Community colleges and their faculty of color:
Matching teachers and students
A report to the Community Colleges of California
July 2013
This project was carried out by the California Community College Collaborative
(C4)
Directed by Professor John S. Levin,
with Laurencia Walker, Adam Jackson-Boothby, and Zachary Haberler
Graduate School of Education
Contact: john.levin@ucr.edu
2
Background
This project grew out of two essential sources. The first and the initiator of the idea for the
project was the 2007 Advisory Council of the California Community College Collaborative (C4).1
Their advice to C4 was to determine the reasons for the low number of faculty of color in
community colleges, with particular reference to California’s community colleges. The second
followed from the first but led to a research investigation on graduate students of color in a
research university, which we referred to as Graduate Student Project (GSP). This project led to
a Report, Under-represented minority graduate students at the University of California,
Riverside: Prospective faculty?, and a number of scholarly presentations, papers, and journal
articles. That research concluded that graduate students’ attraction to academic work is related
to (a) the ways in which students interact with others (i.e., peers, faculty, and mentors) as part
of their graduate education; (b) students’ present and past work experiences (i.e.,
assistantships and external job opportunities); (c) students’ self-assessment of their
performance of academic tasks; (d) students’ cultural values (i.e., social commitment); and (e)
students’ perception of the profession. That investigation offered one understanding of reasons
as to why graduate students of color might not pursue a career as a faculty member at a
community college.
Purpose
Our purpose was not only to provide some basic understanding of the low numbers of faculty
of color in community colleges but also to explain the experiences of faculty of color in
community colleges so that both research scholars and practitioners would have a better
understanding of this significant population of faculty.
1
Mr. Steve Bruckman, Executive Vice Chancellor, Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges
Dr. Mark Drummond, Chancellor, California Community Colleges
Ms. Gerry F. Fiala, National Center on Education and the Economy
Dr. Jerome Hunter, Chancellor, North Orange County Community College District
Mr. Scott Lay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Community College League of California Legislative
Office
Professor John S. Levin, Graduate School of Education, University of California-Riverside
Dr. Sara Lundquist, Vice President, Student Services, Santa Ana College
Dr. Richard Mahon, Senate President, Riverside City College
Mr. James F. McKenney, Vice President of Economic Development and International Programs, AACC
Mr. Jose Millan, Vice Chancellor, Economic and Workforce Development, Chancellor’s Office of the
California Community Colleges
Dr. Mark Rocha, President, West Los Angeles College
Dr. Salvatore G. Rotella, Chancellor, Riverside Community College District
Ms. Sandra V. Serrano, Chancellor, Kern Community College District
Dr. Wayne D. Watson, Chancellor, City Colleges of Chicago
Mr. Tom Campbell, Dean, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Phil Day, Chancellor, City College of San Francisco
Mr. Paul Elsner, Los Vientos, Inc.
Dr. Eduardo J. Marti, President, City University of New York, Queensborough Community College
Dr. Dianne G. Van Hook, Superintendent/President, College of the Canyons
3
Experiences of Community College Faculty of Color
Community colleges have a critical need for a more diversified faculty. Currently the 1, 132 U.S.
community colleges educate large numbers of underrepresented minority students including
the majority of Hispanic students (56%) and a substantial percentage of students of color,
including African Americans (49%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (44%), and Native Americans (42%)
undergraduates (American Association of Community Colleges, 2013). Yet in the fall of 2012,
the proportion of community college faculty who were underrepresented minorities was only
18%, a figure that includes Asian/Pacific Islanders and both full-time and part-time faculty.
Arguably, this lack of an ethnically diverse faculty body limits opportunities for students of color
to engage with someone of their own race or ethnicity, thereby muting their interactions with
faculty and jeopardizing both persistence and attainment (Swail, Redd, & Perna, 2003).
Our project examined the experiences of faculty of color in community colleges with an
overarching goal of informing policies and practices that may help to increase the number of
community college faculty of color nationwide and sensitize community college practitioners to
conditions for faculty of color on community college campuses. We chose California and
California community colleges as our research site.
In California, one of the most diverse states in the U.S., the community college student of color
population is the majority—over 50% are classified as underrepresented minorities and less
than 30% of students are classified as White, non-Hispanic (California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2013). Full-time tenure/tenure track faculty are classified as 65% White,
and just under 30% are categorized as faculty of color, including Asian/Pacific Islanders. Parttime faculty are more than 65% White (See Tables 1 and 2 for faculty ethnicity over time). Our
investigation involved site visits to interview faculty of color in four California community
colleges to understand their pathways to the faculty and explore influences on their decisions
to become community college faculty members. For our project, data were collected from
faculty of color. These data included their educational preparation, prior community college
experience, factors influencing their decision to become a community college faculty member,
and their level of satisfaction as a community college faculty member. Additionally, we
collected data on this population’s views of their treatment on community college campuses
and their understandings and judgments of campus environments. Data collection began in
October 2010 and was completed by April 2011. Data analysis began shortly after the data
were collected and concluded in February 2013.
