Please read below statement:

Learning_to_Be_Latino_How_Colleges_Shape_Identity_..._----_8._How_Higher_Education_Teaches_Disparate_Lessons_to_Latinos_.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help > Please read below statement:

1 57

VVVVVVVVVVV

Every fall Latino students enroll in four year colleges across the country. Although social scientists use “college” as a catch all for a supposedly standard four year

experience, student experiences differ widely. To be sure, their expectations are

similar— they want to take courses, socialize, develop personally, and acquire

socioeconomic mobility— and they enter college with varying visions of how

they will balance them. Generally, students expect to develop and grow by the end

of the four to five years they will spend on campus; however, few predict they will

change how they engage po liti cally, identify ethnically, and think about in equality,

especially in ways that are shaped by the par tic u lar college they attend.

Consider for example the experiences of two students, Josefina, a member

of Latinos United for Action (the po liti cal organ ization) at Regional Public Uni

versity, and Deidra, a member of Latinos United for Action (for a while) and

Latino Fellowship at Research University. These two young women attended the

same high school; both of their parents are Mexican immigrants and have the

same median income. Josefina identified as Chicana and Mexican American,

while Deidra identified as Latina foremost and then Mexican American specifi

cally. As we saw in Chapter 5, Josefina believed the panethnic labels “Hispanic”

and “Latino” were racist terms, while Deidra embraced the “Latino” label. Deidra

talked about feeling racially isolated among Asian Americans in her residence

hall and having her ethnic authenticity questioned by members of Latinos United

for Action because of her light skin. Their experiences with co ethnics and the

campus at large shaped how they viewed their ethnic identities. They both

joined LUA at their respective institutions, self selecting into a po liti cal Latino

group, but Deidra left the group, citing tensions around ethnic bound aries and

the practice of contentious politics.

Josefina was actively engaged in contentious politics and was interested in

protesting, as we saw in Chapter 6. Deidra, on the other hand, chose not to

How Higher Education Teaches Disparate Lessons to Latinos

Reyes, Daisy Verduzco. Learning to Be Latino : How Colleges Shape Identity Politics, Rutgers University Press, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/sjsu/detail.action?docID=5511010. Created from sjsu on 2021-06-02 14:33:07.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

1 5 8 L E A R N I N G T O B E L A T I N O

attend the education bud get cut protests on campus. Recall that she said, “Why

would I leave class to protest? I don’t see the logic. I’m trying to avoid getting

more costs for education because I value my education. Why would I ditch class

to protest?” When asked to discuss Latino disadvantage, both women expressed

the oppression narratives, but only Deidra drew on comparative experiences in

her narratives about in equality. Deidra talked about preschoolers having ample

sheets of paper in the town adjacent to Research University, in contrast to the

preschoolers her sister teaches in a predominantly Latino neighborhood. Given

the socioeconomic differences between Deidra’s hometown and her college

home, she saw deprivation. Josefina’s and Deidra’s college experiences varied in

ways that mattered for their understandings of what it means to be Latino in

Amer i ca.

In this book, I have examined how campuses structure and shape students’

interactions and have an impact on their experiences in a variety of ways. In this

chapter, I outline how these findings can inform the sociology of education—

including how to approach the study of institutional characteristics and how to

expand the lens of college outcomes beyond the focus on academic attainment.

I provide suggestions for administrators on how to support Latino undergradu

ates. I end the chapter with a discussion about how campuses’ institutional dif

ferences might inform how we understand the formation of Latino communities.

Studying Institutional Characteristics

Sociologists of higher education are consistently concerned with the study of

institutions and how characteristics within them shape the lives of students,

albeit with an overwhelming emphasis on the academic and occupational

impacts. Through my comparative ethnography of three types of higher educa

tion institutions, I discovered that each campus produces a par tic u lar context

given its institutional characteristics. Rashawn Ray and Jason Rosow (2010) and

Jenny Stuber (2016) talk about the “normative institutional arrangements” of

higher education institutions as “the features of campus life shaped by struc

tural constraints, demographics, and policies.” In this book, I have shown how

the normative institutional arrangements of each of the three campuses studied

set the stage on which students interacted with each other, faculty, staff, admin

istrators, and communities off campus (Chapters 2–4). I have also shown how

these interactions created distinct experiences, shaping how students con

structed and deployed ethnoracial bound aries and identity labels distinctly

across campuses (Chapter 5), how they engaged in collective action be hav ior

(Chapter 6), and how they understood in equality (Chapter 7). But which specific

institutional characteristics shaped students’ experiences?

The five main institutional characteristics that are relevant to Latino stu

dents’ lives on each campus are: (1) school size, (2) the demographic profile of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N T E A C H E S D I S P A R A T E L E S S O N S 1 5 9

the student body (ethnic and socioeconomic composition, as well as propor

tion of first generation college students), (3) residential arrangements, (4) the

relationship between students and faculty and administrators, and (5) how well

diversity programs integrate students through cultural centers and retention

centers.

At Liberal Arts College (LAC) the interplay of several campus arrangements,

including the wealth of the student body, the underrepre sen ta tion of Latinos on

campus, and the residential arrangements (living on campus all four years),

created an environment that initially felt shocking to my primarily first generation

college going Latino student respondents. Of students from the three campuses

studied, those at LAC reported the most incidents of racial microaggressions.

However, the campus provides support to assist Latino students in their transi

tion: peer mentors, a Latino cultural center, faculty advisors, first year student

experience classes, and Latino suitemate options. The college also supports Latino

student organ izations with ample funding, and administrators frequently attend

their events. Both organ izations studied had relationships with deans. Given

these dynamics, students identified broadly as Latinos and espoused solidarity

and open ethnic bound aries.

At RU, a combination of factors interact and leave students searching for a

community: a dearth of programs designed to integrate Latino students, the

underrepresentation of Latino students, and large classes. The members of the

two organ izations studied, Latinos United for Action and Latino Fellowship, find

refuge in their group. These organ izations become members’ main communities

on campus and a salient part of their identity. The two organ izations studied

had varied access to resources on campus, due mostly to the Multicultural

Center’s policies, and this difference not only fueled some competition between

groups but also contributed to the antagonistic relationships and experiences

that some students (like Deidra). Members of LF and LUA identified as Latino

but felt the need to explain and authenticate their experiences. Unlike LAC stu

dents, RU students drew narrow ethnic bound aries.

In contrast, RPU’s intersecting institutional arrangements, including its

being a predominantly commuter campus whose students live where they grew

up, its having little student life, and Latinos representing a majority minority on

campus (45 percent), do not ignite or trigger a pro cess of renegotiating ethnic

identities. Not facing racial microaggressions, underrepre sen ta tion, or tension

between co ethnics over racial identities, students at RPU (like Josefina) down

play racism and are wary of panethnic identities. In effect, RPU students inhabit

the same world they did before arriving at the university.

There is strong evidence that institutional characteristics matter, but dif

fer ent characteristics produce dif fer ent outcomes. The all encompassing “bubble

like” atmosphere on LAC ensures that students are on campus all the time. This

means they focus their politics internally and have little time to exercise their

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

1 6 0 L E A R N I N G T O B E L A T I N O

po liti cal beliefs off campus. Additionally, the support of administration influ

ences students to avoid contentious tactics as they care about maintaining their

relationships. The leftist activist po liti cal culture of LAC also channels students’

po liti cal styles toward deliberative tactics. At RU, the same institutional charac

teristics that shape Latino students’ ethnic identity formation shape their engage

ment in politics, and although only one Latino student organ ization has a

po liti cal identity, students learn a divisive Latino politics on campus. The inter

play of campus arrangements for RPU’s largely commuter student body creates

little to no filter for politics, so the politics of the outside world easily permeate

campus life. Because students do not learn one single, generally accepted way

to engage in campus po liti cal activity, they default to community tactics and

protest.

