The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from k-12 to college and beyond

The_Magic_Key_The_Educational_Journey_of_Mexican_A..._----_Part_III._Contemporary_College_Experiences.pdf

Home >Education homework help >The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from k-12 to college and beyond

PA RT I I I

C O N T E M P O R A RY C O L L E G E E X P E R I E N C E S

The Magic Key : The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from K-12 to College and Beyond, edited by Ruth Enid Zambrana, and Sylvia Hurtado, University of Texas Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csupomona/detail.action?docID=3443788. Created from csupomona on 2020-02-26 11:00:37.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

CHAPTER 7

The Ivory Tower Is Still White: Chicana/o- Latina/o College Students’ Views on Racism, Ethnic Organizations, and Campus Racial Segregation

nolan l . C a brer a a n D s y lv Ia h urta Do

We have to give up part of ourselves to be with, to hang out with, White people. DIverse DemoCraCy proJeCt partICIpant from the unIversIty of neW mexICo

Conversations about college diversity encompass not only which stu- dents get into college, but also what happens to them once they enroll. This is an especially salient issue for racial and ethnic minorities, who tend to have dramatically different perceptions of the campus racial cli- mate relative to their racially privileged counterparts (Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo- Wann, Cuellar, and Arellano 2012; Rankin and Reason 2005). Few issues are as contentious as race and racism on campus, and percep- tions of racial hostility vary across racial lines. This tension is exacerbated, in part, because White students are outwardly skeptical of minority claims of campus racism (Cabrera 2012; Gloria and Castellanos 2003; Johnson 2003; Rankin and Reason 2005). This view has become so entrenched that White people now believe that anti- White bias is more prevalent than anti- Black bias (Norton and Sommers 2011).

The expectation of students of color1 at a Predominantly White Insti- tution (PWI) is frequently to assimilate and lose native culture (Feagin, Vera, and Imani 1996; Jones, Castellanos, and Cole 2002; Tierney 1992). Studies have indicated that to both preserve culture and carve out a safe space for their development and learning, Chicana/o and other Latina/o2 students frequently seek out racial/ethnic- specific organizations and cen- ters as a means of support (Cabrera and Padilla 2004; K. P. González 2002; V. Orozco 2003; Patton 2010). “Safe space initiatives” are envi- ronments on campus where social identities are validated and supported

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

146 The Magic Key

(Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, and Cuellar 2008). Within PWIs, these en- vironments frequently are ethnic- specific centers and programs (Patton 2010), and many are student- initiated and student- run organizations. Education scholars in the Latina/o critical race literature sometimes refer to these ethnic- specific environments as “counterspaces” (Núñez 2011; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, and Solórzano 2009), where students counter the pre- dominantly White racial norms and affirm their ethnic identity.

This chapter explores college experiences with race and racism among a sample of Mexican- origin university students, and their methods of resistance, with a specific focus on their utilization of Latina/o- specific campus organizations. In doing so, we contribute to the literature on ethnic identity and student views of the university racial climate. We also address students’ perceptions of campus racial segregation and what this means in terms of debates about campus balkanization (i.e., self- segregation). Specifically, some identify these organizations as reinforc- ing group antagonisms on campus (e.g., D’Souza 1991; Malkin 2003), and Arizona’s state superintendent of public instruction equated ethnic studies with sedition (Horne 2010), fueling the misconception that Mexi- can American Studies creates anti- American sentiment. In contrast to this negative portrayal of culture- specific spaces for learning, recent re- search has shown how participation in racial/ethnic student organiza- tions and taking ethnic studies classes contribute to a wide range of civic learning outcomes (e.g., social agency, political engagement, and civic engagement in public forums), across all racial groups in college (Hur- tado, Ruiz, and Whang 2012).

Background

Most of the campus climate literature refers to Latina/os; only a few studies specifically focus on Mexican- origin students, or identify when these students constitute the majority of their study samples (S. Hurtado 1992; S. Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler 1996). While all of the students were of Mexican origin in this study and most referred to themselves as Mexican American or Hispanic (based on biographic information on participants gathered prior to each focus group and on the participants’ narratives), the terms students used in their own narratives varied across the country, including the use of “Mexican,” “Chicano,” “Latino,” and “Hispanic.” In this section, however, we review literature using the terminology the au- thors use to most accurately reflect their studies on Chicana/o- Latina/o

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 147

students’ perceptions of the campus racial climate and their scholarship on Latina/o- specific campus organizations, dorms, and centers. We spe- cifically focus on how these locations can help students carve out a safe space to develop cultural identity on college campuses. We conclude this background section with a review of the frequently contentious debates regarding campus racial and ethnic segregation.

The Campus Racial Climate

Hurtado, Milem, Clayton- Pederson, and Allen (1998) define a campus racial climate as composed of four interrelated dimensions based upon their critical review of existing empirical literature: (1) the institution’s historical legacy of minority student inclusion/exclusion, (2) the numeric representation of students of color on campus (i.e., structural diversity or compositional diversity), (3) the quantity and quality of interactions across racial groups, and (4) student perceptions of the environment. Col- leagues have introduced a fifth dimension to the campus climate that in- cludes the organizational structures and processes that serve to embrace diversity or reinforce exclusivity in higher education (e.g., tenure pro- cesses, curriculum, and budget allocation) (Milem, Chang, and antonio 2005).

Scholars extended these previous campus climate models with addi- tional literature, resulting in the Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments (MMDLE), which includes all these elements of the campus climate, places student identity at the center of practice in the classroom and within co- curricular activity, and links the climate with outcomes for students (S. Hurtado, Alvarez, et al. 2012). Within these fea- tures of the college campus, minorities in general, and Latinas/os specifi- cally, tend to experience more hostility and marginality than their White counterparts (S. Hurtado 1992; Johnson 2003; Nora and Cabrera 1996; Rankin and Reason 2005). This is in large part because White space, or those parts of the campus environment where Whiteness is the cultural norm (Harper and Hurtado 2007), can create a tension for students of color whereby they can face cultural isolation and pressure to assimilate, and lose their native culture, or deny their ethnic origins (Feagin, Vera, and Imani 1996; Tierney 1992; Jones, Castellanos, and Cole 2002).

As a function of these White normative environments, Latina/o stu- dents are frequently the target of microaggressions (Yosso et al. 2009). Microaggressions are defined as “subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/ or visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or un-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

148 The Magic Key

consciously” (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000, 60). Within this con- text, Latina/o students can feel both attacked and isolated (Cabrera and Padilla 2004; Yosso et al. 2009). However, a hostile campus climate and marginalization do not have to manifest themselves as directly as through microaggressions. They can, for example, take the institutional form of representation where only a few Latinas/os in the student body, minimal representation of Latinas/os in the curriculum, or few professors of color on campus (K. P. González 2002). Thus, multiple avenues for student marginalization along racial/ethnic lines exist, and Latina/o students can experience many at the same time.

A hostile racial campus climate has adverse effects on Latina/o stu- dent collegiate success. Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) highlight that Latino perceptions of a hostile campus reduce their cognitive and affective well- being in colleges across institutional types, with Chicano students experiencing more social adjustment difficulty compared to other Latino ethnic groups. In addition, perceptions of a hostile campus racial climate have been shown to adversely affect Latino students’ sense of belonging on campus (Hurtado and Carter 1997). This is troubling, because reten- tion theorists argue that students are at increased risk of dropping out of college if they are not both academically and socially integrated into the campus environment (Tinto 1975, 1993; see Nora’s 2003 integration model for Hispanic student retention). Identity- based groups that serve as mechanisms of affirmation and social support can contribute to inte- gration into campus environments.

Ethnic- Based Groups and Organizations

Given the marginalization of Mexican American students on college cam- puses, it is not surprising that many turn to racial/ethnic- specific groups and organizations within the college campus. Joining racial/ethnic- specific groups is frequently a means of finding a safe space on campus (Cabrera and Padilla 2004; Cabrera and Valencia 2012; K. P. González 2002), but it is also controversial. There has been a great deal of negative publicity surrounding racial/ethnic- specific organizations, centers, dorms, and events (see, for example, D’Souza 1991, 1995; Malkin 2003; Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997). Those attacking race- conscious campus organi- zations and centers tend to argue that campus administrators would not allow a “White Club,” but it is acceptable to have the Chicano organiza- tion Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA). Yet the long- established White fraternities on campuses that tend to restrict member-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 149

ship and racial/ethnic attendance at social events often go unquestioned because they are part of an exclusive normative environment (Hurtado, Gasiewski, and Alvarez 2014).

MEChA was founded in response to a lack of meaningful inclusion of Chicanas/os in the campus environment (C. Muñoz 1989). It served as an adaptive strategy, as students who are more likely to become involved in ethnic activities are found to have a stronger sense of self through ethnic identity (Saylor and Aries 1999). S. Hurtado (1994b) argues, “His- panic clubs and organizations, and students who frequently discuss racial issues[,] perceive their campus to be more racially tense. It may be that these behaviors are adaptive strategies used by students to cope with in- hospitable climates” (37). That is, greater awareness of one’s ethnic iden- tity and unequal status leads to more critiques of the college environ- ment. Other examples of students carving out a niche in higher education include the development of Chicana/o Studies Departments, as well as Latina/o Greek organizations (V. Orozco 2003). Conversely, others claim that high degrees of same- race affiliations in college lead to an increased sense of ethnic victimization for students of all racial backgrounds (Levin, van Laar, and Sidanius 2003). Despite the benefits of these adaptive strate- gies for Chicana/o Latina/o college students, they are frequently dispar- aged for promoting campus racial segregation.

“Self- Segregation” on Campus

Self- segregation on campus, or racial balkanization, is a key criticism of multicultural education (D’Souza 1991, 1995). Ideally, multiculturalism is supposed to promote racial harmony through interracial interaction; however, this is frequently not the case. Instead, Duster (1993) argued, students at UC Berkeley continued to cluster by race despite the com- positional diversity of the campus. What some refer to as campus self- segregation, Villalpando (2003) sees as self- preservation. He argues that racial/ethnic- specific organizations, centers, and dormitories only be- come necessary when racial/ethnic students are first marginalized on cam- pus. Within this context, they represent an adaptive strategy to increase sense of belonging (Villalpando 2003). Those who label ethnic- specific organizations as self- segregating frequently overlook a simple fact within U.S. higher education: Students of color do not typically have the criti- cal mass to self- segregate. antonio (2001) argued in his study of college students that it is actually White students who have the most racially ho- mogenous friendship groups, “although this result is not surprising, since

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

150 The Magic Key

White students constitute by far the most numerous of all nine groups on the UCLA campus” (75).

