article review

User Generated

ghgberyrpgevpny

Humanities

Description

please find the details

Unformatted Attachment Preview

565667 research-article2014 RERXXX10.3102/0034654314565667Wolfe and DilworthTransitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Review of Educational Research December 2015, Vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 667­–697 DOI: 10.3102/0034654314565667 © 2015 AERA. http://rer.aera.net Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture, African American Administrators, and Diversity Leadership in Higher Education Brandon L. Wolfe University of Alabama, Birmingham Paulette Patterson Dilworth Auburn University In this article, we present findings from a review and synthesis of historical and contemporary research to examine the concept of diversity leadership in higher education as it pertains to African American administrators at predominantly White colleges and universities. Through the use of critical race theory, we first argue that to understand the leadership disparity of African Americans and other administrators of color in higher education, one must begin by examining the cultural context in which predominantly White institutions originate, exist, and operate through the intersection of group relations. Second, we argue that due to a historical pattern of exclusivity, the title of administrator is considered whiteness property in higher education. As a consequence, the disparity between African American administrators and their White counterparts has become an organizational norm in higher education. Last, we posit that if true diversity leadership is to exist within the administrative rankings at predominantly White institutions, the conceptualization and inclusion of minority experiences must not only inform stakeholders but also shape the recruitment, retention, and assessment of minority representation at the university administrative level. Keywords: African American, higher education administration, critical race theory, organizational culture, administrators of color, diversity leadership Over the past several decades, a considerable amount of scholarship has been generated about the standing of African Americans in higher education (Holmes, 2004). Yet there is a paucity of literature that focuses specifically on the representation of African American administrators1 and their experiences at predominantly White colleges and universities. Comparatively, studies investigating the condition of African Americans in higher education have usually been directed toward the retention of students or faculty (Holmes, 2004; Jackson, 2001, 2002). 667 Wolfe & Dilworth Meanwhile, a research focus on African American administrators is either limited to student affairs practitioners (Holmes, 2004; Jackson, 2001; Watson, 2001) or to administrative roles directly related to the diversity mission of the institution, such as multicultural affairs (Rolle, Davies, & Banning, 2000). Consequently, little is known about their status as college or university administrators and their development, career experiences, and ultimately their representation (Jackson, 2004). However, what is known is that trends in colleges and universities have often undermined access and opportunity for many African Americans in higher education, which is evident in the continued low overall percentage of African Americans employed in managerial and administrative positions (Marable, 2003). In 1965, Caplow and McGee observed, Discrimination on the basis of race appears to be nearly absolute [in the academe]. No major university in the United States has more than a token representation of Negroes on its faculty, and these tend to be rather specialized persons who are filled in one way or another for such a role.” (p. 194) When Caplow and McGee made their observation, the majority of African American faculty and administrators were employed at historically Black colleges and universities—popularly known as HBCUs (Moore & Wagstaff, 1974; Rafky, 1972). Later, Menges and Exum (1983) noted that the existence of African American faculty and administrators at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) were so rare during the early 20th century that they could be individually identified. Today, the disproportionate representation for African Americans in administrative roles at PWIs continues. Ricard and Brown (2008) surmised that a majority of African American administrators in academe are not at PWIs because they are at HBCUs. Although that may be true, other scholars have suggested that the few African American administrators at PWIs do not stay long due to a series of “-isms” which have resulted in them exiting the academy as fast as they entered (Holmes, 2004; Holmes, Ebbers, Robinson, & Mugenda, 2000; Phelps, 1995). An even more simplified answer points to the small African American graduation pipeline at the graduate level in higher education (Holmes, 2004; Jackson, 2002, 2004; Perna, Gerald, Baum, & Milem, 2007). Alongside stoppages in the educational pipeline, a failure in recruitment and retention efforts, and hostile environments which lack meaningful pathways, African Americans continue to remain underrepresented at the administrator level (Mickelson & Oliver, 1991; Perna, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000; Yoshinaga, 2006). For stakeholders, the lack of African American administrator representation—as well as other administrators of color—raises concern over the institution’s lack of commitment to diversity (Cabrera, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Holmes et al., 2000; Jackson & Rosas, 1999). Moreover, the poor racial and ethnic diversity representation in leadership challenges the notion of an institution’s preparedness to address the ongoing shifts and alignment of an increasingly diverse student population. In this review, we synthesize over 40 years of research and literature to discuss the intersectionality between race and privilege as it relates to the need for diversity leadership in higher education. Due to the many dimensions of diversity that could be incorporated, we chose to narrow our focus to race (African American) 668 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture as a variable construct. We made this decision due to the unique history of continued oppression and struggle between African Americans and their White counterparts within the United States. Given the task that we have set for ourselves in this article, the argument we develop informs the reader of the organizational responses that diversity requires in higher education. In doing so, we posit that systematic oppression must first be acknowledged and extracted. Therefore, we start by developing a historical lens as a way to contextualize and establish ongoing patterns of continued marginalization against African Americans despite progressive reforms. We then follow up this contextualization by examining the role of critical race theory (CRT) as a tool for exploring the intersections between racial diversity, leadership, and privilege as it pertains to historically marginalized groups in higher education. We conclude with a discussion on the challenge of diversity leadership as it relates to minority administrators’ experiences and institutional practice at predominantly White colleges and universities. In the following section, we begin by presenting the methodology framework used to locate and identify the literature covered in our review. Afterward, we discuss common themes in the literature and define the concepts organizational culture, leadership, and diversity as they pertain to higher education. Method Literature Search This review of literature was guided by a qualitative meta-synthesis methodology—an intentional and coherent approach to analyzing a body of research using comparative analysis to induce categories across the existing relevant body of research (Bondas & Hall, 2007). It is a process that enables researchers to identify a specific research question and then select, appraise, summarize, and combine qualitative evidence to address the research question. This interpretive process uses rigorous qualitative methods to synthesize existing qualitative studies for the purpose of constructing greater meaning (Mays, Pope, & Popay, 2005). The first phase of the research began with the collection of retrievable research literature, including more than 500 articles, papers, books, and research reports on African American administrators in higher education from 1965 to 2014. The primary sources for this review came from an extensive and purposeful examination of higher education literature identified through Google, JSTOR, Education Resources Information Center, ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier. Initially, our search was dedicated to finding literature located at the intersection of leadership, retention, racial diversity, organizational culture, higher education, and African American administrators. Only a handful of resources actually address these topics in tandem. Thus, we decided to include additional terms and variations, such as inclusion, racial justice, racial equity, affirmative action, and diversity management. Only peer-reviewed journal articles on topics which directly intersect with higher education were included initially. From these initial records, key authors were identified, and their publications were located; if deemed relevant to the topic, these works were added to the research base. The second phase of the research involved generating themes to delineate our findings, which were derived from a three-stage iterative process of analysis. 669 Wolfe & Dilworth First, we surveyed the literature to provide a historical and contextual starting point and backstory for African American administrators in higher education. To determine the influence of these publications, we considered the degree to which contemporary authors reference these pieces and mention them as decisive works. This process aided us in building a conceptual framework. Second, the body of literature was categorized by themes, methodologies used, and thematic foci (i.e., African American administrators, diversity leadership, and organizational culture). Afterward, we sought to identify and critique possible gaps in the literature and heuristically develop themes which best represented the accumulated body of findings focusing on African American administrative leadership in higher education. In this review, we found that little recent research exists to foreground the experiences of African American administrators at predominantly White campuses. However, because of the limited number of studies addressing the 21st century experiences of African Americans at PWIs, we did not eliminate books or publications which addressed the confounded or conflicted nature of higher education experiences in a variety of settings. Examples of this would be books or publications in which the author’s focus addressed the historical and contemporary practices of higher education. We observed several common themes from our review of literature. First, African Americans have struggled to achieve equitable participation in education—“a key arena where the impact of racism is felt most” (Lynn & Adams, 2002, p. 87). Second, colleges and universities are distinctive types of American organizations that appear to mirror the racial antipathy of the larger society (Bennett, 2004). Typically, as racism is historically institutionalized in American society, so too is it reflected in the practices and operations of higher education (Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2003; Chesler, Lewis, & Crowfoot, 2005; Smith, Yosso, & Solórzano, 2007; Thompson & Louque, 2005). Last, in organizational and higher education research, a lot of attention has been paid to the strategic dimensions of diversity policies, systems, and processes when examining the underrepresentation of African American administrators, but less thought has been given to normative dimensions, such as career experiences and sociocultural development (Jackson, 2004; Pless & Maak, 2004). In expounding on these findings, we posit that if institutions are to