There is a large wealth gap between the general student body and my Latino

respondents at Liberal Arts College. Through this gap, Latino students learn

about in equality on another level: they see first hand what they did not have in

their home communities. Through small seminars and relationships with fac

ulty, however, they are able to develop their understandings of inequalities

and their origins. One outcome of this exposure is that Latino students at LAC

express the most elaborate oppression narratives compared to their peers on

the other two campuses. At RU and RPU, students are divided on their views of

in equality. The members of the nonpo liti cal groups at both Research University

and Regional Public University espouse the meritocratic narrative, while mem

bers of LUA, the po liti cal group at both Research University and Regional Public

University, use the oppression narrative. On both campuses LUA members see

barriers in the life trajectories of Latinos.

Together, several characteristics create an environment that influences

how Latino students interact, identify, and come to understand their place on

campus. We need large scale quantitative studies and qualitative comparative

analy sis of institutional characteristics to assess which characteristics shape

which outcomes and how. Education scholar Sylvia Hurtado (1992) distinguishes

between distal and proximal characteristics. Distal characteristics are contex

tual variables, such as size, type of institution, selectivity, racial composition of

the student body, and campus expenditures. Proximal characteristics are stu

dents’ perceptions of the campus environment, including their ideas about

the institutional priority given to cultural diversity, the school’s reputation, and

how student centered the campus is. The extent to which a student feels a col

lege prioritizes its students versus its reputation is often the key difference

between a research oriented campus and a more teaching focused institution.

Because research universities push faculty to focus their energies on publishing

and acquiring grants, teaching responsibilities and student relationships are

often a lower priority. Recall how Evelyn reflected, in Chapter 3, about missing

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N T E A C H E S D I S P A R A T E L E S S O N S 1 6 1

relationships with faculty. Liberal arts colleges vary quite a bit from research

institutions in this regard. As Alexander Astin (1999) notes, they are likely to

promote frequent student faculty interactions, interdisciplinary and humani

ties courses, courses that emphasize writing, infrequent use of multiple choice

exams, and frequent involvement of students in in de pen dent research. Moreover,

liberal arts colleges spend generously on student ser vices and promote frequent

student student interactions. These practices create big differences in the col

legiate experiences of students at large public institutions versus small residen

tial colleges (Astin 1999). Most salient are the types of relationships that are

fostered through the practices listed above between peers and students and

faculty, as I observed at Liberal Arts College.

What Hurtado calls “proximal characteristics” many sociologists conceptu

alize as orga nizational culture. Natasha Warikoo and Sherry Deckman (2014)

consider campuses to be “organ izations and purveyors of culture,” an idea that

has gained increasing popularity among sociologists of education.1 Campus cul

tures shape how par tic u lar understandings become taken for granted, as being

simply part of the landscape. The combination of orga nizational characteristics

and interactions together create and shape campus cultures.

The characteristics I mention are not meant to be generalizable to all

liberal arts colleges, research universities, or regional public universities but

rather to offer suggestions for future studies. Also of note is that institutions

and organ izations change through the years— some more than others. This book

captures how these campus organ izations created shared meanings over one

period of time. Recall that, in Chapter 3, I discussed how Latino Links (a nonpo

liti cal group) was seeking to change its structure at the time I was exiting the

field. During the second to last meeting of the 2010 school year, LL members

did something that had never been done in my two years of observation there.

They discussed the structure of their meetings and the tension felt during

the meetings. They mentioned forming committees so that there would be

less business to discuss during the meetings. Tomas said that forming com

mittees would make the meetings less business like and open up space to

discuss other issues and get to know each other. He said, “This might remove

some of the tension some people feel.” Tomas also mentioned the vari ous

ways that he could shorten meetings by creating a list of resources to “pass

the torch.” They briefly mentioned LUA and how its members “ were friends”

and sought to create a less awkward, more comfortable space. Tamara sug

gested that the group should read the LL by laws and consider changing the

structure of the club, and Karla suggested holding consensus building and

decision making workshops. They deci ded to have only a trea surer and secre

tary and remove all other hierarchies and even considered having bonding

experiences. Such structural changes suggest that when studying peer cultures

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

1 6 2 L E A R N I N G T O B E L A T I N O

on campuses, it is also impor tant to track cohorts to understand the effect of

individuals on institutions.

