they are not followed as prescribed; instead, members of search
committees attempt to adhere to the administrative affirmative-action requirements by
submitting the necessary paperwork, making the entire process “mechanical” at best.

Perhaps what is missing in the process of hiring is a culture or climate supportive of and

129

committed to a “good faith” effort to diversify the faculty. Participants perceived the
single most important problem in the college and at the university was the lack of top-
leadership support to hold accountable for diversity those involved in hiring, granting
tenure, and giving promotions. This was followed by the lack of sufficient levels of
diversity in the college and thereby on the search committees.

While the College of Agriculture continues to struggle to improve its agriculture
image, there are many who feel that the greater challenges facing the college are
ineffective student-recruitrnent efforts. However, the recent trend of increases in the
overall diversity among the student population in US. colleges and universities provides
greater opportunities for the college to recruit for a highly diversified student body.
Nonetheless, strong financial and academic structural support for a diverse pipeline of
students from which faculty may be selected continues to be limited. The next chapter

provides policy recommendations and implications based on these findings.

130

CHAPTER FIVE
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Best Practices in Hiring Tenure Track Faculty

This study offers several recommendations for higher education institutions that
may be applicable to a variety of postsecondary institutions, organizations, and
businesses. These recommendations may be applicable to human-resource functions of
best practices in recruitment. First, this chapter discusses Bennett’s (1993) model of
cross-cultural competencies and its application to suggest which hiring practices enhance
or inhibit the creation of a diverse faculty. Next, a summary of key findings from this
study and discussions of policy and procedural implications are presented. In addition,
based on key findings, recommendations for best practices in recruitment of tenure-track
faculty are provided. A quick reference guide for best practices in the recruitment of a
diverse faculty is also provided (see Appendix B). Finally, this chapter concludes with a
summary of implications for future research.

Bennett’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model

Bennett’s model aids in understanding the primary question informing this study:
What are the factors that inhibit or enhance the hiring of a diverse tenure-track faculty
workforce at a Midwestern university? Bennett’s development model of intercultural
sensitivity (1993) provides a theoretical perspective in the analysis and application in the
recruitment of tenure-track faculty. Bennett (1993) stressed several stages of an
individual’s intercultural development, and it is likely that individuals will be at different
stages of their personal growth. His model closely addresses how people understand and

cope with people of different cultures, ethnicities, and races. Bennett’s model also

131

describes how individuals may accept or reject others based on their own comfort levels
in working with other cultures. Bennett’s model also discusses how individuals may
accept or reject others based on their own comfort levels in working with other cultures.
The basic pedagogical use of this model is to provide training in cultural self-awareness
about others in different cultures, intended to aid in improving communications and
understanding among diverse individuals. This model is also intended to increase racial,
ethnic, and gender awareness about cultural differences of others, in hopes of improving
overall success in the recruitment of diversity among tenure-track faculty. Although there
are several stages of development discussed in Bennett’s model, only the three major
stages5 that match up most closely with the data in this study will be highlighted:
(a) minimization, (b) acceptance, and (c) defense. The model below has been developed
to demonstrate the application of Bennett’s theory in the hiring of tenure track faculty.
Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity provides a lens to aid in understanding
how candidates may be accepted or rejected in the recruitment process of a diverse
faculty. According to Bennett (1993), search-comrrrittee members may relate to a
candidate’s mainstream experiences, so if a candidate has different experiences from their
own, it is likely the candidate will be rejected. Conversely, candidates who are similar
have a better chance of being accepted. Hence, it is likely that some search-committee
members are in the defensive stage and therefore are not accepting Of minority candidates

even when they hold the minimum posted qualifications.

 

5 Bennett’s model (1993) is discussed in-depth in chapter 2, pp. 55—57.

132

Bennett’s Model Applied in Hiring

 

Search Committee’s Faculty Recruitment Process I

 

 
 

 

 

 

I Acceptance Stage I
I Minimization Stage I I -

 

Defense

 

 

—

7 I Affirmative Action 1 '
I Affirmative Action I Affirmative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Attraction ,
, . . _ ° Likeness - No Attraction
0 Candidate IS Like Me 0 Similarly 0 Great Differences
- Similarly Attracted Attracted b
, . Reject
I Accept Candidate Candidate
; ,
I Candidate Invited for Interview I Deny
. Employment
, Opportunity
I Reference Checks I
7 Candidate
I Job Offer I Disqualified

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Bennett ’s model applied in faculty recruitment at a midwestern university’s
college of agriculture.

Research universities often hire tenure-track faculty to fill a specific gap;
therefore, the candidates are likely to be screened for specific qualifications, like being an
expert in cherry trees. Because of this, it is likely that candidates who have compatible
yet differing specialties are eliminated. While many study participants indicated that there
may be some positions that demand closely matched skill sets without much flexibility,
there are an equal number of tenure-track postings in which the required job
qualifications are not as specific or as narrowly defined. Therefore, by identifying

transferable skills for qualifications for certain positions, a larger pool of qualified

133

minority and women candidates may be identified who typically have nontraditional job-
history experiences.

Springer and Baez (2002) recommended that the standards for best qualified
candidates should be expanded to include a range of experiences and credentials when
evaluating a candidate’s portfolio. In addition, Turner (2002) in the book, “Diversifi/ing
the Faculty: A Guidebook for Search Committees” had offered several best practices in
hiring faculty. This study recommends that faculty re'sumés be closely reviewed to
emphasize a holistic approach to critiquing candidates’ qualifications, where one’s
richness of diverse academic and work experiences are identified for value added to the
department. This form of candidate assessment requires a higher level of cross-cultural
competency and development among search-committee members, identified in Bennett’s
model.

Bennett’s (1993) model of intercultural sensitivity suggests a need for higher
education institutions to implement a variety of ongoing training programs for search-
committee members and other university constituents to enhance the climate and culture
Of the organization through better understandings of diversity. Policy implications and

recommendations will be provided in the training and leadership section below.

Diversity Policies and Practices

This section provides a summary of key findings for the first subquestion in this
study: What policies and practices exist around diversity in faculty hiring at the College
of Agriculture? The findings in this study highlighted two major themes in addressing the
first research question: (a) diversity defined and (b) college—level diversity. Discussions

of policy and procedural implications are provided about each emerging theme. Finally,

134

based on key findings, recommendations for best practices in recruitment of tenure-track
faculty are provided, related to each theme.
Diversity Defined

This study confirmed the findings of two earlier college studies that showed that
the concept of how diversity is defined varies greatly among college constituents. This
lack Of consistency in the idea of diversity affects the success of hiring a diversified
tenure-track faculty pool. Additionally, while the university has a very broad definition of
diversity that encompasses inclusiveness, this study revealed that participants do not have
a common understanding of diversity and inclusiveness. Additionally, while the
university has extensive policies and procedures regarding recruitment of faculty, there is
no evidence of college-level written policies or procedures. Consequently, a lack of
understanding and college-level support for diversity policies and practices appears to
have affected the hiring policies and practices of tenure-track faculty.
College Level Diversity

This study revealed a continuing struggle in diversifying faculty in the College of
Agriculture. The college’s level of diversity is not representative of US. population
demographics. In addition, while the college has improved its international and women-
faculty representation, it continues to be underrepresented among other US minority
populations. Specifically, an analysis of the degree of representation by Hispanic/Latino,
African American, and American Indian faculty in the college revealed low levels in the
ranks of tenure-track faculty. This suggests that the college is faced with the challenge of

recruiting more minority faculty.

135

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices

The findings of this study suggest that there is an unmet need to foster an
inclusive and diverse environment in the College of Agriculture. This will require the
collaboration of all stakeholders at the institution in diversity-awareness programs and
support for diversity in hiring. As discussed earlier, the policy and procedural
implications that emerged from this study are likely to have relevance and application at
other similar public-research universities, largely due to the similar challenges faced by
those institutions in the recruitment of faculty. Thus, it is likely that the recommendations
highlighted in this chapter provide suggestions for enhancement of diversity at other
universities; recommendations that address the particular university of this study are
applicable to other universities; recommendations directed at the college can also be
applicable to other colleges of agriculture; policy implications for university leadership
have practical applications at other public-research institutions; and finally,
recommendations for the university’s diversity office and human resource office are also
applicable to other universities with similar departments.

The literature in this study highlights scholars who recommend several hiring
policies and practices in the recruitment of faculty in higher education institutions
(Adam, 2006b; Bye, 2007; Cockrell, et al.; 1999; Dooley, 2003; Drake, 2004; Haag,
2005; Opp & Smith, 1994; Springer & Baez, 2002). In particular, Turner (2002) offered
several recommendations for best practices in faculty recruitment. In addition, the AAUP
has developed clear, standardized best practices, procedures, and recommendations in the
recruitment of diverse faculty in support of affirmative-action practices. My study

supports the work of the above scholars in the field and provides policy recommendations

136

and implications for higher education institutions, consistent with previous literature,

highlighted in the recommendation section of this chapter.

Based on the key findings in this study, the following best practices are
recommended to support diversity:

1. The university should celebrate the idea of inclusiveness by providing more
university-wide cultural, ethnic, and social events to bring together all groups on
campus (faculty, staff, and students) for the purpose of learning and
understanding differences, and to promote cross-cultural experiences.

2. The dean should provide incentives to promote effective recruitment strategies
and the hiring of a diverse workforce.

3. The dean should review the current policies and procedures regarding recruitment
of faculty and graduate students to ensure a fair system of recruitment.

4. The college-diversity administrator should establish goals and require follow-up
standards to support the success of faculty/students of color and women in the

college.

Policy Interpretation and Implementation

This section provides a summary of key findings from the second subquestion in
this study: How do those involved in the faculty hiring decisions in postsecondary
education understand, interpret, and implement policies and practices to diversify faculty

hiring?

137

Composition of a Search Committee

This study found that the university does have extensive policies for hiring tenure-
track faculty, but also found that search-committee members’ interpretations of these
policies influence candidate selection. To address the second subquestion on policy
interpretation and implementation, discussion will be focused on search committees. This
study found that the makeup of the search committee has a major effect on the final
hiring outcomes. As discussed in the previous chapter, search-committee members in this
study were highly influenced by the composition of the committee. Having committees
composed of homogeneous faculty groupings limited the holistic perspectives of
members because it limited the use of diverse perspectives and viewpoints in the
selection process. Individuals typically hold personal viewpoints that are likely to result
in biases in the selection process (Bennett, 1993). For instance, search committees
generally screen candidates for qualifications; therefore, it is likely that a homogeneous
search committee will place more value on certain qualifications and unintentionally
disqualify a potentially qualified candidate from the pool. Candidates may bring a diverse
set of experiences, yet their skills may not resemble the committee’s own experiences.
Therefore, the composition of the search committee can be a critical factor in the hiring
process (Opp & Smith, 1994; Smith et al., 2004).

This study found that one of the biggest challenges faced by the college is that the
composition Of the present faculty is not very diverse. Several scholars recommend that
search committees should be comprised of diverse faculty and professionals (Opp &
Smith, 1994; Smith et al., 2004; Turner, 2002). In addition, the study revealed that

women and minorities in the college are rarely appointed to be the search-committee

138

chair, a position that has a great deal of influence in the hiring process. Consequently,
progress in diversification of faculty continues to be a challenge for the college.

Another major problem is that even though the college attempts to appoint a
diversity advocate on the search committee, this study found that the diversity advocate’s
role on the search committee is ofien ineffective in assuring a good-faith effort. In
addition, many diversity advocates felt that because they were appointed from within the
college but Often outside the department, they did not have a strong voice (or vote) in
hiring decisions. The perceptions of diversity advocates was that the current process of
recruitment is highly “mechanical” at best and erodes the importance of the diversity
advocate on search committees.

The study found that there was a lack of top-leadership support for diversity at the
college level and therefore the process lacks incentives (financial and/or structural
support) to promote an inclusive environment in the college. Additionally, there is a lack
of accountability in the college and at the department level to successfully diversify.
However, as mentioned previously, the college has recently hired a diversity
administrator, so it is hopeful that there will be greater progress to diversify the faculty in
the future. To address these challenges, best practices in the recruitment Of tenure-track
faculty are provided in the next section.

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices

The college and university administrators (dean, associate deans, department
chairs, and directors) should provide a set of college-wide goals and objectives in hiring a
diverse faculty pool. Additionally, the college dean should provide support to assure

diverse representation on the search committee, including women, minorities, and junior

139

faculty, and make the role of the diversity advocate more central in the decision-making

process. Based on the key findings in this study, the following best practices are

recommended regarding search committees:

1.

Search committees should use the expertise of the college’s diversity
representative and establish a working relationship with campus-level diversity
representatives.

The university and the college should consider greater structural support (funding
and personnel) to promote diversity by increasing personnel both at the university
and college levels.

The clean and department chairs should establish a strategic plan that includes
goals and objectives in hiring and retention of new minority or female faculty
members. The plan should provide assurances for equal-employment
opportunities for all candidates, such as diverse search committees that include
women, minorities, and junior faculty; broader screening criteria to attract a
variety of candidate experiences that may be compatible with needs; expanding
beyond only traditional top-tier institutions in recruitment; supporting mentor
services; and providing funding support.

The college administrator should facilitate the appointment of a search-
committee chair who can be a strong supporter and advocate for diversity. Also,
college administrators should support a strong voice (vote) for the diversity

advocate in a search.

140

The college diversity administrator should be engaged throughout the recruitment
process, assist in establishing hiring standards, and follow up with search
committees at every step of the hiring process.

The diversity director or associate dean should be prepared to stop a search at any
stage should it become necessary and hold departments more accountable for their
actions. For instance, a search should be stopped when there is no diversity
representation on the search committee or if there is no diversity representation in
the candidate pool.

The dean and department chairs should establish a strategic plan that includes
goals and objectives in hiring and retention of new minority and/or female faculty

members.

Faculty Recruitment Practices

Based on the findings in this study, departments and the college are faced with

several challenges in the recruitment of tenure-track faculty and in the university’s hiring

policies on affirmative action. This study revealed persistent challenges in hiring diverse

faculty, suggesting that problems emanate from ineffective recruitment practices in job

postings, job descriptions, job qualifications, selection, and availability of a diverse

candidate pool.

Institutions have traditionally struggled to diversify their college campuses. This

is largely due to the hiring pool of candidates, which is usually recruited from recurring

posting sources and recruitment practices among universities. Most universities are both

producers and consumers of faculty, competing for qualified faculty and students. While

the university’s policies promote diversity on paper, implementation is inconsistent and

141

insufficient. For example, according to the institution’s hiring policies, the department
chair is expected to pilot a charge to the search committee to consider diversity as one of
the many criteria in hiring. This study found that such discussions were infrequently
conducted by the department chair. Instead, search committees were Often given the
charge to hire the “best qualified” candidate, suggesting that quality may be
compromised if diversity is considered in the hiring process.

Challenges in Job Postings

As indicated in chapter 4, this study found that departments need to expand their
job-posting sources by exerting greater effort to recruit from universities that have
awarded greater numbers of minority doctoral degrees and those that offer relevant
programs or majors desired for the position.

The college has exerted efforts to expand its posting sources; however, this study
found that job postings are typically advertised in the same sources for subsequent job
postings. This is partly due to the perception of faculty that recruitment from
nontraditional sources such as Black Issues of Higher Education will not result in a
qualified candidate pool. Consequently, the college has not been very successful in
diversifying its faculty pool. Several scholars recommend that job postings should use
diverse posting sources (Cockrell et al., 1999; Opp & Smith, 1994; Turner, 2002). This
could mean that advertising and networking with nontraditional institutions that produce
a higher number of minority and women students in agriculture would likely result in
more diverse faculty-candidate pools (Hayden, 1997; Turner, 2002). Additionally,
recruitment of faculty in the field of agriculture is challenging because few institutions

produce doctoral students majoring in agriculture. However, whenever feasible,

142

advertising postings and networking with nontraditional institutions that produce a higher
number of minority and women students in agriculture would likely result in a more
diverse pool of faculty candidates.

Networks are important in academia, especially when a candidate has established
relationships with well-known professors and researchers. However, this study found that
search committees typically do not have a diverse network system in place to recruit a
diverse faculty. Network efforts by faculty and administrators with other institutions are
essential; if the search committee is not diverse, it is likely that network contacts are also
not diverse.

Networking is a double-edged problem. Another important criterion for selection
in higher education is based on how well the candidate is connected with well-known
professors or well-renowned researchers. If applicants are not well connect to the
accepted academic network, or if they obtained their Ph.D. from a lesser known
university, they may not be considered as a serious candidate. Thus, it would be in the
institution’s best interest to facilitate collaboration with doctoral students and junior
faculty.

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practice

While the university has extensive guidelines for job postings, the dean,
department chair, and associate dean of diversity should provide a set of posting
guidelines at the college level to improve the chances of diverse representation of faculty
candidates in the hiring pool. The following best practices for advertising positions are

recommended:

143

Efforts should be made to post job openings in a diverse set of journals and
websites to maximize the number of qualified candidates available.

Job postings should be advertised with the institution’s various diverse faculty
and staff associations and at other colleges, departments, and
organizations/offices at universities that support diversity.

A diverse faculty representing a wide range of disciplines, race, and ethnicity,
from each department should actively network with counterparts at other
universities to seek out potential diverse candidates.

The diversity administrator should update the information on its Website to
provide more accurate information about various campus organizations and
diverse faculty and staff associations so that departments have easy access to that
information when posting jobs.

The institution’s diversity office should consider posting jobs on its Website to
inform a diverse community about opportunities on campus.

The diversity administrator for both the institution and the college should hold
departments accountable by closely monitoring loopholes in the hiring process,
such as monitoring posting sites used in the hiring process.

The dean and department chairs should provide opportunities for women and
minority faculty to engage, network, and collaborate with highly recognized
faculty in their field to build a field support base and eliminate barriers that create

perceptions of “tokenism” and overcome feelings of isolation.

144

8. Faculty members who represent diversity (diversity advocates and faculty of
color) should attend conferences in an effort to build networks and post

announcements for job postings.

Challenges in the Job Description, Qualifications, and Selection Process

Another major challenge is how candidates’ qualifications are assessed in a
meritocratic system in higher education institutions. While meritocracy is an acceptable
criteria in screening candidates, most search committees have struggled with the job
description as it relates to “best qualified,” as this is a complex phenomenon in higher
education. One reason for the complexity is that the term best qualified can be interpreted
in many ways. Wherever possible, job descriptions should be designed to attract a wide
range of diverse knowledge and expertise. Scholars included in this study recommend
that job descriptions should emphasize diversity as a compelling university interest
(Smith et al., 2004; Turner, 2002). Furthermore, the criteria for best qualified should be
expanded to include a wide range of diverse candidate experiences (Springer & Baez,
2002). Additionally, the complex system Of job postings in higher education often results
in each posting being slightly different from the previous one because of the specific gap
desired to be filled. Therefore, it is difficult to apply a standard for job descriptions or for
screening candidates.

Faculty generally support the notion of hiring the most qualified candidate;
however, it can be argued that qualification does not necessarily reflect competency,
specifically when assessing women and minorities. A job description written with an
inherently biased standard of qualifications can unintentionally create disparate treatment

of minorities and women. If the objective is to hire the “most qualified,” then it is equally

145

important is to clearly define what constitutes most qualified. Postsecondary institutions
seem to have conflicting and often competing interests in the need to hire the most
qualified and simultaneously diverse faculty, especially because many hold the
perception that if a diverse candidate is hired, meritocracy is compromised. If true, a
review of the criteria of best qualified candidates should be conducted and discussed at
the beginning stages of every search, because the criteria of selection can have a

”6 on the hiring process.

“disparate impact,

A holistic approach that evaluates the candidate’s diverse experiences and
strengths could be an effective strategy in screening candidates for faculty positions.
Traditionally, women and minorities have not had mainstream academic experiences and
may not have had the opportunities to work with the most recognized scientists or
researchers in their field; consequently, they may be disqualified from the search process.
Therefore, evaluation of their transferable skills (skills that may be similar and applicable
in the new position) is likely to aid in identifying qualified minority and women
candidates. A potential problem in the selection of minority candidates is that faculty at
most higher education institutions often do not possess the human-resource skills
necessary to screen candidates, yet often make the final selection decisions. This lack of
expertise unintentionally results in candidate stereotypes, devaluing, and disqualifying
the knowledge, skills, and abilities of minorities and women. For example, search

committee members may marginalize a hired minority candidate as a token, an

“affirmative-action hire,” or by devaluing their research or publications if not in the

 

6 Disparate impact occurs when a given action results in discrimination against a protected class without
any intention to discriminate. It occurs when all things are equal with respect to the availability of
candidates, and the protected class is represented less than 80% or (less than 4/5ths) of the White male
faculty.

146

mainstream. According to Mabokela (2007), the qualifications of minority women are
typically devalued, and minority candidates are often rated as unqualified and passed Off
as “affirmative action” candidates rather than as qualified individuals who can add
intellectual and academic value. This is likely due to a high degree of subjectivity in the
screening process.

Ironically, the data presented in the previous chapter uncovered a continuing trend
in the recruitment of international faculty, suggesting that perhaps transferable skills are
considered in hiring international faculty but not in domestic minority hires. Discussions
should include the need to assess cross—cultural diversity competencies presented in
Bennett’s model that can be applicable to search-committee members, referencing their
ability to review resumes and candidate qualifications from a diversity perspective.

Another major challenge in recruitment is that research universities typically
place a high priority on research in the recruitment process (Turner, 2002). This is
essential because most research universities desire to maintain their prestigious image
and competitive status, recruiting the best and brightest students. Likewise, the College of
Agriculture places a great deal of emphasis on research and minimizes the importance of
teaching and outreach. Although this emphasis works well for recruiting research-
oriented faculty, it does not address the need to hire good teachers and those particularly
skilled in outreach. The practice of placing higher value on research and lower value on
teaching appears to limit the recruitment pool of candidates for tenure-track faculty

positions.

147

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices

The university has extensive guidelines for job descriptions and selection.

However, the problem is in the interpretation and implementation of those policies. The

following best practices for job descriptions, qualifications, and selection are

recommended:

1.

Job descriptions should highlight a broad set of skills and interdisciplinary ideas,
detailing both desired and required qualifications clearly.

The clean, department chair, and the associate dean of diversity should establish
goals to increase the pool of domestic U.S. diversity in the recruitment of faculty.
The dean and the department chair should discuss and address any revealed bias
of search-committee members in the selection process when defining “quality”
standards.

Job descriptions should be a tool to recruit for desired knowledge, skills, and
abilities and to screen candidates including evaluation of transferable skills
(compatible skills).

The department chair should meet with the search committee and reinforce the
goal of promoting a fair and equitable hiring process for all candidates.
Discussions should include the use of a holistic approach in screening candidates

and sensitivity to one’s own biases in recruitment.

Diversity in the Faculty Pool and Student Pipeline

Participants in this study often voiced concerns that there is a lack of availability

of diverse faculty candidates in the pool. While it can be argued that this is partly due to

ineffective recruitment strategies in diversifying faculty pools, the study also revealed

148

that this shortage of faculty in the recruitment pool is partly due to the lack of sufficient
students in the pipeline. This study found that the level of diversity in the undergraduate
student population subsequently affects the diversity level in the graduate pool, which
then affects the availability of a diverse faculty pool. Today, the college has a variety of
programs that apply to a wide range of disciplines, yet the advertisements and
information about these new majors is limited. Students continue to be uninformed about
the college’s wealth of disciplines and employment opportunities after graduation.

The lack of an effective diverse student pipeline has a direct impact on the
availability of diverse faculty for tenure-track positions. Therefore, the root cause of these
challenges in the recruitment of diverse faculty is the continued lack of an effective
diverse student pipeline. With the trend to ban affirmative action in several states
(Michigan, California, and Washington), higher education institutions are likely to be
faced with greater challenges in diversifying their college campuses. The biggest impact
from the ban on affirmative-action programs is on student financial assistance, which can
no longer be earmarked for the sole purpose of the recruitment Of minority students. This
is likely to affect access and affordability among a diverse student population that desires
to pursue graduate education. Therefore, despite changes in population demographics,
competition for diverse faculty talent among higher education institutions is likely to be
greater in the future.

This study revealed that the lack of diverse faculty stems from the national lack Of
diverse students in the pipeline both at the graduate and undergraduate level. Based on
the literature in this study, this challenge in student recruitment is not unique to any given

institution. The current recruitment practices in the College of Agriculture for diverse

149

graduate and undergraduate students are not effective in diversifying the domestic
minority-student population, largely due to the lack of collaboration between the college
and its departments. The college’s overall strategic goals should be aligned with the
department goals in recruitment of a diverse student pool among graduate and
undergraduate students that better represents current population demographics. Data
presented in the previous chapter reported changes in population demographics that
reflect a trend over the past few years of increased diversity. Therefore, this study
recommends collaborative efforts to improve the pipeline of diverse students entering the
College of Agriculture both at the graduate and undergraduate level. While the college
seeks to attend recruitment fairs to identify quality minority and women graduate
students, their efforts often fail, given the actual enrollment rates (see data in chapter 4)
of these students in the college and its programs. This may be attributed to the current
disconnect between the college and department recruitment efforts.

Based on the findings in this study, faculty currently control funding resources for
graduate students and therefore make the final decision on the acceptance of graduate
students. In light of the scarce resources for graduate-student funding, funding awards to
students should be made in collaboration with the diversity office in the College of
Agriculture to assure a fair and equitable recruitment process. This scarcity of financial
resources is likely to encourage departments to recruit more international students who
arrive at US. universities with financial support from their home countries. Additionally,
data presented in the previous chapter revealed persistent increases in numbers of
international students compared to domestic minority students. Therefore, because funds

can no longer be set aside for recruitment of minority students due to the ban on

150

affirmative-action programs, a review of graduate funding sources and allocations are in
order.
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices

The college administrators (dean, associate deans, and department chairs) should
provide a set of guidelines for the recruitment of a diverse student population at the
college level to aid in increasing the overall availability of a diverse representation in the
pool for future faculty positions across all universities. Thus, the following best practices
for student recruitment are recommended:

1. The dean, department chair, and the associate dean of diversity should establish
goals to increase the pool Of domestic U.S. diversity in the student population,
both at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

2. The dean should review the current policies and procedures on graduate student
funding and recruitment to assure fairness and equity in recruitment.

3. The college should engage in aggressive marketing initiatives to eliminate long-
held negative views among students about the field of agriculture.

4. The dean should facilitate a cooperative working relationship between the college
and its departments in the recruitment of a diverse student and faculty in the

coflege.

The Impact of the Restrictions on Affirmative Action in the State

This section is organized based on the major themes that emerged in answering
the third subquestion: What impact does a recent ban on the state’s affirmative-action

programs have on changes Of current policies and practices in hiring diverse faculty?

151

Four major themes emerged: The University’s affirmative—action programs, need for
training, need for leadership support, and campus climate.
The University’s Affirmative Action Programs

This study found that negative myths about affirmative-action programs can erode
the effectiveness of the tenure-track faculty-recruitment process. The ban in recent years
on affirmative-action programs has complicated the understanding and requirements of a
federally supported institution. Based on the literature, myths due to lack of
understanding about affirmative action can erode the effectiveness of the tenure-track
faculty recruitment process (Blanks, 2005; Heilman, Block, & Stathatos, 1997; Kravitz &
Platania, 1993). Additionally, myths such as quotas or preferential treatment granted to
diverse candidates will continue to foster resentment among college and university
constituents. This lack of proper understanding is likely to result in resistance to diversify
the college and the campus at large.

Additionally, the university’s current system of setting affirmative-action goals
does not sufficiently aid in identifying the true availability of diverse doctoral students
who are in the market for tenure-track faculty positions. This is largely due to the limited
use of majors, thereby ignoring additional majors or field codes that can add to the
potential availability pool for faculty positions. Recent graduate students self-report their
majors in various field codes provided by the National Opinion Research Council
(NORC) data bank; the current practice of limiting field codes reduces the availability of
diverse candidates in any given geographic population. Additionally, the availability data
in setting affirmative-action goals also do not consider current academic specialists and

staff who may be in the market and are qualified for faculty positions. Consequently, the

152

affirmative-action goals set by the university’s academic hiring office may continue to be
set below the actual availability levels for the College of Agriculture. This has an affect
on the targeted goals for diversifying the college. A summary of policy implications and
recommendations about the institution’s affirmative-action programs will be offered at
the end of the next section.
The Need for Diversity Training Programs

This study found that a major problem with affirmative-action policies is not the
absence of such policies but rather the lack of understanding, interpretation, and proper
implementation of these policies when hiring. Kayes and Singley (2005) recommend that
committees need professional development training in order to achieve successful
diversity results in hiring. According to Bennett’s model, training and development are
the key to increased competencies of diversity. In addition, search committees should be
provided training that will help to eliminate stereotypes and biases, identify obstacles
facing the protected groups, and identify problems with the current recruitment process.
For instance, how do academic networks impact success for all candidates, especially
minorities and women, to make the final cut? If traditional forms of recruitment are
practiced, those not in the acceptable networks or schools will continue to be eliminated
from consideration. Creating equal-employment opportunities is the mission of most
public higher education institutions; however, it is unclear how this mission is
implemented in the tenure-track hiring process. Blanks (2005) found that affirmative-
action training resulted in higher acceptance of affirmative-action programs by those who

make hiring decisions and aided in correcting misconceptions about affirmative action

153

through that training. Training is likely to help committee members establish a fair,
equitable, and just system of recruitment and retention.

According to Bennett (1993), individuals have different levels of understanding
and acceptance of minorities who represent different races, ethnicities, and genders. If
individual search-committee members are at different stages of development in Bennett’s
cross-cultural and intercultural model, they will each have different levels Of acceptance
or rejection of minority and women candidates. For example, a committee member may
screen minority candidates through a very narrow, specific criteria rather than looking at
their applications and resumes through a diverse lens, identifying transferable skills that
would be equally compatible. This means that members will select, accept, approve,
reject, embrace differences, promote diversity, and broaden or narrowly select based on
their individual level Of development in the area Of diversity. Training and development
programs help confront biases and support discussions that facilitate self-assessment,
thereby aiding individuals to respect differences and celebrate similarities. Additionally,
training workshops can reduce or eliminate many of the barriers to diversifying college
campuses. Today, it is common knowledge that workforce diversity that supports
inclusion is essential to employee productivity, innovation, and creativity, and central to
business strategies in a globally competitive market.

Based on Ting-Toomey (1999) and Bennett’s model, intercultural understanding
and communications should emphasize the need to (a) be aware and understand, (b)
experience and react positively, and (c) communicate and collaborate with people who

may be different from oneself. Training workshops that address these areas would

154

improve an individual’s ability to understand, respect, and support an all-inclusive
workforce.

Therefore, the implementation of a three-phase training program at the university
is recommended. First, a series of training sessions led by the institution’s diversity
director and the academic hiring office is recommended for all who are involved in the
recruitment of faculty on campus. These sessions would be designed especially for deans,
directors, and chairs. Second, mandatory training is recommended for all College of
Agriculture faculty and staff in valuing and understanding different cultures and in
learning to respect differences in points of view. Finally, a mandatory training program
offered by the diversity office for all faculty, staff, and administrators is recommended in
valuing and understanding other cultures. This training should include discussions about
general issues of harassment (race, hate crimes, or sexual) on campus. Perhaps Offering
diversity classes to students as an essential requirement Of their curriculum may aid in
improving the campus climate and better prepare graduates for a globally competitive and
diverse environment.

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices
The university’s diversity Office, academic-hiring office, dean, department chair,
and associate dean of diversity should provide a set of guidelines for the implementation
of various diversity-training programs at both the college and institutional level, in an
effort to increase the understanding of the university’s affirmative-action requirements in
hiring faculty, and in embracing a diverse faculty and student population on campus. The

following best practices for training programs are recommended:

155

1. The Academic Human Resource Office should provide the three-phase training
program described above for university stakeholders including search-committee
members and others who are involved in the recruitment of faculty.

2. The college should provide diversity-training programs to faculty and staff. In
addition, mandatory and voluntary ongoing training programs should address the
topics of workplace harassment, discrimination, cross-cultural competency
development, and workplace diversity. These training programs should provide
opportunities for participants to discuss racial and gender biases and myths that
faculty, staff, and administrators may unknowingly hold about women, races, or
ethnic groups. Training should be provided to all those involved in hiring tenure-
track faculty.

3. The diversity office should provide training and development programs to
emphasize cross-cultural competencies in the spirit of inclusion to all university’s
business.

4. The diversity office should distribute posters of state and federally mandated laws
to departments on campus, such as information on fair and safe employment
practices regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment,
federal affirmative-action programs, and best hiring practices.

The Need for Leadership Support
This study found that strong commitment and support for diversity is essential
from top university officials, including the university’s board of trustees. In order to
achieve success by increasing diversity among faculty in the college, a strong

commitment from top-level administrators is essential. The findings of this study support

156

previous research that diversity in faculty hiring will continue to be a problem at
universities unless there is a strong commitment from top-level leadership (Ataiyero,
2006; Turner et al., 1999). University administrators support the idea of diversity on
college campuses, but it is often easier to convince academics about the value of diversity
for the campus climate than it is to implement change. These changes in support for
diversity can be achieved through a strategic plan that is aligned with the university’s
commitment to diversity by developing goals and objectives. The alignment of the
university’s overall mission and vision to college and department goals could be
developed to assure procedural support that is accountable and measurable.

This study found that underrepresentation of minority faculty continues to persist
at this Midwestern University, and findings are consistent with earlier studies conducted
at eight Midwestern universities (Turner et al., 1999). In the academic world, the effect of
diversity should be measured by the ability to prepare students for success. The college
dean should consider a strong support system for new faculty and graduate students that
promotes a greater level of teamwork and promotes better network opportunities for new
faculty, to assure their success in academia.

According to various university websites, diversity and inclusion are key
ingredients of the university’s mission and vision for success. However, there appears to
be a lack of clear goals and objectives, suggesting a lack of commitment to achieve these
goals. Hence, it is likely that the perception among the campus community is that the
university lacks sincerity and that their diversity efforts are simply mechanical, as
described by many participants in this study. Therefore, the key to success on college

campuses is the support for diversity from top-level leadership.

157

Diversity on Campus

There are various types of diversity initiatives that should be considered for
successful implementation of diversity on college campuses: (a) diversity initiatives,

(b) structure, and (c) diversity interactions. Leadership support at various levels (the
institution through the Office of diversity and office of academic hire, the college and its
various departments, and the board Of directors) is essential to a process of
diversification, financial support, and cultural support for diversity.

There are various diversity initiatives on most college campuses that require
financial and programming support. Strong assessment and follow through of such
initiatives is essential in the success of an effective diverse campus. Additionally,
diversity initiatives should include goals and objectives to measure the success of such
initiatives through the development of measurable indicators and timelines that can help
gauge what programs are effective and which programs need to be revised. For example,
the use of financial resources in the recruitment of all students should be evaluated for the
success of a diverse student body.

The effectiveness of a diversity office on campus is dependent on financial
resources for structural support for diversity. Public-research institutions are likely to be
similar in their structural support for diversity. Typically, a university has a campus-wide
diversity office. The purpose of the Office may be slightly different from one institution
to another; however, the general concept is the same in support of campus diversity.
Some institutions may have an Office of diversity that largely engages in diversity
initiatives and diversity programming, while others may include compliance and

monitoring of diversity personnel practices. Regardless of the purpose, the effectiveness

158

of the Office is most likely dependent upon support from the president and the board.
According to Bennett’s framework (2003), the effectiveness of the diversity office at any
institution is likely to be dependent on the level of cross-cultural competency among the
administrators on the college campuses. Therefore, it is not surprising to find various
levels of support for diversity among different universities.

Another potential challenge at most postsecondary institutions is the lack of
effective structural support due to a perceived lack of sufficient personnel and funding
support in the diversity office. Currently, in addition to the director for diversity, there is
only one diversity staff person who works closely on all hires with departments across the
campus. Based on the amount of paperwork that has to be processed for one hire, it is
almost impossible for the diversity office to effectively monitor all concerns in hiring
faculty on campus. In addition, while the diversity office should continue to monitor
general hiring practices, decentralization of monitoring and administration of the actual
hiring procedures at the college level is essential. Therefore, additional staff at the college
level should be added for future structural support at the unit level.

Diversity interactions and workshops are essential in confronting myths and
misunderstandings about diversity. Based on the findings in this study, it is evident that
individuals have much misunderstanding due to the most recent ban on affirmative action
regarding how hiring policies and practices have been affected. The university held a few
general-informational sessions in 2007. Discussions in these sessions clarified that
Obligations for federally supported grants and contracts are unaffected by the state’s ban
on affirmative action in regard to the university’s faculty hiring practices. However,

based on the finding of this study, those currently making hiring decisions are not

159

informed about the effects of the ban, and many are unsure and confused about the
changes. In addition, unfortunately, the university’s diversity office has not provided any
clear guidance in hiring faculty in light Of the current ban on affirmative-action programs
in the state. Therefore, it is suggested that the university and the diversity office establish
general, campus-wide diversity training goals and plans.
The College of Agriculture

Leadership support at the college level is equally important in the success of
diversifying the campus. A strong commitment and support of top leadership at the
college level, specifically from deans, associate deans, directors, and chairs in support of
diversity initiatives, is also essential. This requires both structural and procedural changes
by the college and departments. The dean must set the tone regarding the importance of
diversity and identify advocates who can assist in promoting diversity among all its
constituents. A strategic plan is needed to align the college’s overall goals and mission in
achieving diversity to the goals of the search committee hiring tenure-track faculty. The
dean should consider a reward system for those who are supportive of diversity initiatives
in the college. However, the college is likely to experience resistance from faculty who
may not value diversity as an important ingredient in the success of the college. Because
retention is closely tied to recruitment efforts, without support for diversity, the college is
likely to experience many faculty members who come and go. Therefore, the reward
system and salary offers should be made in a fair and consistent manner to support
positive retention strategies. This will require a closely monitored hiring process by the
associate dean of diversity at the college. Before such changes can be feasible,

development of cross-cultural competencies are essential to embrace diversity.

160

The College of Agriculture is one of the few colleges at the university to have an
associate dean of diversity. This position provides strong structural support for diversity
goals for the college and the dean. It is hopeful that the new associate dean of diversity
will engage in training faculty and staff in the College of Agriculture. The associate dean
for diversity should provide guidance and approvals for hiring at the department level. In
addition, this Office should be given the autonomy to stop a search at any stage of the
hiring process. Participants in this study expressed the need to exert additional effort in
recruiting minorities and women from other institutions through the use Of networks.
However, without the dean’s support for diversity, efforts of the new associate dean for
diversity may be ineffective. Merely hiring someone to be a diversity representative is not
sufficient; changes in top-leadership commitment and support for diversity are essential.

Bennett’s model (2003) suggests that the lower the level of cross-cultural
competency, the lower the commitment from top leadership to support diversity on
college campuses. For example, if the dean is in the first stage of development in
understanding, respecting, and welcoming differences among his faculty and staff, it is
likely that the structural (reward system) support for diversity is weak. If diversity is truly
valued and important in the college, then the dean must be a strong advocate for
diversity. This may require structural support (financial), procedural support (goals and
plans), and a climate/culture shift (programs for training) in the overall commitment and
support for diversity. This study supports the findings of two prior studies conducted in
the college indicating that there is a lack of efficient funding support for the recruitment

of faculty and students in the college.

161

Based on the college-wide electronic diversity survey conducted in 2007 (Public
Sector Consultants), there is evidence that there is a lack of structural, procedural, and
cultural support for diversity in the college. Leadership support for diversity may lead to
challenges similar to those identified among search-committee members; based on
Bennett’s model, leaders may also be operating under various stages of development and
thus may hold various levels of understanding, valuing, respecting, and welcoming in
creating an environment that supports a diverse community on college campuses. This
suggests that cross-cultural and intercultural competency training and development are
needed, starting with top leadership and including various stakeholders such as search-
committee members and graduate-student recruiters.
Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices

The university’s diversity office, academic hiring Office, dean, department chair,
and associate dean of diversity should provide leadership support (structural and
organizational) in an effort to increase the acceptance and support of various diverse
faculty and student populations on campus. The following best practices are
recommended for leadership support in promoting campus diversity and inclusiveness:
1. The institution’s administrators (diversity, board, president, provost, deans, and

directors) should provide stronger leadership support to promote and advance

inclusiveness and commitment to diversity by establishing a set of standards of

excellence in support of diversity on campus. Organizational change is needed to

set specific measurable goals in achieving the college’s vision and mission

statement.

162

The university’s board and president should consider reviewing their mission and
vision strategies to emphasize support for inclusiveness, and to promote and
advance both domestic and international diversity in the university’s mission
statement.

The provost and the deans should require the development of goals that can be
measured for greater levels of accountability. Structural goals promoting diversity
can be tied to incentives, such as salary increases and tenure and promotional
opportunities—for example, tracking the number of minority or women students
mentored and the success rates of hiring more women or minorities in the
department.

The provost and the deans should provide diversity funding (structural support)
for tenure-track hires, to increase diversity in departments that have low levels of
diversity in their workforce.

University administrators (Academic Human Resource Office, provosts, and
deans) should provide guidance in establishing procedural goals (mentoring and
support) for retention efforts once a candidate is hired, to assure candidate
success.

The Academic Human Resource Office should require follow-up reports from the
departments to assure candidates’ success once on the job and to assure that
departments provide ongoing mentor/support services to new faculty hires to help
improve the perceived unwelcoming climate.

The Academic Human Resource Office should review the field codes and

strongly recommend and/or require that the departments expand the number Of

163

field codes it uses to calculate availability data. Affirrnative-action goals should
reflect the increases of availability in the workforce and the expansion of majors
in the College of Agriculture and other colleges on campus.

9. The Academic Human Resource Office should consider separating domestic
affirmative-action hire goals from international ones. Goals should be set and

measured for a 1-year period rather than a 3-year overlap.

Campus Climate

This study found that the college climate is unwelcoming for women and minority
faculty. However, the findings in this study revealed that while women have made some
progress in academia, recruitment and retention of minority faculty continues to be a
struggle. This may be due to a lack of sufficient support for diversity from top-level
administrators. Additionally, this study supports the findings of two previous studies
implemented in the college that revealed that women and minority students and faculty
felt a lack of support in mentoring, networking, and equal opportunities for research and
professional development, suggesting unfair treatment. In addition, the findings of this
study support earlier studies that faculty of color experience isolation and higher levels of
stress due to a greater demand from students of color who request mentoring and advising
services, which removes crucial time from their tenure and promotion requirements
(Turner & Myer, 2000). Like previous research, this study revealed that minority and
women faculty are likely to face many forms of subtle discrimination during their career
on college campuses.

It is in the best interest of the university to foster an all-inclusive, welcoming

climate and culture to adhere to the various employment laws regarding equal

164

employment and the civil rights act. Additionally, an organizational change is required in
the areas of hiring practices, rewards, support for strong network systems through
increased collaborations of projects and research, and incentives for achieving diversity
excellence on campus. Faculty generally have a desire for a fair and equitable system in a
given college. Thus, this may require an assessment of the workload of faculty to achieve
a balance of teaching, outreach, community service, and research responsibilities among
the various faculty in the college. Additionally, the climate of the college may be
enhanced through the dean’s leadership and emphasis on increased support to women and
minorities in achieving tenure and promotion and to increase the level of diversity in the
college. In addition, the findings in this study support the literature that suggests that the
climate at higher education institutions may not be welcoming of a diverse population
(Aquirre, 2000; Change et al., 2003; Haag, 2005). The literature in this study revealed
that the climate in higher education is “chilly” for women and minorities (Aquirr, 2000;
Gordon, 2004; Hale, 2004; Hao, 2003; Miller, 1999;Turner, Myers & Creswell, 1999).
One way to improve the climate is to value and better accommodate the voices of all
individuals in decision-making affecting university’s policies and practices.
Organizational change may be needed to implement accountability at the department
level to promote and support hiring for diversity, which is critical to the success of
diversifying the college. The findings from this study led to recommendations for best
practices in the hiring and recruitment Of a diverse faculty pool (see Appendix B for a

complete list).

165

Policy Implications and Recommendations for Best Practices
The university’s diversity office, academic hiring office, dean, department chair,
and associate dean of diversity should provide leadership support at both the college and
institutional levels in an effort to improve the culture and climate by increasing the
sensitivity and understanding of diverse faculty and student populations on campus. The
following best practices are recommended to foster a welcoming campus culture and
climate in support for diversity:

1. Search committees should assure that candidate visits promote a positive and
welcoming climate that includes information about resources such as support for
diversity at the university, housing information, and community events.

2. The clean should set the tone by addressing the need for a culture that supports
and promotes an all-inclusive climate in the college.

3. University administrators (board, president, provost, diversity director, dean and
department chairs) should implement organizational change strategies that
provide standards to align recruitment efforts with retention goals, to assure
candidates’ success once hired. The dean and department chairs should establish
goals and objectives that will provide assurances for candidate success, such as

mentoring services, developmental support, and funding Opportunities.

Future Research

Future research recommendations that have emerged from this study address the
following issues: (a) Tenure-track faculty retention, promotion, and tenure

(b) comparative studies of international faculty and US. domestic faculty, (c) student

166

pipeline and funding, ((1) effectiveness of affirmative-action programs, and (g) leadership
support for diversity.

First, in order to improve diversity among the faculty pool in higher education,
the issue of faculty retention must be addressed. It is likely that without good retention
practices, recruitment efforts will prove ineffective. Further research could explore how
minority faculty succeed in achieving promotion and tenure. This researcher suggests
further study of retention, such as the opportunity for promotion and tenure for new hires.
An in-depth study may be helpful in understanding how promotion and tenure is granted.
What are the requirements for new faculty to achieve tenure and promotions at a public-
research university?

Future studies may explore the success rates or failure of women and minority
faculty that are hired in a given department at a land-grant institution. Specifically, what
structural, procedural, or network support is needed or available in the development of
minority and women faculty at a research university? How and with whom do new
faculty collaborate on research and innovations? Another major area for future
implications is the notion of what faculty qualifications are valued and how can new
faculty candidates better prepare themselves for future faculty positions? This line of
inquiry may address the value placed on research from top-tier institutions versus other
universities, as well as publications in well-renowned publications versus those not so
well known. Moreover, how can research universities prepare their doctoral students and
new faculty for tenure-track faculty positions?

Second, this study uncovered a greater level Of international faculty hires both at

the institution and in the college in comparison to US. domestic minority-faculty hires.

167

Thus, future research could explore the career track of international faculty versus U.S.
domestic faculty. Specifically, how does international faculty compete in US institutions
for jobs and what is the key for success for international faculty? How can domestic
faculty candidates better prepare themselves to compete globally among the various
universities for jobs. What makes international faculty more successful in acquiring jobs
over domestic minority faculty? Future inquiries may explore the effectiveness of the
current faculty pipeline and the success of faculty-development programs in higher
education institutions. Therefore, this study recommends comparative future studies such
as comparing how the challenges for international faculty are similar or different from
those of domestic U.S faculty.

Third, this study suggests further research regarding the pipeline of graduate
students and the challenges minority students face in pursuing postsecondary education
and graduate studies. This study disclosed a reduction of enrollment among US. minority
students in graduate programs, especially due to the recent ban on affirmative action in
the state. Thus, future research may explore what Obstacles or challenges exist for
minority students in light of the ban on affirmative-action programs across higher
education institutions. Additionally, as a result of the ban on affirmative-action programs,
student funding is no longer available for the recruitment of minority students; further
research may explore the current policies regarding funding and recruitment of students.
Specifically, how do faculty at public-research universities award funding (assistantships,
fellowships, and scholarships) to students for graduate studies? In addition, future studies
should explore the effectiveness and impact of current graduate-student firnding policies

and procedures in the recruitment of a diverse student population.

168

Third, the findings of this study suggest future-research implications in the area of
affirmative-action programs at public-research universities. Future research may
comprehensively explore the effectiveness of affirmative-action programs in the
recruitment of faculty and staff, and the effectiveness Of diversity programs at a public-
research university. Specifically, an evaluation and exploration of new policies and
practices is called for, to better address the needs of today’s demographically different
university population. For example, what polices are needed today to achieve an all-
inclusive diverse campus?

Finally, this study recommends exploring the level of support for diversity from
top leadership (board of trustees, president, and deans) for diversity. This study found
that in order to achieve a diverse/inclusive climate and culture, leadership support is
essential. Thus, future research may inquire what support systems are available at public-
research universities for diversity and inclusiveness? How does the level of support from
university administrators and the board of trustees impact the rate of success in

diversifying campuses?

Conclusion

This study explored a Midwestern university’s efforts to hire a more diverse
faculty. The study, through a combination of interviews and documentation analysis,
revealed several challenges facing the institution in areas such as job postings, job
descriptions, qualification evaluation, selection, candidate availability, affirmative-action
programs, leadership, and climate.

Universities are pivotal in shaping the future of the country, and they take a lead

role in training young minds for leadership tomorrow. Student demographics continue to

169

change significantly, requiring higher education institutions to provide quality education
to an increasingly diverse student population. Hence, campus diversity is essential in
preparing students to work with a diverse community. Central to these plans is the need
to strategically align the mission of the university to the desire to achieve a diverse
campus for students, faculty, and staff. Universities must take this task seriously because
they are both the producers and consumers of their own workforce in the form of recent
doctoral graduates.

This study supported the work of other scholars in the area of hiring practices for
tenure-track faculty positions. This study supports the literature that research universities
have far to go to achieve sufficient levels of diversity on college campuses. It is clear
from this study that if diversity is truly important, it must be valued by those in the
university. Most of the study participants, including Caucasian males, females, and
minorities, expressed a great sense of disappointment with the current leadership,
identifying the institution’s diversity efforts as superficial at best. This study found that
support from the current university leadership, particularly the president and board of
trustees is essential to the success of diversifying the campus and the college. It was
disturbing to understand that the climate in the College of Agriculture appears to be
resistant to creating diversity and continues to struggle in diversifying its faculty.

The intention of affirmative-action programs was to remedy the effects of past
injustices, especially in light of the slavery era. However, the critics of affirmative-action
programs have challenged these programs in recent Supreme Court cases, alleging
reverse discrimination against White males. These debates raised some controversial

perspectives about affirmative-action programs. Consequently, this challenge has been

170

addressed through the implementation of noncontroversial practices in hiring for tenure-
track faculty positions on university campuses. Therefore, the principle of meritocracy in
faculty appointments is widely supported in higher education as a safe yet highly
competitive system of hiring. Whether such standards are followed consistently and
universally is questionable given the high degree of subjectivity in the selection process.

The study found that screening and recruitment practices in the College of
Agriculture are somewhat subjective. In addition, job postings are not always effective in
the recruitment of a diverse faculty pool. The study revealed that jobs are not always
posted at universities that graduate a high number of minority and women personnel. In
addition, the standards by which job descriptions are developed, describing a specific gap
that needs to be filled, further challenges the number of candidates available to fill that
specific gap.

Although the institution has good hiring policies and practices on its Academic
Human Resource hiring Website (Institution Academic Hiring, n.d.), regrettably these
policies are not always followed as prescribed. It is this researcher’s conclusion that
current College of Agriculture practices are mechanical in reference to the affirmative-
action requirements that insist on “good faith” efforts in hiring, and risk creating an
adverse impact on minorities. The composition of search committees is equally
problematic. This study found that most search committees are composed Of older
Caucasian males. Bennett’s (1993) theory provides a perspective of how people select
individuals based on their race, age, sex, or national origin, which helps in understanding

the level of acceptance and rejection in the hiring decision-making process.

171

In closing, because the study found that availability of faculty candidates is a
challenge, not only for this institution but possibly for many other higher education
institutions, it highlights a sense of urgency to improve the student pipeline and faculty-
recruitment policies and practices. The findings revealed several factors that inhibit the
hiring of tenure-track diverse faculty in the college: (a) Ineffective “mechanical” hiring
policies and practices continue to challenge diversification of the faculty in the college;
(b) minority faculty and women feel a lack of support for success, feel isolated, and
believe their work is devalued or marginalized, thus leading to the feeling that the climate
is “chilly” and unwelcoming in the college; ( 0) members of the search committee lack
training in understanding hiring policies and practices or affirmative-action programs,
and therefore myths continue to erode efforts for a diversified faculty pool; and (d) top
leadership support is lacking for a diversified campus. The results of this study highlight
the impact of the ban of affirmative-action programs in the state and the continued
struggle minorities and women experience in higher education institutions. While it is too
early to assess the impact on faculty hires due to the ban on affirmative-action in the
state, the institution’s enrollment data suggest that the overall number of minority

students has decreased.

172

E” N!"

.V‘

10.
ll.
l2.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

24.

25.

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Questions for Search Committee and Administrators

What is your role in the interview process for hiring tenure-track faculty?

What is your understanding of diversity? How do you interpret or understand

affirmative action plans?

What is your opinion about affirmative action programs?

What policies and procedures are in effect in your department relating to hiring

diverse faculty? What are the university’s hiring policies?

What is your understanding and interpretation of these policies?

How have the recent ban on affirmative-action programs in the state impacted

current policies and procedures?

What changes if any are being made in the hiring of faculty in your department in

light of the ban on affirmative action in the state?

How do you plan to address the challenge of underrepresentation of faculty Of

color in your department?

How can diverse faculty workforce be achieved without affirmative-action

programs?

How do you recruit candidates for faculty positions? What’s the process for

recruitment?

What sources for posting for positions do you utilize?

How is the job description established for a faculty position?

How do you feel about increasing diversity in the department?

Should hiring of diverse faculty workforce be part of the tenure requirement?

How should the department be responsible to achieve access and diversity on

campus?

DO you feel that students are better served with a diverse faculty and staff

workforce?

Should department administrators be held accountable to assure a diverse

workforce?

Is diversity of the faculty considered as one of the many important factors in

hiring faculty?

Should diversity be one of the major requirements or traits in a candidate’s

previous work history?

Should race, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, national origin be considered as one of
the many factors in hiring faculty?

Should teaching, research and service be given equal priority when recruiting a

faculty workforce?

Do you feel that one’s personal biases may impact a hiring decision?

Do you feel that as a nation we are ready to judge individuals on their own merits
without the presence of current or past biases in hiring faculty?

Do you feel that faculty Of color will experience a tougher climate in securing a

job in at the university?

Is the climate in the college and department welcoming of diversity?

173

APPENDIX B

BEST PRACTICES IN RECRUITMENT OF A DIVERSE FACULTY

Recruitment Practices in Support for Diversity and Inclusiveness
The university should consider celebrating the idea Of inclusiveness by providing
more university-wide cultural, ethnic, and social events to bring together all
groups on campus (faculty, staff, and students) for the purpose of learning and
understanding differences, and for promoting cross-cultural experiences.
The dean should review the current policies and procedures regarding recruitment
of faculty and graduate students to assure a fair system of recruitment.
The dean should provide incentives to promote the hiring of a diverse workforce
and effective recruitment strategies.
The college diversity administrator should establish goals and require follow-up
standards to support the success of faculty/students of color and women in the
college.

Search Committee Recruitment Policies and Practices

Search committees should meet and utilize the expertise of the college’s diversity
representative as well as establish a working relationship with campus level
diversity representatives.
The university and the college should consider greater structural support (funding
and personnel) to promote diversity through increasing in personnel both at the
university and college levels.
The dean and department chairs should establish a strategic plan that includes

goals and objectives in hiring and retention of new minority or female faculty

174

members. The plan should provide assurances for equal employment
opportunities for all candidates, such as a diverse make-up of search committees
(women, minorities, and junior faculty), screening criteria that is broader to attract
a variety of candidate experiences which may be compatible with needs,
expanding beyond considering only traditional top-tier institutions in recruitment,
supporting mentor services, and providing funding support.

The college administrator should facilitate the appointment of a search committee
chair who can be a strong advocate and supporter for diversity. Also, college
administrators should support a strong voice (vote) for the diversity advocate on a
search.

The college diversity administrator should be engaged throughout the recruitment
process, assist in establishing hiring standards, and follow up with search
committees at every step of the hiring process.

The college diversity director or associate dean should be prepared to stop a
search at any stage should it become necessary and hold departments more
accountable for their actions. For instance, a search should be stopped when there
is no diversity representation on the search committee or if there is no diversity
representation in the candidate pool.

The dean and department chairs should establish a strategic plan that includes
goals and Objectives in hiring and retention of new minority and/or female faculty

members.

175

Job Postings and Faculty Recruitment Practices
Efforts should be made to post job openings in a diverse set of journals and
websites to maximize the number of qualified candidates available.
Job postings should be advertised with the institution’s various diverse faculty
and staff associations and other colleges and departments as well as with
organizations/Offices at universities that support diversity.
A diverse faculty representing a wide range of disciplines, race, and ethnicity,
from each department should actively network with counterparts at other
universities to seek out potential diverse candidates.
The intuition’s diversity Office should update the information on its website to
provide more accurate information about the various campus organizations and
diverse faculty and staff associations so that departments have easy access to this
information when posting for jobs.
The intuition’s diversity Office should consider posting jobs on its website to
inform a diverse community of opportunities on campus.
The dean and department chairs should provide opportunities for women and
minority faculty to engage, network and collaborate with highly recognized
faculty in their field to build a field support base and to break down barriers that
create the perceptions of “tokenism” and overcome feelings of isolation.
The dean and department chairs should provide opportunities for women and
minority faculty to engage, network and collaborate with highly recognized
faculty in their field to build a field support base and to break down barriers that

create the perceptions of “tokenism” and overcome feelings of isolation.

176

Faculty members who represent diversity (diversity advocates and faculty of
color) should attend conferences in an effort to build networks and post
announcements for job postings.

The Job Description, Qualifications, and the Selection Practices
Job descriptions should highlight a broad set of skills and interdisciplinary ideas
whenever possible. Job descriptions should also detail both desired and required
qualifications clearly.
The dean, department chair, and the associate dean of diversity should establish
goals to increase the pool of domestic U.S. diversity in the recruitment Of faculty.
The dean and the department chair should discuss and address any revealed bias
of search committee members in the selection process when defining “quality”
standards.
Job descriptions should be utilized as a tool to recruit for the desired knowledge,
skills, and abilities and for screening candidates including evaluation of
transferable skills (compatible skills).
The department chair should meet with the search committee and reinforce the
goal of promoting a fair and equitable hiring process for all candidates.
Discussions should include the use of a holistic approach in screening candidates
and sensitivity to one’s own biases in recruitment.
The dean, department chair, and the associate dean of diversity should establish

goals to increase the pool of domestic U.S diversity in the recruitment of faculty.

177

Increase Diversity in the Faculty Pool and Student Pipeline
The dean, department chair, and the associate dean of diversity should establish
goals to increase the pool of domestic U.S. diversity in the student population,
both at the graduate and undergraduate levels.
The dean should review the current policies and procedures on graduate student
funding and recruitment to assure fairness and equity in recruitment.
The college should engage in aggressive marketing initiatives to eliminate long-
held negative views among students about the field of agriculture.
The dean should facilitate a cooperative working relationship between the college
and its departments in the recruitment of a diverse student and faculty in the
coHege.

Training and Support for Diversity

The Academic Human Resource Office should provide the three-phase training
program described above for university stakeholders including search committee
members and others who are involved in the recruitment of faculty.
The college should provide diversity-training programs to faculty and staff. In
addition, mandatory and voluntary ongoing training programs should address the
topics of workplace harassment, discrimination, cross-cultural competency
development, and workplace diversity. These training programs should provide
Opportunities for participants to discuss racial and gender biases and myths that
faculty, staff, and administrators may unknowingly hold about women, races, or
ethnic groups. Training should be provided to all those involved in hiring tenure-

track faculty.

178

The diversity office should provide training and development programs to
emphasize cross—cultural competencies in the spirit of inclusion to all university’s
business.

The diversity Office should distribute posters of state and federally mandated laws
to departments on campus, such as information on fair and safe employment
practices regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment,

federal affirmative-action programs, and best hiring practices.

Leadership Support for Diversity and Inclusiveness
The institution’s administrators (diversity, board, president, provost, deans, and
directors) should provide stronger leadership support to promote and advance
inclusiveness and commitment to diversity by establishing a set of standards of
excellence in support for diversity on campus. Organizational change is needed to
set specific measurable goals in achieving the college’s vision and mission
statement.
The university’s board and president should consider reviewing their mission and
vision strategies to emphasize support for inclusiveness and to promote and
advance both the domestic and international diversity in the university’s mission
statement.
The provost and the deans should require the development of goals that can be
measured for greater levels of accountability. Structural goals promoting diversity
can be tied to incentives, such as salary increases and tenure and promotional

opportunities—for example, tracking the number of minority or women students

179

mentored and the success rates of hiring more women or minorities in the
department.

The provost and the deans should provide diversity funding (structural support)
for tenure-track hires, to increase diversity in departments that have low levels of
diversity in their workforce.

The university administrators (Academic Human Resource Office, provosts, and
deans) should provide guidance in establishing procedural goals (mentoring and
support) for retention efforts once a candidate is hired, to assure candidate
success.

The Academic Human Resource Office should require follow-up reports from the
departments to assure candidates’ success once on the job and to assure that
departments provide ongoing mentor/support services to new faculty hires to help
improve the perceived unwelcoming climate.

The Academic Human Resource Ofiice should review the field codes and
strongly recommend and/or require that the departments expand the number of
field codes it uses to calculate availability data. Affirmative-action goals should
reflect the increases of availability in the workforce and the expansion of the
majors in the College of Agriculture and other colleges on campus.

The Academic Human Resource Office should consider separating domestic
affirmative-action hire goals from international ones. Goals should be set and

measured for a l-year period rather than a 3-year overlap.

180

-A~ -_-.

Culture and Climate Support for Diversity and Inclusiveness
Search committees should assure that candidate visits promote positive and
welcoming climate experiences that include information about resources such as
support for diversity at the university, housing information, and community
events.
The dean should set the tone by addressing the need for a culture that supports
and promotes an all-inclusive climate in the college.
The university administrators (board, president, provost, diversity director, dean
and department chairs) should implement organizational change strategies that
provide standards to align recruitment efforts with retention goals, to assure
candidates’ success once hired. The dean and department chairs should establish
goals and Objectives that will provide assurances for candidate success, such as

mentoring services, developmental support, and funding opportunities.

181

REFERENCES
Abramson, J. (1995). The invisible women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Abdrabboh, M., Bernstein, M. J., Scott, K. W., Sharma, AT. K., Stokes, K. H., Wesaw,
M.J., & Zelley, J .M. (2007, March 7). “One Michigan” at the crossroads: An
assessment of the impact of Proposal 06-02 by the Michigan Civil Rights
Commission. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcr/FinalCommissionReport3-

O7_1_1 89266_7.pdf

Adam, M. (2006a, March 27). AACU Reports on the diversity/excellence connection.
The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Paramus, 16(12), 15.

Adam, M. (2006b, Aug. 14). The new diversity: Better or worse. The Hispanic Outlook
in Higher Education Paramus, 16(22), 34.

Alder, P. (1993). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed),
Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21-71). Boston: Intercultural
Press.

American Association of University Professors. (2004). Affirmative Action. AA UP
Amicus Briefs, I999-2004. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/legal/ 1 999-2004amicus.htm#aa

Aguirre, A. (2000). Women and racial and ethnic faculty in the academic workplace:
Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Reports 27(6), 1-110.

Allen, R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E.A., Suh, S.A., & Bonous-Harnmarth, M. (2000,
Winter-Spring). The Black academic: Faculty status among African Americans in
US higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 112-127.

Altbach, P. (2001). The American academic model in comparative perspective. In
Altbach. P.G., Gurnport, P.J., and Johnstone, D.B. (Eds), In Defense of American
Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Antonio, A. L. (2001a). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college.
Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 63—89.

Antonio, A. L. (2001b). The role of interracial interaction in the development Of
leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher
Education, 42(5), 593—617.

Antonio. L. A. (2002 Oct). Faculty Of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to
scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 5(73), 582-602.

182

Astin, H.S., Antonio, A.L., Cress, C.M., & Astin, AW. (1997). Race and ethnicity in the
American professorate. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.

Ataiyero, K. (2006, April 28). College makes diversity on its faculty a priority: Despite
small gains, recruiting Blacks and Hispanics remains a challenge at ECC. Knight
Ridder Tribune Business News, 1.

Bennett, M.J. (1993). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige
(Ed), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21-71). Boston:
Intercultural Press.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004, Sept). Are Emily and Greg more employable
than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The
American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

Blackshire-Belay, C. (1998 July-August). The status of minority faculty members in the
Academy. Academe, 30-36.

Blanks, L. S. (2005). The effects of an Affirmative Action statement and Affirmative
Action training on perceptions of employee competency, qualifications, and job
performance. Doctoral dissertation: Austin State University. University Illiad
Loan, Internet Access Database: 268314.

Borden, V.M.H., & Brown, PC. (2006 June 1). The top 100: Interpreting the data. Black
Issues in Higher Education, 23(8), 36-39.

Borden, V.M.H., & Brown, PC. (2004 July 29). The top 100: Interpreting the data. Black
Issues in Higher Education, 21(12), 33.

Borden, V.M.H., Brown, P.C., & Garver, AK. (2005 April 14). The top 100: Interpreting
the data. Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(11), 34-37.

Bowen, W., & Bok, D. (1998, Sept. 18). Study supports benefits of Affirmative Action
India- West, 23 (46), B 14.

Bowen, W., & Bok, D. (2000). From the shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. In F. Cosby & C. Van
DeVeer, Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

183

Brett, A. (1992). Stages of Aflirmative Action and diversity policy in the California state
university system: Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific. University Iliad
Loan, Internet Access Database: 264608.

Bye, P. (2007). Realizing the full potential of diversity and inclusion as a core business
strategy. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from
http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/whitepapers _published/ CM S_02 l 93 8 .asp#P-
4_0

Cahn, S. (1993). Affirmative Action and the university: A philosophical inquiry.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Cantor, N. (2001, Sept. 1). A degree of diversity. Chicago Defender, p. 13.

Chang, M.J. (2005, Winter). Reconsidering the diversity rationale. Liberal Education.
Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation

Chang, M. J ., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004 August). Cross-Racial Interaction Among
Undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher
Education, 45(5). Retrieved August 27, 2007, from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1 3303 673 815842w/fulltext.pdf

Chang, M.J., Denson, N., Saenz, K., & Misa, K. (2006, May/June). The educational
benefits of sustaining cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal
of Higher Education, 77(3), 430.

Chang, M.J., Seltzer, M., & Kim, J. (2002). Diversity of opinions among entering college
students: Does race matter? Paper presented at American Educational Researcher
Association Conference, Seattle.

Chang, M.J., Witt, D., Jones, J ., & Hakuta, K. (2003). Compelling interest: Examining
the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford University
Press.

Chapa, J. (2006). The educational pipeline and the future professorate: Who will teach
California’s and the nation’s Latino and African-American college students? In
Gandara, Orfield & Horn (Eds), Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education:
Leveraging Promise. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Clark, R. (2006, May). Recruitment and retention of faculty of color in Oklahoma.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.

Clark, S. (1997, Oct. 29). In Oregon: Few black professors at public universities. Los
Angeles Sentinel, 63(31), A8.

184

Colby, A., & F oote, E. (1995). Creating and maintaining a diverse faculty (Report No.
ED 386 261). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.

Cockrell. K., Mitchell, R., Middleton, J ., & Campbell, N. (1999, March). The Holmes
Scholars Network: A study of the Holmes Group Initiative for recruitment and
retention of minority faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 85.

Connerly, W. (2000). U.C. must end Affirmative Action. In F. J. Crosby & C. Van
DeVeer, (Eds.), Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment (pp.
29-30). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Cox, Matthews, & Associates (2006, April). Champions of Diversity in Higher Education
collectively celebrate the rising young academic stars. Diverse Magazine.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2“d ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crosby, F .J ., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative Action:
Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58(2), 93-1 15.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Digest of Educational Statistics (2004). Faculty, Staff and Salaries. Retrieved on line on
4/26/07 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ch_3.asp

Din, S. (2002, April 19). Indian Americans at heart of legal battle in University of
Illinois. India Abroad, 32(29), 8.

Dooley, E. (2003, Fall). Increasing the number of ethnically diverse faculty in special
education programs: Issues and initiatives. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 26(4) 264-272.

Drake, W. (2004). Diversity in higher education: Minority faculty representation at the
Big Ten universities. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from
http://www.indiana.edu/~shs/docs/Minority__Faculty_BigTen.2004.pdf

Duderstadt, J. J. (2003, Aug. 19). Navigating the American university through the stormy
seas of a changing world. Paper presented at the Society for College and
University Planning, Miami, FL, August 19, 2003. Retrieved October 8, 2006,
from www.scup.org/3 8/archieves/duderstadt-2003 .pdf

Evans, R. (2002, Sept. 25). University of Texas and dean sued for racial bias. New York
Beacon, 9(38)14.

185

Executive Order #11246 (1971). President Johnson, Equal Employment Opportunities
and Aflirmative Action. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/index-j.htrnl

Francis, L. (1993). Identifying discrimination in higher education In S. Cahn, Aflirmative
Action and the University: A Philosophical Inquiry. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Gandara, P., Orfield, G., & Horn, C. (2006). Expanding opportunity in higher education:
Leveraging promise. New York: State University of New York Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Press.

Gorchow, Z. (2006, Nov. 29). California, Washington give clues to impact of Proposal 2.
Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, A1.

Gordon, M. (2004). Diversification of the faculty. In F. Hale (Ed.), What Makes Racial
Diversity Work in Higher Education: Academic Leaders Present Successful
Policies and Strategies (pp. 182-198)? New York: Stylus Publishing.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 123 S.Ct. 2411 (2003).

Grieco, E.M., &. Cassidy, R. C. (March 2001). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
Census 2000 brief Retrieved April 27, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/prOd/2001pubs/cenbr01 - 1 .pdf

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 US. 424 (1971).

Grutter v. Bollinger. 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).

Gurin, P. (1999). Expert report of Patricia Gurin. In the Compelling Need for Diversity in
Higher Education. (pp. 99-234). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Haag, P. (2005). Is collegiality code for hating ethnic, racial, and female faculty at tenure
time? Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education.

Hale, F. (2004) Effective strategies for enhancing minority faculty
recruitment and retention. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from
http://senate.sdsu.edu/committees/deo/deo2004__200S/deo_aa__aprsec2005.pdf

Hamilton, K. (2004, March 25). Faculty science positions continue to elude women of
color. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(3), 4.

Hao, Z. (2002). Race, gender, discrimination and tenure (denial) in academe: Problems
and analysis. Unpublished manuscript.

186

Hao, Z. (2003, July 31). What can we do with individual and institutional racism and
sexism in the tenure and promotion processes in American Colleges and
Universities? Race, Gender & Class, 10(3), 126.

Harvey, WB. (2001). Minorities in higher education: Eighteenth annual report.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Hastings, R. (2008 July). Diversity leadership in academia: Same message, different
approach. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from
http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/whitepapers_published/CMS_021938.asp#P-
4_0

Hayden, R. (1997). Faculty Aflirmative Action: A case study of underrepresented faculty
at University of California, Irvine. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Irvine.

Hayton, A. & Paczuska, A. (2002). Access Participation and Higher Education: Policy
and Practice. (1-274). London, UK. Kogan Page Limited.

Healy, P. (1998, Oct. 30). Foes of preferences try a referendum in Washington State.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(10), A34.

Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Stathatos, P. (1997, June). The Affirmative Action stigma
of incompetence: Effects Of performance information ambiguity. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(3), 603.

Hill, D. (1987). “Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer”: Perception and
implementation of the term by search committees at two public universities.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland University Iliad Loan, Internet
Access Database: 264612.

Holcomb-McCoy, C., & Bradley, C. (2003 March). Recruitment and retention of ethnic
minority counselor educators: An exploratory study of CACREP-accredited
counseling programs. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 231.

Hopwood v. State ofTexas. 95 F.3d. 53 (5th Cir), Cert. Denied No.95-1773, 116 S.Ct.
2581. (1996).

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield & M. Kurlaender
(Eds), Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Aflirmative Action (pp.
187—203). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Institution. (n.d). Academic human resources policies and procedures. Retrieved August
5, 2007, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

187

Institution. (n.d.). Baldness by design. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from [website withheld for
confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). The College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved January
7, 2008, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). The Department of Agriculture, Food and Resource Economics.
Retrieved January 20, 2008, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). The Department of Horticulture, College of A gricultural and Natural
Resources at Institution. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from [website withheld for
confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). Inclusion defined Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives at
Institution. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). Institution facts. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from [website withheld
for confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). The Office of Planning and Budget at Institution. Retrieved January 7,
2008, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

Institution. (n.d.). The president ’s webpage. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from [website
withheld for confidentiality].

Inoue, Y. (2005, April 11). Critical thinking and diversity experiences: A connection.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Jenkins, J. (1999). An analysis of judicial opinions regarding equal protection and
Affirmative Action law in the public school personnel context. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Johnson, A. (2002). What can we do? Becoming part of the solution. In S. J. Ferguson
(Ed). Mapping the Social Landscape: Reading in Sociology (3lrd ed, pp. 655-667).
Boston: McGraw Hill.

Johnson v. Transportation Agency. 480 US 792. (1987).
Kayes, P. (2006, Winter). New paradigms for diversifying faculty and staff in higher
education: Uncovering cultural biases in the search and hiring process.

Multicultural Education.

Kayes, P., & Singley, Y. (2005, Nov). Why are 90 percent of college faculty still White?
Diverse Forum.

188

Kekes, J. (1993) The injustice of strong Affirmative Action. In S. Cahn (Ed), Affirmative
Action and the University: A Philosophical Inquiry. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4).

King, ML. (1963, Aug. 28.). I have a dream: Address at march in Washington. Retrieved
February 5, 2008, from http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about Affirmative Action:
Effects of target and of respondent sec and ethnicity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(6), 928-938.

Law. 1., Phillips. D., & Turney, L. (2004). Institutional racism in higher education.
Oxford: Trentharn Print Design Limited.

Leap, T. (1995, March 31). Tenure, discrimination, and African-American faculty. The
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 103.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lowell. H., & Long. S. (2002 July/Aug). Demographic inertia and women representation
among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 24-
34.

Mabokela, RD. (2007). Book review: From Oppression to Grace: Women of Color and
Their Dilemmas within the Academy. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4),
484-486.

Marable, M. (1995 March 24). “Along The Color Line”: Rethinking Affirmative Action.
New York Beacon, 2(59), 9.

Maruyama, G., & Moreno, J. (2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity
on campus and in the classroom. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from
http ://maj orsmatter.net/race/AAUP%20Diversity%20Study.pdf#page= l 4

Maturana, M. (2005 June). Factors in the search process that contribute to the
recruitment and hiring of faculty of color. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Boston.

McCristal, J .B. (2004). [Title of book withheld for confidentiality].
Bloomfield Hills, MI: Author.

189

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 410 US 952. 93 S. Ct. 1415. Ed. 2'”. 865. 1973 US
Lexis. February 26, 1953. No. 72-490. Lexis 411 US. 792. 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36
L.Ed. 2'nd 668. (so 1973).

McGlynn, A. (2006, June 19). What every college president should know about campus
diversity. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 16(18), 25-27.

Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education, featured report. In D. Wilds (Ed.), Minorities in Higher Education:
Seventeenth Annual Status Report (pp. 39—67). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.

Milem, J. (2001). Increasing diversity benefits: How campus climate and teaching
methods affect student outcomes. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity Challenged:
Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (pp. 233-249). Cambridge: Harvard
Education Press.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Miller, L. (1999). Aflirmative Action and diversity as public policy issues in higher
education: A case study of Aflirmative Action and diversity in faculty hiring
practices at Queens College. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Cincinnati.

Mitchell Research & Communications. (2007). College diversity surveys via focus
groups. Report on January 12, 2006 [Research website withheld for
confidentiality].

Moody, J. (2004). Department good practices for retaining minority graduate students. In
F. Hale (Ed.), What Makes Racial Diversity Work in Higher Education: Academic
Leaders Present Successful Policies and Strategies. (pp. 164-181). New York:
Stylus Publishing.

Muchinsky, PM. (2000). Psychology applied at work (6th ed). Australia: Wadsworth.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002 July). Profile of undergraduates in US.
postsecondary institutions: 1999—2000. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from

http://nces.ed.gov/pub52002/2002168.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Chapter 3: Postsecondary education.

Digest of Educational Statistics. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ch_3.asp

190

Norris, H. (1995, Oct. 26). NO African American ever granted tenure: Black professor at
Mills College files institutional racism lawsuit. The Sun Report. Retrieved
January 6, 2007, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-2367603.html

Opp, R. D., & Smith, A. (1994). Effective strategies for enhancing minority faculty
recruitment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 10, 147.

Paige, R. M. (1993). Education for the intercultural experience. Boston: Intercultural
Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

Pavel, M., Swisher, K., & Ward, M. (1994). Special focus: American Indian and Alaska
native demographic and educational trends. In D. J. Carter and R. Wilson (Eds.),
Minorities in Higher Education (pp. 33-60). Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.

Peabody, A. (1998, March 4). Black employee slams Georgetown University with 83m
lawsuit. Washington Informer, 34(19), 1.

Phillips, R. (2002). Recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty. Planning for Higher
Education, 30(4), 32-39.

Podberesky v. Kirwan. 38 F.3d. 147 (4‘h Cir. 1994). Cert. Denied, 115 S.Ct. 2001 (1994).

Public Sector Consultants. (2007). College-wide survey on diversity: Electronic survey.
Retrieved January 11, from [website withheld for confidentiality].

Quezada, R., & Louque, A. (2004, Winter). The absence of diversity in the academy:
Faculty of color in education administration programs. Education, 125(2).

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, LEXUS No. 76-811 438 US. 265 (1978).

Rhodes, F.H.T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rodriguez, E., &. Nettles, M. (1997). Achieving the national education goals: The status
of minorities in today's global economy. In L. Goodchild, C. Lovell, E. Hines,
and J. Gill (Eds), Public Policy and Higher Education (pp. 247-269). Boston:
Simon and Schuster.

Roach, R. (1999). Blacks in crimson. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(25), 32-3 7.

Roos, P. A. (1997). Occupational feminization: Occupational decline?
Sociologist’s changing sex composition. American Sociologist, 28, 75-88.

191

Ruppert, S. (2003, Oct. 3). Nation faces a college-access crisis, education-policy group
warns. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Sataline, S., & Hechinger, J (2006, Nov. 9). The new landscape: State turns back college
Affirmative Action; ban will apply to hiring by state, public colleges, but
challenge is expected. Wall Street Journal, A.l3.

Schneider, A. (1998, Nov. 20). What has happened to faculty diversity in California? The
Chronicle of Higher Education, A10.

Shoop, R., & Dunklee, D. (2001 April). The hazardous waters of staff selection. The
Principal Leadership.

Smith, D., Turner, C., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004, March/April). Interrupting
the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(2), 133—160.

Springer, A., & Baez, B. (2002, Dec. 6). Affirmative Action is not discrimination. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(15), l7.

Stack, C. (1991, Nov. 6). Female and racial and ethnic professors earn less. Sacramento
Observer, 28(49).

Sundaram, A.K. (2000a, Oct. 6). Stanford University settles wrongful termination suit.
India West, 25(49), 32.

Sundaram, A.K. (2000b, July 28). Utah professor files discrimination suit. India West,
25(39), 1.

Swail, W. (2002, July-Aug). Higher education and the new demographics: Questions for
policy. Change. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from
http://ed_share.educ.University/5carr/ead/aaustin/swail.pdf

Tierney, W.G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and
' socialization in academe. Albany: Suny Press.

Top Degree Producers. (2004, July). Black Issues in Higher Education, 22(11), 80.

Trower, C.A., & Chait, RP. (2002). Faculty diversity: TOO little for too long. Harvard
Magazine. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/03/faculty-diversity.html

Turner, CS. (2000). New faces, new knowledge. Academe, 86 (5), 34-37.

192

Turner, CS. (2002 Sept/Oct). Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search
committees. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.

Turner, C.S., & Myers, S. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Turner, C.S., Myers, 8., & Creswell, J. (1999 Feb.). Exploring underrepresentation: The
case of faculty of color in the Midwest. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27-
33.

United Steel Workers v. Weber. 443 USI93. (1979).

University of Oregon. Definition of diversity. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~asuomca/diversityinit/definition.html

US. Census Bureau. (1990). Difference in Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino

Origin, for the United States: 1990 to 2000. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expplu.htrnl.

US. Census Bureau. (2005, March). Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-
171) Summary File: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Retrieved April 30,
2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/pl94-171 .pdf

US. Census Bureau. (2006 July 15). Annual estimates of the population by race alone
and Hispanic or Latino origin for the United States and States: July I, 2005 (SC -
EST2005-04). Washington DC: Author.

US. Department of Education. (2007, Sept). Postsecondary institutions in the United
States: fall 2006 and degrees and other awards conferred: 2005-06. Washington
DC: Author.

US. Department of Labor. (2002, Jan. 4). Facts on Executive Order 11246 — Affirmative
Action. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. (1997, Jan. 15). Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

Washington. (1999, Aug. 27). The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(1), 127.

Weiss, E. (2001, Sept. 6). Landmark ruling supports prog’s bias claims at William
Paterson. Jewish News, 36, 8.

193

Whitla, D., Orfield, G., Siren, W., Teperow, C., Howard, C., & Reede, J. (2003).
Educational benefits of diversity in medical school: A survey of students.
Academic Medicine, 78, 460-466.

Wilds, D. (2000). Minorities in higher education: Seventeenth annual status report.
Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Wingfield, H. (1982). Affirmative Action: The shootout over racism and sexism at the
academy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

Wolkinson, B., & Block, R. (1996). Employment law: The workplace rights of employees
and employers. Cambridge: Blackwell Press.

Wong, B. (1996, Jan. 30). NO tenure. International Examiner, 23(2), 4.
Wygant v. Johnson Board of Education. 476 US 267. (1986).

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed. vol. 5). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

194