remedy the disparity gap and poor representation of African American administrators at PWIs, in addition to other administrators of color, the organizational culture at these higher education institutions and its marginalizing effect on minority administrators must be understood. Specifically, we contend that there is a relationship between culture, history, and race which plays a role in framing institutional landscapes in a manner which continuously promotes the normalization of White privilege in the hiring and promotion of higher education administrators. (Re)defining Organizational Culture, Leadership, and Diversity in Academia Our conception of organizational culture is reflected through a mix of the definitions from Pettigrew (1979) and Masland (2000). Pettigrew (1979) defined organizational culture as the “amalgam of beliefs, ideology, language, ritual, and myth” (p. 572). Masland (2000) referred to it as “the implicit values, beliefs, and ideologies of those within an organization” (p. 147). And embedded within these 670 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture views are the day-to-day practices of individuals and groups that embody the values of the organization. Therefore, we define organizational culture as a combination of values, beliefs, language, rituals, and ideologies that are explicit and implicit through day-to-day practices within an organization. In academia, organizational culture encompasses a collective understanding that unites and strengthens the association between students, faculty, staff, and administrators on their identity (Clark, 2000). Leadership in higher education is often viewed as transformational, meaning that it is responsive and adaptive to promoting change in the institution and its relationship with the surrounding environment. Through the promoted perspective, the institution represents a collective projection of its members, with leaders serving as visionaries who inspire change (Keough & Tobin, 2001). Astin and Astin (2000) offered a more suitable working definition for transformational leadership in higher education by delineating possible outcomes: To enable and encourage faculty, students, administrators, and other staff to change and transform institutions so that they can more effectively enhance student learning and development, generate knowledge, and serve the community, and . . . to empower students to become agents of positive social change in the larger society. (p. 9) Thus, for our purpose in this article, we support the notion that higher education leadership aims to change values and preferences in order to promote an inclusive organizational culture for diverse populations (Aguirre & Martinez, 2002). We define diversity as an all-inclusive concept used to recognize differences via race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and other backgrounds. Ideally in higher education, diversity promotes a positive attitude toward accepting, tolerating, embracing, and ultimately respecting differences. As a driving force, diversity evolves into the practice of valuing all humanity, a means of increasing access and inclusion, a framework for creating a community that nurtures learning and growth for all of its members, and an individual and collective responsibility for combating prejudice and discrimination through a gained understanding of these issues during education, training, and engagement with others. As Brown (2004) noted, the promotion of diversity in higher education creates a “culture of acceptance that fosters a sense of belonging among all persons by recognizing and respecting difference, and in so doing, promoting a sense of loyalty to the organization” (p. 29). Additionally, Stadtman (1980) argued that in promoting diversity in higher education (a) a broad range of choices is offered to learners, (b) higher education is nearly universally accessible, (c) learning needs and skills in education are matched, (d) institutions are able to determine their own mission, and (e) institutional freedom and autonomy is promoted. Scholars have reported that other benefits of diversity in higher education include the fostering of intergroup understanding and a shift from a dependent paradigm of numerical quotas where one measures diversity through the number of individuals from diverse backgrounds represented by the quality of intergroup relations—the hallmark of a meaningful diversity experience (Hurtado, Milem, ClaytonPeterson, & Allen, 1999). 671 Wolfe & Dilworth In the context of the workplace, valuing diversity means creating a space that respects and includes differences, recognizing the unique contributions that those individuals can make, and creating a work environment that maximizes the potential of all employees. In other words, diversity in higher education—in theory—is supposed to strengthen institutions and increase their likelihood of continued success due to its reliance on associations between groups. Given the centrality of group interactions, the following sections will explore the documented relationships between African Americans and their White counterparts pertaining to access, equity, and representation. Results In this section, we provide a review of literature to highlight power struggles, roles, and group interactions between African Americans and Whites in higher education in the United States. The discussion is organized by a thematic analysis and synthesis of the literature. Black Voices Outside the Door: Examining History and Scholarship To illustrate what is known about the presence of African American administrators at PWIs, a historical framework is critical (Brubacher & Rudy, 1977). The intent is to develop a context in which to understand the major issues discussed in this review. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest a long-standing connection between historical ideologies of injustice and higher education access, equal opportunity, and career mobility related to people of color (Holmes, 1999, 2003). For African Americans, this phenomenon has been often attributed to the uniqueness of the Black/White dichotomy of race relations in the United States. For some scholars, the historical legacy of slavery becomes a fundamental variable in explaining the continued disadvantages that African Americans face today (Anderson & Stewart, 2007; Ballard, 1996; Collins, 2001; Dawson, 1994; Ogbu, 1990; Wilder, 2013). In this section, several decades of African American transition into American educational institutions since the 1800s are explored. The intent is to present a scaffold that conceptualizes the historical and social influences which have contributed to the organizational culture foundations that plague a number of PWIs. More specifically, we posit that these influences serve as continuing evidence for the limited presence of African American administrators in higher education. Black History: A Century and a Half Quest for Access and Equity As previously noted, a reoccurring theme in the history of education in the United States suggests a struggle between a dominant White Protestant Anglo-American culture and other impending cultures. Since colonial times, educators have advocated for equal opportunity and democratic citizenship while simultaneously engaging in acts of racial segregation, cultural genocide, and discrimination against non-Whites (Spring, 2005). For those considered non-White, Protestant Anglo-American domination meant deculturalization. Deculturalization is defined as an educational process in which a culture is stripped of its identity and replaces it with that of a new culture (Spring, 2006). The philosophical underpinning for deculturalization is to ensure that dominated cultures embrace rather than resist subjugation under the guise 672 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture of schooling. As Wilder (2013, p. 17) noted, the first five colleges in the British American colonies—Harvard (established 1636), William and Mary (1693), Yale (1701), Codrington in Barbados (1745), and College of New Jersey (1746), now known as Princeton University—were all weapons used in the “conquest of indigenous people” and used alongside the rise of the African slave trade and slavery to sustain a network of college growth with the mission to expand White dominance. For schools in the United States, deculturalization has been recycled in varying forms as attempts not only to eradicate other cultures but also to develop a long-term status of second-class citizenship (Spring, 2005, 2006). For African Americans, being relegated to a status of second-class citizenship would later result in various legal oppositions that would shape the landscape of U.S. higher education institutions for years to come. African Americans began challenging the ethos of White domination on the basis of the U.S. Constitution. In part, African Americans were not just resisting assimilation, they were fighting for their right to participate equally within society. For instance, in the 1896 landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Homer Plessy, who considered himself “one-eighth black and seven-eighths white,” rode in a railroad car specified for Whites only. Under Louisiana state law, Plessy was classified as African American and was thus required to sit in the “colored” car. Plessy refused and was arrested. He would later argue that his 13th and 14th Amendment rights had been violated (Tushnet, 2008). The court decided against Plessy, stating that segregation was permissible if both entities were of equal nature and were provided the same service—separate but equal. The Supreme Court ruling written by Justice Brown stated, We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) The significance of the ruling not only granted Whites the ability to keep one particular entity separate, but the decision also gave way to further separations, especially within educational institutions (Fleming, Gill, & Swinton, 1978; Preer, 1982; Spring, 2005). Furthermore, the Plessy decision restricted African Americans from participating in choice occupations in all areas of society (Holmes, 2004). For education, as Fleming et al. (1978) explained, virtually all White institutions refused to hire African American faculty or administrators. Consequently, African Americans mostly either attended or worked at private Negro Colleges or at the public colleges established for African Americans after passage of the Morrill Act of 1890 (Preer, 1982). The Plessy decision stood unchallenged for nearly 50 years as precedent to deny African Americans—and other racial minorities—access and opportunities across the United States. The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) successfully challenged previously prohibited equal access and opportunities for African Americans on a larger scale. The plaintiffs of the 1951 class action lawsuit argued that the Topeka Board of Education separation of public schools for African American and White children denied African American children equal educational 673 Wolfe & Dilworth opportunities (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that schools reserved for African Americans provided inferior accommodations, services, and less qualified teachers (Kluger, 1977). The 1954 Brown decision demanded an immediate change to segregation laws, especially in public schools. As a result, African Americans began applying in significant numbers to what were then all-White colleges and universities (Anderson, 1988; Fleming et al., 1978). Although the court’s ruling legalized integration and opportunity, the actual enactment of equality in academia moved at a much slower pace—especially in the South. As Bell (1980) would later argue, true equal protection against racial discrimination under the law for Blacks would remain stagnant because it would “require the surrender of racism-granted privileges for Whites” (p. 523), an idea that many Whites simply could not envision. This theme of White resistance continues even today, decades after the Brown decision, as African American stagnation is signaled by poor school performance, dwindling educational resources in their zoned areas, and the resegregation of public schools (Anderson, 