Expanding the Study of College Outcomes

There are many types of college outcomes. The most common written and talked

about are educational, such as the attainment of degrees and credentials. Recently,

scholars have begun to expand the definition of educational college outcomes

to include what is learned and what skills are developed. In their book, Aca-

demically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (2011), sociologists Richard

Arum and Josipa Roksa track the learning outcomes of students enrolled in

twenty four four year colleges nationwide. Their finding that students leave

college with little improvement in their critical thinking and other higher

learning skills has opened up the study of college outcomes beyond degree

attainment.

Another college outcome is the development of career options. Amy Binder,

Daniel Davis, and Nick Bloom (2015) look at how specific college campuses fun

nel students into the financial, consulting, and high tech sectors.2 Astin (1999)

refers to some of these career trajectory outcomes as “fringe” advantages that

students receive from having a degree from a specific college. He suggests that

such benefits influence the networks, job placement, and overall economic tra

jectories of alumni.

When people worry about college outcomes, they rarely think beyond aca

demic and career trajectories. Astin (1999), however, identifies another category

of outcomes— the existential, which refers to the quality of the experiences that

students have on campus and how they evaluate the meaning of these experi

ences. Astin (1999) argues that this existential dimension of college life can shape

students’ patterns of be hav ior, self concepts, attitudes, values, and beliefs. Sev

eral studies have opened up new ways of thinking about these existential

dimensions by focusing on culture. In their book, Paying for the Party: How Col-

leges Maintain In equality (2013), Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton show

how college cultures shape peer cultures and students’ social lives. They note

how campuses set distinct pathways for low income and middle class women

by facilitating their access to Greek life and party scenes. Through in depth

analy sis, Armstrong and Hamilton highlight the significance of social scenes

on campus and how access to these, too, is often unequal across class origins.

In another study, Amy Binder and Kate Wood (2014) compare conservative stu

dents at two dif fer ent universities and find that students engage in two distinct

po liti cal styles: deliberative and contentious (as I similarly found among Latino

students; see Chapter 6). They argue that these styles are shaped by the cul

tural and orga nizational norms of the respective universities. Thus, college

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N T E A C H E S D I S P A R A T E L E S S O N S 1 6 3

has implications for the types of po liti cal engagement in which students will

likely participate.

Ann Mullen (2010) compares Yale students and Southern Connecticut State

University (SCSU) students and finds that one outcome of the par tic u lar college

attended is the transmission of dif fer ent types of cultural capital, specifically

students’ understandings of the school to work connection. Yale students learn

to delay career choices and focus on self discovery, while SCSU students focus

on the immediacy of finding a job. This finding holds true across students from

all social backgrounds. In other words, the schools transmit understandings of

the school to work connection so effectively that even working class students at

Yale, for example, receive the same message about self discovery. In a similar

vein, Stuber’s (2011) qualitative comparison of a liberal arts college and a public

state college examines social and cultural capital cultivation as a significant

outcome of college. Fi nally, Warikoo (2016) examines racial frames as a college

outcome. She analyzes how orga nizational cultures at four elite colleges shape

their approaches to multiculturalism and diversity and finds that dif fer ent

approaches cultivate distinct understandings of race among their students. I

report similar patterns in Chapters 5 and 7.

Building on this wave of scholarship, I take an organizational analytical

approach and identify and trace Latino student peer relationships and their

interactions with each other and the campus at large, noting the dif fer ent types

of learning that happen on campus. I identify what we might think of as a kind

of hidden curriculum that greatly extends colleges’ pedagogical effects. I show

how each campus’s par tic u lar orga nizational setting promotes dif fer ent sorts of

ethnic and racial identity development pro cesses, po liti cal lessons, and under

standings of the social position of Latinos. Future quantitative research could

follow the tradition of the National Longitudinal Survey for Freshmen and the

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshmen Survey at the Uni

versity of California, Los Angeles,3 to assess the ideas and identities that stu

dents walk into college with (using some of the outcomes identified in this

book). Mea sur ing these before college would help us understand the influence

of college on a range of outcomes and on a broader scale.

What Administrators Can Do for Latino Students

What can administrators do to help alleviate some of the challenges that Latino

students face on their college campus? There is no a one size fits all solution. I

believe LAC administrators are doing well in supporting Latino students by

providing peer mentoring programs and fostering faculty student relationships.

However, administrators can work to avoid some of the feelings of not belong

ing and racial microaggressions that Latinos face on campus by increasing the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

1 6 4 L E A R N I N G T O B E L A T I N O

percentage of Latino students on campus so that it is more representative of the

national or local population. Some private liberal arts colleges are making

strides on this effort. For example, Vassar received the Jack Kent Cooke Founda

tion’s Prize for Equity in Educational Excellence, which comes with a $1 million

award to further its commitments to enroll and retain more low income and

first generation college going students (Kosmacher 2015). Additionally, admin

istrators could have the entire student population learn about educational

inequalities and microaggressions on campus so that the weight of making a

change does not rest mainly on Latino students’ shoulders. Administrators could

create pipelines that bring first generation students to elite research institutes

and gradu ate schools and guide them toward par tic u lar career paths. I believe

most LAC students are already encouraged to apply to prestigious programs,

but programs, for their part, could target Latinos specifically.

At Research University, there are many areas for improvement. First, the

administration can treat all student organ izations equally. This would mean

removing any special access to resources that a group might have (even if

gained historically through activism). One fear of taking these away is that the

history of these organ izations, which originated in the civil rights era, will be

forgotten. Latino Studies departments across the country battle this as they shift

from ethnic specific “Puerto Rican” or “Chicano Studies” to a broader, panethnic

classification as “Latino Studies.” Administrators could honor that history by

requiring that the history of ethnic organ izing at that par tic u lar college be taught

in the curriculum. Also, administrators could honor the historical activism on

campus that led to the creation of certain institutional structures, such as ethnic

studies and cultural centers. Such efforts could create more dialogue between

groups and promote a similar view on the part of Latino students, what ever their

orga nizational affiliation. In the absence of differential access to resources, stu

dents might also promote collaboration, and campus politics might not be as

divisive.

Students at Regional Public University face inequalities in their commu

nities and their college. There are clear disparities in resources between this

campus and the other two studied. One outcome of this segregated (mostly

minority) college experience is that students do not list microaggressions or

feelings of “not belonging,” and this is one positive aspect of the RPU experi

ence. However, because graduating students take dif fer ent jobs in contexts in

which they may be a minority, administrators could prepare them by expos

ing them to professional settings through workshops that model this possi

bility. They could also create career track programs to well paid jobs in STEM

fields, government, or policy. If administrators would like students to focus

more of their energies on campus grounds, they could provide more resources

to organ izations. They could also require a first or transfer year experience

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N T E A C H E S D I S P A R A T E L E S S O N S 1 6 5

class that requires students to spend more time on campus and exposes them

to resources, student life programming, and politics on campus.

Campuses as Critical Sites for the Construction of Latino Communities

Given the growing repre sen ta tion of Latinos in higher education, it is impor tant

that we understand the experiences of Latino millennials in four year colleges.

Understanding how their college experiences shape their sense of self may shed

light, in turn, on subsequent patterns and pro cesses of Latino community devel

opment. What types of consequences might arise from students learning dif fer

ent ways of (1) defining what it means to be Latino, (2) engaging po liti cally, and

(3) viewing Latinos’ place in American society? Will these disparate lessons

carry over after college? How will they affect Latino communities?

Take, for instance, the broad understanding of Latinidad and sense of soli

darity that students at LAC develop: these could serve them well as they leave

college, or ga nize, and work with Latinos who come from diverse national ori

gins and economic means and differ in generational status. Having had college

courses that nurture their abilities to deliberate about ethnic bound aries and

navigate difficult conversations, LAC students may be better equipped than

Research University students to or ga nize broad co ali tions of Latinos. At RU, the

competitive environment between Latino organ izations may teach students to

distrust one another, and to the extent that they do, students might carry this

attitude off campus and to the Latino organ izations they encounter throughout

society writ large.

The po liti cal lessons might also have consequences for organ izing Latino

communities. The Latino students attending Liberal Arts College are learning a

politics of deliberation, which fits well within conventional politics. The skills

they develop will serve them not only in their further careers, but also if they

choose to advocate for change within institutional channels. At Research Uni

versity, students who are not part of the explic itly po liti cal organ ization are

being de mobilized. They are shying away from politics and often avoid them

wholesale. This avoidance could continue after college, resulting in a subset of the

Latino college educated population with an aversion to politics. If two groups of

Latino students on one campus can come to view the world so differently that

they are unable to work together on campus, what are the prospects of them

working together as alumni? Future research can examine these college differ

ences and their potential to develop or to fracture communities.

Regional Public University students remain embedded in their hometown

communities, and this has mixed consequences. Thus, one strength of their

connection to their communities is their willingness to engage in community

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

1 6 6 L E A R N I N G T O B E L A T I N O

collective action during college. At the same time, one limitation of focusing on

external community engagement is that students do not have the time to “prac

tice deliberation,” as LAC students do, and since that is the way of institutional

politics, RPU students’ access to par tic u lar leadership positions may be impeded

as a result.

LAC students have more academic attention, more access to elite networks,

and more mentorship. Although seemingly advantaged, Latino students at

Liberal Arts College are worlds away from their hometown communities (even

if, most of the time, very close geo graph i cally). LAC students have a sobering

view of in equality as they gain exposure to this new world. However, they are

gaining these insights while they live in in the LAC bubble. As they gradu ate

and gain access to prestigious careers, professional schools, and fellowships, their

lives will take them further from home. What implications might this have for

Latino communities? The LAC experience might be one of “social decapitaliza

tion,” which Angela Valenzuela (1999, 21) defines as a pro cess of severing ties

and removing meaningful relationships and resources from communities. This

pro cess is exactly the opposite of what the student craf ters of “El Plan de Santa

Barbara” foresaw in 1969, when they sought to reform higher education to be

inclusive and open to Chicano and Latino students. Quoting the Mexican Sec

retary of Education José Vasconcelos, they wrote, “At this moment we do not

come to work for the university, but to demand that the university work for our

people.” They envisioned that Chicano and Latino students would create a bridge

from Latino communities to the university and that the education of any Latino

would benefit the community broadly. They imagined a relationship of solidarity

wherein educated Latinos would return home and invest their energies in the

cultivation of prosperity for all Latinos.

Unfortunately, their vision of higher education has not been fully realized.

The elite and exclusive nature of higher education in Amer i ca still plays a part in

fracturing Latino communities in that it gives access only to a few and removes

many from their communities, at least during the four years they attend col

lege. Future research could examine the life trajectories of Latino alumni who

attend colleges in dif fer ent places in the stratified system of higher education.

How do their lives develop after they gradu ate and search for jobs? Do the cam

pus and orga nizational differences still hold among alumni?

This book is about Latino millennials who attended college from 2008 to

2010. During that time I captured one po liti cal moment characterized by Obama’s

election, bud get cuts in state funding for education, and anti immigrant legis

lation, most notably Arizona’s SB 1070. It remains to be seen how Latino students

today will or ga nize, given a po liti cal climate characterized by the emergence of

Black Lives Matter, the explosion of campus protests for racial justice after the

University of Missouri football players threatened to boycott, the election of

Donald Trump, and the seeming legitimation of racist and nativist rhe toric.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

H O W H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N T E A C H E S D I S P A R A T E L E S S O N S 1 6 7

Now more than ever it is impor tant to think about Latino students— who experi

ence marginalization— and challenge institutions to meet their needs.

There is a huge impetus to increase Latinos enrollment in higher educa

tion, and in fact institutions vary quite a bit, and these differences can have

consequences in every conceivable way.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. R

ut ge

rs U

ni ve

rs ity

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed