Latinas/os at the University of Illinois:
A History of Neglect and Strategies for Improvement,
1992-2002
A Report from the Chancellor’s Committee on Latina/o Issues
Fall 2003
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Chapter I
The Campus Climate for Latina/o Students at UIUC………………………………………….5
Chapter II
Latina/o Undergraduate Students at UIUC………………………………………………………9
Chapter III
Latina/o Graduate Students at UIUC……………………………………………………………15
Chapter IV
Latina/o Faculty at UIUC…………………………………………………………………………..20
Chapter V
Latina/o Academic Professionals at UIUC……………………………………………………. 25
Chapter VI
Latina/o Employees in University and Campus Administration…………………………...27
Chapter VII
La Casa Cultural Latina........................................................................................................28
Chapter VIII
Latina/o Studies Program at UIUC………………………………………………………………32
Chapter IX
Recommendations...............................................................…………………………………..37
Appendices A-F
__________________________________________________________________________
Members of the Chancellor’s Committee on Latina/o Issues:
Cristina Pacione-Zayas, Chair, Graduate Student
William Berry, Ex-officio, Faculty
Cathy Acevedo, Academic Professional
Sylvia Caballero, Undergraduate Student
Pedro Cabán, Faculty
Alyssa Garcia, Graduate Student
Veronica Kann, Academic Professional
William Kelleher, Faculty
Alejandro Lugo, Faculty
Luis Miron, Faculty
Sergio Mojarro, Undergraduate Student
David Roediger, Faculty
Cover Illustration by: Oscar Martinez
2
INTRODUCTION
During the spring and fall of 2001, a group of undergraduate and graduate students initiated a series
of meetings first with the provost and subsequently with the chancellor to express concerns about a number
of issues regarding Latinas/os1 at the University of Illinois (UIUC). Many questions emerged from those
conversations – e.g., Why does UIUC have a problem recruiting and retaining Latina/o faculty? Why are
there no Latinas/os in senior administration? What is the campus doing at the graduate level to produce a
future pool for faculty and administrative positions? What might the campus do to improve the recruitment
and graduation rate of undergraduate Latina/o students? Why does the campus have so few Latina/o
employees serving as academic professionals? What has UIUC done in the 10 years since spring 1992
when students from all ethnicities held a major protest to demand that the campus make itself more
accessible to Latinas/os as students, faculty and staff, and expand its curriculum to offer courses in
Latina/o studies?
To get at the heart of these and other questions and concerns, the students proposed that a
committee be charged to assess the situation concerning Latinas/os at UIUC. They proposed that the
committee be appointed from the Chancellor’s office because the issues and concerns were broad in their
scope and implications. The Chancellor’s Committee on Latina/o Issues was appointed in January 2002
and an associate chancellor was designated to work with this committee. The Committee was comprised
of two undergraduate students, two graduate students, two academic professionals, and six faculty (two full
professors, two associate professors, and two assistant professors).
The Committee’s charge was twofold: (1) evaluate the extent to which the campus has provided
access and opportunity for Latinas/os as undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff, and
administrators; and (2) develop recommendations and suggestions that campus leaders can use to make
this institution stronger by tapping into the rich reservoir of intellectual capital that exists within the Latina/o
sector of our population. Early on, the Committee determined that there was the need both to document
the past and present, and to propose strategies to move UIUC forward. Thus, it committed itself to produce
a report that considered the way things were, the way things are, and the way things could be for
Latinas/os at UIUC.
It was fitting that the Committee conducted much of its work in 2002. The spring of 2002 marked the
10th anniversary of student protests that occurred in 1992 to challenge the campus to provide Latinas/os
equitable access to all aspects of campus life, including developing an academic program that would study
and research their history and culture. Part of the Committee’s work documented what had happened
during the past decade. The Committee had access to the official 2000 Census data, which verified what
scholars and researchers had been forecasting and the news media had been reporting concerning the
significant growth in the Latina/o population in this country. The Committee used these data in helping to
contextualize the situation at UIUC, relative to the State of Illinois and the rest of the U.S.
On April 27, 2002, the Committee convened a daylong forum/workshop, partly to provide a
preliminary report of its findings, and partly to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 1992 student
protest. For many, the 1992 protest has become a symbolic benchmark against which to examine,
evaluate and assess the status of Latinas/os at UIUC. The forum/workshop was titled “Delivering Empty
The Chancellor’s committee chose to utilize the term “Latina/o” over “Hispanic” throughout this report. The Committee believes
that although “Hispanic” is an official term constructed by the United States government for census reporting, it is inappropriate
and problematic (Chapter IV, page 22, of this report goes into further detail explaining the rationale for the Committee’s choice of
terminology). Latina/o includes all people, Spanish speaking or not, who were either born or whose decedents are from Latin
America, the Caribbean, or Iberian Peninsula.
1
3
Promises: The Struggle of the Latina/o Experience at the University of Illinois, 1992-2002.” Committee
members presented information and participated in open dialogue concerning the following topic areas:
campus climate issues; recruitment/retention of undergraduate and graduate students;
recruitment/retention of academic professionals, faculty and administrators; resources and support for La
Casa Cultural Latina; the status of the Latina/o Studies Program, including its search for a permanent
director; and emerging issues.
In addition, an 11-member panel comprised of faculty, staff and students – including alumni who had
participated in the 1992 protest – chose the “Delivering Empty Promises” theme as the title for a
presentation and discussion that looked retrospectively and prospectively at subjects for review and issues
for consideration. Other aspects of the forum/workshop included roundtable discussions that enabled
attendees to share perspectives and information about how UIUC might become a more inclusive
institution.
Following the forum/workshop, the Committee continued its work during the 2002-03 academic
year and completed its preliminary report in April 2003. The Committee decided to use a targeted
distribution strategy in issuing its final report to ensure that administrators, deans, department heads,
alumni, elected and appointed officials, and others who can effect change will want to use the report to help
their various units become more equitable, open and accessible for Latinas/os. During the 2003-2004
academic year the Committee will share its finding with the campus community, with particular attention to
units which have done little or nothing to draw a wider circle that includes Latina/os as students, faculty,
staff, and administrators. Also, in the 2003-2004 academic year, the Committee will issue its first “Report
Card on Latina/os at UIUC” to call attention to exemplary and shameful performance by the various units at
the university.
4
CHAPTER I
THE CAMPUS CLIMATE
FOR LATINA/O STUDENTS AT UIUC
Latina/o students at UIUC have encountered a series of discouraging moments on social, cultural,
and academic levels since they established a collective presence on campus in 1967. Their first struggles
revolved around the estrangement felt in the late 60s and early 70s when students organized a campaign
for a cultural space that would enable them to feel at home on a largely white campus. Their efforts
produced La Casa Cultural Latina in 1974, and that institution has addressed Latina/o social and cultural
needs up to the present. The intellectual desires of Latina/o students, although they had been expressed
through routine bureaucratic channels, did not get addressed by the administration until the aftermath of the
student sit-ins at the Office of Minority Student Affairs on April 29, 1992 and, a week later, at the Henry
Administration Building on May 5, 1992. (Students of all races and ethnicities participated in the protests
and sit-ins.)
These protests made public a series of issues that demonstrated the difficulties Latina/o students
experienced in everyday campus life, factors that continue to affect the campus climate today. The student
protesters demanded2 that the university recruit and work to retain Latina/o students and faculty; that it
eliminate Chief Illiniwek as the university mascot; and that it develop a Latina/o Studies Program. Student
representatives negotiated with administrators on these issues and, in 1994, Latina/o faculty and Latina/o
Studies scholars began to be recruited. This history of struggle and student initiative has left a legacy:
Latina/o students at UIUC believe that their programmatic concerns, ones that include course offerings and
faculty hires, will not be addressed unless they organize them. Such action often collides not only with
received administration and faculty prerogatives but also with the perception that students should
participate in these decision-making processes through established bureaucratic channels, not activism.
The tensions that arose in the 1992 struggles continue to be reproduced.
One of the more significant demands of Latina/o student protesters in 1992 was the goal for the
Latina/o graduation rate at UIUC “to be at least equivalent to the percentage of Latinos in the State of
Illinois (11.6%).” (The U.S. census bureau while admitting an undercount listed the Hispanic/Latina/o
population in Illinois at 7.9% for 1990) At that time, only 2.52% of the 1991 undergraduate graduation class
at UIUC was Latina/o, according to the data collected by the students, and 11 years later the situation has
not improved significantly. Self-identified Latina/o students comprised 4.6 % of the graduating class,
according to the Chancellor’s Senior Survey on the Undergraduate Experience at UIUC in 2002.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Latinas/os and Hispanics, an admittedly undercounted group, were
12.3% of the Illinois population. Latinas/os remain underrepresented and an increase in their numbers
would enhance not only the quality of Latina/o life on campus but also the knowledge and understanding of
their fellow students.
Confidence in UIUC to be responsive to these issues is now being revived with the efforts of the
campus administration to support the widening of programs and activities to historically underrepresented
groups. Campus initiatives like the new Native American House, the Center on Democracy in a Multiracial
Society, the programs revolving around the Brown vs. Board of Educations decision, and the current
Chancellor’s public affirmation of the University of Michigan position in the Supreme Court Affirmative
Action case have positively enhanced the racial and ethnic climate on this campus. Activist students,
however, lack confidence with several of the departments that have or might hire Latina/o Studies scholars,
2
See Appendix A for original list of demands issued to UIUC administration in Spring 1992.
5
and they expect to participate in faculty searches to offer a distinct perspective and aid in recruitment. This
has led to some difficult exchanges among students and faculty regarding recent hires, but the new
direction of the Latina/o Studies Program is enabling a mediation of these differences and reviving hopes.
The presence of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol of the university continues to cause consternation
among historically underrepresented groups and, as the 1992 Latina/o student demands indicate, the Chief
has affected their understandings of university commitments. In the 2002 survey of UIUC graduating
seniors, one Latina/o student wrote that “the racism that is still present and supported by the university like
the use of The Chief as a mascot” detracted from the student experience. A number of graduating Latina/o
students directed comments to the Chief. They noted that it created an uncomfortable environment and
suggested an institutional racism.
The contemporary climate for Latina/o students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is
difficult to discern. Recent faculty hires in the Latina/o Studies Program and a renewed commitment to
Latina/o Studies have improved the morale of students, staff, and faculty. Comments from the 2002 senior
survey indicate that the quality of campus life for Latinas/os has improved but that much work remains to be
done. The campus lacks systematic evaluations of student attitudes and practices regarding intergroup
relations and the effectiveness of university programs to promote not only tolerance but also the positive
valuing of a culturally and economically diverse student body. Anecdotal evidence and reports from
individual students suggest that there remains a relatively high degree of ethnic and racial segregation on
campus. Latina/o students and other students of color report feeling a sense of alienation and social
distance in this largely white campus and community. This committee strongly recommends that a study of
intergroup relations on campus and their connections to the wider Champaign-Urbana community be
carried out at the first opportunity.
The annual senior survey is one of the few sources that addresses the issue of Latina/o student
perceptions of the university. The sample size is quite small so one cannot make generalizations from the
responses and statements included in that document. Yet, a number of respondents in the class of 2002
addressed the issue of cultural difference on campus, and they provided a sense of Latina/o perceptions of
their place in this institution and the surrounding area. Several wrote that they were constantly aware of
their minority status, and one wrote of the dismay experienced as she/he was persistently positioned as an
affirmative action admission by dormitory co-residents and classmates. Several wrote that the dorms were
not comfortable for Latina/o students. This echoes a commonly heard complaint among this group of
students. Many do not feel a sense of belonging during their first-year experiences and move out of the
residence halls at the first opportunity. A series of events that occurred in the anthropology department
during the Fall 2002 semester illustrate the problems that arise when diverse viewpoints are taken into
account during everyday campus discussions.
A commemorative plaque that honored “the culture of poverty” concept was erected on the main
campus quadrangle. This notion, an academic idea that has been taken up by conservative thinkers and
policy makers to argue for the “benign neglect” of poor communities, particularly Puerto Rican and Mexican
ones, has been criticized by a number of scholars and activists. Latina/o students and faculty did not
believe the concept should be honored and were offended that the decision-making process that
recognized it as an important UIUC discovery did not include them. Several anthropology faculty and
students protested the words on this marker and wanted it removed. A number of their colleagues and
fellow students did not understand this, and a meeting was held to discuss the issue. In the course of that
meeting, it became clear that both faculty and students were unaware of how this concept had objectified
Latina/o groups and how it, however unintentionally, had led to policies that hurt their communities. A
number of international graduate students, ones from upper middle class to upper class Latin American
6
backgrounds, could not understand the Latina/o students’ concerns. They did not feel offended, they
reported, so they wondered why some students did.
It was obvious throughout this event that these advanced students had not discussed these salient
anthropological issues with Latina/o students in the past. Very few non-Latina/o students present had an
idea of the history of the concept, its use by policy makers, or the arguments made against it. Furthermore,
they were not aware of how it positioned U.S. Latina/o citizens and how it marginalized them. The
international students from Latin America equated themselves to Latina/o students on the basis of speaking
Spanish as a first language and expressed the idea that since they were not offended then the U.S.
Latina/o students should not be either.