2007). During the 1960s, the notion that racism mirrored the prejudice of certain individuals and revealed a deeper aspect of the American society remained relevant (Lopez, 2007). As the stronghold and hierarchal racial supremacy of Jim Crow laws weakened in the South, many Whites sought to protect their status by fighting back against African Americans who exercised their new educational rights. In some instances, resistance would escalate into physical violence. More prominent acts of opposition include a movement known as “Massive Resistance,” which contested the Brown ruling, where institutions chose to close schools rather than desegregate (Andrews, 1997; Payne, 2004). In 1963, Governor George Wallace of Alabama took part in what became known as the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” whereby he tried to prevent the enrollment of two African American students by personally blocking the doorway to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama (Payne, 2004). In response to African Americans’ ongoing struggle and protests against institutional and racially discriminatory practices, the U.S. government passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, granting de facto rights of admission to people of color at many institutions of higher education, especially those that were predominantly White (Green, 1999). Another educational impetus for access to PWIs developed as a result of the affirmative action executive orders backed by the federal government. All employers, including institutions of higher education that received federal contracts of at least $50,000 and had a minimum of 50 employees, were required to end discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, or sex. In addition, higher education institutions were obligated to develop affirmative action programs to ensure that underrepresented groups were hired at the rate of their availability in the workforce (Fleming et al., 1978). In 1971, Executive Order 11246 directed affirmative action mandates to higher educational institutions to provide broad-based access to all areas of the academy for African Americans and other minority groups (Washington & Harvey, 1989). Later in the 1970s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would appear in court and argue that the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare did not stop funding segregated institutions of higher learning as mandated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Rai & Critzer, 2000). The outcome of the 674 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture case resulted in higher education leaders admitting African Americans into PWIs, because such institutions feared losing accreditation. However, access through affirmative action along with other litigious means did not always translate into acceptance by PWIs or the culture within (Rai & Critzer, 2000). As Kawewe (1997) argued, “Colleges and universities devised sophisticated internal mechanisms to subvert affirmative action in recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion to the advantage of the privileged gender and race that dominate the academy” (p. 264). According to the U.S. Department of Labor, although affirmative action benefitted all ethnic groups, the primary beneficiaries have been White women (Hamilton, 1992; National Women’s Law Center, 2000). Wilson (1995) conducted a study on university faculty hiring practices and revealed that in many instances, once an underrepresented minority hiring goal was met, departments stopped seeking minority applicants. In some cases, institutions took direct and intentional action to cease the recruitment of minorities (e.g., by pulling their ads from minority publications), regardless of the number of vacancies that occurred from then on (Wilson, 1995). During the 1970s, the federal government became increasingly involved in higher education, which resulted in improved minority participation (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, that was soon nullified when the Reagan administration in the 1980s cut higher education financial aid by more than two billion dollars (Washington & Harvey, 1989). Consequently, as Anderson and Stewart (2007) noted, the cuts in financial aid limited college access for poor African Americans and non-White students. As Reagan’s retrogressive civil rights policies continued, many major PWI campuses witnessed an increase in racial incidents, bigotry, and decreased recruitments of African Americans. Other long-term effects would include increased opposition to affirmative action and the slowed entry of African Americans and other people of color to higher education institutions, which in turn negatively affected the professional pipeline and African Americans’ ascendance to key positions in academics, medicine, and law (Anderson & Stewart, 2007). More recent data indicate that despite a Pew Research Center national poll showing strong support of affirmative action in the realm of higher education, race-based affirmative action is either prohibited or complicated by ambiguities in case law in the states of Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington (Blume & Long, 2014; McCutcheon & Lindsey, 2004). From Protest to Scholarly Storytelling In the 1990s, reports from national conferences, symposia, and workshops, as well as scholarly publications, revealed that African Americans in all areas of higher education were exiting the academy as fast as they entered (Holmes, 2004; Holmes et al., 2000; Phelps, 1995). Davis (1994) noted that the retention of African American administrators in PWIs is short-lived owing to the personal harassment and indignity people of color experience in the discharge of normal duties . . . there are things they don’t teach you . . . in a predominantly White institution, management, or leadership development schools. (p. 61) 675 Wolfe & Dilworth Researchers who had explored the phenomenon observed that African Americans were leaving due to inhospitable campus environments, isolation, alienation, marginalization, unrealistic role expectations, limited advancement opportunities, feelings of powerlessness, tokenism, and the lack of mentoring and sponsorship (Burgess, 1997; Gregory, 1995; Holmes, 1999; Moses, 1997; Phelps, 1995; Watson, 2001). Barr (1990) identified additional barriers to the retention of African American administrators. These barriers were (a) lack of professional identity, (b) lack of career path, (c) poor working conditions, (d) inadequate compensation, (e) competition from outside of the academy, and (f) competition from within the academy. Of the six, the last three issues require some clarification. Unlike faculty, colleges and universities lack a formal rank and promotions process for administrators (Jackson, 2001). Consequently, administrators are often working at an unyielding pace, which makes for poor working conditions at some institutions. The issue is further exacerbated because administrators do not receive additional compensation for working long hours. When comparing the number of hours per week against the dollar amount earned, some administrators have a sizeable disparity in regards to their pay scale. Also, due to the lack of a formal tenure and promotion process, job security becomes an issue (Jackson, 2001). As for referencing competition from entities outside of the academy, all administrators face these issues. In particular, institutions and organizations outside the academy sometimes lure minority administrators away from higher education with their higher compensation packages. Lastly, there is competition from inside the academy as overworked administrators seek other jobs with higher pay but similar titles and duties. Thus, some administrators choose to navigate their higher education career by making a lateral or upward transition across the department or to another university (Jackson, 2001). Guillory (2001) examined a myriad barriers and organizational pitfalls which African American administrators face and which their White counterparts do not. Prejudice and discrimination surfaced as the most widely known barriers for African American administrators. Specifically, prejudice and discrimination within the organization are manifested through behavioral biases and an attitude of prejudgment toward a person based on the person’s ascribed group identity (Cox, 1993). Guillory examined other barriers, such as institutional biases, in which tradition contributes to a preferential pattern for management that oftentimes excludes minorities. Also noted, within the context of the academy, informal contacts, recommendations, and referrals provide a source of information for advancement; these informal networks can further perpetuate a system of exclusion (Guillory, 2001). Thus, decisions to hire and promote into administrative positions rely less on qualifications than on the extent to which the candidate “fits in” with the already established dominant group (Cox, 1993). In a 2007 study on racial climates in higher education, Harper and Hurtado discovered that among other issues, tension and conflict caused by minority students’ negative experiences has an impact on the small number of minority administrators at PWIs. Specifically, these two higher education scholars found that minority administrators at PWIs are keenly aware of racial climate issues and often feel as if they are placed in uncomfortable positions. Despite their awareness and 676 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture concern, many administrators are reluctant to publicly bring attention to marginalizing campus issues for fear of political backlash or job loss. Instead of raising concerns, they are more likely to work privately with students, feeling voiceless and powerless to raise issues to other administrators or to White colleagues. A more commonly held and researched notion references the already small pipeline as a key factor outside of PWI workspaces that influences the underrepresentation of African American administrators in higher education. According to Turner and Myers (2000), the already limited and insufficient applicant pool is exasperated by the small number of doctoral degree recipients in the educational pipeline. Consequently, some institutions have taken measures to alleviate this problem by growing graduate programs with an emphasis on special leadership/ managerial initiatives. However, other scholars argue that there are sufficient applicants, but the pool itself needs to be broadened. Specifically, Roach and Brown (2001) posited that the academic leadership pipeline would be greatly increased if more African Americans at HBCUs were viewed as viable candidates. CRT and Higher Education As mentioned earlier, the shifts in the organizational culture of higher education did not occur until the struggle for civil rights ensued during the 1960s. During this era, higher education expansion was a response to a mix of state and federal mandates that pressured educational institutions to enhance the representation of ethnic and racial minorities on their campus (Karen, 1991). It is generally accepted that “the earliest initiatives to increase minority access on predominantly white campuses . . . were prompted by desegregation mandates as well as social justice concerns grounded in the democratic principles of equal opportunity and equality” (Chang, 2005, p. 6). The inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities fueled a series of culture wars that challenged the cultural alignment of higher education with the needs of a culturally diverse society (Arthur & Shapiro, 1995). Due to these oppositions facing higher education, there has been a growing demand for assessment and accountability to better document leadership outcomes. Thus, the overarching questions become, “How can institutions ensure that diversity and inclusion efforts are developed and sustained and that institutional leadership reflects the needs of a diverse student population and campus community,” and “How do variables such as race, power, and privilege intersect to influence the composition and sustainment of a racially and ethnically diverse leadership on a college/university campus?” An equally important question is, “How does an institution ensure the steady promotion and advocacy for diversity as a core value?” In the following section, we use CRT as an analytical tool to address these questions, each of which is part of larger conceptual framework used to examine leadership in higher education. We begin by positioning diversity leadership in the field of higher education as it pertains to this discussion. Positioning Diversity Leadership in Higher Education Positioning a diverse administrative leadership to reflect the values, issues, and concerns on campus is a multidimensional and complex task. Like leadership in other societal spheres, diversity leadership in higher education and the complex 677 Wolfe & Dilworth relationships between groups are exacerbated due to connections formed through competition and the context of structured inequalities which are part of the national history of the United States of America. Specifically, although U.S. higher education institutions endorse egalitarian principles which champion the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality in their language, historical records show clear patterns of engaged practices that reinforce beliefs and values antithetical to those ideals. Many of those practices are centered on White male dominance. In today’s society, the struggle remains due to traditional practices that either overlook or support biased behavior against minority groups. Consequently, racial and ethnic minority leaders in higher education have had to play by the rules of competition established by the dominant status group—White males. And, as institutions become increasingly diverse, the reality sets in; not everyone will be represented in every decision for strategic changes and direction on campus (Winston, 2001). Therefore, traditionally marginalized groups compete with one another, while the dominant group does not due to their already inherent status of power and privilege. As is the case in every organization, the dominant group continues to maintain its position in the organization (Chizhik & Chizhik, 2002; Haley & Sidanius, 2005). The result is a constant, though not always overt, struggle over organizational change between racial and ethnic minorities on the one hand and sustainment of status and privilege of the dominant group members on the other. And, because colleges and universities reflect the culture and values of the dominant group, emphasis placed on diversity is managed in their favor (Aguirre & Martinez, 2003). To unearth phenomena that have typically gone unrecognized as normal behavior, we use CRT. Positioning CRT in Higher Education Critical race theory first emerged in the U.S. law schools in the 1980s as a response to critical legal studies. Since the 1980s, CRT has been used in a variety of disciplines, including education, sociology, history, ethnic, and women’s studies (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Delgado and Stefancic (2001) defined the CRT movement as a “collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power” (p. 2). Influenced by civil rights movements, CRT developed from the legal ideology of Critical Legal Studies through the work of legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Charles Lawrence, Richard Delgado, Lani Guinier, and Kimberle Crenshaw, who were all frustrated with the “slow pace of racial reform within the liberal civil rights tradition in the United States” (Sleeter & Bernal, 2004, p. 245). As a racecentered epistemology, CRT provides a lens through which to question, critique, and challenge the manner and methods to which race, White supremacy, hypothesized meritocracy, and racist ideologies have shaped and undermined access and equity in institutions. As a race-centered theory, it helps validate the knowledge base and experiences that African Americans (and historically marginalized minorities) bring to research, and retheorize the Eurocentric male dominant discourse, which is often used to describe the experiences of people of color (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Furthermore, CRT sets out to expose dominant norms and assumptions that appear neutral but systematically marginalize, silence, and misrepresent people of color (Ladson-Billings, 1999; Vargas, 2003). Bell (1992) was one of the first to recognize this notion of racial realism in stating, 678 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Black people will never gain full equality in this country, even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than temporary “peaks of progress,” short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance. (pp. 373–374) Drawing from CRT, we provide a careful examination of the means by which diversity leadership is managed and diminished in higher education for African Americans and other people of color. One of the primary approaches organizations take toward marginalizing diversity and maintaining dominant group supremacy is by co-opting variables that may pose problems or threats to their existence (Haley & Sidanius, 2005; Selznick, 1948). As an example, institutions may justify consolidating and cutting staffing costs in affirmative action and equal employment opportunity offices because it is viewed as a major expense for most organizations. The claim is that by having effective diversity practices and policies in place, the number of expensive discrimination complaints will be reduced (Baker, 1996). On the surface, this may look like a legitimate and effective costsaving measure. However, this same cost-saving measure will either lessen or provide no bearing against penalties for violations against prescribed diversity practices due to limited resources. Another common attempt at co-opting would be tokenism. In this instance, the dominant group would incorporate demographic diversity in their existing normative structure of authority as a means of showing that the organization embodies diversity as a core value (Contreras, 1998). Superficially, their presence seems to be proof of minority advocacy and representation. In actuality, those racial and ethnic minority leaders have reported feelings of isolation, powerlessness, and sensitivity to criticism from both peer groups (Chesler et al., 2005; Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Watson, 2001). To better understand the dynamics of racism as it relates to CRT, one must be able to conceptualize the beliefs and principles that have shaped it. According to Valdes, McCristal Culp, and Harris (2002), CRT challenges three fundamental beliefs about racial injustice. First, color-blindness will eliminate racism. In contrast, Valdes et al. suggested that color-blindness does not remedy racism. Instead, it generates individualism, which leads to the resisting of group identity. CRT scholars also challenge this notion by asserting that self-conscious racial identities have been the source of collective strength, incisive policy making, and individual fulfillment. Second, CRT challenges the notion that only individuals are racist. Although individuals can be and are racist, historical evidence shows that social systems are racist as well. For instance, The goal of antidiscrimination law, as understood historically and currently by courts, was to search for perpetrators and victims: Perpetrators could be identified through “bad” acts and intentions, while victims were (only) those who could meet shifting, and increasingly elusive burdens of proof. (Valdes et al., 2002, p. 2) Last, CRT challenges the idea that “one can fight racism without paying attention to sexism, homophobia, economic exploitation, and other forms of oppression or injustice” (Valdes et al., 2002, p. 2). As Crenshaw (1993) noted, various biological, social, and cultural categories and other variables of identity interact 679 Wolfe & Dilworth on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. One variable does not act independently of the other; therefore, oppression interrelates and creates multiple forms of discrimination. Although there is no one single definition for CRT, many scholars agree on the centrality of seven tenets: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Racism is a normal part of American life (Delgado, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Lopez (2003) and McIntosh (1990) suggested that society fails to see racism because it is an everyday experience which is often taken for granted. CRT rejects the notion of a color-blind society. Color-blindness leads to misconceptions about racial fairness in institutions that tend to address surface level inequalities. Therefore, CRT constantly critiques claims of institutional liberalism, neutrality, objectivity, and meritocracy (Crenshaw, 1997). CRT lends a voice to the experiential knowledge of those that have been traditionally marginalized, in particular, people of color. Counterstorytelling is “a method of telling a story that aims to cast doubt on the validity of accepted premises or myths, especially ones held by the majority” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004, p. 27). CRT recognizes interest-convergence, the process in which White power structures tolerate or encourage racial advances if they promote White self-interests (Bell, 2000; Delgado, 1995). Revisionist history “examines America’s historical record, replacing comforting majoritarian interpretations of events with ones which square more accurately with minorities’ experiences” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 20). Another tenet that CRT relies on is racial realism, through which it is understood that race is not only a social construct but also “a means by which society allocates privilege and status” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 2). Racial realists suggest that there is a hierarchy predicated on race which determines who receives benefits and the context in which they are accrued. This hierarchy is a permanent fixture in U.S. society and includes college and university campuses (Harper & Patton, 2007). Last, CRT critiques claims of meritocracy that sustain whiteness as property (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Harris, 1993; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). According to Harris (1993), property is not just tangible object; it is a metaphysical extension of certain rights as pointed out in U.S. history. The central notion of whiteness as property is the “the legal legitimization of expectations of power and control that enshrine the status quo as a neutral baseline, while masking the maintenance of white privilege and domination” (Harris, 1993, p. 1715). Valdes et al. (2002) asserted that whiteness is masked through mainstream culture and must consistently be challenged. The germane focus of CRT is to incorporate an activist component which highlights the effects of race and racism with an end goal of facilitating change in such a way that it implements social justice (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). 680 Expanding the CRT Argument to Leadership Inequalities in Higher Education Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) were the first to extend CRT into education as a powerful theoretical and analytical framework for education scholars (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). In their foreword, they noted the existence of social inequities in education: (a) race is a continuously significant factor in determining inequity in the United States, (b) the United States’ society is based on property rights, and (c) the intersection of property and race creates an analytical tool through which we can better understand social inequity (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). We use the same argument to explain and highlight the lack of administrators of color in higher education. Whereas the meta-proposition used to support the first proposition is that historically race has remained a salient variable in power negotiations within institutions. Even in today’s society, there are still remnants of sustained value gained from Whites oppressing African Americans and other people of color for centuries (i.e., family wealth, business, and property). Recent statistics indicate that U.S. income inequality is the highest it has been since 1928. According to a recent Pew Research Center article titled “5 Facts About Economic Equality” (DeSilver, 2014), since 1967, the difference in median household incomes between Whites and Blacks has grown from about $19,000 to roughly $27,000 in 2011. And the Black–White income gap in the United States has persisted. In a policy article titled “The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide,” researchers at Brandeis University argue that due to discriminatory employment patterns, black workers predominate in fields that are least likely to have employer-based retirement plans and other benefits, such as administration and support and food services. As a result, wealth in black families tends to be close to what is needed to cover emergency savings while wealth in White families is well beyond the emergency threshold and can be saved or invested more readily. (Shapiro, Meschede, & Osoro, 2013) Other researchers have offered similar findings, including several additional contributing factors such as less intergenerational inheritance, higher unemployment and lower incomes, differing rates and patterns of homeownership, marriage and college education (DeSilver, 2013). For African Americans in public education systems, the consequences of this reality have “become larger each year because of the growing number and percentage of non-White and impoverished students and the dramatic relationships between educational attainment and economic success in a globalized economy” (Orfield & Lee, 2007). From a critical race theorist perspective, the key questions are the following: Did PWIs develop deep social structures that leaders consciously or unconsciously used to support a system of injustice? And if so, did they act to preserve the dominance of some groups while systematically suppressing non-White groups? Within the past decade, some higher education institutions have come forward to answer these questions when they began to publicly recognize their connection to slavery. In 2003, Brown University became one of the first colleges to acknowledge its historical ties with slavery. In 2004, Al Brophy, a White law 681 Wolfe & Dilworth professor at the University of Alabama, unearthed documents that pointed to two university presidents and some faculty members who owned slaves during the years before the Civil War (“University of Alabama Apologizes,” 2004). Furthermore, Brophy found that several of the oldest structures on campus contain bricks made by slaves. However, more in-depth information is limited due to destroyed or missing documents. And, like the University of Alabama, both Emory and Yale Universities also acknowledged their antebellum slavery past, but many of the documents concerning slaves were either destroyed or simply not recorded (Jaschik, 2011). In 2008, Harvard University was cited as another example of schools whose fortunes were historically tied to the institution of slavery. “Like many venerable American universities, Harvard’s past is tied to slavery: for decades, if not centuries, the University inculcated pro-slavery sentiment and benefitted from funds that were the fruits of the slave trade or slave labor” (Llewellyn & Perloff-Giles, 2008). A year later, the College of William and Mary acknowledged that some of its former staff also “owned and exploited slave labor from its founding (1693) to the Civil War” (Goldschmidt, 2011). These historical revelations not only support the notion of inherited legacies, but they also show that racism is deeply entrenched in our society—especially when considering the era in which colleges and universities were expanding. In Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America’s Universities, Wilder (2013) wrote, The founding, financing, and development of higher education in the colonies were thoroughly intertwined with the economic and social forces that transformed West and Central Africa through the slave trade and devastated indigenous nations in the Americas. The academy was a beneficiary and defender of these processes. College graduates had exploited these links for centuries. They apprenticed under the slave traders of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and Europe. They migrated to the South and to the West Indies for careers as teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, merchants, and planters. The end of the slave trade and the decline of slavery in the North did not break these ties. The antebellum South represented a field of opportunity, where the wealth of the cotton planters was funding the expansion of the educational infrastructure. (p. 2) By and large, racism remains a norm existing within the structure of many PWIs. Drawing from historical realities, oppression and profiteering of minorities by the dominating majority is “the usual way that society does business” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This trend continues in higher education in the wake of this diversity era, because the color-blind practices that many institutions use to determine policies and traditions fail to challenge existing racial practice and oppressive norms; but rather seeks to accommodate present inequalities and divisions by casting them in a positive light (Gotanda, 2000). Furthermore, such color-blindness only serves to mask the social, political, educational, and economic advantages availed to Whites over their non-White counterparts. If the dominating majority—in this case, Whites—would place transparency at the center of their thinking and reflection on experiences in regards to race relations and oppression, 682 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture White privilege would likely be unearthed and addressed. Furthermore, one can argue that a discovery and acknowledgement of such privilege would create accountability in an effort to collectively redress remnants of discrimination and inequalities. In addition, such transparencies would encourage an open and honest discourse that would propel the community beyond the surface level of skin color to exploring the various social constructs and intersections surrounding race and culture as an attempt to combat additional inequities and biased norms in organizational culture (i.e., leadership positions and how members are selected). Another important tenet would be the inclusion of traditionally marginalized voices through counternarratives and a revisionist history, which includes the minority experience to provide a more complete illustration to critically reexamine the context and results of oppression while challenging status quo and complacency. The second proposition alludes to U.S. society being situated in property rights, as shown in Harris’s (1993) argument of whiteness as property—whereby Whites are granted the same privileges and benefits that are germane to owning tangible and legal property, such as the right to disposition, utilization, enjoyment, exclusion, and the right to transfer or assign for reputation and status of certain privileges. In a broader sense, whiteness as property includes “encompassed jobs, entitlements, occupational licenses, contracts, subsidies, and indeed a whole host of intangibles that are the product of labor, time, and creativity, such as intellectual property, business goodwill, and enhanced earning potential from graduate degrees” (p. 1728). In this argument, the university or college administrator ranking in the academy is property (especially at the executive levels) due to the powers associated with its title and a proven historical pattern of institutional leadership exclusivity, typically reserved for White males (privilege). Furthermore, in this context, because administrators are at the helm of leadership in higher education, they are granted the ability to shape the character and direction of a campus setting through curriculum, traditions, policies, and institutional structures (Aguirre & Martinez, 2002, 2003; Trow, 1985). Therefore, as Aguirre and Martinez (2003) argue, college and university campuses tend to reflect the culture and values of the dominant group or its leadership. For example, rather than address climate, leadership structures, or the impact of campus policies on minority students as a means of creating a more inclusive environment, some colleges and universities have resorted to quick fixes to attract students (Jackson, 2001). Such attempts serve only as lip service to the idea of diversity in many institutions because no structural changes are made to the organization to facilitate conditions conducive to or the signaling of a true commitment to diversity as a core value. Specifically, some institutions have chosen to intentionally misrepresent themselves through the use of brochures, data manipulation (e.g., defining racial categories), websites, magazine ads, and other materials in an attempt to portray themselves as those that embrace diversity in an effort to attract ethnically and racially diverse students. This masking strategy is unethical because it is an attempt to efface an exclusionary past—and to some extent—present conditions of PWIs (Roediger, 1991, 2005). Last, we examine the proposition that the intersection between race and property creates an analytical tool for exploring existing inequalities in higher education. In this context, we argue that disparities in higher education’s 683 Wolfe & Dilworth leadership hierarchy continue to exist, and some of its roots subsist in racial and ethnic inequality (Chesler et al., 2005; Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Law, Phillips, & Turney, 2004). Specifically, historical patterns of privilege in American society are evident in revealing that Whites consistently maintain the majority of positions toward the top end of the hierarchy, whereas ethnic and racial minority persons tend to occupy the majority of positions toward the bottom end (Sears, Hetts, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000). In 2012, U.S. Department of Education statistics showed that 22,495 African Americans held administrative posts at U.S. colleges and universities. They made up 9.4% of all administrators in American higher education. Nationwide about 80% of all college and university presidents are White (Snyder & Dillow, 2012). A 2012 American Council on Education study on “The American College President” reported that presidents serve an average of 7 years at an institution. About 13% are racial or ethnic minorities, and 26% of college presidents are women. Similarly, in 2012, the Association of Governing Boards reported that on public college and university boards, about 74% of public board members are White, and 23% are racial and ethnic minorities, with 16% African American. On independent boards, 88% are White. About 13% are racial and ethnic minorities, including about 7% African American at private institutions (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2012). Theoretically, if one’s position in the hierarchy is associated with one’s ability to lead others, establish rules, or bring in new members, then it is likely that White persons will continue to occupy leadership roles. Therefore, the occupying of administrative roles on college and university campuses easily translates to a property and privilege that supports Whites while marginalizing all other groups. As Turner and Thompson (1993) contended, to this effect, the marginalization caused by exclusion will continue to perpetuate itself against those outside the traditionally dominant group because the institution fails to change or adapt due to the culture of exclusion that has become disguised as tradition. And, as holders of property, the dominant group—Whites in this case—is granted the power to dictate the rules and control forces that continue to broker privilege. In higher education, this includes the ability of Whites to manipulate the cultural discourse of racial equality (e.g., color-blindness, language), socialization, and insistence on social supremacy (Wildman, 2005). Consequently, White privilege is not only normalized within the leadership ranks, but it can travel undetected due to the dominant group’s control over discourse. And despite raised concerns over how concepts such as diversity, equal employment opportunity, and multiculturalism can be handled and operationalized to fit cultural interpretations of the dominant group (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996; Platt, 1993; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), whiteness neither acknowledges its own privilege or the material and sociocultural power and mechanisms by which that privilege is protected (Wildman, 2005). Discussion When considering the changes since the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, tremendous strides have been made for African Americans and people of color in the way of equality for higher educational professionals. However, after conducting a 684 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture review of literature on African American administrators, we conclude that there are many unanswered questions. For instance, previous research tends to highlight the variables that have prohibited African American access and equity, but there is little in the literature on what factors contribute to their persistence. More important, how are African American administrators able to persist in their careers at PWIs despite the challenges of not having full access to the dominant group’s privileges? How do African American administrators as racial minorities in a PWI develop their persistence strategies? Specifically, what factors or variables in the surrounding institutional culture are internalized? How, if at all, does the process of internalization affect their career mobility? In this article, we argue that leadership in higher education tends to revolve around the interpersonal relations between Whites (dominant groups) and nonWhites (minority groups). In a sense then, the expression of leadership has become identified with and embedded in how White interpersonal relations are developed. Furthermore, the idea of diversity leadership in higher education may not be compatible with organizational culture at PWIs, because diversity challenges homogeneity in leadership rankings. However, this line of thinking has been minimized through deficit rationalization that places the onus of access on people of color. Specifically, the underrepresentation of African Americans and other administrators of color are due to a lack of job-relevant qualifications among job applicants rather than a concept referred to as social closure. Social closure exists when a group of individuals actively engage in efforts to retain their positions of power and control because outsiders are considered inferior and ineligible (Murphy, 1988; Swartz, 2008; Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback, 2007). Similar exclusionary practices create segregation, both within organizations and individual jobs, which appear deliberately designed to produce and perpetuate advantages for dominant groups (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2011). The challenge of having a more inclusive and diverse leadership in colleges and universities calls for placing an emphasis on transformation by adopting values of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism to represent and respect the population makeup of campus communities. Through cultural pluralism, smaller groups maintain their unique cultural identities within the larger society as long as they are consistent with the laws and values of the community as a whole (Patton, 2010). All cultures are viewed as neutral. Multiculturalism acknowledges dominant group(s) but views all groups as members of the enriched collective that is encouraged and celebrated. Ideally, unity is encouraged as an accepted norm, but each group is allowed their own sphere or safe space. However, the challenge is the current organizational view of diversity that places emphasis on competition, size, hierarchy, specialization, and environmental processes of natural selection, which continue to promote the sustainment of White self-interests (Birnbaum, 1983; Winston, 2001). With these opposing views, there is a need for institutions to reexamine the culture in which their leadership and traditions have been structured in an attempt to make the campus more inclusive for the multicultural generations of today and tomorrow. If higher education is to thrive in a changing environment, the obligations of diversity and leadership must be met. As Battin (1997) argued, strengthening diversity and inclusion efforts is not only morally right but also demographically smart. With traditional talent pools shrinking, 685 Wolfe & Dilworth there is an ongoing need to plan for diverse leadership successions to guide institutions through transformational periods of increasingly multifaceted populations that will shift campus culture for years to come (Harvey, 2011). Although a substantial body of empirical research confirms that diversity is beneficial to the learning, growth, and development of higher education institutions as a whole, college and universities must challenge themselves to look at diversity beyond superficial representations (Brown, 2004). It is not enough to add people of color within various positions throughout the institutional structure or put diversity policies in place and assume that they alone will serve as a cure all for centuries of societal ills caused by racism. More must be done beyond acknowledging racism, formulating climate surveys, developing a strategic diversity plan, and hosting monthly cultural heritage celebrations at colleges and universities. These efforts are important, however, they are just the beginning of the process of institutionalizing and embedding diversity and inclusion as core values. Granted that students, faculty, and constituents outside the institution can demand change, college and university administrators have the actual power to develop institutional policies to influence transformation. Therefore, it is paramount that researchers and practitioners formulate ways to better address the persistent lack of African Americans and other administrators of color in higher education (Harvey, 1999; Holmes, 2003). For instance, Jackson (2001) conducted a qualitative study involving 10 African American administrators in an attempt to identify practical steps for institutions to increase the retention of African American administrators. Results from the study introduced eight essential themes from participant responses that could be implemented into institutional practices: (a) Commit to the principles of diversity and affirmative action, (b) Use recruitment as a retention strategy, (c) Provide equity in wages and salaries, (d) Provide an orientation program, (e) Develop a mentoring program for junior and senior management, (f) Foster open lines of communication between the administration hierarchy and staff, (g) Empower the administrator to perform his or her job, and (h) Promote the pursuit of professional advancement and development. (Jackson, 2001, pp. 103–106) Since Jackson’s 2001 findings, research on the experiences and institutional hiring practices aimed at achieving racial and gender equity have been monitored more closely (Alemán, 2009; Harvey, 1999; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009; Lynn, 2002). Researchers began exploring the artificial “ceilings” to gain a better understanding of barriers that limit minority professional advancement (e.g., Jackson & Daniels, 2007; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2011). In a recent publication commissioned by the American Council on Education, Eckel and Hartley (2011) noted that barriers encountered by administrators of color could be divided into three sections: (a) social, (b) organizational and institutional, and (c) internal. They argued that each set of barriers is nested within a larger context (i.e., internal nested within organizational which, in turn, is nested within social). Social barriers result from deeply rooted forms of oppressions, such as racism, sexism, and ageism (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009). For example, a number of studies which 686 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture focus on female African American administrators often cite the “double burden” of being female and Black, which is viewed as a conflict with societal notions of her ability to fulfill her administrator role (Evans, 2007; Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009; Smith, 2013; Watson, 2001). These social barriers emerge from the reinforcement of stereotypes perpetuated by various societal dynamics, which often results in a deficit script for her role as dictated from media outlets, images, and sound bites (Carbado & Gulati, 2003; Cortes, 1995; Lintner, 2004). Administrators of color also face organizational and institutional barriers in their professional journey. Jackson and O’Callaghan (2009) identified them as follows: Lack of access to professional networks for particular racial groups, a lack of appropriate role models, segregated networks of professionals, a lack of mentors for individuals of specific racial and ethnic groups, the lack of a postgraduate or terminal degree, the lack of fluency in a foreign language, and work in academic departments or settings in which individuals are unwilling to reorganize their work or priorities around issues of cultural diversity. (p. 42) When taking into account the lack of representation and vouching for other administrators of color, an outsider status is created and can prove difficult to overcome (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2011). Even more daunting are the observations by Carbado and Gulati (2003), in which they suggest the following: “Under current antidiscrimination law and the dominant paradigms for understanding racism, it is both legal and normatively desirable for employers to pursue workplace homogeneity by engaging in racial discrimination” (p. 1762). Last, internal barriers, also known as internalized racism (Jones, 2000), refers to accepting and assimilating negative perceptions regarding one’s abilities and worth as received from the dominant culture. Jones went on to further define internalized racism: It is characterized by their not believing in others who look like them, and not believing in themselves. It involves accepting limitations to one’s own full humanity, including one’s spectrum of dreams, one’s right to self-determination, and one’s range of allowable self-expression. It manifests as an embracing of “whiteness” (use of hair straighteners and bleaching creams); self-devaluation (racial slurs as nicknames, rejection of ancestral culture, and fratricide); and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness (dropping out of school, failing to vote, and engaging in risky health practices). (p. 1213) Persons of color will not only adopt the dominant discourse but also place received negative preconceptions on members of their own race and other people of color (Huber, Johnson, & Kohli, 2006). It is noteworthy that individuals who hold this viewpoint can present additional challenges to an already limited population of administrators of color and—to a larger extent—serve as a barrier to social justice issues and advocacy for students and communities of color due to their lack of sympathy and support. Therefore, it is paramount that all 687 Wolfe & Dilworth administrators—regardless of race—accept the call as institutional stakeholders to strengthen the administrator of color pipeline while promoting policies to advance equity and aid in their retention efforts. Meanwhile, educational scholars must continue to research diversity leadership in higher education. Studies are currently limited, and despite developments in the field, race continues to remain separate from the mainstream discourse of institutional leadership, which only serves to promote the normalizations of whiteness (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). Moreover, studies that we have identified all point to at least one of three common themes: (a) the need for administrative power and its potential for “warming up a chilly climate” for students, faculty, staff, and other administrators of color; (b) a much needed analysis on higher education administration as it pertains to minorities; and (c) the need to examine diversity leadership with a special emphasis placed on minority group experiences and their intersections. Since CRT’s relevancy lies in its core ability to conceptualize relationships between various societal groups by giving voice to the traditionally marginalized, its use as an interrogation tool for research will aid in further identifying issues that either increase or decrease racial, social, political, and educational access and equity within colleges and universities. In doing so, the aim grows beyond understanding minority issues or developing methods to increase representation to genuinely solicit research that aids in informing practice, policy, and a push for social justice, which ultimately transforms the academy toward inclusion on a macro and micro level (Alemán, 2009; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Jackson, 2004). Note 1The term administrator(s) refers to individual(s) in higher education who are classified as executive when referring to salary scale. Although nonexecutives can be considered administrators (i.e., directors of departments or divisions), our use of the term assumes that administrators have significant positional responsibility often associated with “senior” leadership. Whether or not the person is perceived to be respected or competent in his or her role does not affect the fact that he or she has a title of positional authority. References Aguirre, A., & Martinez, R. (2002). Leadership practices and diversity in higher education: Transitional and transformational frameworks. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 53–62. doi:10.1177/107179190200800305 Aguirre, A., & Martinez, R. (2003). The diversity rationale in higher education: The precarious context for affirmative action. In A. Aguirre (Ed.), Racial and ethnic diversity in America: A reference handbook (pp. 69–75). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Alemán, E., Jr. (2009). Latcrit educational leadership and advocacy: Struggling over whiteness as property in Texas school finance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42, 183–201. doi:10.1080/10665680902744246 American Council on Education. (2012). The American college president 2012 edition. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J. (1988). The education of Blacks in the south, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 688 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Anderson, J. (2007). Race-conscious educational policies versus a color blind constitution: A historical perspective. Educational Researcher, 36, 249–257. doi:10.3102/0 013189X07306534 Anderson, T., & Stewart, J. (2007). Introduction to African American studies: Transdisciplinary approaches and implications. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press. Andrews, K. (1997). The impacts of social movements on the political process: The civil rights movement and Black electoral politics in Mississippi. American Sociological Review, 62, 800–819. doi:10.2307/2657361 Arthur, J., & Shapiro, A. (Eds.). (1995). Campus wars: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. Boulder, CO: Westview. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2012). The 2012 AGB Survey of Governing Practice. Washington, DC: Author. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Baker, O. (1996). The managing diversity movement: Origins, status, and challenges. In B. P. Bowser & R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Impacts of racism on White Americans (2nd ed., pp. 139–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ballard, R. (1996). Negotiating race and ethnicity: Exploring the implications of the 1991 census. Patterns of Prejudice, 30(3), 3–33. doi:10.1080/00313 22x.1996.9970192 Barr, M. (1990). Growing staff diversity and changing career paths. In M. Barr, M. Upcraft, & Associates (Eds.), New futures for student affairs: Building a vision for professional leadership and practice (pp. 160–177). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Battin, P. (1997). Diversity and leadership: Mentoring builds leaders for the future. CAUSE/EFFECT, 20(1), 15–17. Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 3, 518–533. Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bell, D. A. (2000). Brown v. Board of Education: Forty-five years after the fact. Ohio Northern Law Review, 26, 1–171. Bennett, C. I. (2004). Research on racial issues in American higher education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 847–868). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Blume, G., & Long, M. (2014). Changes in levels of affirmative action in college admissions in response to statewide bans and judicial rulings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 228–252. doi:10.3102/0162373713508810 Bondas, T., & Hall, E. (2007). Challenges in approaching meta-synthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 113–121. doi:10.1177/1049732306295879 Brown, L. I. (2004). Diversity: The challenge for higher education. Race and Ethnicity, 7, 21–34. doi:10.1080/13613320420000187289 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brubacher, J., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities, 1636–1976 (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transition. 689 Wolfe & Dilworth Burgess, N. (1997). Tenure and promotion among African American women in the academy: Issues and strategies. In L. Benjamin (Ed.), Black women in the academy: Promises and perils (pp. 227–234). Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Cabrera, N., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. (1999). Campus racial climate and adjustment of students to college. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 98–102. doi:10.2307/2649125 Caplow, T., & McGee, R. (1965). The academic marketplace. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Carbado, D. W., & Gulati, G. M. (2003). The law and economics of critical race theory. Yale Law Journal, 112, 1757–1828. doi:10.2139/ssrn.409360 Chang, M. (2005). Reconsidering the diversity rationale. Liberal Education, 91(1), 6–13. Chang, M. J., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (2003). Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chesler, M., Lewis, A., & Crowfoot, J. (2005). Challenging racism in higher education: Promoting justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Chizhik, E. W., & Chizhik, A. W. (2002). Decoding the language of social justice: What do “privilege” and “oppression” really mean? Journal of College Student Development, 43, 792–807. Clark, B. (2000). The organizational saga in higher education. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 153–159). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom. Collins, P. (2001). Like one of the family: Race, ethnicity and the paradox of US national identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 3–28. doi:10.1080/014198 701750052479 Contreras, R. (1998). Leading from the margins in the ivory tower. In L. A. Valverde & L. A. Castenell Jr. (Eds.), The multicultural campus: Strategies for transforming higher education (pp. 137–166). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Cortes, C. E. (1995). Knowledge construction and popular culture: The media as multicultural educator. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 169–183). New York, NY: MacMillan. Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and the violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039 Crenshaw, K. (1997). Color blindness, history, and the law. In Lubiano W. (Ed.), The house that race built: Black Americans, U.S. terrain (pp. 280–288). New York, NY: Pantheon. Davis, J. D. (1994). Coloring the halls of ivy: Leadership & diversity in the academy. Boston, MA: Anker. Dawson, M. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. doi:0.3102/0013189X03300 5026 690 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. DeSilver, D. (2013, August 20). Black incomes are up, but wealth isn’t. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/30/black-incomes-are-up-butwealth-isnt/ DeSilver, D. (2014, January 7). 5 Facts about economic inequality. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/07/5-facts-about-economicinequality/ Eckel, P. D., & Hartley, M. (2011). Presidential leadership in an age of transition: Dynamic responses for a turbulent time. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Evans, S. (2007). Women of color in American higher education. Thought & Action, 23, 131–138. Fleming, J., Gill, G., & Swinton, D. (1978). The case of affirmative action for blacks in higher education. Washington, DC: Howard University Press. Goldschmidt, D. (2011, May 23). Colleges come to terms with slave-owning pasts. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/university.slavery_1_slavetrade-slave-labor-slavery-and-justice?_s=PM:US Gotanda, N. (2000). A critique of our constitution is color-blind. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 35–38). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Green, P. E. (1999). Separate and still unequal: Legal challenges to school tracking and ability grouping in America’s public schools. In L. Parker, D. Deyhl, & S. Villenas (Eds.), Race is . . . Race isn’t: Critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (pp. 231–250). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gregory, S. (1995). Black women in the academy: The secrets to success and achievement. New York, NY: University Press of America. Guillory, R. (2001). Strategies for overcoming the barriers of being an African American administrator on a predominantly White university campus. In L. Jones (Ed.), Retaining African-Americans in higher education: Challenging paradigms for retaining students, faculty, and administrators (pp. 111–123). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 187–203. doi:10.1177/1368430205051067 Hamilton, C. (1992). Affirmative action and the clash of experiential realities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 523, 10–18. doi:10.1177/0002716292523001002 Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7–24. doi:10.1002/ss.254 Harper, S. R., & Patton, L. D. (2007). Editors’ notes. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.), New directions for student services: No. 120. Responding to the realities of race on campus (pp. 1–5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707–1791. Harvey, W. (Ed.). (1999). Grass roots and glass ceilings: African American administrators in predominantly white colleges and universities. Albany: State University of New York Press. 691 Wolfe & Dilworth Harvey, W. (2011). Higher education and diversity: Ethical and practical responsibility in the academy. Retrieved from http://www.kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/ reports/2011/11_2011_HigherEducationandDiversity.pdf Holmes, S. L. (1999). Black women academicians speak out: Race, class, and gender in narratives of higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Iowa. Holmes, S. L. (2003). Black administrators speak out: Narratives on race and gender in higher education. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals, 6, 47–67. Holmes, S. L. (2004). An overview of African American college presidents: A game of two steps forward, one step backwards, and standing still. Journal of Negro Education, 73(1), 21–39. doi:10.2307/3211257 Holmes, S. L., Ebbers, L., Robinson, D., & Mugenda, A. (2000). Validating African American students at predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 2, 41–58. Huber, L., Johnson, R. N., & Kohli, R. (2006). Naming racism: A conceptual look at internalized racism in U.S. schools. Chicano/Latino Law Review, 26, 183–206. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Peterson, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8). Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED430514 Jackson, J. F. L. (2001). A new test for diversity: Retaining African American administrators at predominantly white institutions. In L. Jones (Ed.), Retaining African Americans in higher education: Challenging paradigms for remaining students, faculty, and administrators (pp. 93–109). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Jackson, J. F. L. (2002). Retention of African American administrators at predominantly White institutions: Using professional growth factors to inform the discussion. College and University, 78(2), 11–16. Jackson, J. F. L. (2004). Engaging, retaining, and advancing African Americans in executive-level positions: A descriptive and trend analysis of academic administrators in higher and postsecondary education. Journal of Negro Education, 73, 4–20. Jackson, J. F. L., & Daniels, B. D. (2007). A national progress report of African Americans in the administrative workforce in higher education. In J. F. L. Jackson (Ed.), Strengthening the educational pipeline for African Americans: Informing policy and practice (pp. 115–137). Albany: State University of New York Press. Jackson, J. F. L., & O’Callaghan, E. M. (2009). Ethnic and racial administrative diversity: Understanding work life realities and experiences in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(3). Retrieved from http://weilab.wceruw.org/documents/EthnicAndRacialAdministrativeDiversity.pdf Jackson, J. F. L., & O’Callaghan, E. M. (2011). Understanding employment disparities using glass ceiling effects criteria: An examination of race/ethnicity and senior-level position attainment across the academic workforce. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2), 67–99. Jackson, J. F. L., & Rosas, M. (1999). Scholars of color: Are universities derailing their scholarship. Paper presented at the Keeping Our Faculties Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN. Jaschik, S. (2011, January 25). Emory’s “regret” for slavery ties. Retrieved from http:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/25/emory_expresses_regret_for_its_ties_ to_slavery 692 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Johnsrud, L. K., & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of “otherness”: Ethnic and racial minority faculty in the academy. Review of Higher Education, 21, 315–342. Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s tale. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1212–1215. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212 Karen, D. (1991). The politics of class, race, & gender: Access to higher education in the United States, 1960–1986. American Journal of Education, 99, 208–237. doi:10.1086/443979 Kawewe, S. (1997). Black women in diverse academic settings: Gender and racial crimes of commission and omission in academia. In L. Benjamin (Ed.), Black women in the academy: Promises and perils (pp. 263–269). Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Keough, T., & Tobin, B. (2001, May). Postmodern leadership and the policy lexicon: From theory, proxy to practice. Paper presented at the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec City. Retrieved from http://csce-cesc.ca/ pceradocs/2001/papers/01Keough_Tobin_e.pdf Kluger, R. (1977). Simple justice: A history of Brown v. Board of Education. New York, NY: Random House. Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Just what is critical race theory, and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? In L. Parker, D. Deyhle, & S. Villenas (Eds.), Race is . . . Race isn’t: Critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (pp. 7–30). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68. Law, I., Phillips, D., & Turney, L. (2004). Tackling institutional racism in higher education: An antiracist toolkit. In I. Law, D. Phillips, & L. Turney (Eds.), Institutional racism in higher education (pp. 93–104). Sterling, VA: Trentham Books. Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and the teaching of American history. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1), 27–32. Llewellyn, B., & Perloff-Giles, A. (2008, April 25). Slavery ties left unexplored. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/4/25/ slavery-ties-left-unexplored-with-initiatives/ Lopez, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68–94. doi:10.1177/00131 61X02239761 Lopez, I. F. H. (2007). A nation of minorities: Race, ethnicity, and reactionary color blindness. Stanford Law Review, 59, 985–1063. Lynn, M. (2002). Critical race theory and the perspectives of black men teachers in the Los Angeles public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 119–130. doi:10.1080/713845287 Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 87–92. doi:10.1080/713845285 693 Wolfe & Dilworth Marable, M. (2003). Blacks in higher education: An endangered species. Retrieved from http://www.nathanielturner.com/blacksinhighereducation.htm Masland, A. T. (2000). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 145–152). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom. Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(Suppl. 1), 6–20. doi:10.1258/ 1355819054308576 McCutcheon, S. R., & Lindsey, T. J. (2004). The last refuge of official discrimination: The federal funding exception to California Proposition 209. Santa Clara Law Review, 44(2). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol44/ iss2/2 McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School, 49(2), 31–36. Menges, R. J., & Exum, W. H. (1983). Barriers to the progress of women and minority faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 54, 123–144. doi:10.2307/1981567 Mickelson, R., & Oliver, M. (1991). The demographic fallacy of the Black academic: Does quality rise to the top? In W. Allen, E. Epps, & N. Hanniff (Eds.), College in Black and White: African American students in predominantly White and in historically Black public universities (pp. 177–195). Albany: State University of New York Press. Moore, W., & Wagstaff, L. (1974). Black educators in white colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moses, Y. (1997). Black women in academe: Issues and strategies. In L. Benjamin (Ed.), Black women in the academy: Promises and perils (pp. 23–37). Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Murphy, R. (1988). Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. National Women’s Law Center. (2000). Affirmative action and what it means for women. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nwlc.org/resource/ affirmative-action-and-what-it-means-women Ogbu, J. (1990). Minority status and literacy in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 119, 141–169. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200. Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for new integration strategies. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project. Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. G. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 876–896. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.005 Patton, L. (2010). Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Herndon, VA: Stylus. Payne, C. (2004). “The whole United States is southern!” Brown v. Board and the mystification of race. Journal of American History, 91, 83–91. doi:10.2307/3659615 Perna, L. W. (2002). Retaining African Americans in higher education: Challenging paradigms for retaining students, faculty, and administrator. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 652–659. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0049 694 Transitioning Normalcy: Organizational Culture Perna, L. W., Gerald, D., Baum, E., & Milem, J. (2007). The status of equity for black faculty and administrators in public higher education in the south. Research in Higher Education, 48, 192–228. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9041-4 Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. doi:10.1177/014616727900500407 Phelps, M. (1995). What’s in a number? Implications for African American female faculty at predominantly White colleges and universities. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 255–268. Platt, M. (1993). Beyond the canon, with great difficulty. Social Justice, 20(1–2), 72–81. Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129–147. doi:10.2307/ 25123332 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Preer, J. (1982). Lawyers v. educators. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Rafky, D. (1972). The Black scholar in the academic marketplace. Teachers College Record, 74, 225–260. Rai, K. B., & Critzer, J. W. (2000). Affirmative action and the university: Race, ethnicity, and gender in higher education employment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ricard, R., & Brown, M. (2008). Ebony towers in higher education: The evolution, mission and presidency of historically black colleges and universities. Sterling, VA. Stylus. Roach, R., & Brown, L. (2001). The changing guard: A presidential class matriculates. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(9), 18–21. Roediger, D. (1991). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. London, England: Verso. Roediger, D. (2005). Working toward whiteness: How America’s immigrants became White. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rolle, K., Davies, T., & Banning, J. (2000). African American administrators’ experiences in predominantly White colleges and universities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 79–94. Sears, D. O., Hetts, J. J., Sidanius, J., & Bobo, L. (2000). Race in American politics: Framing the debates. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics (pp. 1–43). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25–35. doi:10.2307/2086752 Shapiro, T., Meschede, T., & Osoro, S. (2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap: Explaining the black-white economic divide. Retrieved from http://iasp. brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf Sleeter, C., & Bernal, D. D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and antiracist education: Implications for multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), The handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 240–258). New York, NY: Macmillan. Smith, L. (2013). Women of color in higher education administration: An exploration of barriers to advancement (Proquest Order No. AAI3512974). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. 695 Wolfe & Dilworth Smith, W. A., Yosso, T. J., & Solórzano, D. G. (2007). Racial primes and black misandry on historically white campuses: Toward critical race accountability in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 559–585. doi:10.1 177/0013161X07307793 Snyder, T., & Dillow, S. (2012). Digest of education statistics, 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73. Solórzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 23–44. doi:10.1177/1077800402008001003 Spring, J. (2005). The American school, 1642–2004 (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGrawHill. Spring, J. (2006). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Stadtman, V. (1980). Academic adaptations: Higher education prepares for the 1980s and 1990s. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Swartz, D. (2008). Social closure...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Tags: wqd
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello there,Attached please find a complete copy of the paper as requested.Feel free to let me know if any issue requires my attention.Best Regards,Talia

Running Head: ARTICLE REVIEW

1

Article Review
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

ARTICLE REVIEW

2

Article Review
Bibliographical Entry
Brandon L. Wolfe & Paulette Patterson Dilworth (2015). Transitioning Normalcy:
Organizational Culture, African American Administrators, and Diversity Leadership in higher
Education
Abstract
This article discusses the relations between race and culture and the way it relates to the
need for diversified leadership in institutions of higher learning. Despite many variations of
diversity, this article discusses the African American race and its relation to the predominant
white race. This article first discusses the historical discrimination of...


Anonymous
This is great! Exactly what I wanted.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags