Report on Theme II, Issue No. 1: Campus Climate for
Diversity
To what extent do various ethnic groups, women, students
with disabilities, gay, lesbian, and bisexual students,
faculty, and staff feel welcome and comfortable at CSUSB?
California State University, San Bernardino recognizes
that one of its strengths is the diversity of the university
community. As a result, the university has developed curricula
and services that affirm the multiculturalism of this
region and show the dignity and values that unite all
people.
Mission and Goals Statement (http://www.csusb.edu/president/vm.html)
President Karnig in his "Welcome Letter" in the
University Bulletin (http://www.csusb.edu/president/g1.html ) says "You're welcome here anytime, whether you're
enrolling in classes or simply attending an event."
That message represents an attitudinal sea change for the
institution but one that the university has embraced whole-heartedly.
To make some meaningful comment about the extent to which
various groups feel welcome and comfortable at CSUSB, we
need first to look at where the university has been.
When the campus was established in 1965, it was isolated
geographically and intellectually from the community it
was built to serve. There was one, older, neighborhood near
campus, but its residents were not going to provide students
for the campus. There were no markets within several miles,
nor were there the other kinds of shops or services that
draw people to a neighborhood and help to create communities.
In the late sixties and throughout much of the seventies,
higher education in San Bernardino meant San Bernardino
Valley Community College.
The geographical isolation was mirrored by an invisible
but equally real cultural isolation. The founding faculty
and President put together a curriculum for an institution
more akin to an Ivy League campus than to one serving the
regional needs of the people of San Bernardino and Riverside
counties. In particular, the minority community was not
made to feel welcome. Educationally, the campus provided
a first-class program for those who fit its image of a desirable
student or were willing to try to fit that mold.
More than thirty-five years have passed since the campus
first opened its doors, and the institution is now under
the leadership of its third president. He has made a strong
commitment to diversity and to creating the kind of inclusiveness
implied by his welcome letter.
Because diversity cuts across all institutional lines,
there are a number of offices where important programs are
housed and where significant activities are planned and
implemented. The Cross Cultural Center is a primary player
in this regard, and they will report on their activities
in another section of the larger campus report. A few other
examples will serve to illustrate that the commitment to
improving the climate for diversity. The College of Natural
Sciences co-hosting with the Congressional Black Caucus
funded the Minority AIDS Conference in cooperation with
the Inland AIDS project.
Web sites have become highly visible "front doors"
for institutions of higher learning across the country.
Those home pages have to serve a number of functions, the
most obvious of which is to facilitate finding the information
that a visitor wants to find whether that person is a current
student, an employee, or a future member of the university
community. Another function of those home pages is to highlight
programs events, and people of importance to the institution.
CSUSB has put a link to all its diversity programs on its
home page. Giving diversity that degree of prominence is
another indication of our commitment to diversity.
The question of whether various groups feel welcome on
campus has been asked, albeit indirectly, as part of the
Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS), most recently
completed in 1999 (http://ir.csusb.edu/snaps99.pdf ). The section labeled "Campus Climate asks three
questions. The first question asks students to "indicate
how often, during the past year, you have personally experienced
or directly observed at this campus insensitive behavior
and/or remarks directed at yourself or another based on
each attribute." The attributes are race or ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, age, disabilities, learning
difficulties, religion, and non-English background. For
each of those attributes, the answers were "Never"
or "Rarely" for more than 85% of the respondents.
The responses are more positive than they were in 1994 when
79% said "Never" or "Rarely."
The second question was "indicate how often, during
the past year, you have personally experienced or directly
observed campus efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive
behavior and/or remarks based on each attribute." The
attributes are the same, but the percent who said "Frequently"
or "Occasionally" (those are the response we would
like to see students make) is much lower. Nearly 32% had
seen such efforts when the attribute was race. Only 18%
has seen such efforts when the attribute was religion. Those
were the highest and lowest responses for that question.
One of the groups specifically mentioned in the question
being addressed in this report is students with disabilities,
and the Student Needs and Priorities Survey gives us an
indirect measure of how such students may feel. The measure
is indirect because the two questions (one in the "Student
Services (Importance)" section and one in the "Student
Services (Quality) section are being answered by all students,
not just those with disabilities. Question 12lr asks students
to rate how IMPORTANT "Services to students with disabilities"
have been for the respondent's education. Thirty-two and
a half percent said "Very Important." The second,
and perhaps more informative question asks students to "rate
the QUALITY" of "Services to students with disabilities."
Sixty-one and a half (61.5) percent responded that the services
were either excellent or good (these were the best of five
possible responses).
We have not asked the students with disabilities themselves
how they feel about the campus, but the relatively new director
of Services to Students with Disabilities has plans to do
so. She mentioned three initiatives that will help the campus
better serve such students: 1) A list serve is being developed
to provide a low cost, more efficient manner of distribution
of timely information, including surveys, 2) The Chancellor's
office is in the process of developing a survey to be distributed
to students with disabilities statewide, and 3) Services
to Students with Disabilities provides support to a variety
of campus activities in support of disability awareness
including, the Uni Phi Club, two annual Access events (open
to the public), the Campus Accessibility Advisory Board
(CAAB), development of a Campus Access Handbook, as well
as a fairly new program bringing high school students with
disabilities on campus to do volunteer work (we currently
have 15 students on campus weekly in several departments)."
During the fall registration period for class registration
for the winter 2002 quarter, the campus carried out an extensive
telephone and web-based survey of student attitudes and
perceptions of campus life and academic support, and these
can be found on the website for Institutional Research at:
(http://thewasc.csusb.edu/data/reg_surv/2002wint.pdf ). Two of the questions bear directly on the extent to which
students feel welcome.
Of the 6,408 students who responded to Question #2 which
asked if CSUSB is 'a welcoming, safe university with an
intellectual, physical, and social environment that engages
them in the life of the University,' 35.0% said "Yes,
very much so", and another 42.8% said "Yes, for
the most part.'
Question #14 dealt with (the) extent of campus encouragement
of contact between students from different economic, social,
racial and ethnic backgrounds. Of those respondents, 68.8%
said "Very much" or "Quite a Bit." African-Americans,
Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific students
rated the level of interaction between ethnic groups somewhat
higher than White students. This high level of support and
satisfaction from groups that were formerly "minorities"
was seen in all most all other questions on the TRACS survey
dealing with social and academic support. This is a big
change in attitudes from those found in our campus climate
survey done in 1994."Beyond SNAPS, to find evidence
of how the campus is doing to improve the reception for
diversity, one has to look at a broad spectrum of things.
The first place to look for evidence of the campus' commitment
to diversity is the University Diversity Strategic Plan
(http://diversity.csusb.edu/plan.htm ). The Strategic Plan for diversity lays out seven goals
toward which the campus has been working:
- To perpetuate a shared campus commitment to fostering
a climate of mutual respect where all individuals and
groups value "otherness," or those human qualities
that are different from our own and outside the groups
to which they belong. It is critical that the diversity
of people be understood, respected, and reflected in the
day-to-day interactions.
- To achieve a campus community that reflects the
diversity of the society in which we live, we must identify
and eliminate obstacles and provide equal opportunities
and access for people of all backgrounds in the areas
of hiring, retention, development and promotion of faculty,
staff, and administrators; and create an environment where
employees can develop to their full potential.
- Recruit and graduate students at both the undergraduate
and graduate levels who reflect the diverse population
within the region we serve. Expand efforts to provide
opportunities and services for non-traditional, disadvantaged,
and international students.
- Improve communications among members of the campus
and to our service region. This will include enhancing
media communications with multiple audiences in mind;
communication channels that are enhanced and expanded
to offer broader input; and open discussion of viewpoints
to promote understanding in a multicultural environment.
- Promote an environment and philosophy which recognizes
that an educated person is one who has awareness of other
cultures, life styles, and life orientations.
- Establish strong communication networks between
the campus and minority communities to promote positive
public awareness and create solid relationships of trust.
- Provide a continuous process of assessment and evaluation
in order to ensure that the promotion of diversity continues
to be a focus of the university.
The following statement, taken from the Vision Statement
of the Diversity Strategic Plan puts the goals in context:
"As a university we will collectively provide a forum
for the exploration of cultural and racial diversity as
an essential aspect of the educational experience; we will
serve as the place to expose students and the community
to a variety of cultures and international perspectives
in order to adequately prepare for the twenty-first century;
we will stress the importance of educating for social responsibility;
we will provide educational access for historically under-represented
populations; and we will promote the understanding of diversity
as a means for all of us to prosper together." The
campus has made good progress toward implementing actions
that will move us toward these goals. Because of their global
nature, however, they are likely to be goals we will work
toward continually rather than ones we can check off and
say "Done."
At the same time that the Strategic Plan for Diversity
was being developed, the campus had a University Diversity
Committee (UDC). This committee was to take a leadership
role in helping the campus achieve the goals of the Strategic
Plan, but that committee was also there to ensure that the
actions needed to reach the goal would be undertaken by
all relevant portions of the university. Improving diversity
and creating a sense of openness was, and is, a responsibility
for all of us.
Because the UDC plays such a central role in these efforts,
however, it is appropriate to see what it has done and how
it has helped the campus realize its goals for diversity.
The UDC has a robust website at (http://diversity.csusb.edu/,
and there are links there to all the material cited below.
The activities in support of diversity emanating from the
committee fall into several categories:
Both Goals One and Five of the Diversity Strategic Plan
speak to a need for greater understanding of people who
are different from one's self. To promote understanding,
the UDC helps to underwrite the cost of events put on to
promote diversity. In AY 2001-2002, UDC sponsored 16 events
which were funded at a combined total of $9,727. (Note:
the actual cost for these events was higher because UDC
paid only a portion of the total. The actual amount spent
by UDC was somewhat lower than the amount allocated because
three of the approved events were either canceled or scaled
down resulting in some savings to UDC.) In the current academic
year, $8,200 has been encumbered for events. Additional
information can be found at following link: (http://diversity.csusb.edu/guidelines.htm ). These events, which take many forms, are eligible for
a maximum of $1,000, and the UDC gives preference in its
decisions about events to fund to those events and organizers
that have also obtained funding from some other source or
sources.
The events funded cover a broad spectrum. The UDC has helped
bring speakers and performers from a range of cultures and
ethnicities. For example, UDC co-sponsored speakers on Hispanic
migrant workers. UDC is one of the sponsors of the Thai
Student Association's annul banquet. UDC has assisted various
academic departments on campus to bring in speakers whose
presence and message enhances the mission of the strategic
plan. Sometimes, the connection to diversity is subtle but
important nonetheless. For example, we co-sponsored a talk
by an African-American professor on history. The topic had
nothing to do with diversity, but bringing an important
speaker of African-American descent to campus helps to dispel
old myths and stereotypes without having to be overt about
it.
In addition to funding events, UDC has established Diversity
Research Initiative Grants. (See
http://diversity.csusb.edu/initGrant.htm ). These grants,
awarded in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 are intended
"to support faculty/staff research that explores diversity
on campus and that will help achieve the goals stated in
the CSUSB Strategic Plan for Diversity." The grants
are divided into three categories. The aim of the first
category is "to support the development of new courses
and innovative course revisions that make a contribution
to improve diversity in the curriculum and to facilitate
integration of diversity into the classroom."
The aim of the second category is "to encourage and
support diversity research initiatives having direct campus-wide
or community impact. Examples of research initiatives include,
but are not limited to researching methods for broadening
the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g. ethnicity,
gender, disability, geographic, economic, etc.) in higher
education; designing systematic approaches for recruiting
and retaining students from underrepresented groups in local
communities; conducting diversity-related surveys or local
community studies; developing methods for promoting or sustaining
cultural and racial diversity; designing an implementation
package for creating a more supportive climate for members
from diverse backgrounds; conducting diversity policy studies
(at federal, state or institutional level); developing methods
for diversity assessment and other diversity-related research
activities."
Finally, the last category's purpose is "to achieve
a campus community that reflects the diversity of the society
in which we live and to identify and eliminate obstacles
and provide equal opportunities and access for people of
all backgrounds in the areas of hiring, retention, development
and promotion of faculty, staff, and administrators; to
create an environment where employees can develop to their
full potential.
Examples of activities include: Conducting research on
employee equity issues, promoting retention of employees
by acclimating and socializing new hires to the campus culture
and norms through a mentoring program; augmenting resources
and expanding opportunities available for employee development
in the areas of diversity; attending a national diversity
conference or workshop (sponsored faculty or staff must
disseminate material sources on their return and contribute
to improving CSUSB diversity training programs); establishing
a train-the-trainer diversity training model; organizing
workshops or seminars on employee equity related topics."
Proposals have been funded in each of the three categories.
In category three, some notable achievements are worth highlighting.
CSUSB is a large organization, and staff training and development
are important goals of the university. In 1998, Dr. Sue
Brotherton conducted diversity training workshops for 671
staff members under the auspices of the Human Resources
department. More recently, Human Resources worked with the
UDC to create and carry out a mandatory diversity training
program for all administrators and staff members who had
not received the earlier training (many of those who were
involved in the most recent training sessions were new employees.)
Because of contractual restrictions, those training sessions
were not mandatory for faculty. UDC is currently working
with very supportive members of the faculty bargaining unit
and members of the Senate to develop diversity training
programs designed for the faculty.
Because this training program for administrators and staff
was viewed as a shared campus responsibility, and because
the number of people who needed to be trained was quite
large, UDC worked with the campus Human Resources department
to pay for more than fifteen faculty, staff, and administrators
to go to Washington, D. C. to the National MultiCultural
Institute's annual conference where they received instruction
in diversity training. These individuals have gone on to
develop and deliver diversity training for more than 424
people in the past fifteen months, in addition to the 671
who were trained in 1998.
Public recognition for those individuals who have made
important contributions to diversity are another way of
raising awareness and understanding. To that end, the University
Diversity Committee sponsors an annual University Diversity
Award. The honorees may be students, staff members, faculty,
administrators, or community members. (For more information,
please go to: http://diversity.csusb.edu/nominati.htm).
In addition to a reception, which the entire campus community
is invited to attend, the honorees are also named by President
Karnig during the annual convocation. Because he uses the
convocation to highlight significant accomplishments by
the university and by individuals, naming the winners of
the annual University Diversity Awards is a clear signal
of the importance of the award and of the actions taken
to earn it.
CSUSB is reaching out to the Inland Empire community in
a variety of ways, and the community has responded positively
to our outreach efforts. The low desert communities in the
(Palm Springs, Palm Desert, etc.) have partnered with us
and created our Palm Desert Campus. Our Water Resources
Institute is playing an increasingly pivotal role in issues
surrounding water in our region. And in keeping with Dr.
Karnig's vision, the campus, through a newly formed Diversity
Institute, will begin to play a key role in providing diversity
training to government and law enforcement agencies, private
enterprises, and other entities outside the university.
A new Diversity Institute was developed by Dr. Sue Brotherton
and Dean Milton Clark. Dean Clark will provide administrative
oversight for the institute. Sue Brotherton is a Professor
of Education, and a nationally known diversity trainer.
She is one of the "trainer of trainers" hired
by the National Multicultural Institute to provide workshops
at their annual conference, and she has an extensive resume
pointing to her expertise in this area.
The goal of the Diversity Institute will be to offer diversity
training in our area. Strong initial interest has come from
law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, and Dr. Brotherton will be conducting the first
training sessions to be offered by the Diversity Institute
in mid-May 2003.
The activities of the Diversity Committee suggest that
much has been done, and the campus is to be commended for
the committed work of so many of its members. There is,
however, much that still needs to be done. The campus no
longer has a single ethnic group in the majority. In fact,
the campus' student population now looks a great deal more
like the population in the region. Demographic information
for Riverside and San Bernardino counties is shown in the
next two tables.
Group |
Riverside
County |
San
Bernardino County |
| White |
50.95% |
43.83% |
| Black or African American |
5.97% |
8.63% |
| American Indian or Alaska
Native |
0.71% |
0.60% |
| Asian |
0.19% |
0.27% |
| Some other
race |
0.14% |
0.18% |
| Two or more
races |
2.40% |
2.79% |
| Hispanic or
Latino |
36.19% |
39.19% |
For the period from 1991 to 2002 the African-American
student population has gone from 7.2% of the student body
to 10.5%. The Hispanic student population grew from 13.4%
to 27.5%. The Asian student population was at 5.3% in 1991,
peaked at 8% in 1996 and had dropped down to 6.1% as of
2002. The White student population was at 61.6% in 1991
but represented only 39.1% of the total in 2001.
The composition of the faculty and staff speaks directly
to the second goal in the Diversity Strategic Plan. Students
clearly need to have the opportunity to take classes from
instructors from as many diverse backgrounds as possible.
The statistics for the composition of our faculty are not
nearly as reflective of the service area or the student
body as might be desirable. The next page shows a profile
of the faculty taken from the Academic Affairs web site
at http://academic-affairs.csusb.edu/personnel/facprof.htm.
There are a few cells where the numbers in this report do
not match the numbers on the website. The numbers used in
the report are calculated directly. Where there are discrepancies,
it may be due to the original data including administrators
in some of the counts, but that is only speculation. Differences
have been highlighted for easy reference, and the percentages
from the web site have been included on the line below the
calculated figures. The spreadsheet above can be found at: http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc
Student enrollment has gone from 7,593 in 1996 to 10,477
in 2002, an increase of thirty-eight (37.98) percent. During
that same period, the faculty has increased from 441 to
454, less than one-third of a percent (.29%). During that
period there has been relatively little change in the ethnic
makeup of the faculty. Whites have gone from 77.3% of the
faculty to 74.7%. The "Faculty Recruiting and Appointment
Manual" (http://academic-affairs.csusb.edu/personnel/recmanl/recmanl.htm ) directly addresses the issues of what it calls "Balance
and Diversity." "It is the policy of California
State University, San Bernardino to recruit a faculty that
is balanced and diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity.
Therefore, departments in consultation with College deans
should determine, prior to the beginning of the recruiting
process, what kind of individual to search for in order
to maintain or bring about balance and diversity among the
faculty. It may not be possible to get the kind of individual
being sought, but at least there will be a goal and an effort."
To put these numbers in the larger CSU context, one can
turn to the Fall 2001 Profile of CSU Employees (http://www.calstate.edu/faculty_staff/demographics.shtml).
Page six of that report gives the following "Headcount
of Full-time Employees by Occupational Group and Ethnicity."
The table below shows only the faculty occupational group.
African American |
American Indian |
Asian American |
Latino/ Hispanic |
White |
Total |
437 |
70 |
1,406 |
823 |
8,643 |
11,379 |
3.84% |
0.615% |
12.356% |
7.23% |
75.955% |
|
Here is that same table for our campus drawing on the
numbers from the CSUSB Faculty Profile for 2000/2001. Our
campus has a larger percentage of African American faculty
and a smaller percentage of Asian American faculty but otherwise
mirrors the system.
African American |
American Indian |
Asian American |
Latino/ Hispanic |
White |
Total |
30 |
3 |
24 |
29 |
8,643 |
438 |
6.8% |
0.7% |
5.5% |
6.6% |
75.6% |
|
The failure to see significant change may reside, in part,
in the wording of the statement above. The departments are
required to recruit a diverse faculty. They are not, however,
required to promote and retain a diverse faculty. The Provost
is committed to this goal, but his efforts have not yet
moved the campus a significant degree toward the level of
diversity that would be desirable given the diversity of
our student population and our region. Increasing the diversity
of our tenured faculty should be one of the major goals
of the campus over the next ten years.
A curious instance of the mindset that may point to underlying
problems can be seen in the Faculty Profile chart itself.
Whites are listed as the first group. If the order of the
other groups had been determined by size (thus ordering
the chart from largest group to smallest), the order of
the groups would have had a clear and discernable reason.
No explanation comes to mind for this grouping other than
white privilege, and the campus needs to look closely when
the old ways of doing things may be the only reason for
doing them.
The "Fall 2001 Profile of CSU Employees" tracks
seven occupational groups: faculty, managerial, professional,
secretarial, technical, skilled crafts, and service. System-wide,
Whites predominate in all but the Technical and Service
categories. Here are two tables that show the distribution
for the system as a whole and for the campus.
CSU System-wide
| Category |
%
Minority |
%
White |
%
Female |
%Male |
| Managerial |
26 |
74 |
37 |
63 |
| Professional |
37 |
63 |
57 |
43 |
| Secretarial |
45 |
55 |
90 |
10 |
| Technical |
64 |
37 |
57 |
44 |
| Skilled
Crafts |
38 |
62 |
2 |
98 |
| Service |
67 |
33 |
28 |
72 |
CSUSB San Bernardino
| Category |
%
Minority |
%
White |
%
Female |
%
Male |
| Managerial |
39.4 |
58.7 |
44.2 |
53.9 |
| Professional |
45 |
52.6 |
57.8 |
39.8 |
| Secretarial |
42 |
57.1 |
92.7 |
7.3 |
| Technical |
46.5 |
53.5 |
65.1 |
34.9 |
| Skilled
Crafts |
47.5 |
52.5 |
5 |
95 |
| Service |
70.4 |
27.5 |
34.1 |
63.7 |
Please note that the numbers may not add up to one hundred
percent, but the numbers do accurately reflect the source
documents. In some cases, the discrepancies are accounted
for by those coded in the source documents as "unknown."
The numbers for the San Bernardino chart immediately above
were taken from the "Affirmative Action Report"
dated 09/28/2001.
Two areas leap out from these charts. The Secretarial category
is overwhelming staffed by females, and the Service category,
which "includes custodians, gardeners, laborers, campus
guards, etc." is disproportionately staffed by minorities.
Both these facts represent historical employment patterns,
but they may also suggest areas where the campus could consider
programs to strengthen diversity by improving or changing
the mix. To the extent that women and minorities are over-represented
in some categories and under-represented in others, the
campus may need to work harder to achieve goal two in the
Diversity Strategic Plan.
The way charts get labeled may also provide a clue as to
how the campus community looks at the issue of diversity.
It looks better or worse depending on the group to which
you belong. If you are a member of a historically privileged
group, the campus may be making satisfactory progress toward
diversity. If you are a member of a group that has been
denied privilege, progress is slow at best. In many cases,
our campus is doing better or even significantly better
than the system as whole, and some may point to that and
say that we have done as much as we need to do or that the
pace of our improvements is satisfactory. However, a member
of a less privileged group may well feel very differently
about our progress. A few examples may serve to illustrate
the point.
Members of those groups who are diverse by reason of sexual
preference have long-standing concerns about the climate
and level of welcome they receive on campus. The "Campus
Safety Report" lists no hate crime statistics in its
federally mandated safety report. However, troubling incidents
have occurred. A male gay student felt compelled to move
out of his apartment in on-campus housing after he was the
victim of harassment directed at him because he was gay.
President Karnig issued a strong statement. (See http://thewasc.csusb.edu/edueffrev/thm2/appendix/i1/karnigresponse.htm ) It should be noted that Housing and Residential Life presented
"comprehensive passive programs on topics such as Hate
Crimes, biased motivated harassment and sexual assault"
(Progress Report on CSUSB's Strategic Plan Goals & Objectives,
p. 46).
The idea that gays, lesbians, etc. find the campus less
hospitable than some other groups is supported by a recent
study done by two faculty members. Professors Marcia Marx
and Patricia Little of the CSUSB Sociology Department conducted
a study called "Faces of Prejudice: Comparing Homophobic
and Racial Attitudes Across Social Classes." http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc/Faces.doc The purpose of the study was to analyze "the beliefs
that students, staff personnel, and faculty hold about African-Americans,
gays and lesbians, heterosexuals, and whites." They
looked at socialization (how people were raised with respect
to each of the groups mentioned) as well as "desired
social distance." They concluded that "overall
the climate can be characterized as overtly the "chilliest"
for gays and lesbians."
There is a persistent undercurrent of complaint about racist
behavior in certain departments in the College of Social
and Behavioral Sciences. As with sexual harassment, the
perception of such behavior or the perception that one is
the recipient of such behavior is as important as the facts.
Such allegations are difficult to document, but the campus
would do well to make a close examination and either confirm
the existence of the problem or lay the rumors to rest as
false.
Members of the Asian Faculty, Staff, and Student Association
were the victims of racially-motivated graffiti in 2000.
The perpetrators of the act were never identified although
an investigation was made. The members of the Asian Faculty,
Staff, and Student Association were not well satisfied with
the way the campus handled the problem, and they had pressed
President Karnig to issue a public statement denouncing
such behavior.
There are also bright lights to remember. Professor Gloria
Cowan from the Psychology department did a major research
study called "Interracial Interactions at Racially
Diverse Universities." This followed on an earlier
study of CSUSB, which found a high degree of inter-racial
interaction. (See: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/repository/Inter-racialRelationsSurvey.htm ) This first study focusing on CSUSB concluded:
CSUSB is diverse not only in the nature of its student
body but also shows a positive trend in the extent of
interracial interactions in informal settings on campus.
Interracial contact promotes tolerance and reduction of
prejudice. When students interact with each other at an
informal level--at lunch, in hallways, and on walkways--we
can assume that they are learning growth skills that involve
increased tolerance for individuals from different cultures.
As stereotypes are reduced by cross-racial interactions,
we are providing a model at CSUSB of a multicultural environment
that goes beyond counting numbers of students on the campus
as a whole or within academic courses or programs. Diversity
that involves interaction and communication is more likely
to promote interethnic acceptance. In this sense, and
not only in terms of numbers, CSUSB is demonstrating meaningful
diversity on its campus and promoting tolerance.
In her follow up study, Dr. Cowan wanted "to determine
whether students of different backgrounds engage in interracial
interactions, not only in the classroom but also in informal
settings" (Cowan, p.1). To answer the questions she
posed for her study, she had trained student observers go
to six southern California CSU campuses and count groups
of students. Her observers were to tabulate groups consisting
of a single ethnicity (intraracial group) and groups composed
of more than one ethnicity (interracial groups). Her "study
found that at these six universities, there is overall at
both the group and individual level at least as many interracial
interactions as intraracial interactions. The most general
finding, across the six campuses and across the four ethnic
groups, was that there was no difference in the percentage
of interracial and intraracial groups" (Cowan, p.15).
Among her conclusion are the following statements: "We
can suggest that the CSU campuses show levels of interracial
interactions that promote tolerance and reduction of prejudice.
When students interact with each other at an informal level,
we can assume that they are learning growth skills that
involve increased tolerance for individuals from different
cultures or interethnic acceptance" (Cowan, p. 18).
Prior to the two studies mentioned above, the University
Diversity Committee developed and administered a Diversity
Issues Survey (http://diversity.csusb.edu/survey.htm)
dated 1994. At the conclusion of their report, they made
a series of recommendations. It may be worthwhile to revisit
their recommendations to see what progress has been made
in those areas they identified as needing improvement. The
first was the curriculum. They called for a campus-wide
discussion about the purposes of such classes in light of
widespread skepticism about the value of diversity coursework.
In particular, they pointed to "Race and Racism"
and to "Perspectives on Gender." The reception
of those courses remains problematic today.
Those two specific courses are part of the General Education
program, and they are subject to review by the General Education
Committee. All courses in the General Education program
are under mandate by the Chancellor's Office to include
the contributions of women and minorities whenever possible
and appropriate. The General Education Committee has, heretofore,
reviewed courses and made sure that they met stated criteria
for inclusion in the G. E. program. Today, the Committee
should be making the purposes of G. E. clear for students.
It should also foster a campus-wide dialogue on the value
of courses like "Race and Racism" and "Perspectives
on Gender" and see if such courses can be improved
to make them valuable learning spaces for every student
who enrolls in the course.
The GE Committee Review noted "Specific curriculum-building
suggestions usually request more of something, such as more
classes of interest to particular minorities; classes on
the culture, history, religion, and languages of non-Western,
or non-European peoples. The greatest number of such requests
came from students who were interested in Middle-Eastern
and Asian cultures, in particular language classes in Vietnamese
and Chinese were requested as well. Having more non-European
or non-Western content in current courses is of interest
to both faculty and students. Other people requested more
courses in Ethnic Studies, Women's Studies, Black Studies,
and Chicano/Chicana Studies. There is a great deal of interest
in, and need for, the development of new classes."
The campus has made significant progress in these areas.
The General Education curriculum has added courses in Middle
Eastern and Asian cultures. One of the primary roles in
higher education of the CSU is to train teachers. Most of
our students who plan to teach in grades K-6 are Liberal
Studies majors. We have added a concentration area for that
major of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) Studies. We have added a minor
in Ethnic Studies with a concentration in Chicana(o)/Latina(o)
Studies.
The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences has had students
participate in the Model Arab League and the Model United
Nations programs for many years. Our delegations to these
events have in recent years walked away with the top honors.
The College of Arts and Letters' Foreign Language Department
offers Arabic, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Greek,
Mandarin, and Japanese. American Sign Language is also offered
as another language choice. All of these courses open students
up to the wide range of diversity and to an understanding
of diverse people and cultures.
The Strategic Plan for Diversity addresses the issue of
graduation rates as its third goal. Recent studies show
that we have made very little progress in making the graduating
classes look as diverse as the university as a whole. The
CSU has made improving graduation rates a priority for all
campuses, in part as a response to enrollment pressures
and insufficient capacity. On the San Bernardino campus,
the four-year graduation rate for all groups is less than
five percent. We get a more accurate picture of our success
when we look at the seven-year graduation data. That table
shows that African-American students are graduating at the
lowest rate of all groups.
| Group |
Percent Graduated |
| African American |
22.03% |
| Asian |
32.43% |
| Hispanic or Latino |
41.33% |
| Other |
43.59% |
| White |
44.07% |
| Total |
40.22% |
The four-year rate is unsatisfactory for all groups. However,
it is clear that the campus must focus its attention on
improving the graduation rate for African-American students
and for Asian students as a high priority.
One final highlight that is a strong indicator of the campus
commitment to diversity must be mentioned. The campus awards
one honorary doctoral degree annually. This year (2003)
the honorary doctorate is being awarded to Miss Dorothy
Inghram, pioneering African-American educator from San Bernardino.
This is a singular honor being given to a most worthy recipient,
and it says something about the way the campus has come
to participate in the life of the community it now serves
so well. (See SB Sun Newspaper article at: http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~1456607,00.html
Appendix of Supporting Materials and Links for Theme
II, Issue No. 1
Fall 2001 Profile of CSU Employees: http://www.calstate.edu/faculty_staff/demographics.shtml
Cowan study of Interracial Interactions at CSUSB:
http://thewasc.csusb.edu/repository/Inter-racialRelationsSurvey.htm
Cowan Study of Interracial Interactions in CSU system: http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc/interracial_interactions.doc
CSUSB Diversity Training Plan: http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc/divtrnpl.doc
CSUSB Faculty Profile 1996-2002: http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc/
Diversity Committee minutes: http://diversity.csusb.edu/minutes.htm
Diversity Issues Survey, 1994/95: http://diversity.csusb.edu/survey.htm
Diversity Training Proposal: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/edueffrev/thm2/appendix/i1/divTrainProp.pdf
Marx & Little Study "Faces of Prejudice":http://ug3.csusb.edu/ug3/docs/wasc/Faces.doc
President Karnig's Response to a Harassment Incident: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/edueffrev/thm2/appendix/i1/karnigresponse.htm
Response to 1998 WASC Visit Recommendations on Diversity: http://thewasc.csusb.edu/pprep/app2_12_04_2002.pdf
SNAPS Survey: http://ir.csusb.edu/snaps99.pdf
University Strategic Plan: http://www.csusb.edu/president/strategicplan.html
University Diversity Strategic Plan: http://diversity.csusb.edu/plan.htm
University Diversity Committee homepage: http://diversity.csusb.edu/