4
California
Table 1: Full-time Faculty Ethnicity (2001-2006)
Year
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native
American
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Nonresident
alien
#
%
Unknown
#
%
Total
2001
14,176
71.9
1,263
6.4
2,020
10.2
1,435
7.3
201
1.0
286
1.5
334
1.7
19,715
2002
11,406
71.6
1,025
6.4
1,657
10.4
1,170
7.4
167
1.0
254
1.6
250
1.6
15,929
2003
13,286
67.2
1,210
6.1
2,039
10.3
1,424
7.2
202
1.0
266
1.4
1,334
6.8
19,761
2004
11,204
65.2
1,055
6.1
1,802
10.5
1,303
7.6
177
1.0
235
1.4
1,396
8.2
17,172
2005
13,068
65.1
1,158
5.8
2,115
10.5
1,501
7.5
213
1.1
266
1.3
1,767
8.7
20,088
2006
12,360
67.9
1,128
6.2
2,153
11.8
1,508
8.3
200
1.1
264
1.5
588
3.2
18,201
Data source: IPEDS
Note: The number of institutions reporting varies from year to year. In 2001, 109 institutions
reported data; in 2002, 85 institutions reported data; in 2003, 111 institutions reported data; in
2004, 94 institutions reported data; in 2005, 112 institutions reported data; in 2006, 104
institutions reported data.
Table 2: Part-time Faculty Ethnicity (2001-2006)
Year
White
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
Native
American
Nonresident
alien
Unknown
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
2001
27,085
73.6
1,745
4.7
3,014
8.2
2,462
6.7
315
0.9
676
1.8
1,528
4.1
36,825
2002
22,582
73.0
1,535
5.0
2,419
7.8
2,178
7.0
248
0.8
907
2.9
1,082
3.5
30,951
2003
25,007
71.9
1,687
4.9
2,881
8.3
2,495
7.2
285
0.8
862
2.5
1,580
4.4
34,797
2004
22,917
71.4
1,548
4.8
2,743
8.6
2,459
7.7
267
0.8
842
2.6
1,324
4.1
32,100
2005
26,942
71.1
1,828
4.8
3,352
8.8
2,842
7.5
289
0.8
842
2.2
1,803
4.8
37,898
2006
25,547
69.4
1,737
4.7
3,477
9.4
2,985
8.1
284
0.8
837
2.3
1,948
5.3
36,815
Data source: IPEDS
Note: The number of institutions reporting varies from year to year. In 2001, 107 institutions
reported data; in 2002, 85 institutions reported data; in 2003, 109 institutions reported data; in
2004, 93 institutions reported data; in 2005, 111 institutions reported data; in 2006, 103
institutions reported data.
5
Methodology
Research sites were selected based on data obtained from the California Community College
Chancellor’s Office regarding numbers of full- or part-time faculty of color currently teaching in
a credit program. These data were used to compile a comprehensive ranking of California's
community colleges for faculty diversity at all of the 112 community colleges in California.
Three institutions with high numbers of faculty of color and one with low numbers were chosen
from the list for a total of four research sites. Because all of the highest-ranking institutions for
faculty diversity came from the same regional area (southern California), we modified our
institution selection criteria to capture different geographical and regional locations as well as
maximizing faculty diversity. Thus, the three high-ranking institutions selected for this study
are all within the top 20 of the comprehensive list (as opposed to selecting the top three
institutions regardless of geography). Our data were drawn from the following institutions, to
which we have assigned pseudonyms: Cosmopolitan City College (Los Angeles County); North
Point Community College (Northern California); Water's Edge Community College (Inland
Southern California); and, Oasis Community College (Southern California desert). As well, we
considered institutional size and location (i.e., urban, suburban, rural). At two of our colleges,
and among the highest ranking in the state, there were 128 and 118 total full-time and parttime faculty of color, excluding Asian faculty. To access the colleges and their faculty, we
contacted each college and asked chief executive officers if they would agree to have their
college participate in our study, which would include interviews and observations on their
campuses carried out by a team of five researchers.
Data collected for this project consisted primarily of one-on-one, semi-structured interviews.
We followed the advice of field methods’ scholars, including Burgess and Seidman (Burgess,
1984; Seidman, 2006) in particular, to ensure a conversational style and not a simple question
and answer approach. Data collected included faculty’s educational preparation, professional
background, prior community college experience, and level of satisfaction as a community
college faculty member, as well as factors that influenced personal decisions to become and to
remain community college faculty. Data were collected between October 2010 and April 2011.
6
All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Faculty were assured that their
names and their personal identities would be concealed for protection.
We also collected institutional data from college websites to contextualize interviews. Data
from web sites include demographic data, institutional policies, plans, and mission and goals’
statements, and program curricula. Through these data, we developed “vignettes” of each
campus.
At each institution, we interviewed between 8-10 faculty for a total of 36 faculty, at four sites,
consisting of both full-time and part-time faculty with the majority of them full-time (See Table
3). Faculty came from various program areas, including Auto Mechanics, Business, Counseling,
Criminal Justice, Dance, English, Health Sciences, History, English as a Second Language (ESL),
Mathematics, Nursing, Engineering, Psychology, Reading, Sociology, and Visual Arts. Potential
participants were identified through a gatekeeper (vice-president, dean, and faculty member,
known to one of the researchers) at each site. Invitations were sent to those identified via email to faculty of color to solicit their participation in the study. From these faculty, others were
recommended (snow-ball sampling) and invited to participate. Participants were identified by
gender, department, and contract type (full-time or part-time), as well as racial or ethnic
affiliations. For reporting, we used pseudonyms for faculty and their institutions to maintain
anonymity as agreed upon with participants.
