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