The particular position of U.S. Latina/o students was not recognized, and this lack of recognition
implied that Latina/o students had little voice in their classrooms. Moreover, this discussion revealed that a
large percentage of advanced students did not understand the historical and cultural processes that have
excluded U.S. Latinas/os, an important set of issues for any anthropologist in training. Had more Latina/o
students been present in classes or had their voices been heard, all students would have benefited from
the ensuing arguments and debates. Latina/o political identities have been formed in relation to a particular
history with the U.S. state and it behooves all UIUC students to have knowledge of these processes. An
understanding of them makes more informed citizens and more thoughtful scholars.
The student activists of 1992 addressed these issues of citizenship and voice when they
concentrated on graduation rates. They believed that many students either did not enroll at UIUC or left the
university before graduating because the climate was inhospitable on both social and intellectual levels.
They believed the proper measure upon which the valuation of Latina/o citizens and their culture(s) could
be computed was the success of students attaining degrees. This seems a reasonable measure and a
figure to focus upon in approaching the question of UIUC’s valuing of Latinas/os both on and off campus.
More data than are currently available need to be collected in this area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
Latina/o students, particularly activist ones who make public the educational/political concerns of Latina/os,
meet with incomprehension, if not resistance, from administrators, faculty, and fellow students. As
mentioned previously, the Chancellor has supported Latina/o concerns, and the 2002 Chancellor’s Senior
Survey on the Undergraduate Experience at UIUC represents a brightening picture, but a detailed study of
the differences among Latina/o student experiences on this campus are required to properly understand
the UIUC climate. Class and regional differences are important to take into account here and the retention
rates of these subgroups of Latinas/os along with the reasons for them need to be known and factored into
decision-making processes.
There are a variety of opinions about the effects of ethnic-specific cultural and academic programs
on campus. Many Latina/o students report that they appreciate the existence of La Casa Cultural Latina
and the Latina/o Studies Programs on campus even if they do not participate in them3. Several nonparticipating Latina/o students interviewed noted that it made them feel more “at home” to know that these
efforts were so well organized. Some students do not perceive these programs similarly, and these
differing perceptions and their consequences need to be systematically investigated. A goal to create
programs that produce encounter, debate, and argument across the diverse constituencies of UIUC should
underlie any such analysis. From the available evidence, both informal and formal, there appears to be too
little institutionalized activity that enables comprehension of the histories and institutional practices that
produce the complexities of difference that mark Latina/o experience in this country, in the state of Illinois,
and on this campus. This committee urges a study of intergroup relations on the UIUC campus that
3
Details of negative perceptions are included in Chapter VII, La Casa Cultural Latina.
7
approaches the issue of campus climate and its effects on Latina/o students who are divided along class
lines, through ethnic group affiliation, and by the organizations they join.
8
CHAPTER II
LATINA/O UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS AT UIUC
General Assessment and Summary
In 2002, UIUC reported a total enrollment of 28,243 undergraduate students. Of that number,
1,699 identified as Latina/o. Since 1992, the total undergraduate population has grown by 9.42% from
25,812. Charts 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the racial breakdown for both 1992 and 2002. All numbers for UIUC
charts and graphs derive from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access fact book4 and their web
document titled, A Report on the Participation and Success of Underrepresented Students and Staff, 9/02.5
Latina/o
White
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Foreign
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Not Given
Chart 2.1: 1992 Undergraduate Enrollment
221
402
32
1308
2917
1792
19140
Chart 2.2: 2002 Undergraduate Enrollment
58
424
952
1699
1991
3685
19434
While each subgroup has grown in the ten-year span, percent in relation to total number help create a more
accurate picture when determining progress towards racial diversity on a predominantly white campus.
4
5
http://www.eoa.uiuc.edu/fact_section.html
http://www.eoa.uiuc.edu/admin_section.html
9
Percent changes can be misleading because while the undergraduate Latina/o population has grown by
29.89% since 1992, this equates only to 391 more Latinas/os in 2002.
Furthermore, Latinas/os still only comprise 6.01% of the total population. This roughly translates to
1 in every 176 undergraduates is Latina/o versus 17 in every 25 undergraduates are white. The
invisibility/absence of Latinas/os in the undergraduate population contributes to the issues presented in the
previous chapter regarding campus climate.
In addition, the 2000 census provides data to serve as another source for comparison in population
growth. Charts 2.3 and 2.4 exemplify the racial composition for Illinois in 1990 and 20007.
Latina/o
White
American Indian/Alaskan Native
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Chart 2.3: 1990 Illinois Population
476,204
21,836
904,446
285,311
1,694,273
8,952,978
Chart 2.4: 2000 Illinois Population
722,712
235,016
1,530,262
31,006
428,213
1,876,875
9,125,471
Average number of students enrolled in a discussion section.
1990 data:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US17;
2000 data:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&_geo_id=04000US1
7
6
7
10
According to the data above, Latinas/os constitute the fastest growing population in Illinois despite being
undercounted. In ten years the Latina/o population grew by 69.1%, now comprising 12.3% of the state.
UIUC’s Latina/o undergraduate population makes up only half of that percentage. As the flagship institution
of the state that is supported by tax dollars paid by this same 12.3% percent of the population, UIUC is
trailing far behind the trends cited by the 2000 Census and articulated in the 1992 student demands.
This discrepancy elicits concern in the areas of admissions, retention, and graduation rates for
Latinas/os. Graph 2.1 demonstrates the admissions yield rate for beginning freshmen from 1998-2002.
Graph 2.2 provides admissions yield rates for beginning freshman classes from 1992-1997, in addition to
graduation rates five years later. Graph 2.1 does not include graduation rates because they have yet to be
determined for freshmen classes beginning in 1998.
Gr aph 2.1: Be ginning Latina/o Fr e s hm an Enr ollm e nt
1998-2002
2002
1043
870
441
2001
988
814
433
2000
948
777
409
1999
856
1998
881
0%
736
399
733
20%
40%
Applie d
389
60%
Adm itte d
80%
100%
Re gis te r e d
While the number of Latinas/os applying to UIUC has grown by 32% since 1992, the total number of
students applying to UIUC has grown by 40.1%. This signifies virtually no growth in comparison to the
whole picture. Furthermore, in 2002 there is a slight decline in the percentage of Latinas/os who register in
relation to the total number that apply. Even more alarming are the numbers from Graph 2.2 that
demonstrate the dwindling numbers of Latinas/os who applied, were admitted, registered that fall semester,
and graduated five years later.
Freshman Class
Graph 2.2: Beginning Latina/o Freshman Enrollment
and Graduation after Five Years
1992-1997
1997
900
745
357
124
1996
817
676
323
99
1995
902
699
342
114
1994
864
687
335
95
1993
837
348
101
1992
790
0%
10%
20%
679
30%
Applied
40%
50%
Admitted
11
60%
Registered
112
368
631
70%
80%
Graduated
90%
100%
As Graph 2.38 illustrates below, graduation rates of beginning freshman after five years fluctuate
from 27% to 41%. In fact, Latinas/os in 2002 are graduating at a lower rate than in 1992. There is no
steady trend that indicates an increase in graduation rates for Latinas/os at UIUC. On average, there is a
22.2 percentage point difference between graduation rates of Latinas/os and the total campus.
Graph 2.3: Graduation Rate of Beginning Freshman After Five Years
1992-2002
Graduation Rate After Five
Years
70
56.8
60
58.8
56
52.8
54
52.8
51.4
30.9
30.3
28.9
1992
1993
51.5
54.4
56.3
57.4
50
40
30
36.4
41
35.4
27
20
28.4
33.4
30.7
34.8
10
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1994
1995
1996
1997
Freshman Class
Latina/o
Total
The graduation rates that are plotted above suggest the need to look into retention with regards to
Latinas/os. The committee is aware of the potential that the low rates may not signify failure on the part of
the students, but urge the necessity of researching retention rates after the first, second, and third years of
undergraduate education. Retention rates for Latinas/os are available through the report cited in the
beginning of this section, but the rates reflect retention after five and six years. At this point, it is too late to
investigate retention.
Recommendations
The following proposes tangible efforts to improve the areas of recruitment, retention, and
graduation rates for undergraduate Latinas/os. In addition to the suggestions listed below, the committee
points to issues for further research that will aid in better assessing the situation for undergraduate
Latinas/os at UIUC.
Recruitment
In solidarity with the demands issued by students in 1992, UIUC should strategically plan and
execute a recruitment effort that ensures a Latina/o population that is equivalent to the state population
within the next ten years. Below details points of inquiry and action in securing a greater and more
proportionate Latina/o population.
•
While the numbers from Graphs 2.1 and 2.2 indicate a steady growth in the number of Latinas/os that
apply to UIUC, additional financial and professional provisions should be directed to the Chicago
These numbers slightly deviate from those in the report complied by the Office for Academic Policy Analysis. See
Underrepresented Groups at University of Illinois: Participation and Success, Fall 2002, pg. 27
8
12
Satellite Office (CSO) and the campus Office of Admissions and Records to continue to support their
efforts in recruiting more Latinas/os.
•
Considering that the Chicago Public School system has 100 secondary schools with a Latina/o
population that comprises 36.4%, UIUC should secure current positions at the CSO that target
Latinas/os as well as allocate more monies to create additional positions to balance the responsibility of
recruitment and anticipate the growing numbers of applicants.
•
Campus tours operated by the Visitor’s Center for prospective students should include cultural houses
and information regarding academic and support services geared towards underrepresented groups at
UIUC.
•
Further monetary and professional support should be earmarked for summer and yearlong programs
and partnerships that introduce and strengthen the commitment of higher education for historically
underrepresented students currently in elementary and secondary schools.
•
Additional financial and professional support should be allocated for the Peer Recruitment Program.
Admissions officers have confirmed the positive reaction and proactive response by students of color
with these recruitment initiatives. In addition, current students benefit from participating in recruitment
efforts and contribute to retention of these students.
Retention and Graduation
The subsequent chapters will detail and provide evidence in determining how each sector of the
campus can contribute to increasing retention and graduation rates for Latinas/os at UIUC. Retention and
graduation of Latina/o students is dependant on a collective effort that extends throughout and beyond the
campus.
•
As mentioned above, further research into retention rates after the first, second, and third years is
critical in identifying what factors play a role in how and why Latinas/os remain at UIUC and obtain a
degree. The inquiry suggested by the Chapter I on campus climate will help contextualize the data
collected on resilient students and strategies used to ensure academic success and graduation.
•
UIUC should create retention scholarships tied to semester grade point averages for underrepresented
students to create incentive for remaining at UIUC. Some Latinas/os cite financial hardship as a
reason for withdrawing from UIUC, the creation of this type of assistance will not only encourage
academic success, but will also help defray tuition costs.
•
Office of Minority Student Affairs (OMSA)—In order to understand the effectiveness of OMSA, with
respect to its Latina/o constituency, a formal review must be conducted. Although OMSA has a strong
African American component within its academic professional staff, only two individuals represent
Latinas/os. This situation has larger implications that include the difficulty of two individuals managing
the multiplicity of concerns that arise from the 1,699 undergraduate Latinas/os. In addition, this
underrepresentation can affect the perception that Latina/o students have regarding OMSA and the
target population they serve. Considering the growth in the Latina/o population on campus, in the
state, and nationwide OMSA needs to prepare for the existing and future Latina/o student body. A
formal review will expose existing problems that need to be addressed in order to ensure full support of
Latina/o students.
13
•
9
As supported by current literature9 on the retention of underrepresented groups, UIUC must take
affirmative steps in the next five years to hire and retain Latinas/os in all levels of administration (from
resident advisors to the Board of Trustees) and faculty that is proportionate to the number of Latinas/os
enrolled at UIUC10. Latina/o professionals and faculty serve as role models for Latinas/os and
stimulate academic motivation and retention. Within ten years, UIUC should aim to increase this
percentage to at least that of the state Latina/o population.
Sources are listed in suggested reading section after the appendices.
Hiring and retention strategies are outlined in the relevant faculty and academic professional chapters.
10
14
CHAPTER III
LATINA/O GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS AT UIUC11
General Summary and Assessment
Similar disparities as outlined in the Latina/o undergraduate section are evident with the case of
Latina/o graduate and professional students at UIUC. Low enrollment figures, limited funding, hostile
campus and departmental climates contribute to high attrition for this underrepresented population. From
one perspective, the situation can be characterized as worse for Latina/o students who pursue higher
degrees for a variety of reasons explained below.
Charts 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate graduate enrollment figures based on self-reported racial categories in
Fall 1992 and 2002.
Latina/o
White
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Foreign
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Not Given
Chart 3.1: 1992 Graduate Enrollment
126
269
2636
255
5309
15
411
Chart 3.2: 2002 Graduate Enrollment
199
284
3589
4053
375
13
453
Unless noted otherwise, all numbers derive from UIUC On-Campus Student Enrollment by Curriculum, SEX, RACE, AND
RESIDENCY reports from 1992 and 2002, compiled by the Division of Management Information, www.dmi.uiuc.edu
11
15
While the raw numbers may show a 58% growth for Latina/o Graduate enrollment, the fact remains that
only 2.2% of the total graduate population is Latina/o. Although this is an increase from 1.4% of the
population in 1992, the increase pales in comparison when considering the growth in the Latina/o
population for the state of Illinois as mentioned in previous sections.
The situation for professional students is related to that of graduate students. Charts 3.3 and 3.4
show the racial break down for enrolled professional students in Fall 1992 and 2002.
Latina/o
White
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Foreign
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Not Given
Chart 3.3: 1992 Professional Enrollment
34
3
9
1
36
67
777
Chart 3.4: 2002 Professional Enrollment
66
0
92
45
11
60
780
In ten years, professional student enrollment increased by 25% for Latinas/os and the total population.
This suggests no real growth because a percentage increase in the Latina/o population does not equate
adequate representation in proportion to the whole professional student population. For example, 927
students were enrolled in professional programs in 1992; Latinas/os comprised 3.9% of that population.
While in 2002, Latinas/os consisted of 4.3% of the total population (1,054).
16
These numbers suggest the potential of Latina/o graduate and professional students being the only
or one of few Latinas/os in their department12. In fact, only 12 departments of the 162 at UIUC, have 5 or
more Latina/o graduate or professional students. Table 3.1 demonstrates the distribution of Latina/o
graduate and professional students in the nine colleges and major units as of Fall 2002.
College or Major Unit13
Latinas/os
Total Graduate Students
% Latina/o
Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences
8
539
1.48
Commerce and Business Administration
12
1022
1.17
Education
32
807
3.97
Engineering
35
2323
1.51
Fine and Applied Arts
23
771
2.98
Communications
5
107
4.67
Law
42
686
6.12
Liberal Arts and Sciences
46
2237
2.06
Applied Life Studies
7
251
2.79
Veterinary Medicine
5
488
1.20
Labor Industrial Relations
5
167
2.99
Social Work
15
285
5.26
Library Information Sciences
9
337
2.67
Total
24414
10,02015
2.43
Table 3.1: 2002 Distribution of Latina/o graduate and professional Students across colleges and major units
The negative effects of being the only or one of few Latinas/os in their department contribute to feelings of
isolation and cultural taxation as detailed in the previous chapter titled “Campus Climate for Latina/o
Students at UIUC” and below. This can be especially problematic at the graduate level due to the more
intensive relationship between graduate students and hosting departments. Finally, the end result can lead
to low retention rates for Latina/o graduate and professional students at UIUC, thus suggesting a revolving
door effect. Often students are recruited; they leave campus without finishing the degree, and the
University attempts to replace its loss instead of investigating why they left in the first place.
In addition, enrollment figures for Latina/o graduate and professional students appear unstable and
do not indicate a consistent upward trend. The last three years were spent making up for the 31%
decrease in Latina/o enrollment in 199916. Graph 3.1 illustrates the enrollment flux over the past ten years.
Graph 3.1: Latina/o Graduate and Professional Student Enrollment,
1992-2002
300
250
200
150
162
186
214
232
249
244
244
261
178
208
238
100
50
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Latina/o
Detailed departmental data on number of Latina/o graduate and professional students are listed in Appendix C.
As of Spring 2002, the Institute of Aviation does not grant graduate degrees. A Master’s program is pending for Fall 2003.
14 Illinois Board of Higher Education reports 255 Latina/o graduate and professional students in Fall 2002.
15 Office of Equal Opportunity and Access (EOA) reported 10,024, while Admissions and Records (OAR) reported 10,032 for total graduate
and professional students (+ 4 and + 12 respectively compared to DMI data). However, the difference does not affect the number of
Latinas/os reported. EOA, OAR, and DMI all reported 244.
16 The numbers from the graph are reported by EOA, who cites OAR. However, the Office for Academic Policy Analysis and OAR reported
an additional 58 students for 1999 and 2000. See Underrepresented Groups at University of Illinois: Participation and Success, Fall
2002, pg. 15 and Final Enrollment Report For Fall Semester 2002, October 15, 2002.
12
13
17
Retention/ Campus Climate
As mentioned above and detailed in Chapter I, anecdotal evidence suggests a relationship
between campus/departmental climate and retention. Latina/o graduate and professional students are
especially at risk for the following due to being the only or one of few students of color:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Burden of cultural taxation;
Often only person of color in department; can be perceived as a chilly and alienating workplace
environment;
Emotional and psychological effects caused by tokenism, cultural isolation, explicit racial
discrimination, ‘work under a microscope’, feelings of marginalization, intense pressure to work
harder;
Face ostracism when voicing opinion, particularly when such opinions go against status quo;
Repercussions of token status. In some cases students are accused of being overly sensitive,
merit is questioned, looking for trouble, not objective;
Expected to be collegial in departments that are often hostile towards them;
Academic ethnocentrism; certain research agendas pushed onto students, pressure to change
identity to match goals of other white faculty;
Lack of support systems and guidance.
Accuracy
As noted in the footnotes of this section, numeric accuracy was a limitation in compiling data on
graduate and professional students. The Committee consulted five sources: Division of Management
Information, Office of Academic Policy Analysis, Office of Admissions and Records, Office of Equal
Opportunity and Access, and data submitted to the Illinois Board of Higher Education. Unfortunately,
reported numbers were inconsistent and statistically significant as mentioned in footnotes 6 and 7. While
the Committee understands the potential of different reporting dates, the Committee found these
inconsistencies to be problematic and result in a distortion of summary reports from the sources mentioned
above.
Recommendations
The following outlines recommendations to improve the status and experience of Latina/o graduate
and professional students at UIUC.
Recruitment
The mission of the Graduate College Office of Minority Affairs is “to address questions of access to and
participation in graduate education by individuals from groups that are currently underrepresented at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.”17 While this unit has been successful in some areas and is not
solely responsible for the low and unstable enrollment rates for Latina/o Graduate and Professional
students, the need to stabilize and increase enrollment persists. The bar graph titled, Applications,
Acceptances, and Enrollment of First Latina/o Professional and Graduate Students, Fall 2001 and indicates
a less than 10 percent yield of Latinas/os enrolling at UIUC compared to 15 percent for white students.
Below lists areas to explore regarding recruitment strategies:
17
http://www.grad.uiuc.edu/minorityaffairs/mission.html
18
•
Minority Graduate Student Recruitment Weekends—In order to help recruit and create a critical mass
of graduate students of color, UIUC should not be content in merely being competitive with its peer
institutions in issues of recruitment and retention of graduate students of color. Rather, UIUC should
endeavor to lead the nation as an institution of higher education in this area. Currently, many
universities designate specific monies to conduct recruitment weekends and welcome orientations to
address the issues and concerns of graduate students of color. Such programs explicitly express
UIUC’s value placed on and commitment to recruiting and retaining graduate students of color.
Steps to be taken:
o Specific recruitment weekends hosted on campus
o Allocation of budget monies to host and coordinate campus visits for accepted students
o Grants earmarked for departmental recruitment initiatives
•
Funding Opportunities
o Further inquiry into distribution of funding for graduate students of color18
o Offer more comprehensive and competitive funding packages to accepted students (i.e. most
students are offered funding for only their first year and later unable to secure funding for the
duration of graduate/professional school)
•
National Foundations/Programs
o Partnership with programs specifically geared towards minority student outreach/ graduate school
preparation (i.e. Institute for Recruitment of Teachers, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, among
others.)
Retention/Campus Climate
•
In agreement with the recommendations from Chapter I, there is a dire need to conduct an in-depth
study examining the impact of campus/departmental climate on Latina/o graduate and professional
students. While there are many similarities between undergraduate and graduate Latina/o students
concerning campus climate, it is worthwhile to consider the differences:
o 244 graduate and professional students compared to 1700 undergraduates;
o La Casa Cultural Latina’s programming targets undergraduates;
o The Graduate Assistant Line at La Casa Cultural Latina was last occupied and financially
supported in AY 1999-2000, thus making Latina/o graduate students an invisible constituency for
La Casa’s programming;
o No evident institutional entity currently funding cultural programming specifically for Latina/o
graduate and professional students;
o Given low enrollment figures and distribution, Latina/o graduate and professional students are less
likely to interact with Latina/o faculty or other Latina/o graduate students.
•
In an effort to foster accountability, diversity issues and climate for Latina/o graduate and professional
students should be included in departmental reviews. Reviews should be conducted annually since the
climate can vary from year to year. In addition, reviews should be carried out internally as well as
reviewed by external trained professionals with expertise in diversity issues.
18
The committee was unable to gain access to these figures due to privacy restrictions.
19
CHAPTER IV
LATINA/O FACULTY AT UIUC
General Summary and Assessment
Between 1992 and 2002, the number of tenured and/or tenure-track Latina/o faculty at the
university increased from 38 in 1992 to 62 in Fall 2002. This change, though positive, took place at a
relatively slow pace. This sluggish state in hiring is exemplified by the fact that while 38 Latina/o faculty
were reported in 1992, only 44 were reported in 1995. Also, while 1996 showed an increment to 59, in the
year 2001 there were only 66 Latina/o faculty (an incremental difference of 7 faculty in a period of 5 years).
In the 2003 Faculty Status Report, 62 Latina/o faculty, or a decrease from 2001, was reported.
Table 3.1 shows the distribution of the 62 Latina/o faculty throughout the University’s nine colleges
and three of the seven “Other Major Units.”
College
Latina/o Faculty
Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences
7
Commerce and Business Administration19
2
Education
8
Engineering
6
Fine and Applied Arts
5
Communications
3
Liberal Arts and Sciences
19
Applied Life Studies
1
Veterinary Medicine
4
Major Unit
Aviation
0
Labor and Industrial Relations
0
Law
2
Library Administration
0
Library and Information Science
1
Social Work
0
University Library
4
Total
62
Table 3.1 Latina/o Faculty Distribution through Colleges and Major Units
Total Faculty
237
133
99
382
192
38
622
47
83
8
14
33
8
17
15
91
201920
Regarding their tenure status as of Fall 2002, the 62 Latina/o faculty consisted of 27 Assistant Professors,
19 Associate Professors, and 16 Full Professors21.
Approximately two-thirds (or 41 out of 62) of Latina/o faculty were in four (out of the nine) colleges:
Liberal Arts and Sciences with the largest figure (19 or almost one third of all Latino faculty campus wide),
followed by the College of Education, which reports 8 faculty located almost evenly throughout 4 of its 6
departments. The College of Engineering and the College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental
The College of Commerce and Business Administration changed its name to College of Business in Spring 2003.
See footnote 2 in Appendix D regarding the discrepancy in reporting of Latina/o from the College of Engineering. This distorts
the total number of faculty. In addition, the Office for Academic Policy Analysis reports 2,076 total faculty for 2002. This
number differs from the total number cited in the Faculty Status Report, Fall 2002 prepared by the Office of Equal Opportunity
and Access.
21 See Appendix D for tenure status distribution throughout the colleges and major units.
19
20
20
Sciences-or ACES—have 7 Latina/o faculty each. In fact, ACES houses one Latina/o faculty in almost
every one of its departments—that is, in six of its seven departments. In terms of the relative distribution of
Latina/o faculty throughout different departments within a particular college, ACES is the most successful
one at the University of Illinois as of Fall 2002.
Within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (the largest on campus, with 31 departments) 10
Hispanic professors, that is, more than fifty percent of its 19 Latina/o faculty, are housed in the department
of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese (or SIP) alone. The other 9 LAS Latina/o faculty were located in the
following: 3 in Anthropology and 1 in each of following departments-English, History, Political Science,
Psychology, Chemistry, and Molecular and Integrated Physiology. Twenty-three out of the 31 departments
in LAS have "0" Latina/o Faculty22. In other words, even though LAS is the college with the most Latina/o
faculty at Urbana-Champaign, only one quarter of all departments in LAS have Latina/o faculty.
The present dispersion of the 62 Latina/o faculty throughout a campus which is characterized by a
racial and social environment composed mainly of white faculty (with 1,707 white professors and 307
additional minority faculty) has inevitably led, in the majority of cases, to the isolation of Latina/o faculty
both within departments and within colleges. For many Latina/o faculty, this unfortunate situation often
leads to unproductive circumstances that negatively affect them in the three vital areas of academic life at
UIUC: Service, Teaching, and Research.
Service
In the area of service, and given the nature of their underrepresentation within specific
departments, Latina/o faculty are often overworked and overextended due to the fact that they often are the
ones who help departments fulfill the requirement for ethnic/racial diversity within committees. As a result,
and unlike their white counterparts, Latina/o faculty tend to be called to simultaneously serve in multiple
committees (admissions, as affirmative action officers, financial aid, search committees), including not only
those that relate to their traditional disciplines (e.g., sociology), but also those that concern ethnic and racial
issues at the college level and beyond (i.e. interdisciplinary seminars/workshops on race and ethnicity in
the United States). In situations when students of color experience instances of racial discrimination, it is
faculty of color who are often called upon to help solve or understand such problems. Unfortunately,
university officials do not tend to value, particularly at the time of tenure review, the time, mental energy,
and extra-physical effort that go into these activities.
Teaching
In the area of teaching, Latina/o faculty often experience lack of appreciation, both as scholars and
as teachers, particularly when the students, who in this campus are overwhelmingly white, evaluate them.
Because most departments and colleges are populated by a majority of white professors, most white
students are not used to seeing faculty of color as authority figures and, therefore, may tend to devalue
what the Latina/o faculty is teaching them. In addition, since substantial numbers of faculty of color are
called upon to teach race-based courses, the resistance to the course content compounds the devaluation.
In this context, it is not surprising that for the most part student evaluations of General Education courses or
general 100-level lecture classes taught by Latina/o faculty tend to report “low average” scores.
Research
Given these generally unfriendly environments in which Latina/o faculty exercise their service and
teaching within departments, it should not be surprising that the conditions under which Latina/o faculty
(and other faculty of color—African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, etc.) must produce
research for the academy is substantially different from those under which white faculty live their academic
22
See Appendix D for departments without Latina/o faculty
21
life on campus. It is practically a miracle that under these circumstances a handful of Latina/o faculty
between 1992 and 2002 has managed to excel in areas of service, teaching, and research and, therefore,
have acquired either tenure or have been promoted to full professors. More importantly, however, it is in
large part because of the working environment noted above that the university has not managed to retain
many of the Latina/o faculty who either were denied tenure or who opted to leave UIUC for a more
hospitable campus.
In what follows, concrete concerns associated with the official categories used by the university
administration to identify and document the presence of Latina/o faculty on campus are outlined. In
addition, specific recommendations to improve the status of Latina/o faculty at UIUC conclude this section.
Detailed charts and tables are located in the appendix documenting the most currently available data for
Latina/o faulty at UIUC.
Unpacking the Term “Hispanic” Used in University Documents
Although the “Hispanic” category is consistent with government classifications, official university
figures do not distinguish between U.S. Latinos and international Latins (Latin Americans and individuals
from Spain/Portugal). This is a major problem: international Latins are those hired by the university before
the individuals became either legal residents or naturalized citizens. U.S. Latinos (people of color) are
those who were U.S. citizens-either naturalized or born-- or legal residents of this country before they were
hired. Thus, the available data may not be accurate in identifying Latina/o faculty who come from
historically underrepresented groups: Mexican-American, Chicanos/as, Puerto Ricans, etc.
Recommendations
•
While the Committee understands that the University is obligated to use racial classifications defined by
the government for reporting data, UIUC should independently collect and report data under the term
“Latina/o.” The term Hispanic implicitly gives priority to Spain and at the same time erases or tends to
erase indigenous, African, and all other national-historical identities of the Americas. More importantly,
Spain—today a European nation-state but a European Empire from the 16th to the 19th centuries-colonized and conquered the ancestors of contemporary U.S. Latinas and Latinos in the Americas for
more than 300 years. The terms Latina and Latino are terms that the students at the U of I, as well as
Latina/o scholars here and around the country, prefer. While “Latina/o” does not exclude American
descendents from Spain, it does not privilege the latter, and attempts to include all those groups that
“Hispanic” excludes, including Brazilian Americans, for instance. Of vital importance is the fact that the
terms Latina and Latino emerged from the perspective of Latinas and Latinos themselves and from
their everyday struggles for community and belonging in the United States.
•
The University should not homogenize or “lump” together all U.S. Latinas and Latinos by reducing them
to the umbrella category itself. In other words, the University should distinguish U.S. Latinas and
Latinos according to their specific historical/regional backgrounds. For instance, departments and
colleges should be able to document whether the U.S. Latina/o in their unit is Puerto Rican, Cuban
American, Mexican American, Guatemalan American, Salvadoran American, Colombian American,
Dominican American, etc.
To be sure, and as noted above, international Latin American scholars from Latin America proper –
those who do not claim either legal residence or U.S. citizenship at the time they are hired-- would not
be considered U.S. Latina/o. To confuse Latin American faculty with U.S. Latina/o faculty is similar to
22
confusing Italian Americans with Italians from Italy or African Americans with African scholars from the
African continent. In this context, it is still unclear then whether or not all of the 62 “Hispanic” faculty
reported as of 2002 would be U.S. Latina/o proper, especially at the time of hire (see Unpacking the
Term “Hispanic” Used in University Documents Section). This is not an effort to take away the
contributions that all faculty make or to delegitimize Latin Americans, but to highlight Diversity and
Affirmative Action initiatives that were set up to provide access and opportunity to underrepresented
groups in the United States.
•
Hiring U.S. Latina/o Faculty
Although the colleges of Education, Engineering and ACES have made some progress, every college
and unit needs to immediately encourage its individual department heads to keep an eye, and
aggressively recruit when appropriate, U.S. Latina/o faculty. In fact, out of 75 departments, 48 of these
at the University of Illinois have “0” Latina/o faculty (these 48 departments are located throughout the 9
colleges)23. As previously noted, two thirds of all current Latina/o faculty are housed in four, out of
nine, colleges. Within these four colleges, LAS has the largest number—more than 50% of the total
Latina/o faculty on campus. Yet, even within LAS 23 of its departments hold “0” Latina/o faculty.
Ironically, national data show an average of 3% pool of Latina/o Ph.D.s in many of the areas
represented by these same departments (for example, Geography, Philosophy, Chemical Engineering,
Plant Biology, Entomology). In other Colleges, we find similar or higher availability percentage pools of
Latina/o Ph.D.s: Educational Organizational Leadership, Special Education, Landscape, Urban
Planning, Dance, Social Work, Labor and Industrial Relations, to give a few examples.
A different kind of recommendation is given to the substantial number of departments on campus
whose fields show, in national data, less than 2 percent (and at times 0 percentage) pool of U.S.
Latina/o Ph.Ds: for instance, Journalism, Astronomy, Statistics, Religion, and Geology—again, to name
a few from the College of Communication and LAS. These departments should take the opportunity to
be pioneers in their fields of study by recruiting U.S. Latina/o students into their graduate programs. In
fact, in this way, practically all current departments with “0” U.S. Latina/o faculty, with our without a pool
of respective Ph.D.s in the national scene, have the potential of pioneering in their respective areas
precisely by beginning to produce their own U.S. Latina/o Ph.D.s; these in turn, will serve as role
models for the next generation. The Latina/o Studies Program is a valuable resource on this campus
and other academic units are encouraged to partner with LLSP and draw upon it to assist in recruiting
Latina/o graduate students in all disciplines and providing them with enriching experiences while they
are at UIUC.
It is imperative that the heads of departments with “0” Latina/o faculty consult with their Deans and that
the Deans consult with the Provost in order to plan the best strategy to recruit excellent U.S. Latina/o
faculty who are out there and available. In addition, departments should consider cluster hiring as a
strategy to evade negative effects of isolation, tokenism, and revolving door effects elaborated on in the
preceding section.
In addition, in the interim, departments should consider inviting U.S. Latina/o professors to teach
special courses as visiting professors. The Committee of Institutional Cooperation (CIC) already
supports these initiatives and UIUC should take advantage of the network.
23
See Appendix D for departments without Latina/o Faculty
23
• Retaining Latina/o Faculty
Currently, the 62 Latina/o faculty on campus are very unevenly dispersed in only 27 departments out of
approximately 75 departments that exist throughout the 9 colleges. This physical isolation of Latina/o
faculty on campus, combined with its respective heavy load of service responsibilities and the
alienating environment under which they teach (both of these explained the previous section titled
General Summary and Assessment), leads to an ongoing revolving-door situation through which it
becomes almost impossible not only to nurture junior faculty, but more importantly, to retain them. With
most Latina/o faculty being the only one not only in their departments but also in their own colleges,
they often report that they become intimidated if not silenced when they voice their opinions; they
commonly find themselves under the microscope--often feeling marginalized by their white colleagues,
and therefore, find themselves working under severe social and academic pressure.
This sense of isolation also speaks to the problem of tokenism and its consequences within
departments and within colleges. Latina/o faculty are often not treated with the same respect with
which their white colleagues are treated and, in the process, their own research and intellectual
interests become devalued. For instance, many Latina/o faculty in the social sciences and the
humanities, as other scholars whose areas of expertise relate to racial and ethnic relations, must
publish in ethnic studies journals. Too often, their more traditional colleagues (and some
administrators) do not consider these scholarly outlets either as scientific or as legitimately theoretical
as the “classic” journals. By the same token, the interdisciplinary work that many Latina/o scholars
carry out is often looked at as a sign of a weakness in the areas, again, of such traditional disciplines
as history, anthropology, political science, sociology, etc. Too often, non-traditional work produced by
Latina/o faculty is labeled as inferior and therefore, gets discredited as irrelevant.
Therefore, institutionalized mechanisms need to be developed in order to not only create a network
amongst Latina/o Faculty, but to provide a support system for these individuals. The formation of a
Latina/o Faculty Caucus would be beneficial in meeting this need. The Caucus could offer mentoring
opportunities for junior faculty, a collective voice for bargaining with departments and UIUC
administration, among others. Furthermore, other higher education institutions, such as Harvard
University and University of Illinois at Chicago, have established these practices. To follow their lead
and further trail blaze in this direction would only behoove UIUC in becoming both a diverse and
excellent institution.
Conclusion
Finally, while reasons vary as to why Latina/o faculty have left the UIUC, the general conditions
under which they conduct service, teach courses, and attempt to publish and conduct research on this
campus are still areas to which individual departments and their respective colleges must seriously attend.
Certainly, U.S. Latina/o faculty on campus, especially assistant professors, need to be nurtured as
well as be treated with dignity and respect. In order for UIUC to attract the much needed Latina/o faculty to
many of its departments across colleges; and in order for UIUC to retain those who are already here, the
majority (82% of the total)--in this case, the white colleagues, heads, chairs, and administrators at all levels-needs to be aware that the academic world in which faculty of color “live” is of a very different kind,
especially from the one that their white counterparts have lived and enjoyed (as difficult as it is). A very
good beginning in the direction of making UIUC a better place for faculty of color, and Latina/o faculty in
particular, would be to genuinely value and genuinely want diversity and equality of opportunity for ALL on
this campus—especially so that this great University lives up to its aspirations and expectations: that is, to
24
being one in which its students and faculty both represent and contribute, through their pursuit for
excellence, to the racially diverse world that all of us inhabit.
25
CHAPTER V
LATINA/O ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS AT UIUC
General Summary and Assessment
“Academic Professionals” (AP) are part of the university workforce that is comprised of individuals
with higher education degrees of at least a bachelor’s, but often include those with masters, doctoral, law,
medical and other degrees perform professional roles within the university. They are often those
individuals who are computer technologists, research scientists, psychologists, social workers, university
attorneys, academic advisors, physicians at the health center, and resident directors in student housing.
Many of them are even upper level administrators of the university. They are often difficult to define, as
Academic Professionals hold more than 300 job titles at this institution. In short, they are professional
people with professional degrees and responsibilities who do not participate in the “tenure track system” as
do their professor colleagues, yet their presence is vital to the functioning of the university. Many of them
work directly with students, but many more of them work “behind the scenes/behind closed doors”. Their
positions do not enjoy the “job security” that tenure brings as their appointments must be approved
annually. They work at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees.
The numbers of Latina/o Academic Professionals were obtained from UIUC human resources data.
Employees have five categories of race/ethnicity to choose from: White/Caucasian, African American,
Native American, Asian/Asian American, and Hispanic. The distinction of employment by racial/ethnic
group is based on self-reported data. As one can surmise, this section of the report includes all employees
who self-identified as “Hispanic” and can include those of Hispanic descent with nationality in a Latin
American country, any Iberian Peninsular country, as well as Hispanics/Latinos native to the United States
as discussed in the previous section on Latina/o Faculty.
Unfortunately, these data are not subdivided by job titles or employing department. At present, one
cannot determine where these individuals work or what sorts of jobs they perform. Table 5.1 illustrates the
“head counts” of actual people who self-identified as “Hispanic” from 1992-2002. The percentages reflect
the number of “Hispanics” proportional to the total numbers of Academic Professionals for that year.
Year
“Hispanic”
Total
% “Hispanic”
1992
31
2021
1.5
1993
31
2037
1.5
1994
29
2082
1.4
1995
31
2048
1.5
1996
34
2072
1.6
1997
44
2225
1.9
1998
45
2437
1.8
1999
44
2410
1.8
2000
53
2832
1.9
2001
55
2898
1.9
2002
65
3025
2.1
Table 5.1 Latina/o Academic Professional Head Counts, 1992-2002
The good news is that the actual raw numbers of Hispanic Academic Professionals at UIUC has
steadily increased over the reported 10-year period from 31 to 65. However, the total number of Academic
Professionals has also steadily increased over the same time period from 2021 to 3025. Unfortunately, this
26
results in an overall Latina/o Academic Professional population that has hovered between an embarrassing
1-2 percent. Indeed, it was not until Fall 2002 that the numbers of Latina/o APs finally reached 2%. If you
recall, the 1990 U.S. Census estimated that the state of Illinois was comprised of 8% Latinas/os. The 2000
U.S. Census has since estimated that 12% of the Illinois state population is made up of Latinas/os.
Currently, the UIUC student population of self-reported Latinas/os is approximately 6%. Clearly, the ranks
of Latina/o Academic Professionals have not kept pace on any level with population statistics.
Recommendations
The lack of Latinas/os in Academic Professional positions at UIUC is very disappointing for many reasons:
•
Many positions only require a bachelor’s degree and UIUC graduates a substantial number of
Latinas/os every year with such degrees. Alumni as well as graduating seniors should be made aware
of professional employment opportunities on this campus.
•
Illinois is comprised of 12.3% Latinas/os. Low numbers of Academic Professionals at UIUC seems to
be problematic, enigmatic, and hypocritical. While most Illinois Latinas/os reside in the Chicagoland
area, positions at this flagship state university would seem to be very desirable if not prestigious.
Further research is needed to investigate and improve upon how UIUC advertises Academic
Professional employment opportunities statewide. The campus should advertise in locations more
likely frequented by Latinas/os living in the Chicago area.
•
The lack of Latina/o Academic Professionals on this campus is a serious detriment in recruiting and
retaining talented students and faculty. These positions are often high-visibility ones both to students
and faculty and increased representation would go a long way towards creating a greater sense of
community and belonging. Increased Latina/o AP presence would also allow for greater numbers of
Latina/o mentors for both undergraduate and graduate students.
•
Many university administrators arise from the ranks of Academic Professionals. If there are severely
restricted numbers of Latinas/os in the Academic Professional pool, then the potential pool for Latina/o
university administrators is even direr.
•
Utilize recruiting resources outlined on the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access website
(www.eoa.uiuc.edu) for recruiting Latina/o Academic Professionals
27
CHAPTER VI
UPPER LEVEL EMPLOYEES
IN UNIVERSITY AND CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION
General Assessment and Summary
Unfortunately, this section is brief not because of a typographical error or omission of data, but
because there is very little data to report. As of August 2003, the Chancellor’s Committee did find that
UIUC Administration finally hired the first Latina/o for a position in Human Resources. Traditionally, the
upper levels of administration at both the campus and the UI system always have been and continue to be
inaccessible to Latinas/os.
Prior to this hire, of 86 incumbents24 among the senior management team of the UIUC as of
November 2002, none is apparently self-identified as Latina/o. This roster defines the course, direction and
future of the University, includes the Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellors and their direct reports.
To its credit, although the campus leadership team has failed to avail itself of the intellectual and
managerial talent that resides within the Latina/o sector of the population, it has provided some opportunity
– though limited – to a handful of African Americans and also to some women, enabling them to contribute
to UIUC as chancellors, associate chancellors, vice chancellors, deans and directors. Latinas/os are not at
this table.
Compared to the University Administration, however, the campus looks quite impressively. In
many respects it was prophetic then and pathetic now that the student protest in 1992 culminated in an
occupation of the Henry Administration Building. It was prophetic because the students apparently
discerned that the citadel of the status quo resided not in the Swanlund Administration Building, but in the
Henry building. Since 1992, the Swanlund site did change, even if not for Latinas/os. The campus now
has a woman as its chief executive officer. Despite the lack of progress with respect to providing
opportunity and access for Latinas/os, there has been movement at the campus level. Ultimately, positive
movement can lead to progress.
But there has been neither movement nor progress at the Henry building. It was the same in 2002
as it was in 1992 when the student protestors challenged the University to open its eyes and walk into the
future. In 2002, the Henry Administration Building remained a citadel – a fortress where only men, white
men, need apply to work in the upper reaches of power, where policy is made. A handful of women work in
law and public affairs, but by and large the Henry site stands as a symbol of why people of color continue to
feel locked out and blocked out in terms of administrative opportunities at UIUC.
Though the Henry building does not appoint University trustees, it is likely that the Henry senior
leadership team enjoys the company of the trustees, given that that venue also allows them not to have to
interact with Latinas/os. There is no Latina/o trustee at the University of Illinois.
Recommendations
•
24
See recommendations for Academic Professionals.
Listed in the Appendix E
28
CHAPTER VII
LA CASA CULTURAL LATINA
General Summary and Assessment
La Casa Cultural Latina (La Casa) was founded in 1974 and throughout the first decade and a half
of its existence suffered from structural instability (particularly in the administrative positions) and lack of
resources. Thus, through the campus protest movement of 1992, demands25 issued by students
addressed Latina/o student recruitment and retention and the financial and structural stability of La Casa.
Specifically, students asked for guaranteed financial support of the Peer Retention Program, increased
resources for La Casa for programming and services, and a distinction between La Casa, as a unit of the
University, and registered student organizations.
Within the discourse of the student movement, there were also a number of demands which
focused on specific issues of personnel and structural stability, particularly with reference to the positions of
Director and Assistant Director and La Casa’s relationship with the Office of Minority Student Affairs, where
it was housed at that time.
Outcomes related to 1992 student demands
There were several positive outcomes of the protests in terms of issues surrounding La Casa Cultural
Latina.
• Director’s position stabilized with the hiring of a director in 1991. The director has remained in that
position to the present.
•
Funds of $10,000, on an annual basis, from Housing to La Casa Cultural Latina, are transferred to
support the Peer Retention Program (now the Compadre-Comadre Peer Mentoring Network).
•
La Casa moved from 510 E. Chalmers to a larger space at 1203 W. Nevada in 1995. 510 E.
Chalmers now houses the Latina/o Studies Program.
Some of the resolutions to student demands were less successful. Because of funding inequities and
lack of autonomy, students demanded removal of La Casa from the Office of Minority Student Affairs. After
reporting directly to the Chancellor for a number of years, La Casa is now housed within the Office of the
Dean of Students. This solution has the potential to split communities of color and has not resolved funding
inequities. The two existing cultural programs historically had different staffing, funding, and reporting lines.
In Fall 2003, the African American Cultural Program was moved from the Office of Minority Student Affairs
to the Office of the Dean of Students to create equity in reporting lines.
In spite of progress in several areas, several challenges persisted over the decade. Throughout the
past decade there have been continuing structural changes for La Casa, including funding and the space it
occupies with the University.
25
See Appendix A for original demands.
29
•
Lack of Programming Dollars. Until 2002, budgetary increases occurred in salary, not
programming, dollars resulting in loss of dollars adjusted for inflation. For example, for FY 01,
$10,000 was allotted for Programming and Office Expenses. The Office expenses alone totaled
more than $9,000. In 2001, La Casa’s programming dollars were increased by $15,000.
Furthermore, funding levels generally have not been tied to an increase in student population.
Prior to AY 2001, funding was frozen in terms of programming dollars. Increases were generally
limited to salary lines (See budgets in the appendix).
•
Instability in the Assistant Director and Graduate Assistant lines. For the past half decade, one or
the other line is usually vacant. Thus, salary dollars are diverted to Expenses to offset insufficient
programming dollars. When both positions are filled simultaneously, the programming budget is
inadequate. Within the last five years, AY 2000 was the only year when both Assistant Director
and Graduate Assistant positions were funded for the entire year. That year, La Casa accumulated
a debt of more than $30,000 because salary lines usually left vacant, either the Assistant Director
or the graduate assistant, were both filled for the entire academic year.
•
Efficacy of retention program. Though dollars have been forthcoming from Housing, they have not
increased in 10 years, despite the fact that the number of Latina/o undergraduates has risen by 30
percent (from 1309 in 1992 to 1699 in 2002). Furthermore, Housing has recently requested a
reduction in funding for the Peer Mentoring Program, citing the cost of Spanish-language television
and increased funding for the new Housing student organization, Unidos Nuestra Fuerza Avanzará
Siempre (UNFAS, similar to the Black Student Unions and the Central Black Student Union), as
reasons for this budget reduction.
•
Lack of formal links to academic units. La Casa has no links to academic units to support its efforts
in retention and mentoring. La Casa’s links to other programs within the University are based on
the informal networks of its staff. For example, efforts to increase Latina/o student recruitment are
often informally organized between Latina/o students and alumni or through volunteer efforts as
individual students participate in the Peer Recruitment Program housed in Admissions and
Records. This is a challenge for many cultural programs nation-wide; mission statements often
emphasize recruitment and retention of Latina/o but focus primarily on cultural programming26.
Finally, the very presence of La Casa and its role(s) on campus are the subject of debate within the
Latina/o and university communities. The themes vary year by year but include:
•
Lack of agreement on what constitutes Latina/o culture and lack of understanding of diversity within
the Latina/o campus community
•
Perception of La Casa as too political
•
Perception of La Casa and students who utilize its programs as self-segregating
•
Focus of La Casa as site of cultural performances, often of traditional Latin American cultural
expressions, rather than the lived, everyday cultures of Latina/o students
There are exceptions, however. In addition to its administrative and programming staff, El Centro de la Raza at the University
of New Mexico (http://www.unm.edu/~elcentro/) has a three person staff which focuses on academic, financial, and career
advising. More examples are listed in Appendix F.
26
30
Recommendations
•
Expansion of Programming
La Casa should maintain and expand its cultural programming. The workshop series, which currently
encompasses Latin dance and percussion, should be expanded to include other forms of Latina/o
expressive culture. Given the paucity of Latina/o faculty in the College of Fine and Applied Arts, La
Casa should also explore implementing an artist-in-residence series bringing in screen writers,
playwrights, poets, actors, dancers, musicians, and music producers to conduct one or two-week long
workshops. The program could initially be implemented in conjunction with existing programs such as
Unit One’s artist-in-residence program and then expanded. While the program should reflect the
diversity of pan-Latinidad, it should highlight contributions from Midwestern artists.
•
Expansion of Outreach to Campus and Community
La Casa is poised to expand its outreach to both campus and local and regional communities as the
Latina/o presence in the state, local communities and on campus grows. La Casa needs to recognize
the increasing diversity within the Latina/o community through increased co-sponsorship with the wide
variety of Latina/o and multicultural registered student organizations. Of particular importance is
increased outreach to Latina/o graduate students. Although relatively small, the number of Latina/o
graduate students is increasing and, apart from some departments within the College of Education,
many Latina/o and other students of color find themselves isolated as the only students of color in their
home departments. La Casa should increase the number of programs specifically geared toward
graduate students of color and those interested in issues of Latina/o Studies. Apart from employing a
graduate student assistant, La Casa could also expand opportunities in which graduate students can
meet each other, as it has done in the past two years by co-sponsoring an open reception for graduate
students which provides them with an opportunity to meet each other and receive information about
campus resources. Additionally, La Casa should provide support for and advice to a Latina/o graduate
student organization similar to the Latina/o Law Student Association. This recommendation is
consistent with that outlined in the recommendations for Latina/o Graduate and Professional students
and their relationship to La Casa
La Casa can also provide support to the growing local Latina/o community by offering workshops on
volunteer programs within the community, coordinating individual and organizational volunteer efforts
and providing input and expertise to community outreach efforts.
•
Offering Courses in the Performing Arts for Credit
The African American Cultural Program has long included the Black Chorus and Omnimove within its
programming. La Casa should implement similar courses for students and staff interested in Latina/o
expressive culture. For example, La Casa and the School of Music could enter into a collaborative
arrangement to offer percussion workshops under the rubric MUSIC 199, much like the Andean and
Samba ensembles have been offered in the past. Students could then receive credit for participating
on a regular basis in percussion or guitar workshops.
•
Increasing Ties to Academic Units and Resources
In the past several years, La Casa has experienced success with the establishment of satellite
resource centers at the program. The first satellite center was established by the Career Center.
Weekly resume workshops as well as online and hard copy resources are available to students through
31
business and evening hours. McKinley Health Center has established a satellite resource center which
distributes wound packs, condoms and pregnancy tests to students on a weekly basis. During AY03,
the Escucha pre-health network offered office hours for students interested in health careers. For three
hours per week, students could drop in and ask question about medical school, including application
and interview questions, personal statement examples and review, financial aid options and paid
summer pre-med programs.
We propose the expansion of satellite sites to include the following resources. Consultation with
OMSA and LAS graduate counselors should take place on site. This would allow first and second year
students to recognize La Casa as a place promoting academic success as well as celebrating Latina/o
cultures. We could assess the possibility of establishing other satellite centers from such campus
resources. Also, students have organized around instituting Assistant Dean office hours at La Casa or
granting Assistant Dean privileges to a La Casa staff member in order to fulfill retention objectives.
We also propose the establishment of special class sections to be held at La Casa. Holding classes at
La Casa would further strengthen La Casa’s commitment to a positive academic experience for
Latina/o students. The implementation of classes at La Casa could be achieved through existing
programs, such as the Program of Intergroup Relations and the Counseling Center’s Reading and
Study Skills Program.
Further, it may be beneficial to develop a linked class series. Depending on the success of these
satellite courses, La Casa should consider the establishment of a series of courses following a modified
Living-Learning Community model. For example, La Casa could promote a cohort of freshmen to
enroll in classes jointly in a special course or discussion section of LLS 100 or another Discovery
course and a study skills course, or another combination of courses.
•
Expanding of advising role
As noted above, other cultural centers have established positions with advising capacities. To initiate
this, La Casa should seek to establish links with the LAS and LAS General advising offices in order to
facilitate the advising process for Latina/o students enrolled in LAS. This will increase advising options
for students and create greater links between La Casa and academic programming.
•
Providing adequate staff
As La Casa expands its programming and retention efforts, to serve an increasing number of students
from diverse ethnicities, an assessment should be conducted to examine the need for additional
permanent staff positions.
32
CHAPTER VIII
LATINA/O STUDIES PROGRAM27
1995-2002
General Summary and Assessment
In Spring 1992 Latina and Latino students at UIUC demanded the development of a Latina/o
Studies Program able to grant degrees to “undergraduate and graduate students.” Looking back over the
decade since the demand, we see significant progress but also a pattern in which insufficient continuity of
leadership, poor retention of faculty, relatively small size of faculty, and meager presence of senior
scholars, often frustrated attempts to achieve the program’s initial goals.
When the Program took shape, and it did not do so until the 1996-97 academic year, it hired a new
director and two other new faculty members to join nine existing Latina/o faculty. Except for the director, an
associate professor, all faculty were assistant professors. Their tenure homes lay in many departments
and at least four colleges. When the first director left after three years, an interim director took his place and
was renewed in that position each year for the next three years. Between 1999 and 2002, the Program lost
at least eight faculty, two to outside offers and six because of unfavorable tenure decisions. The effect was
to have a unit in which there was little continuity, no opportunity for mentoring by senior faculty or ability to
claim parity regarding searches, course assignments, and tenure processes vis-à-vis the traditional
disciplines to which faculty were appointed (no appointments in the Program were made until 2001-2002).
In this context, a minor was not approved until 1997, and through 2002 only eight minors have come
through the Program (along with one independently designed major). Faculty and/or ABD instructors
lacking regular appointments have too often taught key courses.
Nonetheless, these numbers understate the ways in which the progress that has been made lays
the groundwork for dramatic expansion, and particularly for the expansion of the number of minors, and for
the development of an undergraduate major and of research initiatives. The Program has significantly
increased enrollments--for example, from Fall 1999 to Spring 2001, the increase was 88%--and course
offerings. By Spring 2001, 40 students had taken three or more courses in the Program and a dozen had
taken six or more courses. The number of new hires has only slightly outpaced those lost but the Program
is now half again as large as it was six years ago. Critically, it has recently developed, both by promotions
and by hiring at the senior level, a small cohort of tenured faculty. The appointment of a new permanent
director beginning in 2002-2003 both symbolizes much-needed progress and promises to quicken the pace
of advancement (especially through the director’s involvement in three joint searches in which the Program
takes an active and coequal role).
Listed below are specific developments mentioned in the foregoing:
SOURCES: LLSP Activities Reports, 1996 and 1997, prepared by first director; 3 annual reports to the advisory board of
LLSP, prepared by the Interim Director on January 10, 2000, May 31, 2000, AND May 29, 2001; and other LLSP documents
including the LLSP website. Please consult the Latina/o Studies Program Annual Report for 2002/03 prepared by the director,
dated June 4, 2003, for updates on faculty, courses, and programming.
27
33
The Latina/o Studies Program and its Faculty
•
Spring 1992: Latina and Latino Students “demand that a Latina/o Studies Program be developed and
implemented. In this Latina/o Studies Program/Department undergraduate and graduate students will
be able to receive degrees.”
•
Academic Year 1995-1996: Students, faculty, and staff organized a committee prior to the official
formation of the Latina/o Studies Program (LLSP) to establish priorities and develop a search for the
director.
•
Academic Year 1996-1997: LLSP is created. The Program’s first director (Associate Professor) and two
Latina/o Studies faculty (both Assistant Professors) are hired within LAS; they join 9 Latina/o Faculty
(all of them Assistant Professors) already present not only within LAS but also in other colleges, such
as Communications, Education, and Law.
•
The first director, in consultation with Latina/o Studies Faculty and students, submitted a Latina/o
Studies Minor proposal to the Faculty Senate. The Minor is approved in Spring 1997--exactly 5 years
after the 1992 student mobilization. The first director served during Fall 1996- Spring 1999.
•
Fall 1999: The first director steps down and LAS appoints an Interim Director at the beginning of Fall
semester of 1999. The Interim Directorship continued three years: Fall 1999-Spring 2002.
•
Between 1999 and 2001: The program loses six tenure-track faculty.
•
During the same time period, from 1999 to 2001: UIUC hired three Latina/o full professors and four
Latina/o Assistant Professors. Two Latina/Latino Studies Assistant Professors are awarded Tenure:
one in Political Science, the other in Education.
•
During 2001-2002, three Latina/o Studies faculty are promoted to Associate Professors.
•
In 2001-2002, a national search for LLSP Director is carried out and an offer is extended to one of the
pioneers of Latina/Latino Studies in this country. The candidate accepts the appointment in both the
Program and at the Institute of Communications Research.
The Latina/o Studies Program and its Students
After reviewing three reports (January 10, 2000, May 31, 2000, and May 29, 2001) submitted by the
Interim Director, the granting of the Minor in Latina/o Studies has been at the crux of the interaction
between the Program’s Faculty and UIUC students. Seven courses are needed for a Minor in Latina/o
Studies, or 21 credit hours. In Spring 2000 the first Minor was fully granted under the Program. The other
two predecessors had initiated Latina/Latino Studies coursework before the minor was officially
established. During the program of study, courses must be approved by the Latina/Latino Studies Program
Committee or Advisor and drawn from a list of courses approved as fulfilling the requirements of the minor.
No more than 2 courses (6 hours) may be chosen from a single department. The only specified course is
LLS 100, Introduction to Latina/o Studies. In Spring 2001, the first and only independent Major in
Latino/Studies was granted. The student took 30 hours of Latina/Latino Studies courses in the social
sciences, humanities, and other relevant upper division courses.
34
Number of Courses offered by the Latina/o Studies Program (1999-2001)
•
During Fall 1999, 8 courses were offered by the Program. In these classes, 53 enrolled under the LLS
rubric and 177 enrolled under the cross listed rubric.
•
During Spring 2000, 5 courses were offered by the Program. In these classes, 69 students enrolled
under the LLS rubric and 159 enrolled under the cross listed rubric.
•
During 2000-2001, 14 courses were offered by the Program. In these, classes, 229 students registered
under the LLS rubric (this represents a 88% increase from 122 during 1999-2000).
•
The interim director noted in his last report that there was an increase in the number of students taking
two or more LLS/Cross listed courses. These students are potential Minors. This situation may enable
the program to predict an increase in Minors in the immediate future. The interim director created a
Student Outreach Program through which two students were responsible for promoting the Program to
other undergraduates.
Recommendations
•
In order for the program to be fully meaningful in the education of students at UIUC and to acquire
national prominence, LLSP must offer a Major and a graduate certificate in Latina/Latino Studies within
the next five years. Within ten years LLSP should establish a Master’s and PhD program. The hiring
of a permanent director has begun to address the increasing interest in LLSP by both undergraduate
and graduate populations. For example, 13 undergraduates obtained a minor in Latina/Latino Studies
in academic year 2002-2003. In addition, graduate enrollments rose in 300 level LLS courses by 66%
since 1998. This increase coupled with the success of the first graduate conference hosted by LLSP
indicates the need for augmenting the program to respond to the growing need.
•
Strategies for expansion of course offerings and of student interest in an LLS Major and Minor could
include development of LLS independent research projects, under the auspices, for example, of SROP
or the McNair Program; creation of mechanisms (modeled in part on Honors arrangements) in which
students in non-LLS courses might earn credit towards an LLS Minor by concentrating research or
extra reading on LLS topics; and creation of a special topics seminar for advanced LLS students in
which affiliated faculty give guest lectures. Other courses, including History 361 (Immigrant America)
and EPS 210 (Race and Cultural Diversity in American Life) might be credited to the Minor when taught
by affiliated faculty.
•
As of May 2002, the Program had 22 approved courses, which are offered irregularly. Only three of
these courses are taught exclusively under the LLS rubric. The rest are cross-listed with LLS. The
capstone course, LLS 100 (“Introduction to Latina/o Studies), which is not crosslisted, has been taught
by non-Faculty in the last 3 or 4 semesters. It is imperative that full-time faculty teach such a
foundational course. In addition, LLS 100 should be taught every semester. Even though it is a prerequisite for the Minor, LLS 100 was for a time taught only once a year. During the last three
semesters, it has been regularly offered with an advanced graduate student doing the teaching.
•
With regard to graduate students, the Program should develop structures through which doctoral and
master’s students interested in Latina/Latinos Studies research are able to mentor undergraduates as
well as benefit more directly from Latina/Latinos Studies faculty. Below are some ideas; additional
structures may be developed in consultation with current graduate students on campus.
35
LLSP Graduate Fellows--There is a need for the creation of an initiative to develop a strong cohort of
Latina/o Studies graduate students. Such an incentive should grant a doctoral three-year LLSP
graduate fellowship every year that will help promote Latina/o Studies as an area of study. This would
also establish national recognition for UIUC’s LLSP as a center for graduate education and support the
field of Latina/o Studies. Such an initiative will serve as a tool to recruit outstanding and upcoming
Latina/o Studies scholars. It is often the case that students who are interested in Latina/o scholarship
are housed in traditional home departments that do not understand, value, or promote such
interdisciplinary work. The LLSP graduate fellow initiative should not be a part of the LLSP budget but
should exist as a UIUC campus initiative.
Conferences—Among the many aims of academic and professional conferences, the dissemination of
information and ideas are foremost. The ability to network and form intellectual and collegial
relationships at every stage of educational and intellectual careers (from undergraduates to tenured
professors and administrators) is crucial. Unfortunately, current opportunities for graduate and
undergraduate students to attend or present at conferences are limited due to lack of funding sources.
Monies should be earmarked and made available for undergraduate and graduate students who want
to take advantage of the experience of participating in regional and national conferences as attendees
or presenters. A conference budget should be established by UIUC that can be housed in LLSP but is
not a part of the LLSP existing budget.
In addition, funding to permanently sustain the biennial LLSP graduate conference should be included
in LLSP’s budget. However, this money should be an addition to the existing budget and not taken
away from other line items.
Teaching Assistants (TA) for LLSP Courses—The ability for LLSP to hire teaching assistants for 100
and 200 level courses is necessary and a crucial facet for establishing autonomy and further
development of LLSP. Consolidating TAs for the program will not only expand its undergraduate
course offerings and size of these classes, but also serve to recruit and retain graduate students
affiliated with the program. While LLSP has recently gained autonomy to place TAs in crosslisted
LLSP courses, it is critical that the agreement of three TAs per year for the next three years be
extended and monies permanently allocated to institutionalize this initiative. The budget should remain
separate from LLSP’s budget and continued to be housed within LLSP to facilitate this process.
Courses-400 level classes should be taught by LLSP faculty that address topics within Latina/o
Studies. The formation of these courses will not only respond to the growing interest in graduates who
pursue topics in Latina/Latino Studies, but will also contribute to recognizing the theoretical nature and
academic integrity of the pursuit of Latina/Latino Studies.
•
Regarding faculty, the Program should be fully involved in decisions related to tenure, promotion, and
hiring both across colleges and in consultation with appropriate departments and units. In addition
more faculty should be hired in consistent ways as outlined in Chapter IV.
•
Regarding post-Doctoral scholars, the Program should continue to bring visiting Latina/Latino scholars
who can engage faculty and students on current research being done beyond UIUC. Their research of
expertise should be as disciplinarily and as regionally diverse as possible. They should complement
and/or strengthen, though not duplicate, the Program’s research and teaching needs.
•
Finally, if the Program is to thrive, LLSP will require additional space to house its own faculty. This will
also enable students to have access to an academically supportive environment and the opportunity to
36
interact with faculty. In order to achieve this, the new director should be given all the necessary
resources and intellectual support in order to build a solid program/department that attracts world-class
attention and national prominence that UIUC and its students deserve.
37
CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
The Chancellor’s Committee on Latina/o Issues has reviewed eight areas regarding the status of
Latinas/os at UIUC from 1992-2002. While the eight areas encompassed campus climate issues, the
recruitment and retention of undergraduates, graduates, faculty, academic professionals, and upper level
administrators, La Casa Cultural Latina, the Latina/Latino Studies Program, additional issues arose that
could not be thoroughly considered for this report. Each chapter specifically draws attention to these areas
and provides direction for further investigation. In addition, the preceding chapters outline direction for
immediate action in order to achieve the benchmarks articulated by the Committee for UIUC in 2012.
Finally, the Committee concludes its assessment with several overarching recommendations that
point to the next steps for UIUC:
•
Subcommittee of the Chancellor’s Diversity Committee. The Committee recognizes the need to form
an institutional apparatus to oversee and ensure the implementation of the recommendations of this
report in order to improve figures for 2012. The Committee recommends that at least three former
members of this committee sit on the subcommittee.
•
Retention Committee. The committee found retention to be a significant problem that impacts the
Latina/o population at UIUC. Therefore, the committee recommends the formation of a Retention
Committee appointed by the Chancellor’s Office in order to address the breadth and scope of this issue
across campus. The charge should include, but not be limited to, developing and implementing
strategies to improve retention figures and eliminate the revolving door effect that inhibits academic
and professional success for Latina/o undergraduates, graduates, faculty, and academic staff.
Although programs of the Office of Minority Student Affairs, La Casa Cultural Latina, and African
American Cultural Program address retention issues of historically underrepresented students, a
committee that focuses solely on retention of undergraduates, graduates, and faculty will serve to unite
the three groups and combat the effects of decentralization of campus units, departments, and
programs. The role of the committee’s chair should develop into a full-time professional position in
order to ensure its permanence at UIUC.
•
Ombudsperson. The Office of the Ombudsperson at UIUC has been vacant for at least two years. The
committee urges UIUC to act on filling this position. The committee feels this vacancy limits the options
for students, staff, and faculty to act on resolving conflicts that arise in departments, units, and
programs across campus.
38
APPENDIX A
LATINA/O STUDENT DEMANDS AND SOLUTIONS, SPRING 1992
1) We demand a breakdown of
the term "Hispanic."
A) We demand that a clear
distinction must be made
between students from Latin
America (international students)
and those Latinas/os who were
brought up within the United
States.
B) Furthermore, we demand
that the University of Illinois
identify Latinas/os following a
two part system.
i) Define by geographical
area. (i.e. South America,
Central America, Caribbean,
and Mexico)
ii) Follow geographical area
by specific country. (i.e. Peru,
Cuba, Puerto Rico, El Salvador,
etc.)
There are distinct differences
amongst the various groups that
fall under this ambiguous term. In
order
to
determine
what
populations
are
being
served/affected by Affirmative
Action programs specifics are
required. (i.e. Mexican/Chicano,
Puerto
Rican,
Venezuelan,
Spanish-American, etc.)
2) We demand that Latina/o
figures
(i.e.
graduation
percentages) are to be at least
equivalent to the percentage of
Latinos in the State of Illinois
(11.6%).
Graduation figures are much more
telling than either admission or
enrollment figures. Within the
graduation class (undergraduate) of
1991 only 2.52% were Latina/o. In
addition, only 1.22% of the
doctoral recipients were Latina/o.
In fact, there has been a decline in
percentages at the doctoral level.
The level has declined from 1.54%
in 1989 to 1.22% in 1991.
Furthermore, in the graduating
class of 1990 at the professional
level (i.e. Law School, Medical
School, etc.) there were zero
Latinas/os
present.
Therefore
retention needs to be addressed
concurrently with issues of
recruitment. Based on data from
'83 to '84, 54% of Latinos on the
UIUC campus received degrees
whereas nonLatinos comprised
over 80%. Whereas conservative
figures
place
the
Latina/o
population at 11.6% of the State of
Illinois due to historical inequity
we declare that graduation figures
should
reach
15-20%.
By
following the aforementioned
standard a clearer commitment to
retention will be seen.
3) We demand that the
Peer Retention Program must
become stabilized by
implementing a line-item budget
policy (i.e. "hard" or recurring
funds).
The budget should be directly
proportional to the growing
numbers of Latinas/os entering the
University in order to keep pace
and assure services.
A)
A stronger connection
must be established between the
Peer Recruitment Program and
Latina/o retention efforts. It is
vital that the recruitment officer
keep in contact with the students
newly recruited in order to assure
success.
1
B) Latina/o counselors are
needed at the Counseling Center.
This is crucial to assist students
facing culture shock or any other
problems. This position will assist
in retention efforts.
C) We demand the creation
and implementation of a Latino
Student Union (LSU) in the
residence halls. The creation of a
LSU will facilitate the transition
into residence halls by creating an
immediate support network. This is
very important at this time due to
the fact that an increasing amount
of Latinas/os desire to move out of
the dorms and into a more
comfortable environment where
they can find some support.
4) We demand a more concerted
effort be made to recruit
students from predominantly
Latino, inner-city high schools as
well as low-income students attending suburban high schools.
Recruitment efforts must be made
more specific so that historically
underrepresented groups are
positively effected. As noted
above, clarification of categories
will help to unveil ambiguities,
however schools and communities
of origin must also be considered
as an important factor. It is the
University of Illinois'
responsibility to serve these
communities as well. Thus areas
with high concentrations of Latinos
must be targeted!
5) We demand m o r e
recruitment of Latinas/os from
community colleges,
As you already know but refuse to
act upon is the fact that many
Latinos from urban communities
are forced to attend community
colleges due to many socioeconomic factors. Upon completion of
their Associate Degree it is the
responsibility of the University of
Illinois to recruit from these very
accessible resource pools of Latino
students. Furthermore, we demand
that Latina/o transfer students
should have equal access to all
programs. (i.e. financial aid,
scholarships, Honors program,
etc.)
6) We demand m o r e ,
recruitment of Latinas/os to
the University o f Illinois'
Graduate School.
128 enrolled (not graduated)
Latina/o Graduate students out of
8,841 students is pathetic and
embarrassing. In order for
Latinos to receive doctorates and
enter the labor market and
successfully tackle the many
problems plaguing the Latino
community, more doctorates need
to be awarded. Compared to
national figures of 3.2% a paltry
1.4% is inexcusable considering
Illinois is the fifth largest state of
Latinos. Once again figures should
at least resemble the state
population percentages (11.6%).
We do pay taxes!
Role models are very important in
the
education al
process,
especially for Latino youth from
low income families who are
confronted
with
large,
predominantly white institutions,
unfamiliar surroundings, inadequate
support
services,
and
an
environment sometimes perceived
or actually hostile toward Latinos.
This can be evidenced by the
increasing number of Latinos who
desire to not live in University
dormitories due to increased white
racism.
As of Fall 1987 there were 43
(1.9%)
self-identified
"Hispanics". More recent figures
indicate a drop to 1.67%.
Nationally: 3.2% of all college
faculty are "Hispanic."
1) We demand for more
recruitment of groups that
are historically underrepre
sented.
A majority of those that self-identify
themselves as "Hispanic" come
from Spain or South America.
There
are
only
two
Mexican/Chicano
faculty
members and one Puerto Rican
post-doctoral
student
who
teaches Afro-American studies.
Furthermore, we demand that
there must be less emphasis on
recruitment of scholars in the
Spanish Dept. and more in other
areas (i.e. History, Sociology
Psychology. Political Science
etc.). In short, a significant part of
this body is concentrated in the
Spanish Dept. ... Yes, we can do
more than speak Spanish.
2) We demand more recruitment of Latinas/os in
higher offices of Administration and Deanships.
In offices of higher administration
(Chancellors,
Vice-Chancellors,
etc.) there are zero Latinas/os.
Latinas/os in this position are
necessary in order to help
implement necessary programs for
the expanding community. In fact
there are only a small number of
Latinos/as in deanships.
3) We demand that recruitment
for
Latina/o
faculty should be done in
institutions that have
Latina/o research programs
or Latina/o ___ Studies
Departments (Chicana/o
Puerto Rican, etc.) AND the
faculty should do scholarly
research in those programs
on some aspect of the
Latina/o experience within
the U.S.
We demand the immediate
removal of Chief Illiniwek
as the mascot of the
University of Illinois.
Chief Illiniwek is a direct insult to
the indigenous heritage present in
every Latina/o student on this
campus, in the State of Illinois,
and within the Americas in
general. Therefore we stand in
solidarity with the numerous
Native American organizations
around the country who urge the
University to eliminate racism by
removing this demeaning mascot.
Furthermore we state that if the
University
(truly)
honored
Native Americans they would as
well offer classes on Native
American history and culture,
actively
recruit
Native
Americans to attend
this
University, create a Native
American cultural center, and
return the Native American
remains that are locked in the
basement of Davenport Hall.
Therefore, we call for the
unconditional and immediate
removal of this racist caricature
a n d the implementation of
policies positively affecting
Native Americans.
Recruitment of Latina/o faculty
will inevitably attract more
Latina/o students, therefore it is
to your (the Administration's) best
interest to recruit more faculty.
In addition, with an increased
amount of Latina/o faculty (that
consequently study Latinas/os)
there can also be a development
of
a
Latina/o
Studies
Program/Department
made
possible. This relates directly to
our next group of demands.
2) We demand that a
Latina/o Studies Program
be developed and implemented.
1)
We
demand
a
differentiation between a
Latina/o Studies Program
and the Latin American
and Caribbean Studies
Program.
University ignorance has resulted
in the stifling of the development
of a Latina/o Studies Program (i.e.
Latinas/os in the U.S.) due to the
fact that they see no difference
between Latin Americans and
Latinas/os within the U.S. They
fail to see the parallel with the
African Studies Program and the
African
American
Studies
Program. This distinction needs to
made clear.
We demand that the University of
Illinois begin the implementation
of the proposal set forth by
students in July of 1990. This
Institute is more thoroughly
discussed in the attached proposal.
This will serve as a framework for
the full development of a Latina/o
Studies Program/Department in
which undergraduate and graduate
students will be able to receive
degrees.
3) We demand a Latina/o
and Latin American
Library, while using the
present office (324 Library)
with its collection.
This centralization of materials is
badly needed. Presently, the books
are dispersed amongst the 30-40
libraries.
4) We demand an increase
in support (financial, etc.)
of the Latina/o Cultural
Center: La Casa Cultural
Latina*. In addition w e
demand ___ that ___ t h e
University give Latinas/os
the respect of distinguishing
between La Casa Cultural
Latina (our cultural center)
and Latina/o registered
student organizations.
* More resources are necessary
like computers, printers, more
money for expanded programming
and services in order to keep up
with the growing number of
Latinas/os here, statewide, and
nationally.
APPENDIX B
CYCLE OF STRUGGLE
This image was created by UIUC students for the April 2002 forum, “Delivering Empty Promises: The
Struggle of the Latina/o Experience at UIUC, 1992-2002.” Students felt the image illustrates the cyclical
nature of struggle for Latina/o students on campus from 1992-2002.
Spring 1992, Students
issue demands and take
over Henry Administration
Spring 1993, Three senior
Building on May 5th.
Latina/o studies professors
interviewed, none hired.
Fall 1995, Students issue
petition for the creation of
a LLSP. Student
negotiations save the
mural and LLSP is housed
at 510 E. Chalmers.
1990-1995 Reports
annually calling for
recruitment of
Latina/o faculty and
establishment of
LLSP.
Fall 2000, Four tenure/tenure track faculty
leave UIUC.
Spring 2001, Over 180 students
meet with Dean and History
Department Head to protest lack of
cluster hire.
Spring 1994, La Casa
relocates to larger
facility at 1203 W.
Nevada.
Spring 1996, Of three “rank
open” positions, only 1 hired at
senior level. No specific LLSP
director search conducted.
Fall 1996, First
Director of LLSP
appointed.
Fall 1999, First LLSP Director resigns. Interim
Director appointed, no outside search initiated.
Summer 2001, LLSP Director
Search Committee formed
without undergraduate
representation.
Fall 2001, Students
withdraw from
negotiations with
Provost due to lack of
progress.
Fall 1997, Administrators
refer to Latinos as
hyphenated Americans in
meeting with students.
Spring 2002, 170 students signed
petition for cluster hire of three senior
Latina/o faculty.
APPENDIX C
LATINA/O GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS ACROSS
COLLEGES AND MAJOR UNITS, 2002
College or Major Unit
ACES TOTAL
Total
Graduate
Latinas/os Students % Latina/o
8
539
1.48%
Human and Community Development
2
28
7.14%
Animal Sciences
Natural Resources and Environmental
Sciences
1
106
0.94%
2
143
1.40%
Nutritional Sciences
3
35
8.57%
CBA TOTAL
Executive MBA (IC)
Executive MBA
Business Administration
Business Administration
Policy Economics
Master of Accounting Science
12
1
1
7
1
1
1
1,022
10
38
341
53
75
90
1.17%
10.00%
2.63%
2.05%
1.89%
1.33%
1.11%
EDUCATION TOTAL
Educational Organization and
Leadership
Educational Psychology
Elementary Education
Elementary Education-Certificate
Educational Policy Studies
Secondary Education
Special Education
Vocational/Technical Education
32
807
3.97%
2
4
1
1
20
1
1
2
126
114
107
18
96
119
89
104
1.59%
3.51%
0.93%
5.56%
20.83%
0.84%
1.12%
1.92%
ENGINEERING TOTAL
Aerospace Engineering
Agricultural & Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computer Science- MS/PhD
Computer Science- MCS
Electrical Engineering
General Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Materials Science & Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Physics
Theoretical & Applied Mechanics
35
2
2
7
1
1
11
1
4
2
1
2
1
2323
79
39
323
448
26
545
43
243
142
49
231
60
1.50%
2.53%
5.13%
2.17%
0.22%
3.85%
2.02%
2.33%
1.65%
1.41%
2.04%
0.87%
1.67%
FINE & APPLIED ARTS TOTAL
Architecture- 2 yr
Art History
Urban Planning
Music
23
4
3
2
6
771
161
25
55
141
2.98%
2.48%
12.00%
3.64%
4.26%
College or Major Unit
FINE & APPLIED ARTS TOTAL
Architecture- 2 yr
Art History
Urban Planning
Music
Music (AMS)
Theater (MFA-D)
Theater (MFA-A)
Art Education
Art & Design Sculpture
COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Communications
Total
Graduate
Latinas/os Students % Latina/o
23
771
2.98%
4
161
2.48%
3
25
12.00%
2
55
3.64%
6
141
4.26%
2
108
1.85%
3
32
9.37%
1
9
11.11%
1
32
3.13%
1
10
10.00%
5
5
107
49
4.67%
10.20%
LAW
42
686
6.12%
LAS
Atmospheric Sciences
Anthropology
Biology
Biophysics & Computational Biology
Chemical Engineering
Biochemistry
English
Geography
History
Italian
Linguistics
Math
Microbiology
Molecular & Integrative Physiology
Biology-EEB
Biology-PMPB
Neuroscience
Psychology
Sociology
Spanish
Speech Communications
Comparative Literature
Cell & Structural Biology
46
1
6
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
3
6
2
1
1
2237
37
63
24
54
94
80
129
30
101
4
67
175
52
35
33
16
46
174
47
64
54
28
33
2.06%
2.70%
9.52%
4.17%
1.85%
1.06%
3.75%
0.78%
3.33%
2.97%
25.00%
1.49%
0.57%
3.85%
2.86%
3.03%
6.25%
2.17%
3.45%
6.38%
9.38%
3.70%
3.57%
3.03%
7
1
4
1
1
251
61
75
20
62
2.79%
1.64%
5.33%
5.00%
1.61%
APPLIED LIFE STUDIES TOTAL
Kinesiology
Leisure Studies
Community Health
Speech & Hearing Sciences – MA
College or Major Unit
VETERINARY MEDICINE TOTAL
Veterinary Pathobiology
Veterinary Medicine
LIR TOTAL
Human Resources & Industrial
Relations
SOCIAL WORK TOTAL
Social Work
LIBRARY & INFO SCIENCE TOTAL
Library & Information Sciences
Library & Information Sciences- MS/F
Library & Information Sciences– PhD
Total
Graduate
Latinas/os Students % Latina/o
5
488
1.02%
1
38
2.63%
4
405
0.98%
5
167
2.99%
5
166
3.01%
15
15
285
217
5.26%
6.91%
9
6
2
1
337
230
54
40
2.67%
2.61%
3.70%
2.50%
GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENT ADMISSIONS YIELD
Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments of
First Professional and Graduate Students
Fall 2001
Total
17181
American Indian/Alaskan Native
46
3592
8
752
Asian Pacific Islander
White
African American
Latina/o
10%
20%
5596
1862
355
130
Applied
30%
5
235
365
0%
2573
40%
50%
Admited
60%
70%
116
1275
85
122
45
80%
90% 100%
Registered
Source: http://www.eoa.uiuc.edu/admin_section.html
APPENDIX D
DEPARTMENTS WITHOUT LATINA/O FACULTY28
AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Agricultural Engineering
COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Accountancy
Economics
EDUCATION
Educational Organizational Leadership
Special Education
ENGINEERING
Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering
General Engineering
Materials Science and Engineering
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Theoretical & Applied Mechanics
FINE AND APPLIED ARTS
Dance
Landscape Architecture
Theater
Urban & Regional Planning
COMMUNICATIONS
Journalism
LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
Cell Structural Biology
East Asian Languages & Cultures
Astronomy
Atmospheric Sciences
Plant Biology
Classics
English as an International Language
Entomology
French
Geography
Geology
Germanic Languages & Literatures
28
Linguistics
Mathematics
Microbiology
Philosophy
Religion
Slavic Languages
Speech Communication
Statistics
Biochemistry
Chemical Engineering
Source: Faculty Status Report, Fall 2002. Prepared by: Office of Equal Opportunity and Access.
DEPARTMENTS WITHOUT LATINA/O FACULTY CONTINUED
APPLIED LIFE STUDIES
Community Health
Kinesiology
Speech & Hearing Science
VETERINARY MEDICINE
Veterinary Clinical Medicine
UIUC FACULTY BY RACE
Latina/o
African American
White
Asian Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1992 Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty by Race
6
147
38 42
1822
2002 Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty by Race
232
6
62
70
1707
2002 LATINA/O FACULTY DISTRIBUTION BY TENURE STATUS
College or Major Unit
Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences
Aviation
Commerce and Business Administration
Education
Engineering29
Fine and Applied Arts
Communications
Law
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Applied Life Studies
Veterinary Medicine
Labor Industrial Relations
Social Work
Library Administration
Library Information Sciences
University Library
Total
29
Assistant
6
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
8
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
27
Associate
0
0
0
2
1
3
1
1
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
19
Full
1
0
0
4
3
0
1
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
16
Total
7
0
2
8
6
5
3
2
19
1
4
0
0
0
1
4
62
Please consult “Faculty Status Report, January 2003”; there appears to be a discrepancy—4 or 1 Latina/o Faculty?—in the
report from the Department of Computer Science—see D-18 Tables A and C. This inconsistency distorts the summary report
for the College of Engineering—see C-04 which reports “9” Latina/o Faculty total.
ALL NEW HIRES BY DEPARTMENT
1992-2002
Department
Agricultural and Consumer Economics
Agricultural Engineering
Crop Sciences
Animal Sciences
Human and Community Development
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences
Accountancy
Economics
Finance
Business Administration
Educational Organization and Leadership
Educational Psychology
Curriculum and Instruction
Educational Policy Studies
Special Education
Human Resource Education.
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering
Computer Science
Civil Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
General Engineering
Materials Science and Engineering
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Physics
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
Architecture
Art and Design
Dance
Landscape Architecture
Music
Theatre
Urban and Regional Planning
Advertising
Journalism
Institute of Communications Research
Cell and Structural Biology
Anthropology
East Asian Language and Cultures
Astronomy
Atmospheric Sciences
Plant Biology
Classics
English
Division of English as an International
Language
Entomology
French
Geography
Geology
Germanic Languages and Literatures
History
Latina/o
Asian
Pacific Islander
1
5
1
0
1
3
1
5
5
1
12
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
12
3
16
3
3
5
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
4
2
7
1
2
1
0
3
0
American Indian
Alaskan Native
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
4
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
African
American
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
1
4
2
1
4
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
3
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
18
2
16
16
11
10
15
13
12
7
23
4
12
9
2
4
4
4
12
15
31
3
7
17
2
21
6
10
17
5
8
31
10
6
4
11
6
7
9
5
6
3
5
4
25
3
Total
New Hires
19
8
18
18
16
15
21
19
17
9
41
6
16
18
8
5
8
5
25
22
47
6
10
23
4
24
7
12
20
7
8
39
12
7
7
13
9
11
13
12
7
5
6
4
33
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
3
3
9
20
3
9
5
4
9
27
Department
Latina/o
Linguistics
Mathematics
Microbiology
Philosophy
Molecular and Integrative Physiology
Political Science
Psychology
Program For the Study of Religion
Slavic Languages and Literatures
Sociology
Spanish, Italian and Portuguese
Speech Communication
Statistics
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Chemical Engineering
Community Health
Kinesiology
Leisure Studies
Speech and Hearing Science
Veterinary Biosciences
Veterinary Clinical Medicine
Veterinary Pathobiology
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
African
American
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Asian
Pacific Islander
1
3
1
0
2
1
3
0
0
4
0
0
1
4
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
2
1
American Indian
Alaskan Native
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White
Total
New Hires
5
36
6
5
5
13
25
1
2
15
14
14
3
7
14
6
9
12
8
9
9
19
17
4
33
5
5
3
11
18
1
2
8
3
13
2
3
11
4
7
10
7
8
6
17
15
ALL NEW HIRES BY COLLEGE
1992-2002
College
Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental
Sciences
Commerce and Business Administration
Education
Engineering
Fine and Applied Arts
Communications
Liberal Arts and Science
Applied Life Studies
Veterinary Medicine
Latina/o
African American
Asian Pacific Islander
White
12
American Indian
Alaskan Native
1
89
Total
New Hires
116
8
6
1
8
4
4
4
19
1
2
6
10
3
7
4
14
3
0
24
7
48
7
0
50
3
5
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
55
35
118
87
22
241
33
38
87
61
173
105
30
325
40
45
American Indian
Alaskan Native
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
White
Total
New Hires
21
5
11
20
17
6
55
ALL NEW HIRES BY MAJOR UNIT
1992-2002
Major Unit
Law
Aviation
Labor and Industrial Relations
Social Work
Library and Information Science
Library Administration
University Library
Latina/o
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
African
American
4
0
0
0
1
1
3
Asian Pacific Islander
Source: October 10, 2002 Payroll
1
0
0
3
0
0
8
14
5
11
17
15
5
43
APPENDIX E
UPPER LEVEL CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION
November 2002
Title
Incumbent
Chancellor
Associate Chancellor
Associate Chancellor
Associate Chancellor
Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs
Associate Chancellor for Development
Assistant Chancellor & Director, Equal Opportunity & Access
Associate Chancellor for Alumni Relations
Athletic Director
Nancy Cantor
William Berry
Lawrence R. Mann
Steven F. Schomberg
William M. Murphy
Richard F. Wilson
Larine Y. Cowan
Barbara S. Hundley
Ronald E. Guenther
Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Associate Provost
Associate Provost
Associate Provost
Associate Provost & Academic Facilities Officer
Associate Provost & Chief Information Officer
Assistant Chief Information Officer for Information Technology
& Director, Computing & Communications Service Officer
Associate Provost & Director, Academic Human Resources
Associate Provost & Director, Division of Management Information
Associate Provost & Director, Office of Continuing Education
Associate Provost for International Affairs
Dean, College of Agricultural, Consumer, & Environmental Sciences
Dean, College of Applied Life Studies
Dean, College of Commerce & Business Administration
Dean, College of Communications
Dean, College of Education
Dean, College of Engineering
Dean, College of Fine & Applied Arts
Dean, Graduate College
Dean, College of Law
Dean, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Dean, College of Veterinary Medicine
Dean, Graduate School of Library & Information Science
Dean, School of Social Work
University Librarian
Director, Ancient Technologies and Archaeological Materials
Director, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology
Director, Campus Honors Program
Director, Center for Advanced Study
Director, Center for Public Safety
Richard H. Herman
William D. Adams
Sarah Mangelsdorf
David Swanson
Terry Ruprecht
Peter M. Siegel
Stanley Yagi
Kathleen H. Pecknold
Carol J. Livingstone
David Schejbal
Earl Kellogg
Robert Easter
Tanya M. Gallagher
Avijit Ghosh
Kim B. Rotzoll
Susan A. Fowler
David E. Daniel
Kathleen F. Conlin
Richard P. Wheeler
Heidi M. Hurd
Jesse G. Delia
Herbert E. Whiteley
Linda C. Smith (Interim)
Sandra Korr
Paula T. Kaufman
Sarah Wisseman
Pierre Wiltzius
Bruce F. Michelson
William T. Greenough
C. Elaine McCoy
UPPER LEVEL CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED
Title
Director, Environmental Council
Director, Institute of Aviation
Director, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
Director, Instructional Resources
Director, Office of Admissions & Records
Director and Principal, University High School
Incumbent
John B. Braden
C. Elaine McCoy
Peter Feuille
John C. Ory
Martha H. Moore (Interim)
John H. Hedeman
Vice Chancellor for Administration & Human Resources
Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration & Human Resources
Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration & Human Resources &
Director, Operation & Maintenance Division
Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration & Human Resources &
Director, Planning, Design & Construction
Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration & Human Resources &
Director, Special Projects & Campus Parking
Director, Environmental Health & Safety
Director, Campus Stores, Mail & Receiving
Director, Division of Public Safety
Director, Facility Management & Scheduling
Director, Faculty/Staff Assistance Program
Director, Office of Human Resources Development
Director, Printing Services
Manager, Willard Airport
Charles C. Colbert
Van A. Anderson
Vice Chancellor for Research
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research &
Director, Office of Tech. Management
Director, Alliance &
Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Director, Biotechnology Center
Director & Institutional Veterinarian,
Division of Laboratory Animal Resources
Director, Research Park and Incubator
Executive Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Director of
Auxiliary Services
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Dean of Students
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Director, Assembly Hall
Director, Career Services Center
Director, Counseling Center
John G. Dempsey
Helen Coleman (Interim)
Pamela J. Voitik
Irene M. Cooke
Robert L. Kelly, Jr.
Oliver J. Clark
Mark Netter
Terrance Jobin
Beth Katsinas
Geoffrey W. Bant
M. Joseph Attwood
Charles F. Zukoski
Janice M. Bahr
Howard W. Guenther
Melanie J. Loots
Michael Fritz
Daniel Reed
Jonathan V. Sweedler
Joseph D. Thulin
John B. Parks
Danny Powell
Patricia E. Askew
S. Eugene Barton
William L. Riley
Vacant
Kevin E. Ullestad
David S. Bechtel
Thomas A. Seals
UPPER LEVEL CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED
Title
Director, Division of Campus Recreation
Director, McKinely Health Center
Director of Housing Division
Director, Illini Union
Director of International Student Affairs
Director, Student Financial Aid Office
Associate Dean of Students & Executive Director,
Senate Committee on Students
Associate Dean of Students, EOP, & Director, TRIO Coordinator
Incumbent
Jesse A. Clements
Robert Palinkas
John E. Collins
Susan Y. Maul
Ivor M. Emmanuel
Orlo B. Austin
Richard W. Justice
Michael L. Jeffries
APPENDIX F
LATINA/O RETENTION AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS AT OTHER UNIVERSITIES
Notre Dame:
Multicultural Student Programs and Services
http://www.nd.edu/~msps/
University of Wisconsin at Madison:
Multicultural Student Center
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/msc/msc/msc.htm
Indiana University:
La Casa Latino Cultural Center
http://www.indiana.edu/~lacasa/
University of California at Berkeley:
Chicano/Latino Academic Student Development
http://multicultural.berkeley.edu/clsd/MoreOfficeInfo.html
University of California at San Diego:
Cross-Cultural Center
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/ccc/home.html
University of California at Santa Cruz:
African American Student Life Resource & Cultural Center
http://www.ucsc.edu/aasl/index.html
Columbia University:
Intercultural Resource Center
http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/irc/
University of Illinois at Chicago:
http://www.uic.edu/depts/lcc/
Northern Illinois University:
The Office of University Resources for Latinos
http://www.niu.edu/URL/URL.html
University of Arizona:
http://www.arizona.edu/~chsa/
http://www.arizona.edu/~dmps/
SUGGESTED RESOURCES
Castellanos, J. and L. Jones, Eds. (2003) The Majority in the Minority: Expanding the Representation of
Latina/o Faculty, Administrators and Students in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing
Company, Inc.
The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, Paramus, N.J.: The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education
Publishing Company.