Thus, campus racial segregation is largely a perceptual issue depend- ing on positionality within the context. It is not, as Tatum (2003) asks, “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” Instead the question should be “Why don’t we notice when White kids sit together in the cafeteria?” Duster (1993) highlights the frequently ideological na- ture of critiques of campus racial segregation in a contemporary con- text by taking a historical perspective: “Over the years, some mild hand wringing occurred about discrimination, but no national campaign was launched against the ‘self- segregation’ of the all- white, all- Anglo frater- nities” (p. 235). Regardless, debates about campus segregation continue, as racial/ethnic- specific campus structures are frequently labeled as pro- moting campus segregation and ethnic antagonism (e.g., D’Souza 1991; Sabia 2002). This is critically important, because it means that one of the privileges of Whiteness involves seeing White racial segregation as hap- penstance and not structured. Thus, improving the quality and quantity of cross- racial interactions on campus involves not only pushing students out of their racial comfort zones, but also challenging their perceptions regarding who is actually doing the segregating.

Fifty Shades of Brown: Latina/o Racial Identity Development

Racial identity is not a static, essentialized feature of a person’s being. Rather, it is a developmental process that is continually renegotiated and redefined. College becomes one of the arenas of change in the lives of young adults, when they forge their own identities and renegotiate interdependencies with their families (Chickering and Reisser 1993; Wijeyesinghe and Jackson 2001). One important development that occurs during college is that students frequently explore and redefine their racial identity (Wijeyesinghe and Jackson 2001). However, racial identity tends to be studied along the Black/White dichotomy (e.g., Cross 1971; Hardi- man 2001; Helms 1990; Jackson 2001), and there are few explorations into how Latina/o students develop their racial identities.

This lack of research is complicated by the fact that Latinas/os can be from any racial groups, and this can influence their racial identity devel- opment. Ferdman and Gallegos (2001), instead of offering a series of pro- gressive stages of identity development, developed a range of orientations that describe how Latinas/os experience their racial selves. The orien- tations range from internalized racism/preference for Whites (“White- identified”) to an extreme preference for the in- group (“Latino- identified,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 151

racial/raza”). The authors additionally offer: Latinas/os accepting domi- nant norms without a preference for Whites (“Undifferentiated”), Lati- nas/os seeing themselves as the other without a clear sense of what this means (“Latino as Other”), Latinas/os identifying with their ethnic sub- group such as Salvadorian (“Subgroup- Identified”), and finally a positive Latina/o self that concurrently does not demean White people (“Latino- integrated”) (Ferdman and Gallegos 2001, 49).

While Ferdman and Gallegos (2001) offer a theoretical perspective, Torres (1999) advanced an empirically based model of Latina/o iden- tity that focuses on students’ cultural orientations as they navigate be- tween their native Latina/o heritage and the dominant White culture. She posited four Latino identity orientations: Bicultural, Latino/Hispanic, Anglo, and Marginal. Each of the orientations represents the level of comfort Latina/o students experience with the two cultures, ranging from comfort in both (Bicultural) to comfort in neither (Marginal). The two other orientations, Latino/Hispanic and Anglo, represent those students who have stronger ties with either their native/ethnic culture (Latino/ Hispanic) or the majority (Anglo).

Some commonalities are observed across these two Latina/o identity models. Both argue that Latina/o students occupy different orientations, as opposed to the stages previously advanced in theories of racial iden- tity development (Cross 1971; Helms 1990). These orientations are based upon levels of conflict between the students’ native culture and the domi- nant White culture. Variation in ethnic identity and cultural orientation is largely a function of the interaction of three factors: (1) how much their family transmits the native culture to them, (2) the diversity of their lived environments, and (3) their awareness of societal racism. Racial identity development is an important, frequently missing, issue when discussing perceptions of the campus racial climate. Depending on a person’s orien- tation in this developmental process, the campus can appear more or less hostile. This is not to say that the campus racial climate is purely percep- tual, but rather, how students experience it is related to their racial/ethnic identity and positionality. Conversely, the campus climate can also affect how students develop a sense of their racial/ethnic self.

Method

Data for this project were derived from the qualitative component of the Diverse Democracy Project (S. Hurtado 2003). Within this multi- institutional study of public universities, there were seven focus groups

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

152 The Magic Key

composed exclusively of students from different Latina/o communities held in the wake of 9/11 in 2001. Timing of data collection on some cam- puses was delayed to allow a few months to pass before asking questions about diversity and campus climate. Participants were recruited through their university as a result of being identified as active, engaged students and through self- identification as some form of Latina/o (e.g., Chicano, Peruvian, Hispanic, or Puerto Rican). For the purposes of this analysis, we limited the sample to thirty- eight of the forty- seven students in the focus groups who identified as Mexican- origin (e.g., Chicano, Chicana, Mexi- can, Mexican American, or Hispanic but of Mexican origin). A semistruc- tured protocol was utilized for the focus groups, consisting of eight grand tour questions. A central concern of the study was understanding how and what students from diverse racial/ethnic groups learn from each other on university campuses, but conversations quickly turned to the campus cli- mate and barriers to intergroup relations. Focus groups were conducted at each of the following campuses: the University of Michigan (UM), Uni- versity of Washington (UW), University of Massachusetts (UMass), Ari- zona State University (ASU), University of New Mexico (UNM), Uni- versity of Maryland (UMD), and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Three different Latina/o facilitators conducted the seven focus groups to ensure comfort when discussing issues of race and diversity.

All focus groups were digitally recorded, the record transcribed ver- batim by a professional transcription company, and the transcripts checked for accuracy. In order to develop the coding architecture utilized in NVivo, a qualitative data analysis computer software package, each transcript was open coded by examining the raw data and identifying salient themes sup- ported by the text. This constant comparative approach follows an induc- tive process of narrowing from particular themes (text segments) to larger themes that allows the researcher to attempt to “saturate” the categories— to look for instances that represent the category and to continue looking until the new information does not provide further insight into the cate- gory. Once saturation was reached in generating themes, several iterations of coding schemes were developed wherein codes were created, expanded, defined, and refined. Once the coding structure was finalized, the data were coded and stored under the relevant node, and the link to the full transcript was maintained. Commonalities and differences in student experiences were identified across campuses to understand similarity of experience, as well as issues voiced specifically by Mexican- origin students present in focus groups with other Latina/o students. A pattern- matching analytic technique was employed (Yin 1994) to see how major themes from the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 153

interviews reinforced and/or differed from existing literature on campus racial climate, engagement with Latina/o- specific organizations/centers/ areas of study, and perceptions of racial segregation in higher education.

Student Voices on the Campus Climate

Three major themes emerged from the analyses of student narratives, each with several illustrative examples detailed here. Students voiced issues related to the first theme, characterized as an isolating and hostile racial climate, which was largely a function of underrepresentation in pre- dominantly White university environments. However, it is important to note that along with these hostile climates were student strategies and re- sponses that illustrated how they maintained resilience in a second major theme: students tended to rely on Latina/o- specific organizations to find a sense of belonging in what Núñez (2011) refers to as racial counter- spaces at PWIs. Along dimensions of the third theme, we captured per- ceptions of campus racial segregation. Almost all students believed that campus racial segregation was a problem, but some tended to frame it as an issue of minority students clustering together. They almost never mentioned White students as having responsibility for the balkanization (Duster 1993) of their respective campuses. Together, these themes illus- trate racial climate dynamics hypothesized in racial climate models in the literature, providing insight into how they work to shape perceptions as- sociated with Chicana/o- Latina/o identity development. Specific illustra- tions of each of these major themes follow, resulting in a complex portrait of Chicanas/os- Latinas/os with varying forms of identity and awareness of White racial privilege in their campus environments.

Isolating and Hostile Campus Racial Climate

Several components of an isolating and hostile campus racial climate emerged in the students’ lived experiences on college campuses. Specifi- cally, students discussed a lack of compositional diversity leading to racial isolation, indicating low representation of Mexican American and other Latina/o groups. When they did interact across race, they frequently en- countered situations where they were asked to be a type of racial teacher to their peers and sometimes professors. Additionally, they encountered microaggressions (Yosso et al. 2009) in these cross- racial interactions. There was, however, a heterogeneity of narratives, as the minority of stu-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

154 The Magic Key

dents felt that campus racial discrimination actually was directed at them by fellow Latina/o students as opposed to Whites. A related consequence in White normative environments is that some students felt challenged regarding their identity, blaming other “Hispanics,” which we coded as Latina/o versus Latina/o, or intragroup, conflict regarding identity.

Racial/Ethnic Isolation. The first area many students highlighted about the campus racial climate was the minimal compositional diversity, espe- cially as it pertained to Latinas/os. The students at UMD were generally unhappy with the disconnect between expectations of campus diversity through university advertisements and actual campus diversity. As two female students explained:

R: Yeah, I was expecting a little more [diversity]. Like, my friends would tell me, you’re going to Maryland, you’re going to find a Latino everywhere. S: Yeah, that’s what they told me, but that’s not gonna happen, especially in my dorm, which is just like all White or like Asian. R: I’m probably the only Hispanic on my floor.

This was a common experience across campuses, and, as one UCLA male student recalled, “I was kind of like in a culture shock almost because I couldn’t see any minorities [on campus]. . . . I felt like . . . I was like lost in a way.” It is important to note that the proportion of Chicana/o and Latina/o students in California declined dramatically as a result of Propo- sition 209 in 1996, which banned affirmative action (Santos, Cabrera, and Fosnacht 2010). This is still evident years later, and will remain so as long as the change to the California Constitution remains in effect.

This lack of representation made many students feel marginalized on campus. A female student at UMass related her experience during her first year in campus housing:

I lived in [dorm name], . . . it’s an honors program there and I happened to be living in the one dorm that was like an honors college, like all stu- dents that were honors students, predominantly White. I didn’t like it.

This academically talented student had difficulty taking full advantage of the campus academic opportunities through being racially isolated.

The social and psychological burden of being a “racial teacher.” The difficulty of becoming socially engaged in the campus culture was further enhanced by the demands placed upon her as a minority student having to consis-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 155

tently provide a “minority perspective” in class. Being singled out to be the representative of all Latinas/os occurred for other students as well. As one UMass female student explained, “Like in lecture hall, if you’re the one Hispanic within the lecture hall, they’ll ask you just to get the His- panic’s view of like what’s going on, you know?” In addition, students re- ceived demands made by their peers to educate the rest of the campus on their culture. A female student at ASU, recalling a White student at her institution who had never attended school with people of color, stated, “It would be like my job to teach her about people of color.”

Being a representative of all Latina/o people and a teacher of White people took a psychological toll on students. A frustrated UM female stu- dent explained how she was constantly correcting misperceptions about Latinas/os among her non- Latina/o peers:

Like the friends I’ve had and the people I’ve talked to that aren’t used to Latinos or people of color in general. I’ve told them time and time again and sometimes it’s kind of annoying to constantly say, “That’s not true.”

A Latino male student within this same focus group simply declared, “But I’m tired.” The constant, unspoken requirement to educate his peers and even campus administrators about the “Latina/o point of view” caused him to cease his advocacy work and focus exclusively on his studies. Simi- larly, Griffin and Reddick (2011) refer to “paying the Black tax” among Black professoriate, but in this instance, the students paid the “Brown tax.”

Others faced similar psychological drain and frustration from having to constantly educate White people; however, not everyone had an ad- verse reaction. One female student explained how she worked through the same issue at UNM:

I’m trying to get to a point where my goal is to eventually get through this stage and get to a point where I can actually feel comfortable sitting in a room with a bunch of White people and educating them.

She was still tired from the extra effort necessary to educate White stu- dents but, she was willing to make personal sacrifices in the hopes of both improving campus racial climate and growing as a person.

Microaggressions and Racial Marginalization. Even though students were not asked during the course of the focus groups directly about tense inter- racial interactions, this issue continually arose when discussing peer inter-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

156 The Magic Key

actions. For example, a Chicana female student from ASU recalled this episode in class:

When it came to me and I said I was from Mexico, like everybody turned around like oh my God. . . . I was leaving and this guy goes over to me and says, “Oh my God, you are so cool.” He’s like “How did you learn to speak English” and I’m like what? And he’s like yeah, he’s like “Oh my God, are you illegal here?”

This type of campus microaggression (Yosso et al. 2009) also occurred within students’ living spaces. A male student from UM was cooking, and the following occurred: “Like I’ll be making chorizo con huevos (sausage and eggs) in the morning and I get a comment from upstairs, ‘Why does it smell like Mexico in here?’ ”

This frustration at racial marginalization was echoed by a male UM student when he said simply, “White is right. White is right.” It made facilitating cross- racial interactions increasingly difficult because, as one UNM male stated, “We have to give up part of ourselves to be with, to hang out with, White people.” Fostering an inclusive environment fre- quently meant a one- way street of minority assimilation whereby Lati- nas/os on campus were the ones expected to lose their culture. Given the numerous examples of campus microaggressions articulated within the focus groups, it is not surprising that many felt rejected by the dominant, White campus racial culture.

This marginalization did not always take the form of direct conflict. As one UNM female student explained, “But we, like African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, we associate with each other. You know what I mean and it’s like I don’t know maybe like the White race doesn’t really want anything to do with it.” The White students frequently did not want anything to do with diversity efforts, thereby locating the onus of improving campus racial climate within communities of color.

Latina/o versus Latina/o: Intragroup Conflict Consequences for Identity. While the sense of campus marginalization was generally present in the focus groups, there were some who, conversely, felt attacked by the Lati- nas/os on campus. A UW female student explained, “And so I totally feel that if there’s any discrimination, it would come from the people being, ‘You’re half- White,’ or ‘You’re not Mexican.’ ” Another female participant in this focus group concurred: “So I think that, for the most part, out- side of the classroom I face discrimination by Hispanics.” As an offshoot of these feelings, one participant went so far as to claim that Latinas/os

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 157

were “unwilling to work with Whites.” These differing attributions make theoretical sense because, in racial identity theory, once individuals realize the unequal status of their racial/ethnic identity group, they can choose to redefine the value of their group or choose to dissociate from being iden- tified with the racial/ethnic group (Cross 1971; Helms 1990; Torres 2003).

Resilient Responses: Participation in Latina/o- Specific Organizations and Sense of Belonging

Given the campus microaggressions and marginalization many students experienced, in redefining and discovering the value of their own ethnic identity group, many turned to Latina/o- themed organizations for sup- port during their college years. Interestingly, few students were associated with MEChA or other political organizations; however, they frequently spent time carving out counterspaces (Núñez 2011) within the university. We found examples of participation in multicultural Greek organizations, academic peer organizations, cultural centers and dorms (when available), artistic collectives, and conferences; self- exploration through academic course work; and co- opting of predominantly White student organiza- tions (e.g., student government). Students spoke about each of these areas.

White Privilege in the Greek System versus Multicultural Greek. One means of creating a counterspace was through the Greek system. On one campus many students were tired of having the Inter- Fraternity Council (IFC) ignore issues pertinent to Latinas/os on campus. As a UM male stu- dent remarked, “But the thing is, why am I going to join and pay dues for something that doesn’t have anything to do with me or my community?” Another described the IFC’s function for minorities as “taxation without representation.” Despite encountering a lot of resistance from the largely White members of the IFC, ethnic- specific fraternities broke off to form the Multicultural Greek Council (MGC).

IFC leaders took offense because they considered themselves multi- cultural even if many students of color did not. As one UM male student explained, “We called [the Council] ‘Multicultural’ and I heard the argu- ment that was assuming the quote/unquote White Greek wasn’t multicul- tural.” The MGC was established as one means of racial minorities estab- lishing a safe space on campus. A similar experience occurred at UCLA, where a male student commented, “Anglo fraternities by far outnumber that of minority fraternities and sororities, and so . . . you go with what you’re most comfortable with.” The lack of comfort led many to pursue the Latina/o- specific Greek affiliation.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

158 The Magic Key

Once the Latina/o- specific Greek organizations were established, cross- racial interactions were difficult to foster, as the primarily White fraternities and sororities did not want to interact with the minority ones. This was also prevalent at ASU, where one student actually worked at Greek Life. She explained, “You know, we have pushed for four years now to try to do . . . to interact with [White sororities and fraternities], to do other things and they just, they’re not stupid, they’re just . . . okay they’re stupid.” Another female student from ASU felt marginalized when attending Anglo Greek parties: “I just felt excluded away from the way they party. . . . I can relate more to African- American Greek life than the mainstream sororities.” While the primarily White Greek system could not support the needs of these students, minority sororities and fraterni- ties helped foster a sense of comfort on campus.

Other methods of seeking counterspaces. Greek life was the preferred path for many focus group participants; however, there were also a number of other Latina/o- specific campus organizations students gravitated toward. One female engineer found her place in the Society for Hispanic Profes- sional Engineers (SHPE), while concurrently working within the Latino Student Union. One group of students were involved in the Compre- hensive Studies Program, which functioned as a campus- wide academic support system. However, it became a de facto Latina/o- focused cen- ter, as this student population clustered in this area. Sometimes students were drawn to ethnic- specific dorms or floors within dorms. Students at UMass discussed the draw to the multicultural dorm, and one female stu- dent explained:

It’s very diverse, and you know, no one there will make you feel out of place, you know, you go in and a lot of people there, they want to learn more about other cultures. They want to know about where you’re from and you know different religions and stuff like that.

This respect for cultural differences did not occur by happenstance, as students wanting to live in this housing arrangement had to sign a con- tract stating they would try to gain a better understanding of different cul- tures through the experience. This respect for difference was echoed by others in the group, with one student wanting more: “Why is there only one multicultural dorm?”

Focus group participants sometimes had the benefit of a cultural cen- ter on campus that functioned as a “safe space.” A UNM female student explained:

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 159

I like to be in places where I feel free to express myself in however it is that I need to and whatever I say and so when I hang out like at El Cen- tro which is where I am usually at, I feel like I can voice my opinion on whatever I want at any time.

This was an unexpected statement, given that this university is a Hispanic- Serving Institution (HSI), but even within this context, the participant found a strong need to establish a racially/ethnically safe space to voice opinions. This was not to say that El Centro was an arena free from con- flict. “But,” she elaborated, “I feel safe that the criticism that is going to come back to me is good- hearted.” She valued a dialogic process of learn- ing and personal development, not one that was destructive to her iden- tity and perspectives.

Self- Exploration and Classwork. Students also gravitated toward areas of study and classes that incorporated diversity into the curriculum. This fostered not only an increased sense of belonging, but also the develop- ment of self- understanding. As one male UCLA student taking a Latin American music class explained, “I’m learning some of the issues of my culture and at the same time music.” One male ASU student made a simi- lar comment about his increasing self- understanding through the uni- versity’s Chicano Studies program: “But you can’t forget that you’re still evolving in this country, and I think it helps a lot to learn about [the Chi- cano] ethnic background, especially with such a good program as this one.”

Not all students found sanctuary within Chicano Studies. A UNM woman explained, “Then I took a Chicano Studies class and I figured that it will help me identify myself with the rest of the Hispanic community.” It did not have the desired effect, as she never felt part of this campus Latina/o community, although it was not clear from her narrative how the class failed to meet her expectations. Regardless, she expressed her frustration: “I don’t know why I decided that’s what I needed in order to become more aware of where I’m from.” This coincided with her belief that discrimination on campus stemmed from Latina/o students on cam- pus as opposed to Whites.

Agency in creating counterspaces. In addition to finding fulfillment in classes, some students carved out their niche on campus by joining Latina/ o- specific artist collectives. One female student worked with an off- campus group called La Casa de Arte, where Latina/o artists came together to promote their work. When groups were not established, sometimes students created them. As a female ASU student explained:

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

160 The Magic Key

We’re trying to start an organization for Chicano artists, and then the organization has Chicano in it, and people ask me well, you know, is this an exclusive just for Chicanos and I say, “No, it’s an organization created by conscious Chicanos, conscious about being Chicanos and conscious about other people as well.”

Another group even held a Latina/o- specific literature conference. All of these efforts were spawned by students wanting to establish a racial/ ethnic comfort zone and opportunity to learn more about their own cul- ture. These Latina/o- specific organizations helped some students gain a sense of belonging on campus. As one male UM student stated, “Because with the Latino, at least you already know you have something in com- mon. . . . You feel a little more comfortable.” In addition to this level of comfort, a UCLA male student emphasized, “As far as race and ethnicity, you definitely want to join clubs and organizations that teach you more about your own culture and ethnicity.”

Co- opting Traditionally White Organizations. Not all Chicanas/os- Latinas/os had to create separate organizations to create a Latina/o student voice. A UCLA student described how students of color came together to run for office in the student body elections under the banner “Student Empowerment.” This slate highlighted how students of color had been excluded previously from university electoral politics, but “Stu- dent Empowerment mainly consisted of minority students, and when they read off the results, I was right there, and it’s weird cause this whole side was all minorities, this whole side was like basically a couple of minorities.” The many victories of the Student Empowerment slate highlighted that through concerted organizing, students of color could have a meaningful voice within existing campus structures.

Rejection of Latina/o- specific organizations. However, not all students had the same perception of Latina/o- specific groups and organizations. These very organizations served to alienate some Chicanas/os- Latinas/os on campus, as there were Latina/o students who proactively avoided Latina/o-specific groups. One female UW student said, “I didn’t join the Latino organizations because I felt like I was segregating myself from the other organizations that were not Latino- based.” As previously noted, this was also one of the students who felt that most campus discrimination originated from Latinas/os. The framings of campus racial discrimina- tion, interestingly, were apparently independent in students’ minds from perceptions of campus racial segregation. Participants failed to make this connection and tended to perceive the races as homogeneous clusters.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 161

Perceptions of Campus Racial Segregation

In a third major theme, we found that students in the study across all cam- puses generally concurred that racial segregation occurred on campus. As a female student at UMASS declared:

Latinos sit with Latinos, well Latinos tend to mix in with Blacks a little, but then Whites, mostly they sit together and there’s, and then there’s the athletes that they all sit together. They don’t want to intermingle with anybody else.

These visions of the multicultural, integrated university sometimes turned fatalistic as a UM female student explained, “In the long run, everybody’s going to stick to their own people.” One male UW partici- pant expressed particular disdain for campus racial segregation. Speaking as an outsider to the campus Latina/o community, he said, “I mean, you do see the mingling of students of different races, but it seems to me with minorities that you end up just kind of sticking with your own.” He spe- cifically targeted the minority communities as the ones creating campus racial segregation. This made sense, as he had been able to integrate into the dominant, White campus culture, and if he had the ability to assimi- late, he believed, then so should others. To the extent that they did not, it was their choice rather than the racial dynamics of exclusion in relation to White privilege.

The narratives regarding campus racial segregation tended to echo similar experiences, and appear almost nihilistic in tone. As a UCLA male student articulated, “Yes there are like self- segregating groups, but what is the university going to do? You know? Send out the police squad and force us to you know, hold hands and be happy, happy, joy, joy?” Stu- dents generally accepted that campus racial segregation existed; it was seen as a natural part of the environment, and it was primarily discussed as a function of racial minorities sticking together. These comments were informative based upon not only what they said, but what they did not say: there was little discussion of White students segregating on campus and more institutionalized versions of normative exclusion (e.g., White fraternities).

Placing the onus of self- segregation on campus communities of color ignores the basic issue that minorities do not usually have the represen- tational numbers to truly self- segregate at PWIs. This is a key, unques- tioned tension within the focus group participant narratives because, on

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

162 The Magic Key

the one hand, they perceived a lack of compositional diversity, yet there were high levels of same- group activity. One male student expressed it clearly when he said, “You don’t have a choice because there are so few Latinos here and so much majority are White, that you really don’t have much of a choice but to interact in class.” A male UCLA student offered a similar viewpoint: “What we’ve learned is the ability to interact.”

Discussion

The students on these university campuses tended to be, at best, margin- alized and, at worst, treated with hostility, and this generally held true across all institutions. We found that the three major themes from stu- dents’ narratives were interrelated. Experiencing racial/ethnic isolation and a hostile climate may cause students to either reject identity or re- spond with resilience, seeking counterspaces that reaffirm racial/ethnic identity and allow them to explore it with others in college. Such cultur- ally affirming learning activities lead to widespread notions of campus segregation, but the root of the problem goes unacknowledged—White privilege in the campus climate shapes students’ experiences and conse- quent orientations related to Chicana/o- Latina/o identity.

Returning to the campus racial climate framework (Hurtado, Alvarez, et al. 2012; Hurtado et al. 1998; Milem, Chang, and antonio 2005), one of the first issues students discussed was a lack of representation, or compo- sitional diversity. There tended to be relatively few students of color on campus, even at HSIs. This led to a sense of cultural isolation, whereby students had difficulty constructing a sense of belonging to their campus. The finding supports recent scholarship that highlights how Latinas/os in low- diversity institutions experience the most discrimination and stereo- typing compared with moderately or highly diverse institutions (Hurtado and Ruiz 2012).

Within this context, the Chicana/o- Latina/o students had difficulties in intergroup relations for a number of reasons. First, they were consis- tently required to be “racial teachers” to their White peers and professors. This tended to take a psychological toll on the students, as they were asked to be the representative of their race/ethnicity, providing the “Hispanic point of view” on a subject. Second, students were also racially targeted via microaggressions (Yosso et al. 2009). Their peers would use terms like “illegal,” and the truly insidious impact of these racial slights is cumula- tive. Students can generally deal with one microaggression, but multiple

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 163

microaggressions over the course of time are what lead students to feel like second- class citizens of a university, and they also have the potential to adversely affect academic performance and health (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000; Yosso et al. 2009).

Within the context of campus racial climate, the participant responses highlighted the organizational context for diversity, which encompasses curricular/pedagogical diversity (Milem, Chang, and antonio 2005). As some of the participants noted, class content can serve as a method of racial inclusion or exclusion. This is consistent with numerous studies citing both the cognitive and affective growth that occurs from taking ethnic studies courses (Sleeter 2011) and the association of such courses with civic learning outcomes (Hurtado, Ruiz, and Whang 2012).

In terms of navigating the hostile campus racial climate, the respon- dents frequently sought to create organizations, events, and activities where people of their own racial/ethnic background could celebrate their culture without fear of racial persecution. These counterspaces included organizations and centers that were created to be Latina/o- specific, and in some instances, they were de facto Latina/o spaces (Patton 2010). Additionally, students frequently found a sense of belonging by joining Latina/o or multicultural fraternities and sororities, as the traditional Greek system was ostensibly White. Sometimes, the construction of the safe space included co- opting campus structures that were traditionally White, as demonstrated by the takeover of the UCLA student govern- ment in 2009. Regardless, the consistent theme throughout the student narratives was the need to find a sense of belonging via counterspaces within PWIs.

There was some heterogeneity in the responses, as there were par- ticipants who felt marginalized primarily by fellow Latinas/os on cam- pus for not being “Latina/o enough.” For these students, Latinas/os and Latina/o- specific organizations were the ones primarily responsible for campus racial antagonism. Racial/ethnic identity development theory hy- pothesizes that the early orientation of students is marked by a lack of racial awareness and by White identification, followed by Latina/o self- awareness, which is frequently marked by equating all features of White- ness with oppression (Ferdman and Gallegos 2001). This functionally alienated those Latina/o students who were not going through the pro- cess of racial/ethnic identity formation, especially those who were already questioning “how Latina/o” they were. The involvement in racially spe- cific organizations did not, however, mean the students were able to self- segregate. The students consistently talked about the university being

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

164 The Magic Key

a space where they had to learn to interact across races and, therefore, develop an orientation as a bridge builder. If they did not interact across races (or “self- segregate”), the potential would not have existed for them to experience the level of microaggressions they did or report having to be cultural educators for their White peers and professors. This is con- sistent with antonio’s findings (2001), where White students were pri- marily the ones who had the ability to self- segregate on campus. Within this context, it was surprising to learn that some of the students unques- tioningly recited the dominant paradigm attributing primary responsi- bility for campus racial segregation to racial minorities. By blaming the racially isolated communities, they tended to leave the following ques- tion unaddressed: How do White students self- segregate? Without this analysis, it locates the onus for campus integration within communities of color. It additionally assumes that majority White areas are welcoming to Chicana/o-Latina/o students, and therefore students not assimilating into the dominant norm are percieved as fueling racial antagonism or, worse, acting racist.

The general consensus among the focus group participants was that self- segregation existed on campus; however, some tended to locate the problem within themselves, thereby internalizing this racist view. Bivens (1995) identifies one part of internalized racism. She argues, “There is a system in place that misnames the problem of racism as a problem of or caused by people of color and blames the disease—emotional, economic, political, etc.—on people of color” (p. 2). Thus, racism does not have to be explicitly enacted upon students of color by majority students in order for it to have power. Students of color themselves—in this case, Chicana/o- Latina/o students—unconsciously forgo their power of definition by un- questioningly accepting the dominant discourse. Many Latina/o students have to work through internalized racism as part of their identity forma- tion process (Ferdman and Gallegos 2001; Torres 1999, 2003). Thus, it was not surprising that even some very racially conscious students failed to make the connection between a lack of representation (compositional diversity) and the numerical improbability that Chicana/o- Latina/o stu- dents can self- segregate. They tended to decry the lack of campus compo- sitional diversity, while frequently highlighting microaggressions (Solór- zano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). However, rather than seeing their creation/ utilization of safe spaces through Latina/o- themed activities, organiza- tions, and living spaces, the students pejoratively referred to their own ac- tivities as self- segregation instead of a self- preserving response to a hostile climate (Villalpando 2003).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 165

Thus, the students’ narratives in this study added nuance to the inter- section of the campus racial climate and racial/ethnic identity. The more White- identified the students, the more likely they were to mislabel color- consciousness as a form of racism. Conversely, the students who were more Latina/o- identified tended to be the ones who sought out same- race and same- culture connections. Thus, the same components of the campus racial climate that served to signal inclusion to some Chica- nas/os- Latinas/os signaled exclusion to others. This highlights a key miss- ing component of climate research. While the current climate framework illustrates the importance of student perceptions of the environment as a central dimension, there is little examination of how these perceptions are informed by a student’s individual development. This study chronicled Chicana/o-Latina/o students’ lived experiences of inclusion and exclu- sion in the campus climate, and some students’ resilience responses linked with their racial/ethnic identity development and simultaneous growing awareness of racism and White privilege in their environments. Criticism of culturally affirming programs and student organizations will not abate until we acknowledge and respond to exclusionary practices in higher edu- cation and the complexity of Chicana/o- Latina/o student responses.

Implications and Conclusions

As a consequence of these findings, a central issue becomes: What can fac- ulty, administrators, policymakers, and practitioners within institutions of higher education learn from these students’ narratives? There are many possible lessons. From a policy perspective, minimal compositional diver- sity can have an isolating effect on students while also subjecting them to the increased likelihood of racial harassment and discrimination (Hurtado and Ruiz 2012). Thus, policymakers and higher education administrators need to be prepared to defend policies such as affirmative action to en- hance compositional diversity. In environments where this is not possible (e.g., California due to Proposition 209), there need to be inventive strate- gies for creating and maintaining a racially diverse student body (e.g., altering administrative policies to include holistic review of students’ per- sonal and academic accomplishments). However, compositional diversity by itself is insufficient to promote a healthy and inclusive campus racial climate (Hurtado, Alvarez, et al. 2012; Milem, Chang, and antonio 2005).

Once students enter the university environment, it becomes imperative that faculty and student affairs practitioners understand and offer them

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

166 The Magic Key

the following. First, there needs to be education regarding the fact that students of color are not responsible for educating White people (students and faculty alike). If White people want to learn about minority cultures, it is their personal obligation to do so. Students of color owe White privi- leged individuals nothing, and this is a particularly important lesson for professors to learn. There is a power imbalance between professors and students, and therefore, their demands that students “provide a Hispanic perspective” carry more weight than those from peers (i.e., the conse- quences are greater if a student refuses). How can we expect students to educate others if they are just learning about their own Chicana/o- Latina/o histories in college? This suggests that more faculty and staff should learn more about the backgrounds of their students to transform their course content, pedagogy, programs, and practices so that they be- come institutional agents who help students succeed and who encourage multicultural competencies among all students (Hurtado, Alvarez, et al. 2012).

Second, there needs to be greater education about the nature and im- pact of microaggressions and racism. A common misconception is that in order for an act to be racist, it has to be intentionally racist (Cabrera 2012). Rather, student affairs practitioners need to reframe racism in terms of impact as opposed to intent. This is especially important in the context of racial joking, which frequently becomes the source of campus racial incidents and is easily framed as “just a joke” and therefore harmless (i.e., not racist) (Cabrera 2014; Picca and Feagin 2007). The aggressors cannot accept responsibility for change if they are not aware of what sorts of inci- dents may affect the climate for Chicana/o- Latina/o students. Climate as- sessments on campuses should be linked with action to increase awareness on campus and promote discussions of race and racism.

Finally, there needs to be support (both vocally and in terms of re- source allocation) for institutionalizing ethnic- specific spaces for explor- ing Latina/o identity and multicultural education. This can include race-/ ethnicity- themed dorms, cultural centers, and diversity course require- ments. These are important for a number of reasons. When the institu- tion takes responsibility for educating about diversity, it removes some of the burden on Latina/o students to be “racial teachers” to their White peers. Also, it can signal that the institution sees diversity as a core value. Additionally, the creation of counterspaces can help Latina/o students find refuge when the campus climate becomes hostile, while also offering a place for cultural affirmation.

The support of multicultural programs can be perceived as promoting

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

The Ivory Tower Is Still White 167

campus racial segregation (Duster 1993). When the issue of campus seg- regation arises, student affairs practitioners and higher education admin- istrators need to be prepared to address it. One possible way of doing this is highlighting areas where de facto segregation already existed in the campus environment (e.g., in traditional Greek organizations), well be- fore the creation of multicultural organizations. This can be the basis for a dialogue on campus racial segregation by interrogating a double stan- dard: When White students segregate, it is invisible and framed as nor- mal. When students of color create counterspaces, it is framed as racial segregation.

This segregation awareness needs to be tempered with an understand- ing by practitioners and administrators that there is heterogeneity of per- spectives within the pan- ethnic Latina/o identity. While there were some general trends in student narratives (e.g., experiencing microaggressions), there was a minority of participants who located issues of racial discrimi- nation among Latinas/os as opposed to White students. Thus, the nar- ratives of the Chicana/o- Latina/o students in this chapter highlight the complexities of engaging diversity in higher education, indicating how piecemeal approaches frequently fail. Until diversity is engaged in a holis- tic way, the ivory tower will continue to be White in both composition and as a normative culture that shapes daily campus life.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

CHAPTER 8

Campus Climate, Intersecting Identities, and Institutional Support among Mexican American College Students

a Dr Iana ru Iz a lva r a D o a n D s y lv Ia hurta Do

Our separate struggles are really one—a struggle for freedom, dignity, and humanity. Dr. martIn luther KIng, Jr., telegram to Cesar Chavez, september 1966

In the last decade, Latinos contributed more than half of the general population growth in the country (U.S. Census Bureau 2010), and have correspondingly increased their presence in higher education institutions. For the first time, Latinos account for a 15 percent share of all college student enrollments (Fry 2011). Although more than half of this enroll- ment is at two- year institutions, the raw number of Latino students in all segments of higher education is increasing, which signals progress but is also accompanied by challenges. Prior research on Latino and Mexican American students attending college in earlier eras documented discrimi- nation and perceptions of a hostile climate where representation of Lati- nos was low (S. Hurtado 1992, 1994b; McKenna and Ortiz 1987; Zam- brana and MacDonald 2009). One challenge of particular concern is that students at four- year colleges and universities continue to experience acts of discrimination, even at highly diverse institutions, and often at higher rates than for all other underrepresented racial/ethnic student populations (Hurtado and Ruiz 2012).

The purpose of this chapter is to expand previous research on the campus climate for Latino college students (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, and Solórzano 2009) by examining variation in the perceptions and experiences of Mexican American college students across multiple dimensions of the campus climate. Research that includes Mexi- can Americans in campus climate studies tends to group them with either

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 169

all students of color or all other Latino subgroups, resulting in limited in- formation about their unique experiences with discrimination and unwel- coming environments. Building on an intersectionality lens, this chapter affords a unique opportunity to understand intersecting identities, cam- pus climate, and sources of institutional support in different campus con- texts for Mexican American students in the contemporary era.

The Campus Climate

Scholars have aptly documented that racialized minority students ex- perience a more hostile campus climate at higher education institutions than White students (Ancis, Mohr, and Sedlacek 2000; Cabrera and Nora 1994; Fischer 2007; S. Hurtado 1992; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, and Ose- guera 2008; Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008; Nora and Cabrera 1996; Pewewardy and Frey 2002; Rankin and Reason 2005). Prior studies have also demonstrated that experiencing a hostile climate has different effects on students from different racial groups (Fischer 2007; Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008). For Latino students in particular, experiences of discrimination, often in the form of racial microaggressions, have been linked to high levels of race- related stress and other negative outcomes (Solórzano, Allen, and Carroll 2002; Yosso et al. 2009). Though these qualitative studies did not specify the ethnic composition of their Latino sample, the quotes used to support the findings suggest that many of the microaggressions pertained to being from a Mexican background. The re- view of quantitative studies on the following pages will note when studies specified results or implications as directly pertaining to Mexican Ameri- can students. Otherwise, the term “Latino” will be used to reflect the ag- gregate group that likely includes Mexican Americans but is not specified in the literature.

Latinos who perceive discrimination or racial tension have more diffi- culty in transition and adjustment to college. Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler (1996) found that high- achieving Latino students in the second year of college who reported perceptions of racial tension had significantly lower scores on scales measuring academic, social, and emotional adjustment to college. Controlling for all other background factors, Mexican Ameri- cans showed lower levels of social integration compared to other Latino groups. Other research has found that Latinos who perceive greater levels of discrimination and hostility have lower levels of academic and intel- lectual development (Nora and Cabrera 1996), as well as a lower sense

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

170 The Magic Key

of belonging to their institutions (Hurtado and Carter 1997; Levin, Van Laar, and Foote 2006; Locks et al. 2008; Núñez 2009). In contrast, satis- faction with the campus racial climate has positive indirect effects on both grade-point average and degree completion for Latino students (Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008; Nora and Cabrera 1996). In their exami- nation of the effect of campus racial climate on the persistence and de- gree completion of Latino, Asian, Black, and White students, Museus, Nichols, and Lambert (2008) found noteworthy evidence that climate affected the outcomes differently for each group, indicating the impor- tance of conducting separate group analyses to understand unique effects for specific racial/ethnic groups whenever possible.

One contradictory finding in the literature on the campus climate for Latino students involves social integration. Some of the earlier studies on Latino climate have shown that perceptions of discrimination lead to lower levels of social involvement on campus (Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler 1996; Nora and Cabrera 1996), while some of the more recent work demonstrates the opposite—that greater satisfaction with racial climate is associated with lower levels of student involvement with on- campus activities (Mayhew, Grunwald, and Dey 2005; Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008). This relationship deserves further investigation with a larger sample of students to explore the variation in Mexican American students attending different types of colleges. This is especially important because particular intersections of identity are more vulnerable to dif- ferent forms of discrimination in contexts of underrepresentation (Ruiz Alvarado and Hurtado 2015), and such intersections may also influence both students’ social involvements and their perceptions of discrimina- tion on campus.

Although the outcomes associated with experiencing racial tension and discrimination on campus for Latino students are unfavorable, only lim- ited research has examined the individual and institutional characteristics that shape the perceptions of those experiences. Perceptions of the cli- mate are usually included in studies as environmental contexts that stu- dents experience rather than as outcomes in and of themselves. The few studies that have explored this area for Latinos have found only two stu- dent background characteristics to be associated with perceiving greater racial tension: not being a native English speaker or speaking Spanish on campus, and being of the first generation born in the United States (K. P. González 2002; Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009). In a study of “talented Latino students” who were the top scorers on the PSAT, S. Hurtado (1994b) found that one- quarter of these students reported a

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 171

great deal of campus racial conflict as college sophomores and juniors. The students in the study with higher academic self- concepts (self- rated aca- demic ability) perceived less racial tension on campus. However, students who frequently discussed racial issues with peers reported both greater racial tension and higher levels of discrimination regardless of academic self- concept. This suggests that contextual differences are associated with students’ self- perceptions and behaviors that may shape interpersonal and intergroup relations on campus.

Other studies have found that both positive cross- racial interactions and participation in co- curricular diversity programs are associated with perceptions of a more hostile climate for diversity (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009). That is, the more students interact with diverse peers in positive ways and engage in diversity programs, the more negatively they perceive the institutional environment when it comes to racial issues. Though these relationships may appear counterintuitive, scholars have suggested that more familiarity with diversity might allow students to rec- ognize and be critical of treatment that is based on group identities (Hur- tado and Ponjuan 2005; Mayhew, Grunwald, and Dey 2005). From a theo- retical perspective, students may be demonstrating resistant capital (Yosso 2005), challenging inequality and/or subordination and working toward positive ends. Further, diversity programs may be an indication of climate problems on campus if these are developed in reaction to racial incidents. Likewise, membership in Latino student organizations has been asso- ciated with higher perceived levels of racial tension (S. Hurtado 1994b), which might accurately reflect greater levels of prejudice from majority group members on campus. It is likely that students experiencing signifi- cant racial isolation or conflict are more likely to join such organizations for comfort and/or to combat racism on campus in the absence of campus ethnic- specific “safe space” initiatives (Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, and Cuellar 2008). Furthermore, White students are more likely to negatively judge Latino students whom they perceive as having high ethnic identifi- cation, as determined by membership in Latino or ethnic- specific student associations, or who phenotypically look more Latino than those who signal less ethnic identification (Kaiser and Pratt- Hyatt 2009; Kaiser and Wilkins 2010). These findings suggest that strongly identified minorities might indeed experience more prejudice and discrimination on campus.

At the institutional level, increased Latino representation in the stu- dent body has been associated with students feeling less racial tension and experiencing less discrimination, while lower Latino undergradu- ate enrollment has been associated with increased marginalization and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

172 The Magic Key

alienation (K. P. González 2002; S. Hurtado 1994b). Similarly, students at more selective campuses perceive greater racial tension (S. Hurtado 1992, 1994b), which makes sense given that more selective institutions are typically less compositionally diverse. Two additional factors that can be within an institution’s control, curricular diversity and faculty concern for students, have been previously tied to perceptions of a positive cli- mate for diversity. Though not attending specifically to Mexican Ameri- can or Latino students, Mayhew, Grunwald, and Dey (2005) found that students of color who perceived the curriculum to be diverse had more positive perceptions of the climate than White students who perceived the curriculum to be diverse. Likewise, K. P. González (2002) found that cultural representation in courses made Latino students feel less margin- alized. Students who felt that faculty cared about them and were acces- sible outside of class also perceived less racial tension and reported fewer experiences of discrimination (S. Hurtado 1992, 1994b), demonstrating the capacity for faculty and other institutional agents to shape the climate on campus. These studies, however, did not tease out the effect of institu- tional agents on the different dimensions of the climate to determine how their role may differ in helping students deal with perceptions compared to more overt experiences of discrimination.

Prior studies have narrowed in on high- achieving or “talented” Latino students, on traditional college- going samples, on first- and second- year students, or on a limited number of selective institutions. The current study builds on this research by utilizing a more inclusive sample that incorporates both nontraditional students and broad- access institutions (two- and four- year colleges) where Latino college students are concen- trated (Fry 2011). Mexican American students are the group of interest, since understanding within- group variability is important and very little is currently known about what influences climate outcomes specifically for Mexican American college students. Previous research has included Mexican American college students in general climate models for Latino students, but has not found significant ethnic differences in students’ ex- periences and perceptions. In fact, very few differences have been found among students at public universities based on student identities and background (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005), but these studies have opera- tionalized the campus climate as strictly one experienced through a lens of racial identity. In examining influences on the behavioral, psychologi- cal, and organizational dimensions of the climate, this study broadens the definition of the campus climate regarding diversity to include hostile ex- periences and perceptions related to a range of social identities in addition

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 173

to race and ethnicity, including gender, socioeconomic status (SES), gen- erational status, and sexual orientation. This intersectional approach is a central piece of the study and is further discussed in the following section.

Conceptual Framework

The Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments (MMDLE) (Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo- Wann, Cuellar, and Arellano 2012) provides a framework for understanding the various contexts in which diverse students learn and how these contexts are linked to edu- cational practices and student outcomes. The model situates diverse students and their multiple social identities at the center of interacting sociohistorical, community, policy, and institutional contexts. In situat- ing multiple social identities at the center, the model is informed by an intersectional approach that lends itself to understanding the climate and outcomes for students. “Intersectionality” involves an examination of the unique experiences created by the integration of multiple social identi- ties, which are embedded and exist within structures of inequality (Bowleg 2008; Dill, McLaughlin, and Nieves 2012). In other words, intersectional analysis operates at two levels: the individual and the structural (L. Weber 2010). At the individual level, it creates an opportunity for the expression and performance of interlocking identities, and at the structural level, it helps to reveal how power is implicated. This is important in examining the campus climate for Latino students, since the intersections of race with certain social identities, such as sexual orientation, have been largely unaddressed in past research, even though it is known that LGBTQ Lati- nos often face additional challenges in reconciling their sexual identity with cultural expectations (Akerlund and Cheung 2000; Almaguer 1993; Ryan, Huebner, Díaz, and Sanchez 2009; Trujillo 1991), which likely af- fects how they experience college.

Permeating the institutional context are the five dimensions (histori- cal, organizational, compositional, psychological, and behavioral) of the campus climate for diversity, as documented by prior research (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton- Pederson, and Allen 1998, 1999; Milem, Chang, and antonio 2005). For the purposes of this study, we determine how Mexican American students experience oppression or institutional support along psychological, behavioral, and organizational dimensions of the climate. The climate of an institution is influenced by larger social forces (histo- ricity), but is also shaped by the dynamics among individuals on campus

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

174 The Magic Key

(intersubjectivity), much of which takes place in the formal curricular and co- curricular spheres, but some of which also occurs through informal experiences students have with each other (experiential). When negative, the climate can be seen as a form of oppression experienced by individu- als, through both subtle forms of discrimination and bias and also more overt instances of harassment punishable as “hate crimes.” We distinguish between these two to understand how they are experienced differently by Mexican American college students, depending on the intersections of ethnicity with other social group identities.

Along with student identity, within the core of the institutional context are curricular and co- curricular spheres that demonstrate the parallel role of instructors and staff in advancing student outcomes through course content, pedagogy, programs, and practices. These spheres highlight the importance of intentional educational practices that are often neglected in assessments that focus on students and their individual actions (Out- calt and Skewes- Cox 2002). Further, institutions have the capacity to alter students’ experiences with the climate by providing evidence of commit- ment to diversity; structures that support diversity, such as offering a col- lege curriculum that is inclusive of diverse populations; and interactions in the classroom that affirm students as empowered learners. Individual educators also have the power to alter student experiences through their interactions with them. For instance, faculty and staff can provide stu- dents with a sense of both general interpersonal and academic validation, which have been previously tied to student success, particularly for under- represented and nontraditional students in community colleges (Barnett 2011; Rendón 2002). A sense of validation can come through interactions in which students feel that staff and faculty are serving as institutional agents who transmit knowledge that fosters their development and helps them navigate the college environment (Rendón 1994).

Outside of the institutional context, it is important to also acknowl- edge the sociohistorical and political contexts in which Mexican Ameri- can students live. Just as the pan- ethnic term “Latino” varies in meaning based on the social context and on the different political meanings asso- ciated with its use (Dill and Zambrana 2009), Mexican Americans experi- ence the world through both marginalization and privilege, depending on their other social categories and on their relationship to the conditions experienced by others within the environment and historical era they in- habit. In situating the sociohistorical and political era in the MMDLE framework for the students in our sample, several important facts are ob- served that uniquely characterize these students in college and their en-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 175

vironments. First, they are the first to witness the election of a two- term Black president of the United States, and many are attending colleges with unprecedented numbers of Latino students. However, the media are also covering heated debates regarding undocumented students and the right of same- sex couples to marry, and racial profiling is prevalent in public spaces in the hypersecurity of a post- 9/11 epoch. Moreover, most of these students were admitted to college during an era in which “race neutral” policies were implemented in admissions, as affirmative action has been overturned for ten years in most of the states where they are currently being educated. This may be less of an issue when selectivity of the col- lege is low, but in contexts where selectivity is high, Mexican Americans are once again finding themselves as “one of the few” in their classrooms. Therefore, differences across college contexts and within organizational dimensions of the campus climate are key in assessing the experiences of Mexican Americans from different social identity groups during this his- torical era.

Prior studies have demonstrated a connection between experiencing a hostile campus climate and multiple aspects of a student’s social identity, including gender (Kelly and Torres 2006), sexual orientation (Evans and Broido 2002; Rankin 2004), and socioeconomic status (Langhout, Ros- selli, and Feinstein 2007). In this sense, we extend research on intersec- tionality by clarifying the historical context and aim to measure the four domains of power—organizational, representational, intersubjective, and experiential (Anthias 2013; Núñez 2014a)—as they relate to the campus climate. In this way we “unveil the ways the interconnected domains of power organize and structure inequality and oppression” (Dill and Zam- brana 2009, 5) via the climate in relation to multiple social identities, ex- periences on campus, and dynamic student interactions with others.

Methods

Data Source and Sample

The data for this study were derived from a combination of the 2010 pilot administration and the 2011 national administration of the Diverse Learn- ing Environments (DLE) survey conducted by the Higher Education Re- search Institute (HERI) at UCLA. The DLE measures institutional prac- tices, the campus climate, and student outcomes, and also assesses student experiences across multiple social identities, inclusive beyond race and ethnicity.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

176 The Magic Key

The DLE was administered at thirty- four campuses that included broad- access and compositionally diverse selective institutions, commu- nity colleges and four- year schools, and public and private universities. Two private institutions were lost when the sample was filtered to include only students who identified as Mexican American. The final sample size was 2,753 Mexican American students, and was composed of 17.9 per- cent freshmen, 27.2 percent sophomores, 30.6 percent juniors, and 24.4 percent seniors. One- fourth of the students entered their institutions as transfer students, and 14.9 percent were still enrolled in community col- leges. The majority of respondents (67.5 percent) were female, and more than half (52.4 percent) of the sample was composed of first- generation college students.

Analysis

Frequencies on all variables of interest were conducted to examine miss- ing data. Since our variables all had less than 5 percent missing values, the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm was used to impute values for missing cases on all continuous variables with the exception of the de- pendent variables. EM uses maximum likelihood techniques to provide a more robust method than other missing- value techniques, such as listwise deletion or mean replacement (McLachlan and Krishnan 1997). For our analysis, we utilized hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine the individual and institutional characteristics related to the three outcomes of interest, using the same analytical model in a separate analysis for each outcome. HLM is appropriate when data have a nested structure, as in this case, where students were nested within institutions. By accounting for the nested structure of the data and the homogeneity of errors within groups, HLM helps to avoid Type I statistical error. HLM also simulta- neously estimates equations for both the individual and the institutional effects, allowing the variance to be partitioned at each level of the data (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).

Outcomes

Table 8.1 provides a list of the items comprising all of the factors in the model, including the three that serve as the dependent variables repre- senting the psychological, behavioral, and organizational dimensions of the campus climate for diversity. Outcomes in this study can be generally

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Table 8.1. Psychological, Behavioral, and Organizational Factors of the Campus Climate

Factor

Reliability and Factor Loading

Dependent variables Discrimination and bias α = .889 Verbal comments .792 Written comments (e.g., e- mails, texts, writing on walls) .762 Witnessed discrimination .750 Exclusion (e.g., from gatherings, events) .746 Offensive visual images or items .733 Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from faculty .677 Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from staff .664 Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from students .644 Harassment α = .917 Physical assaults or injuries .935 Threats of physical violence .912 Anonymous phone calls .844 Damage to personal property .794 Reported an incident of discrimination to a campus authority .685 Institutional commitment to diversity α = .857 Has campus administrators who regularly speak about the value of diversity .724 Appreciates differences in sexual orientation .711 Promotes the appreciation of cultural difference .698 Rewards staff and faculty for their participation in diversity efforts .666 Promotes the understanding of gender differences .665 Has a long- standing commitment to diversity .651 Accurately reflects the diversity of the student body in publications (e.g., brochures, website) .631 Independent variables Co- curricular diversity activities α = .903 Participated in ongoing campus- organized discussions on racial/ethnic issues (e.g., intergroup dialogue) .866 Participated in racial/ethnic or cultural center activities .848 Attended debates or panels about diversity issues .810 Participated in the women’s/men’s center activities .782 Participated in the LGBTQ center activities .729

(continued)

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

178 The Magic Key

applied to understand inequality for all identity groups and do not focus solely on experiences based on race or ethnicity. Each factor score has been rescaled to have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Discrimination and bias (α = 0.89), a factor measuring the frequency of students’ experi- ences with more subtle forms of discrimination, represents the psycho- logical dimension of the campus climate. Harassment (α = 0.92), a fac- tor measuring the frequency that students experience more overt threats, represents the behavioral dimension of the campus climate. Institutional commitment to diversity (α = 0.86), a factor measuring students’ per- ceptions of their campus’s commitment to diversity, represents students’ perceptions of the normative organizational dimension of the climate. The compositional dimension is included in each model as an indepen- dent measure to understand the relationship between Mexican American representation (one of the domains of power) and the other dimensions of climate. The other domains of power (organizational, experiential, and intersubjective) are also captured through independent variables in rela- tion to the outcomes and are described in the next section.