Table 3: Participant Characteristics
College
Cosmopolitan
City College
Number of
Participants
10
North Point
Community
College
8
Water’s Edge
Community
College
11
Oasis
Community
College
7
Instructional or
Counseling Faculty
8 Instructional
Faculty
2 Counseling
Faculty
4 Instructional
Faculty
4 Counseling
Faculty
9 Instructional
Faculty
2 Counseling
Faculty
4 Instructional
Faculty
3 Counseling
Faculty
7
Race/Ethnicity
4 Latino/a
5 African American
1 Asian/Pacific
Islander
3 Latino/a
4 African American
1 Asian/Pacific
Islander
4 Latino/a
3 African American
3 Asian/Pacific
Islander
4 Latino/a
2 African American
1 Native American
Full-Time or PartTime
9 Full-Time
1 Part-Time
All Full-Time
7 Full-Time
4 Part-Time
All Full-Time
We primarily used data from interviews of 31 full-time faculty (See Table 3). Part-time faculty
interview data did not address campus issues of diversity or race. Interviews ranged from one
to one and a half hours in length, and these were conducted in environments suitable to faculty
comfort and choice (office spaces or vacant library study rooms). In a few cases, phone
interviews or interviews in more public places were conducted because of scheduling issues or
at the request of faculty who were not comfortable talking to us on campus within the vicinity
of colleagues or supervisors.
Interview data were analyzed using institutional theory, organizational change theory, cultural
identity theory (CIT), social identity theory (SIT), and critical race theory (CRT) as the analytical
frameworks for provisional coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Initial codes included topics such
as personal and professional identity, socialization, dominant ideologies, and resistance to
change. Following the advice of Miles and Huberman (1994), we used secondary coding
combined with conceptualizations to reduce the large data set and created coding forms for
each participant’s interview transcript. These codes were drawn from concepts in CIT (e.g.,
positionality, self-authoring) and from CRT (subordination, racism). We relied upon several
techniques to generate findings. These techniques included clustering, making comparisons
and contrasts, making metaphors, locating intervening variables, and finally making conceptual
coherence (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We then synthesized our observations of individual
participant interview transcripts to lead us to findings about the group as a whole.
ATLAS.ti software (ATLAS.ti.6, 2011) facilitated a research team coding process by providing a
central location where the researchers could see all of the coding for the project, and by
providing an efficient way of identifying meaningful areas of overlap or connection between
different codes, which enhanced the strength of the coding process. Throughout part of the
coding process, members of the research team used concept mapping (Cañas et al., 2005) as an
additional way to make sense of the interview data, the analytical frameworks, and the
relationships between the different codes in the coding scheme. Concept maps are
characterized by the hierarchical organization of concepts that are connected to each other
through the use of linking words or phrases. The connections among concepts are aimed to
produce propositions (Cañas et al., 2005), and in this investigation to produce or support
findings.
Data analysis was a group effort and process as four project members reviewed all interviews,
conducted data analysis, and interacted to reach consensus on the generated meanings of data.
For both the use of Atlas.ti software and concept mapping, an expert guided us in data analysis.
Findings
First, we show that faculty of color represent themselves
as possessing different understandings of institutional life
“My students are extremely
than their White colleagues and situating themselves in diverse...A lot of them come from
separate spheres from their White colleagues. That is, the same background that I did:
they view the community college as comprised of divided
kind of poor, kind of pulling
yourself up, not really knowing
what to do, needing mentoring.”
8
worlds. Second, we show that faculty of color view themselves as subordinated to their White
colleagues, and in this process the social and cultural identities of faculty of color are
suppressed. Third, and finally, we note that faculty of color represent themselves as critical
players in community colleges, particularly in the education and development of students.
1. Different Understandings and a Separate World
Faculty of color noted that considerable differences exist between their understandings and
their White colleagues regarding the meaning of “student-centered.” To faculty of color, the
mainstream faculty population in community colleges understood the concept of “studentcentered” or “student-oriented” in a technical way by stressing student learning outcomes or
by embracing the teaching function of the community college. In some contrast, faculty of
color understood “student-centered” as personal, connecting their own backgrounds with
students. These separate understandings of “student-centered” presented the faculty of color
with an insoluble dilemma: it was not always possible to identify with both the mainstream or
dominant profession of faculty at their college and their own racially or ethnically oriented
identification of themselves as student-centered professionals.
Separate understandings of White faculty and faculty of color were also “[W]e start with
noted by faculty of color in the selection process of new colleagues. That a great pool but
is, in the deliberation and decision process about membership in the we never wind
professional group, discordant views are shaped by racial identity. Here,
up with the
there is a contest between professional valuation of formal academic minority hires
knowledge, academic credentials, and teaching experience on the one that we would
hand and personal backgrounds and experiences on the other. “[W]e start
like to have.”
with a great pool but we never wind up with the minority hires that we
would like to have.” The pattern within the faculty hiring process suggests
that racial and ethnic identities, individually and collectively, are of
peripheral and marginal importance to the community college, often in the face of expressed
concerns for diversity at the campuses we studied.
Faculty of color indicated that the majority of faculty interactions occur within their department
or, in the narrower academic specializations, in their academic division in the college. The lack
of these extra-departmental interactions proves to be problematical. “Since I’ve been here, I
think the thing that is the most challenging for me is that it’s very difficult to have a lot of
interaction with faculty from other departments.” As a result of the combination of interacting
primarily within academic departments or divisions that consist of predominantly White faculty,
faculty of color lack connection to other faculty across campus who share similar cultural
identities and backgrounds. “We’re in the Social Sciences division, so you [have] philosophy,
religion, economics, sociology, psychology…[T]here are about 48 faculty. There is one other
African American male...But it’s predominately White...” This behavioral pattern reinforces
difference and marginalization for those faculty who embrace a cultural identity aligned with
their ethnic/racial background.
9
The difficulty for faculty of color in interacting with other faculty of color or engaging in
activities that would foster and support racial or ethnic identity is compounded by the
expectations placed on these faculty by their college and academic departments regarding their
role as teachers and guides of students. On the one hand, full-time faculty of color, similar to
other full-time faculty, have considerable teaching loads. On the other hand, they are expected
to serve on committees not only as faculty representatives but also as representatives of their
race. Furthermore, their racial identity places both institutional and personal expectations on
them for working with students of color. Overall, they view themselves as functioning in a
different realm from White faculty in their professional obligations, and they suggest they
inhabit a separate world.
Moreover, the racial divide understood by faculty of color indicates to them that they inhabit a
world separate not just from their White colleagues but also from all colleagues of different
ethnicities. “[T]here still seems to be a mentality, and this is my experience with all the
ethnicities on the campus, so whether they are white, black, brown, or yellow, there still is a lot
of separation based on ethnicity; …and there’s a feeling of mistrust that exists between them.”
Such a climate of mistrust at community colleges further alienates faculty of color from their
institutions and from their colleagues.
Finally, while campus policies and formal administrative articulations speak to diversity, such as
an inclusive environment, including greater tolerance for difference, as well as an increase in
ethnic diversity among faculty, such formal efforts did not, in the view of faculty of color, work.
At one college, a diversity initiative that began as a formal movement, and was resisted by
White faculty, as part of the college’s attempts to foster diversity discussions amongst faculty,
administration, and staff, transformed into an informal network of diversity-oriented activists
amongst faculty of color. This informal network did little to alter campus conditions and build a
community for faculty of color.
These different understandings of community college experience may speak to or reflect
distinct worlds for faculty of color and White faculty—different conceptions of students,
different understandings of the profession, and different personal goals for the campus
environment (i.e., diversity). These different conceptions, understandings, and goals suggest
separate professional worlds for faculty of color.
2. Subordination of Racial and Ethnic Identities
“For me, as a Latina,
Articulations of professional identity by faculty of color indicate that
until my Latina-ness
racial and ethnic identities are suppressed, and thus subordinated to
comes out, then they
expected norms of behavior and expression embedded within the
cultural world of each of the four community colleges. “[This campus] get uncomfortable with
is welcoming and friendly [towards faculty] until you show…your true that. As long as I'm nice
and [compliant]
color, until you show who you are.” Faculty articulated losing their
own identities and changing, or not expressing, their views in order to and…friendly, they’re
nice and kind and
fit the dominant culture. “For me, as a Latina, until my Latina-ness
friendly. The subject of
race doesn’t come up.”
10
comes out, then they get uncomfortable with that. As long as I'm nice and [compliant]
and…friendly, they’re nice and kind and friendly. The subject of race doesn’t come up.” The
implicit association of ethnic identities with agitation on campus places significant identity
conflict on faculty of color at the community college.
Norms and structures inherent within community colleges place faculty of color in a
subordinated role. Since these structures have been in place for longer than many of these
faculty have been in their current roles, changing them becomes difficult, and tension between
the professional and racial identities of these faculty of color ensues. “[T]here are norms and
expectations and rules that govern how things are done, and most often they do not tend to
account [for] the ways that people…understand the world.”
To create a positive sense of self as a community college faculty member, then, faculty of color
must negotiate their professional and social identities. This can lead to a state of “double
consciousness” where faculty of color choose which groups they identify with and why they
decide to choose those particular groups. On the one hand, faculty of color are socialized into
their group-based identities—members of a department or program, members of the
institution, and members of sub-groups (e.g., committees). On the other hand, faculty can go
through a process of acculturation where they adapt their social identities as persons of color
to function in a culture different than their initial social identity, which was communicated as a
challenge for some faculty of color.
Depending on what was deemed socially appropriate and legitimized by the majority of faculty
and those in positions of power at the specific community college, these social identities of
faculty of color were either operating in the background of or in direct confrontation with more
general aspects of a college‘s articulated and overt culture
(e.g., claims of institutional diversity, student centered,
“Keep your personal, personal
nurturing personal growth, or promoting a culturally and the business, business. You
dynamic learning environment). “Well I think it’s difficult to
can’t let the two cross or think
be a person of color…[Y]ou always notice the black dot on that because you have personal
the white paper. No one notices the white, just the black dot
relationships that [these are]
on the paper. And I believe there’s always a fear...I think
going to be able to completely
it’s…like that for President Obama. I think any place you are, influence anything professionally.
you can’t have the appearance that you are really trying to
That’s what I’ve found here…
advance a cause where people of color are concerned…[Y]ou
Interpersonal relationships are
have to have the appearance of neutrality.” For faculty of one thing; professional views are
color, the imperative is for them to be aware of the
another. I don’t blur lines. My
dominant culture on their campuses; yet, this awareness and
professional relationships [are]
the practices that follow do not coincide with their social
with who they should be with
identities.
professionally. That’s what they
are. And I don’t want it to be
In response to the “double consciousness” that faculty of perceived any other way because
color experience regarding their marginalized place in then you give people too much to
community colleges with fixed structures, rules, norms, and think about. So I don’t go there.”
11
institutional cultures, these faculty are left searching for ways to adopt and project a
professional identify as a community college faculty member. In so doing, they commonly
resort to depersonalization of their identities. Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggest that
depersonalization of identity occurs in extreme cases of identity conflict when less drastic
measures such as ranking or buffering identities are not enough for an individual to find a
positive sense of self. For the faculty in this investigation, this depersonalization occurs when
they embrace their roles as professionals and, often consciously, limit more personal issues—
such as aspects of their racial or ethnic identities—from affecting their work lives. This can lead
to a response where behaviors are denials of social and ethnic identities. “Keep your personal,
personal and the business, business. You can’t let the two cross or think that because you have
personal relationships that [these are] going to be able to completely influence anything
professionally. That’s what I’ve found here… Interpersonal relationships are one thing;
professional views are another. I don’t blur lines. My professional relationships [are] with who
they should be with professionally. That’s what they are. And I don’t want it to be perceived
any other way because then you give people too much to think about. So I don’t go there.” In
conditions such as these, faculty of color consciously separate or marginalize the more personal
aspects of their identity in order to maintain or negotiate a positive sense of self in relation to
their institutions or in their relationships with other faculty. Depersonalization can be viewed as
a defense against both minority status and explicit forms of racism. White faculty may not only
be unaware of the conditions of faculty of color as minority populations but also insensitive to
the feelings of faculty of color.
Our research reveals important information about the construction of professional identities of
faculty of color at community colleges. We found in our investigation that social identities
shaped professional identities, and, in particular, social identity based upon race shaped faculty
interactions. “[T]here still seems to be a mentality, and this is my experience with all the
ethnicities on the campus, so whether they are White, Black, Brown, or Yellow, there still is a lot
of separation based on ethnicity. Which you would think as an institution of higher education
that would not exist because you’re dealing with intelligent people, right? You would think but
it’s just the opposite. People are still separated by their ethnicity and there’s a feeling of
mistrust that exists between them.” The conflation of professional and social identities—
African American business instructor, African American history faculty member, Latina
psychology faculty member—is not only problematical in confounding the personal or social
and the professional but also a method of separation of professional groups.
3. Critical players in the education and development of students
Interacting with students is the social and institutional location where the faculty of color
articulated the most positive identification with their racial or ethnic identity. When asked
what keeps them at their particular community college, nearly all faculty referred to their
connections with students. Leticia, a full-time self- described Chicana faculty at North Point
Community College, indicated her feeling of connection to her students because of shared
backgrounds. “My students are extremely diverse...A lot of them come from the same
background that I did: kind of poor, kind of pulling yourself up, not really knowing what to do,
12
needing mentoring.” It is this intimate connection with the students, many of whom share
similar backgrounds with the faculty of color, that provides a rationale for faculty of color to
view themselves as both professionals and members of an ethnic or racial community. Thus,
through students, faculty of color develop positive identities, ones that they negotiate in their
college interactions. By emphasizing students, these faculty find a social location within the
community college where they can embrace their racial or ethnic identity, even if in a general
way, without jeopardizing their status as professionals. It is this profoundly strong connection
with the students, many of whom share similar backgrounds with faculty of color, that appears
to be the driving force that keeps faculty of color in institutions that otherwise marginalize their
racial and ethnic identities.
Faculty of color also identify positively with student-oriented diversity programs on their
respective campuses. One faculty member talked about representation of minority groups in
the curriculum and in public places such as the library. “You go to the library, there’s an
Asian/Pacific Study room, there’s a Latino Heritage room, there’s an African American Heritage
room…[where] they talk about the Tuskegee pilots...They’re rooms that each community
generated money and had the rooms dedicated. And those monies went to ongoing
scholarships.” Another spoke positively of a student-oriented program that emphasizes
literature from people of color. “Students have discussions and debates and they talk and they
present, as well as there’s a major guest speaker that comes as well…It’s well publicized and
faculty are encouraged to bring their students to different activities as part of their regular class
time to support the students, but also to get the information to them.”
While efforts to increase diversity amongst faculty in the college can be highly contested and
therefore an area that creates sharp conflicts between the institutional and racial or ethnic
identities of faculty of color, these examples illustrate that promoting diversity with students is
less contested. It appears that supporting students, even if that support is charged with specific
racial or ethnic identifications, is an activity accepted (or at least not overtly rejected) by the
larger professional, student-oriented professional discourse present in community colleges.
This means that faculty of color can safely embrace their racial or ethnic identities in the
classroom or when advocating for student-oriented programs because the institutional
discursive identity also embraces serving the students.
Finally, faculty of color, without emphasizing their own personal importance, noted that
students of color sought them out for counsel. One African American male faculty member
relates his intense experience with a Latina student who needed his personal help. He
acknowledges the importance of helping students academically, but he notes that academic
guidance alone will not suffice. “I…recognize there’s some deep, deep unmet need that goes
far beyond…curricular. It’s being supportive, it’s all these things that are inherent for faculty of
color, but then are enhanced because the number of students who need that at the community
college are at a…high level.”
13
Conclusions
We identified faculty of color who view themselves as marginal to the mainstream actions and
behaviors of their institution. They were subordinate to normative structures and power
configurations that dominated the institution. We also identified faculty who lived a double
life—acceding to the will of the dominant faculty and administrative groups and masking their
personal preferences and judgments. In both situations, faculty of color are arrested in their
development as professionals and their contributions to their institutions are muted as a result
of their positions of subordination.
Yet, even under these conditions, faculty of color expressed a high level of commitment to their
institutions and particularly to their students. It was their assertion that faculty of color were
imperative for students of color—as teachers, as role models, as advisors, and as mentors—
14
that enabled them to maintain a professional identity, yet one that was characterized by their
ethnic/racial identities.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the findings of our research investigation.
1. Colleges and state systems need to recognize that faculty of color can contribute to the
development and educational attainment of students of color.
Students of color gravitate to faculty of color, and the lack of faculty of color can stymie the
personal and academic development of students. In considering student outcomes
improvements, colleges and state systems must factor in faculty-student relationships, or the
lack of them. This may mean that colleges and state systems work toward increasing numbers
of faculty of color. In the U.S., with 46% of community college students and only 18% of
community college faculty designated non-White, there is a substantial disconnection in the
ethnic/racial makeup between the two populations.
2. Colleges need to work towards a critical mass of faculty of color, including greater
distribution of faculty of color across program areas.
The community college problem of a surfeit of part-time faculty (70% of total faculty
employees) contributes to the lack of full-time faculty of color [Levin et al., 2011). Qualified
candidates for faculty positions will opt for full-time positions and ignore part-time ones, where
a large proportion of full-time faculty begin their community college career. Faculty of color
need to be recruited deliberately and strategically; but first, full-time positions must be made
available. This provision of full-time positions may require targeted funding on the part of the
State, to offer an incentive to colleges to hire faculty of color. In order to ensure a pool of
faculty of color as candidates for positions, search committees need to be comprised of faculty
of color, not just one member but also a significant proportion of the membership.
3. Institutional leaders must act
Those in positions of leadership must act to ensure that their actions both alleviate and do not
aggravate conditions for faculty of color. This refers to their development and enactment of
policies, such as hiring policies, as well as to their own practices of working with and interacting
with faculty of color. Diversity initiatives and articulations as well as multi-cultural and ethnic
emphases of campuses must have substance and depth, not function as superficial or token
solutions to tensions or aspirations. In hiring practices of senior leaders, efforts are required to
increase both administrators of color and administrators who are culturally competent and
sensitive.
4. Conversations on campus
There are distinct spheres of interaction and interests among faculty and especially between
faculty of color and White faculty and between generations of faculty. For the benefit of
15
students and in order to establish a coherent and cohesive professional workforce, faculty must
have, what at one college was called, “courageous conversations” about race. Furthermore, all
faculty must determine ways in which to function as a community of peers, including part-time
faculty. A faculty body that is not a coherent one and a body where there are two or more
social classes do not bode well for an effective professional labor force. Furthermore, when
one part of the faculty—faculty of color—are constrained personally from enacting their social
values, then there is inefficient use of labor and limits on the self-actualization and self-efficacy
of individual faculty.
Final Comment
With a growing student population and one constituted by ever-increasing numbers of
underrepresented minority students—in California, this population is the majority, with over
50% classified as underrepresented minorities and less than 30% of students are classified as
White, non-Hispanic—faculty of color have an increasingly significant role. Given the emphasis
placed upon community colleges nationally and in states to train a workforce and to provide
access to baccalaureate degree programs, the progress and academic development of students
are imperative.
Presentations, Papers, and Publications
Levin, J., Walker, L., Haberler, Z., & Jackson-Boothby, A. (In press). The divided self: The double
consciousness of faculty of color at community colleges. Community College Review.
Levin, J. S., Haberler, Z., Walker, L., & Jackson-Boothby, A. Community college culture and
faculty of color. Revision for Community College Review, May, 2013.
Levin, J., Haberler, Z., Walker, L., & Jackson-Boothby, A. The negotiation of identity for faculty of
color at the community college. Research paper presentation for the Annual meeting of
the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV, November 2012.
Levin, J. S., Walker, L., & Jackson-Boothby, A. The negotiation of identity for faculty of color at
the community college. Paper submitted to scholarly journal, February, 2013.
Levin, J. S. Professionally bound: Faculty of color in U.S. Colleges. Research paper. British
Educational Research Association, annual conference. September 3-5, 2013, University
of Sussex, U.K.
Levin, J. S., Walker, L., & Jackson-Boothby, A. “What does it feel like to be a minority faculty in a
community college? It feels bad.” Paper for Council for the Study of Community
Colleges, Annual meeting, San Francisco, April, 2013.
Levin, J. S., Walker, L., & Jackson-Boothby, A. “What does it feel like to be a minority faculty in a
community college? It feels bad.” Paper submitted to scholarly journal, June, 2013.
Levin, J. S., Jackson-Boothby, A., & Walker, L., Institutional change in the community college: an
impossible task. Keeping Our Faculty of Color VI Symposium, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, April, 2013.
Levin, J., Haberler, Z., Jackson-Boothby, & A. Walker, L., “Dangerous work”: Improving
conditions for faculty of color in the community college. Paper submitted to scholarly
journal, June, 2013.
16
Levin, J. Walker, L., Haberler, Z., & Jackson-Boothby, A. The divided self: The double
consciousness of faculty of color at community colleges. Research paper for the annual
meeting of the Council for the Study of Community Colleges, Orlando, April 2012.
Levin J, S., Haberler, Z., & Walker, L. Patterns of community college culture and faculty of color.
Roundtable presentation for the annual meeting of AERA-J, Vancouver, B.C., April 2012.
Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to Dr. Elizabeth Cox and Noemy Medina formerly Assistant Director
and Administrative Assistant for the California Community College Collaborative (C4) who were
essential to the development of the project. We also recognize the C4 graduate student
researchers and staff, Elizabeth Cox, Zachary Haberler, Laurencia Walker, Lamies Al-Nazzal,
Noemy Medina, JoeAnn Nguyen, and Sarah Yoshikawa, for both their conducting of and
transcribing interviews. Finally, we acknowledge Dr. Manuel F. Aguilar Tamayo, from the
University of Morelos (UAEM), who over the course of 2012-13 provided us with guidance in
our data analysis.
References for the project
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., & Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). The Black
academic: Faculty status among African Americans in U.S. higher education. Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1/2), 112-127.
American Association of Community Colleges (2013). Fast Facts.
www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/2013facts
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. New York: Verso.
Antonio, A. L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to scholarship.
Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 582-602.
ATLAS.ti.6. (2011). www.atlasti.com.
Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in
Academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363-391.
Bailey, T., & Morest, V. S. (Eds.). (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baker, G., & Associates. (1992). Cultural leadership: Inside America's community colleges.
Washington, DC: The Community College Press.
Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity:
Gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367-390.
Bernal, D. D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle
over the “legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity & Excellence in Education,
35(2), 169-180.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research in education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17
Bradburn, E. M., & Sikora, A. C. (2002). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in salary and other
characteristics of postsecondary faculty: Fall 1998, (NCES 2002-170). Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, R. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Burgess, R. G. (Ed.). (1982). Field research: A sourcebook and field manual. New York:
Routledge.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2012). Data Mart. Retrieved June 12, 2013
from http://www.cccco.edu/.
Cañas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., et al. (2005). Concept
maps: Integrating knowledge and information visualization. In S. O. Tergan & T. Keller
(Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies (pp. 205-219).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Cataldi, E. F., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E. M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003 (NCES 2005–
172). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Saenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
cross-racial interactions among undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3),
430-455.
Clark, B. R. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of American
academic professors. Daedalus, 126(4), 21-42.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W.W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries
between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 315-363.
Constantine, M. G., Smith, L. Redington, R. M., & Owens, D. (2008). Racial microagressions
against Black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A central challenge in the
multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(3),
348-355.
Cooper, J., & Kempner, K. (1993). Lord of the flies community college: A case study of
organizational disintegration. The Review of Higher Education (Summer), 419-437.
Correll, S.J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career
aspirations. American Sociological Review, 6, 93-113.
Diggs, G. A., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2009). Smiling faces and colored
spaces: The experiences of faculty of color pursing tenure in the academy. Urban
Review, 41, 312-333.
economy (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fenelon, J. (2003). Race, research, and tenure: Institutional credibility and the incorporation of
African, Latino, and American Indian faculty. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 87-100.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp.
645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s
strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Goldbart J., Marshall J., & Evans I. (2005). International students of speech and language
therapy in the UK: Choices about where to study and whether to return. Higher
Education, 50, (1), 89-109.
Gose, B. (2008, September 26). Whatever happened to all those plans to hire more minority
professors? Results often fall short of ambitions, but nobody's giving up. Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B1.
Griffin, K. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice: Gender differences in the
mentoring patterns of Black professors at predominately White research universities.
American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1032-1057.
Griffin, K. A., Pifer, M.J., Humphrey, J.R., & Hazelwood, A. M. (2011). (Re)defining departure:
Exploring Black professors’ experiences with and responses to racism and racial climate.
American Journal of Education, 117(4), 495-526.
Grubb, W. N., Worthen, H., Byrd, B., Webb, E., Badway, N., Case, C., et al. (1999). Honored but
invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367.
Gurin, P., Nagada, B. A., & Lopez, G.E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for
democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17-34.
Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical mass:
The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73-91.
Harvey, W. B. (1994). African American faculty in community colleges: Why they aren't there.
New Directions for Community Colleges, (87), 19-25.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, Jr., Skinner, & Cain (1998). Identity and agency in culture worlds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Honan, J. & Teferra, D. (2001). The US academic profession: Key policy challenges. Higher
Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning,
41(1–2), 183–203.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal
development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-334.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education.
The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196.
Johnson-Bailey, J., Valentine, T., Cervero, R. M., & Bowles, T. A. (2009). Rooted in the soil: The
social experiences of Black graduate students at a southern research university. Journal
of Higher Education, 80(2), 178-203.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a 'sense of success': New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
Johnsrud, L. K. (1993). Women and minority faculty experiences: Defining and responding to
diverse realities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 53, 3-16.
Kempner, K. (1990). Faculty culture in the community college: Facilitating or hindering learning.
The Review of Higher Education, 13(2), 215-235.
19
Levin, J. (2001). Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty-first
century. New York: Palgrave.
Levin, J. S., & Montero-Hernandez, V. (2009). Community colleges and their students: Coconstruction and organizational identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levin, J. S., Kater, S., & Wagoner, R. (2011). Community college faculty: At work in the new
Levin, J. S., Shaker, G., & Wagoner, R. (2011). Post neoliberalism: The professional identity of
faculty off the tenure-track. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Ordorika (Eds.),
Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge creation and state building in the era of
globalization (pp. 197-217). New York: Routledge.
London, H. (1978). The culture of a community college. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Malcom, L. (2013). Student diversity in community colleges: Examining trends and
understanding the challenges. In J. S. Levin & S. Kater, (Eds.), Understanding Community
Colleges (pp. 19-35). New York: Routledge.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling and
acknowledgment of ambiguity. In L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland, & H. Thomas (Eds.),
Managing ambiguity and change (pp. 93-125). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2006). UC Doctoral Student Career Life Survey. Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
McGrath, D., & Spear, M. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NCES. (2007). The condition of education 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
NCES. (2008). The condition of education 2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Nettles, M. T., Perna, L. W., & Bradburn, E. M. (2000). Salary, promotion, and tenure status of
minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and universities, NCES 2000–173.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Nicholas, F. W., Sr., & Oliver, A. R. (1994). Achieving diversity among community college faculty.
New Directions for Community Colleges, (87), 35-42.
Outcalt, C. (2002). A profile of the community college professoriate, 1975-2000. New York:
Routledge Falmer.
20
Owens, J. S., Reis, F. W., & Hall, K. M. (1994). Bridging the gap: Recruitment and retention of
minority faculty members. New Directions for Community Colleges, (87), 57-64.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Reybold, L. E. (2003). Pathways to the professorate: The development of faculty identity in
education. Innovative Higher Education, 27(4), 235-252.
Richardson, R., Fisk, E., & Okun, M. (1983). Literacy in the open-access college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in
the open-door college. Washington DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Roueche, J., Roueche, S., & Milliron, M. (1995). Strangers in their own land: Part-time faculty in
American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Seidman, E. (1985). In the words of the faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Shaw, K., Rhoads, R., & Valadez, J. (Eds.). (1999). Community colleges as cultural texts. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
Solórzano, D. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microagressions, and the experience
of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11(1), 121-136.
Stewart, D. W. (2010, January/February). “Important, if true”: Graduate education will drive
America’s future prosperity. Change, 42(1), 36-44.
Taylor, E., & Antony, J. S. (2000). Stereotype threat reduction and wise schooling: Towards the
successful socialization of African American doctoral students in education. The Journal
of Negro Education, 69(3), 184-198.
Tierney, W. (1991). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. In M.
Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (4th ed., pp. 126-139).
Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Toutkoushian, R. K., Bellas, M. L., & Moore, J. V. (2007). The interaction effects of gender, race,
and marital status on faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 572-601.
Townsend, B., & Twombly, S. (Eds.). (2001). Community colleges: Policy in the future context.
Westport, CT: Ablex.
Trice, H.M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, CornelI
University.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of
Higher Education, 73(1), 74-93.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Population Projections of the United States, Current Population
Reports. Washington, DC
21
Vaughan, G. (2000). The community college story. Washington, DC: American Association of
Community Colleges.
Weis, L. (1985a). Between two worlds: Black students in an urban community college. Boston:
Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Weis, L. (1985b). Faculty perspectives and practice in an urban community college. Higher
Education, 14(5), 553-574.
Wolfe, J. R., & Strange, C. C. (2003). Academic life at the franchise: Faculty culture in a rural
two-year branch campus. Review of Higher Education, 26(3), 343-362.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
22