Table 8.1. Continued

Factor

Reliability and Factor Loading

Attended presentations, performances, and art exhibits on diversity .649 Curriculum of inclusion α = .854 Material/readings on race and ethnicity issues .824 Materials/readings on gender issues .715 Materials/readings on issues of privilege .705 Opportunities for intensive dialogue between students with different backgrounds and beliefs .635 Serving communities in need (e.g., service learning) .578 Academic validation in the classroom α = .863 Instructors provided me with feedback that helped me judge my progress .842 I feel like my contributions were valued in class .811 Instructors were able to determine my level of understanding of course material .776 Instructors encouraged me to ask questions and participate in discussions .673

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 179

Independent Variables

Guided by our conceptual framework and prior research, the model in- cludes variables representing student identity, as well as measures of inter- subjectivity (relations between individuals), experiential measures shaped by college and peer structures, and institutional/organizational structures and contexts that shape inequality. To examine heterogeneity in the Mexi- can American student population, this study incorporates three student identities in the model (gender, class, and sexual orientation), in addition to a dichotomous measure indicating whether students were born in the country (generation status). Measures of student background that control for enrollment status are pathway into the institution (first- time freshman or transfer) and class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior). Other student characteristics that differentiate psychological concerns, self- concept, and commitment among students and serve as important controls are level of concern about ability to pay for college measured on a three- point scale (1 = None to 3 = Major), self- rated academic ability measured on a five- point scale (1 = Lowest 10 percent to 5 = Highest 10 percent), and importance placed on the goal of helping to promote racial understanding measured on a four- point scale (1 = Not Important to 4 = Essential).

Formal college experiences that occur in the curricular (classroom) and co- curricular spheres of the MMDLE model include participation in academic support services, and factors capturing the amount of exposure to campus- facilitated co- curricular diversity activities (α = 0.90) and a curriculum of inclusion (α = 0.85). Informal college experiences include participation in racial, political, and religious student organizations, hours per week working on and off campus, and amount of positive cross- racial interactions (α = 0.88). To capture the role of faculty dynamics in relation to individual Mexican American students within the curricular sphere of the MMDLE model, a factor measuring amount of academic validation students receive in the classroom (α = 0.86) is included. At the level of institutional structures, we include selectivity, which previous research has shown to lead to more hostile climates (S. Hurtado 1992), as measured by the mean SAT score of the student body; aggregated peer level of par- ticipation in a curriculum of inclusion; and percentage of the full- time- equivalent student body that is Latino, as the representational domain of power that coincides with the compositional dimension of the climate.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

180 The Magic Key

Results

Table 8.2 shows the results of the three HLM models. Confirming the importance of considering multiple aspects of students’ identities in ex- amining their experiences with various dimensions of the campus climate, results show that gender, income, sexual orientation, and generation in the United States are all significant in at least one of the three models. Compared to males, Mexican American females are less likely to perceive discrimination and bias (b = −.75, p < .05) and experience harassment (b = −.79, p < .01). Low- income students with parental income below $50,000 are more likely than upper- middle- income students with parental income between $75,000 and $150,000 to experience harassment (b = .53, p < .05). Students who identify as homosexual, bisexual, or other sexual orientation compared to heterosexual are more likely to perceive dis- crimination and bias (b = 2.28, p < .01) and experience harassment (b = 1.42, p < .05), and they are less likely to believe that their institutions are committed to diversity (b = −2.13, p < .01). Finally, students who were not born in the United States perceive less discrimination and bias (b = −.89, p < .05) than Mexican Americans who were U.S.- born. Interest- ingly, there is no significant difference in the behavioral dimension be- tween U.S.- born and non- U.S.- born students. Given that few studies have examined differences in Latino college experiences based on generation status (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009; Stebleton, Huesman, and Kuzhabekova 2010), this study extends previous work, indicating that recent immigrants maintain a less critical outlook on discrimination than later generations, even though they actually tend to have more limited ac- cess to opportunities (Pérez, Fortuna, and Alegría 2008; Viruell- Fuentes 2011). Collectively, these findings demonstrate, even when controlling for experiential domains, within- group variability in how Mexican Ameri- can students experience different dimensions of the campus climate for diversity.

Other student statuses that are significant are pathway into the insti- tution, class standing, having concern about ability to pay for college, and placing importance on the goal of helping to promote racial under- standing. Mexican American students who transferred into their college or university perceive less discrimination and bias than students who began there as freshmen (b = −.98, p < .01), but as students advance in class standing they also perceive more discrimination and bias (b = 1.03, p < .001) and less institutional commitment to diversity (b = −1.09,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 181

p < .001). This suggests that familiarity can breed disillusionment, as students who spend more time on campus have more opportunities to en- counter oppression and lose their idealized view of the institution. Pos- sibly also reflecting consciousness of inequality in the economic climate of the era, the more concerned Mexican American students are about their ability to pay for college, the more they perceive discrimination and bias

Table 8.2. Final Models for Discrimination and Bias, Harassment, and Institutional Commitment to Diversity

Discrimination and Bias Harassment

Institutional Commitment to Diversity

Variable b b b

Gender (female) −0.748* −0.789** −0.814 LGBTQ 2.280** 1.418* −2.132** Low income (less than $49,999) −0.270 0.530* 0.228 Lower- middle income ($50,000 to $74,999) −0.314 0.301 −0.295 High income (more than $150,000) 0.039 −0.071 1.074 First generation in country −0.885* −0.199 0.079 Transfer student −0.977** −0.478 −0.465 Class standing 1.033*** 0.224 −1.091*** Financial concerns 1.655*** 0.812*** −0.649 Self- rating: academic ability 0.360 0.232 0.217 Helping to promote racial understanding 0.279 −0.884*** 0.183 Academic support services 0.090 0.062 −0.057 Co- curricular diversity activities factor 0.369*** 0.325*** −0.145*** Curriculum of inclusion factor 0.033 −0.071*** −0.007 Joined Latino student organization 1.192* −0.803 −1.021 Joined political student organization 2.369** 1.234 −1.525* Joined religious student organization 0.604 0.658 0.802 Positive cross- racial interaction factor 0.001 −0.011 0.204*** Academic validation factor −1.866*** −0.483*** 3.793*** Hours per week working on campus 0.111 −0.030 −0.127 Hours per week working off campus −0.034 0.080 0.027 Institutional selectivity 0.100 0.169 −1.016 Aggregate curriculum of inclusion 0.029 0.031 0.484 Percent of student body that is Latino −0.695 0.665 2.685*

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

182 The Magic Key

(b = 1.66, p < .001) and report experiencing harassment (b = .81, p < .001). Students who place greater importance on the goal of helping to promote racial understanding experience less harassment than students who place less importance on the goal (b = −.88, p < .001).

A number of informal college experiences are significantly related to the different climate dimensions. Students who are members of a racial or ethnic student organization reflecting their own background perceive more discrimination (b = 1.19, p < .05) than students who are not mem- bers of such organizations, supporting previous research indicating that such organizations serve as counterspaces where students seek support and self- preservation in the face of perceived discrimination (Villalpando 2003). It is not possible to tell from the survey data, however, whether the organization a student joined was a pan- ethnic Latino group or one catering specifically to Mexican Americans. Students who are members of political student organizations also perceive more discrimination and bias than nonmembers (b = 2.37, p < .01) and less institutional commit- ment to diversity (b = −1.53, p < .05). Contradicting prior research (Hur- tado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009), higher levels of positive cross- racial interactions are not significantly related to perceptions of discrimination and bias; rather, these results show that intersubjectivity is related to stu- dents perceiving their institutions as committed to diversity (b = 0.20, p < .001). Relations that include cross- racial interactions may be facili- tated by institutional efforts that recognize the development of students’ multiple identities. Further research is needed to determine how variation in Mexican American ethnic identity, which can be due to region of resi- dence, phenotype, social class, and differences in socialization, relates to cross- racial interactions and participation in racial/ethnic student orga- nizations that can preserve identity and culture.

Other findings highlight the critical role of the experiential domain in shaping perceptions of the climate. Higher levels of participation in campus- facilitated co- curricular diversity activities are significant in all three models and are associated with higher levels of perceived discrimi- nation and bias (b = .37, p < .001), more reports of harassment (b = .33, p < .001), and less belief that the institution is committed to diversity (b = −.15, p < .001). Although the cross- sectional nature of the data does not imply causality, these findings confirm previous research indi- cating that having an increased awareness of diversity issues allows stu- dents to be more critical of intergroup interactions (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009) and demonstrate resistant capital (Yosso 2005). On

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 183

the other hand, students who take more courses that are part of a cur- riculum of inclusion report fewer experiences of harassment (b = −.07, p < .001), which might be related to diversity classes being a welcoming space on campus for Mexican Americans who might be experiencing iso- lation in other areas of the institution (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). Higher levels of academic validation in the classroom are associated with lower levels of perceived discrimination and bias (b = −1.87, p < .001), fewer experiences with harassment (b = −0.48, p < .001), and higher levels of perceived institutional commitment to diversity (b = 3.79, p < .001). Finally, Mexican American students at institutions where there is a higher percentage of Latino undergraduates perceive their institutions to be more committed to diversity (b = 2.69, p < .05). This suggests that the representational domain of power is a dimension of inequality that can be addressed by institutional leaders to challenge oppression, but as part of a system with multiple dimensions, representation cannot be the only dimension if real change is expected.

Because only one of the institutional- level structure variables is sig- nificant in the three climate models, while academic validation is a signifi- cant intersubjective measure in all of them, we ran additional analyses to determine whether there were significant differences in the levels of aca- demic validation in the classroom by the different types of institutional contexts included in the study. In terms of institutional type, the results suggest that Mexican American students across the thirty- two institu- tions felt most validated at community colleges, followed by four- year col- leges, and finally universities (see figure 8.1). Dunnett’s T3 post hoc tests demonstrate that though the mean academic validation factor score was lower at four- year colleges than community colleges, the difference is not significant. However, the post hoc tests do confirm that mean scores on the academic validation factor are significantly lower at universities com- pared to the other two institution types (p < .001). This finding might be a function of the smaller class sizes at four- year and community col- leges versus the larger university classrooms, where it can be more diffi- cult for professors to know students individually. It can potentially also be connected to the historical dimension of the campus climate, since the more selective universities have a historical legacy of exclusion that might still permeate classroom environments, whereas community col- leges were established for the very purpose of expanding higher educa- tion to the masses. Additional post hoc tests demonstrating that the mean factor score on academic validation decreases as selectivity increases (see

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

184 The Magic Key

figure 8.2) lend support to this hypothesis. Mexican American students attending institutions of the highest selectivity report significantly lower levels of academic validation (p < .001) compared to Mexican American students at institutions of lower selectivity.

In summary, the findings reveal that the climate is perceived and ex- perienced differently among Mexican American college students based on the different intersections of their multiple identities, as gender, sexual orientation, income, and generation status are all associated with at least one of the climate dimensions. Additionally, participation in campus- facilitated curricular and co- curricular activities, as well as informal inter- actions with peers and Latino representation in the student body, has distinct and significant relationships to the different climate dimensions. This confirms that the experiential, intersubjective, and representational domains of power also play an important role in shaping experiences with the campus climate for diversity.

Figure 8.1. Level of Academic Validation by Institutional Type

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 185

Discussion and Implications for Research and Practice

Experiences with Climate and Intersecting Identities

This study extends previous research to more broadly define the campus climate for diversity as one that is perceived and experienced through the lens of not just race and ethnicity, but also other social identities, including gender, sexual orientation, generation status, and socioeco- nomic status. The use of a broader campus climate for diversity definition is important because recent work reports that Mexican Americans think about their race less than other Latino ethnic groups (Ruiz Alvarado and Hurtado 2015), a finding based on the same sample of Latinos attending broad- access and selective institutions used in this study. In the contem- porary era, on campuses where there is a larger Latino presence, Mexican Americans may perceive less threat due to their race and ethnicity and be more aware of discrimination in other dimensions of their social identity.

Figure 8.2. Level of Academic Validation by Institutional Selectivity

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

186 The Magic Key

In general, members of stigmatized groups vary considerably in their reports of being targets of prejudice (Kaiser and Wilkins 2010). This may be due to the heterogeneity within these stigmatized groups, as the inter- sectionality lens suggests that Mexican Americans cannot and do not ex- perience the world through race and ethnicity alone, but rather through a combination of those and the other social identities coconstructed through dimensions of difference, making it problematic to homogenize all students into one category and overlook the effect of various intersec- tions of these identities (Bowleg 2008; Dill, Nettles, and Weber 2001; Dill and Zambrana 2009). Under that premise, it is the specific intersection of ethnicity and gender that may be contributing to Mexican American male students perceiving more discrimination and experiencing more harass- ment on campus than Mexican American women, since Latino males face unique challenges due to their underrepresentation in higher education (Sáenz and Ponjuan 2009).

Likewise, the results show that individuals inhabiting intersections of ethnicity with other identities that are underrepresented or targeted in society may also face more discrimination on campus, such as those iden- tifying as LGBTQ, which was associated with more negative experiences and perceptions in the behavioral, psychological, and organizational di- mensions of the climate. Sexual orientation is often an invisible iden- tity, which can carry with it obstacles such as isolation, lack of resources, stereotyping, lack of role models, and inauthentic personal relationships (Bieschke, Hardy, Fassinger, and Croteau 2008). Moreover, the intersec- tion of LGBTQ status and Mexican American ethnicity can create an additional fear of being rejected at home, or “abandoned by the mother, the culture, la Raza” (Anzaldúa 1987, 20). This suggests that LGBTQ Mexican Americans may need different types of support services to deal with these tensions than LGBTQ students from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, who may find it easier to be open in their lifestyle (Nero 2005).

In terms of class identity, low- income Mexican American students ex- perienced levels of discrimination and perceptions of institutional com- mitment to diversity similar to those of Mexican American students from higher income levels, but were somewhat more likely to report overt forms of harassment, suggesting that climate is not experienced similarly across class. Finances play a role even when controlling for students’ in- come backgrounds, as students’ concerns regarding their ability to finance college were positively associated with higher perceptions of discrimina- tion and bias and more experiences with harassment. This finding may be

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 187

uniquely reflective of the recent economic downturn, as reports have in- dicated Latinos were more likely than non- Latino Whites to be adversely affected (DeNavas- Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2011). It is also a reflection of structures of inequality that leave those marginalized populations with fewer resources feeling more vulnerable. Our data show that particular Mexican American students are feeling such vulnerability on campus re- garding their ability to manage college financing, which may lead them to consider leaving the institution and inadvertently perpetuate the cycle of inequality. Overall, affirming a commitment to diversity means educa- tors must also provide sufficient support (financial, academic, and social) to address Mexican American students’ needs, challenge oppression, and enable their success.

The Important Role of Institutional Agents

For those thinking about what institutions can do to create a more posi- tive climate for diversity, the results indicate that receiving academic vali- dation in the classroom is one of the few college experiences contributing to all three outcomes for the Mexican American students included in this study. Higher levels of validation from faculty are associated with more positive perceptions and experiences in the psychological, behavioral, and organizational dimensions of the campus climate. Unfortunately, research on validation has demonstrated that racial/ethnic students tend to feel less validated than White students (Hurtado, Cuellar, and Guillermo- Wann 2011). Moreover, in a longitudinal study of second- year students at nine public universities, Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) found that Latino stu- dents were more likely than White students to hear faculty express stereo- types, report being singled out because of their backgrounds, and gener- ally sense discrimination in the classroom. Such experiences disempower students as learners. They can be made to feel “silenced, subordinate, and/ or mistrusted” (Rendón 1994, 44) in the classroom, which contributes to more negative perceptions of the campus climate in general, especially if the classroom is their primary experience and point of contact with cam- pus. If academic validation in the classroom can serve to curb feelings of a hostile climate for Mexican American students, as the findings indicate, it is critical that faculty members engage in activities that help students develop ways to resist this hostility by fostering recognition, promoting talent development, and empowering students in the classroom.

When instructors take the initiative to create a validating environ- ment, the classroom itself can become one of the safe spaces on campus

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

188 The Magic Key

for students who perceive a negative campus climate elsewhere (Núñez 2009). In addition to faculty showing concern by providing students with feedback and making them feel that their contributions are valued, reflect- ing their background in the curriculum can serve as a validating experi- ence for students (Rendón Linares and Muñoz 2011). That is, changes in the college curriculum and creating an expectation that all students will learn about identity, power, privilege, and oppression are critical for cre- ating more equitable and inclusive learning environments. Accordingly, our findings demonstrate that being exposed to a curriculum that includes diverse content about different social identities and offers opportunities to have dialogue with other students or serve communities in need (engag- ing students with diversity) is associated with fewer reports of harassment among Mexican American students.

Staff members also have an important role outside of the classroom in shaping the climate, as Mexican American student participation in campus- facilitated co- curricular diversity activities was a significant pre- dictor in all three models. Campus co- curricular diversity activities in- cluded participation in discussions on race and in events sponsored by racial/ethnic, gender, and LGBTQ centers. This measure of students’ level of participation in all these activities was positively associated with perceptions of discrimination and harassment, and negatively associated with perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity, lending sup- port to prior research suggesting that such activities provide students with a new critical awareness of campus dynamics (Hurtado and Ponjuan 2005; Núñez 2009). Alternatively, it is possible that students who are already critical of the campus climate may purposefully seek more activities or centers where diversity is openly discussed. Moreover, co- curricular di- versity programs are often a reaction to a negative incident, indicating that the students who are participating may be experiencing a hostile cam- pus climate for diversity. In any scenario, it is important that the staff members involved with racial/ethnic, LGBTQ, men’s and women’s cen- ters, and other campus offices that host presentations or discussions about diversity issues are equipped to help Mexican American students process their critical awareness and are not just symbolic tokens. Given that the co- curricular activities highlighted in this study are sponsored by identity- specific centers, it is important for the institutional agents involved to also keep in mind that no single identity exists in isolation from others (Bowleg 2008).

Overall, student participation in co- curricular diversity activities can predict positive cross- racial interaction for Latinos (Sáenz, Ngai, and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

Campus Climate 189

Hurtado 2007), and also positive outcomes in terms of preparation for a diverse workplace (Engberg and Hurtado 2011). However, such co- curricular activities need to provide opportunities for sustained dialogue across differences and create opportunities for students to build coalitions to help resolve climate issues on campus. Both faculty and staff can create more opportunities to learn about diversity and, at the same time, assist Mexican American students in navigating college and reaching their edu- cational goals.

Conclusions

Overall, our findings offer important contributions to the study of the campus climate as experienced by Mexican American college students, using new intersectionality frameworks. At a time when ethnic diversity within the Latino population is steadily increasing, and current political debates, such as immigration and marriage rights, are shaping the perspec- tive of their peers, Mexican American students continue to face unique challenges in college that we have yet to probe further using an intersec- tional lens. The results highlight the importance of examining within- group differences in order to better recognize some of these unique chal- lenges, and suggest strategies for institutions to consider in order to better serve this growing population on college campuses. The fact that specific intersections of identity among Mexican Americans are more likely to perceive a hostile climate (e.g., males), while others directly experience violence and harassment (e.g., LGBTQ and low- income students) in col- lege, helps educators to use this and similar research to target coordinated efforts in developing a more comprehensive “safety net” (programs and services, identity- specific and otherwise) for students to ensure their suc- cess. It is worrisome that Mexican Americans at the most selective insti- tutions experience the least validation in college classrooms compared to their counterparts at other institutions. Improving the climate for Mexi- can Americans at universities and selective institutions remains a key chal- lenge, as is preparing those who begin as community college students for new challenges they will encounter at four- year institutions—not the least of which are different levels of support in the classroom and a more intense set of power and identity dynamics that characterize the climate for diversity.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e

d .

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C o p yr

ig h

t ©

2 0 1 5 . U

n iv

e rs

ity o

f T

e xa

s P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .