Majority and minority faculty perceptions in academe

Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1993

MAJORITY AND MINORITY FACULTY PERCEPTIONS IN ACADEME

Adalberto Aguirre, Jr., Ruben Martinez, and Anthony Hernandez

This paper examines majority (white) and minority faculty perceptions in academe. It focuses on two general areas of institutional activity: employment and workplace issues, and minority affairs. The data examined in this paper are from a study of faculty at the University of Colorado (CU) system. The faculty sample in this study consisted of 73 minority faculty and 122 majority faculty. The findings reported in this paper show that minority faculty are dissatisfied with certain contexts within the postsecondary education institution, and minority faculty feel excluded from others. Dis- cussion in this paper examines the interaction of status (majority vs. minority) and gender with perceptions of the postsecondary education institution.

The entry of minority faculty into postsecondary education institutions has been an uphill journey. The civil rights climate of the 1960s resulted in the use of affirmative action strategies as a means for increasing the presence of minority faculty in higher education institutions (McCombs, 1989; Bell, 1986; Ku- jovich, 1987; Willie, 1988). The affirmative action strategies of the 1960s pro- vided the postsecondary education institution with the opportunity to evaluate its mission as a response to sharp criticism from minority populations in the United States. However, while the affirmative action strategies of the 1960s enhanced the postsecondary education institution's image as open and accessi- ble, the postsecondary education institution made little progress in creating a positive environment for minority populations.

The use of affirmative action strategies to increase the presence of minority faculty in higher education institutions has resulted in the perception among majority (white) faculty that minority faculty are an imposition on the postsecondary education institution (Delgado, 1991b). One result of this perception is that minority faculty tend to be treated as peripheral members within the postsecondary education institution by majority faculty. In his study of the lives

Adalberto Aguirre, Jr., Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521-0419. Ruben Martinez, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO; Anthony Her- nandez, Arizona State University--West Campus.

371

0361-0365/93/0600-0371507.00/0 © 1993 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

372 AGUIRRE JR., MARTINEZ, AND HERNANDEZ

of minority law professors, Delgado (1988, p. t2) provides an example that illustrates the peripheral institutional presence of minority faculty to majority faculty:

A young Hispanic professor teaching at a major school approached a senior white male colleague to discuss some issues she was about to cover in class. The professor appeared not to recognize her and asked her to please see his secretary for an appoint- ment--the treatment he routinely applies to students.

Is it possible then that majority and minority faculty have different perceptions of the postsecondary education institution's environment? Of each other's role within the environment?

In an examination of majority and minority faculty attitudes toward minority issues, Astin and Burciaga (1981) found that (1) minority faculty are more likely than majority faculty to perceive racial conflict on campus; (2) majority faculty are more likely than minority faculty to believe that increasing minority enrollment leads to a lowering of academic standards, and that affirmative action is a threat to educational quality and integrity; and (3) majority faculty are more likely to support the hiring of minority staff for minority affairs positions but not the hiring of minority faculty for ladder-rank faculty positions. Sim- ilarly, in a study of majority and minority faculty attitudes toward affirmative action, Witt (1990) found that (1) majority faculty are more likely than minority faculty to believe that affirmative action perpetuates the myth of minority inferiority and (2) minority faculty are less likely than majority faculty to believe that affirmative action robs minority groups of their accomplishments.

In his study of the lives of minority law professors, Delgado (1988) found that minority faculty perceived (1) an intolerance for minorities on campus; (2) an increase in racist or subtle racist behavior by majority faculty and majority students toward minority faculty; and (3) an institutional insensitivity that pro- motes overloading minority faculty with committee assignments focused on minority affairs (also see Delgado, 1991a). Similarly, Elmore and Blackburn (1983) have observed that majority faculty consider the use of affirmative action to recruit minority faculty as a threat to institutional integrity and the promotion of antiminority sentiments in majority/minority faculty relations. It appears then that majority and minority faculty not only have different perceptions of the postsecondary education institution, but that they also have different perceptions of each other's role as faculty members (see also Smith and Witt, 1990; Brooks, 1987; Exum, 1983; Nieves-Squires, 1991; Lopez, 1991).

Our purpose in this paper is to examine majority and minority faculty perceptions of the postsecondary education institution. A critical meta-theoretical im- plication of the term perception within the context of organizational analysis is its reference to the presence of different views among members of the same organization. For example, different perceptions of organizational structure

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS 373

held by members of the same organization may reflect the presence of compet- ing organizational models among members (Peterson and White, 1992; Ewell, 1989). In this sense, then, we focus onfaculty perceptions in order to examine the manner in which organizational members have different views of the same organization.

In order to examine faculty perceptions of organizational structure we focus on two general areas of organizational behavior: employment and workplace issues, and minority affairs. The increasing growth of raciat and ethnic populations in U.S. society dictates that postsecondary education institutions prepare themselves to respond to an increased demand for access from these popula- t ions--for both students and faculty (Bjork and Thompson, 1989; Magallan, 1983; Solmon and Wingard, 1991; Olivas, 1988; Estrada, 1988). In preparing its response, the postsecondary education institution taust examine the perceptions of those most directly involved in structuring the institutional environment--the faculty. Thus, we focus on faculty perceptions in this paper in order to gain some understanding of how majority and minority faculty perceive the postsecondary education insfitution and their respective roles within the institution.

FACULTY SURVEY

The data examined in this paper are derived from a faculty survey conducted at the University of Colorado (CU) system. The survey was designed to obtain faculty perceptions on minority affairs, workplace/job satisfaction, campus decision making, and campus/university service. For our purpose in this paper we examine only the data concerned with minority affairs and workplace/job issues. The faculty survey study was initiated in September 1987 and completed in June 1988 (CU Faculty Senate Minority Affairs Committee, 1990).

Sample

Using a disproportionate stratified random sampling technique, questionnaires were mailed to 415 faculty in the CU system. Rosters of tenure-track and full-time faculty at each CU campus were obtained from the Affirmative Action Office on campus. Due to their small numbers, all minority faculty in the CU system were included in the sampling. In addition, minority faculty were com- bined into one group "minority" in order to enhance the analysis of group differences. By combining minority faculty into one category we also reinforce the observation that minority position is a structural position, and not an ethnic one, within the organizational structure of the postsecondary education institution. For majority faculty, probability samples were drawn from within each CU campus.


Three weeks after the initial mailing, follow-up letters were sent to faculty who had not returned the questionnaire. This was repeated once again three weeks later. The result was a final sample size of 195:73 minority and 122 majority faculty (61 females and 61 males), reflecting a retum rate of 47 per- cent. The minority faculty sample consisted of 36 Asians (9 females and 27 males), 9 African Americans (2 females and 7 males), 25 Hispanics (8 females and 17 males), and 3 Native Americans (2 females and 1 male).

The retum rate for the sample was affected by several factors (see Heberlein and Baumgartner, 1978). First, some faculty were on leave and were not avail- able to complete the questionnaire. Second, a few faculty indicated they were new and not familiar enough with the CU system to complete the questionnaire. Third, a small number of faculty, including one minority faculty, refused to complete the questionnaire because they did not like its content. Finally, there were those faculty who, for whatever reason, neither communicated with the researchers nor retumed completed questionnaires.

Measures

We used Cronbach's alpha as our estimate of reliability for the measures employed in this paper. We selected Cronbach's alpha because it utilizes the variance and covariance of items employed in the construction of a measure to provide an estimate of the measure's reliability (Zeller and Cannines, 1980). Cronbach's alpha varies between 0.00 (zero intercorrelation) and 1.00 (unity intercorrelation).

Job satisfaction. Five Likert-type items were used to assess job/workplace satisfaction (see Table 1). The response range for these items was from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied. Respondents were asked to evaluate their level of satisfaction with their (1) employment at the university (EMPL), (2) salary (SAL), (3) promotion opportunities (PROM), (4) performance evaluations (PERF), and (5) quality of everyday relations at the workplace (REL). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was 0.83.

Opportunity to participate in nonminority activities. Four Likert-type items were used to assess this construct (see Table 2). The response range for these items was from 3 = much opportunity to 1 = little opportunity. Respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which they had the opportunity to participate in nonminority activities at the (1) department level (DEPT), (2) college level (COLL), (3) campus level (CAMP), and (4) university-wide level (UNIV). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was 0.82.

Status of minority faculty. Three Likert-type items were used to measure this construct (see Table 3). The response range for these items was from 5 = almost always agree to 1 = never agree. Respondents were asked to evaluate their level of agreement with the observations that (1) minority faculty are

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS

TAILLE 1. Job Satisfaction

375

Means F-Tests

Measures Total Majority Minority Status Gender Status x Gender

EMPL Total 3.51 3.54 3.23 Male 3.50 3.52 3.29 12.64"** 0.39 1.94 Female 3.54 3.60 3.08

SAL Total 3.14 3.17 2.85 Male 3.17 3.18 2.97 16.73"** 7.78** 3.18 Female 3.03 3.09 2.55

PROM Total 3.43 3.48 2.94 Male 3.45 3.47 3.21 82.41"** 28.46*** 36.63*** Female 3.38 3.53 2.25

PERF Total 3.45 3.49 3.04

Male 3.44 3.46 3.20 35.80*** 3.40 12.25"* Female 3.51 3.63 2.64

REL Total 3.94 3.98 3.61 Male 3.88 3.89 3.69 47.66*** 0.63 18.51"** Female 4.19 4.30 3.41

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

excluded from mainstream decision-making sectors (EXCL); (2) minority faculty are overloaded with minority-oriented institutional demands (OVER); (3) minority faculty are used by the institution as buffers with the minority community (BUFF). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was 0.82.

Affirmative action activities. Two Likert-type items were used to measure this construct (see Table 4). The response range for these items was from 5 = almost always agree to 1 = never agree. Respondents were asked to evaluate their level of agreement with the observations that (1) majority faculty understand the positive aspect of affirmative action (POST); (2) majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity (CULD). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was 0.90.

FINDINGS

Two-way analyses of variance were used to examine the effect of status (majority rs. minority) and gender on the 14 items that comprise our measures.


TABLE 2. Nonminority Activities

Measures

Means F-Tests

Total Majority Minority Status Gender Status x Gender

DEPT

Total 2.53 2.54 2.45 Male 2.52 2.52 2.49 5.68** 0.02 3.65 Female 2.59 2.63 2.36

COLL Total 1.95 1.95 1.95 Male 1.93 1.92 2.05 3.49 1.18 13.26"** Female 2.06 2.10 1.71

CAMP

Total 1.76 1.76 1.71 Male 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.94 1.46 2.06 Female 1.75 1.78 1.58

UNIV Total 1.43 1.42 1.59 Male 1.43 1.41 1.63 4.67 0.79 1.64 Female 1.44 1.44 1.49

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

TABLE 3. Status of Minority Faculty

Means F-Tests

Measures Total Majority Minority Status Gender Status x Gender

EXCL Total Male Female

OVER Total Male Female

BUFF Total Male Female

2.22 2.11 3.33 2.08 1.99 3.11 149.89"** 49.45*** 0.48 2.75 2.61 3.86

3.13 3.12 3.20 3.07 3.07 3.12 0.30 5.77* 0.00 3.33 3.33 3.39

2.81 2.78 3.14 2.77 2.75 2.94 22.16"** 18.76"** 7.85** 2.99 2.91 3.66

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

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS

TABLE 4. Affirmative Action Activities

377

Means

Measures Total Majority Minority

F-Tests

Status Gender Status x Gender

POST Total 3.32 3.35 2.99 Male 3.78 3.41 3.11 Female 3.09 3.14 2.69

CULD Total 2.55 2.57 2.30 Male 2.60 2.59 2.49 Female 2.38 2.46 1.81

16.07"** 13.57"** 0.73

14.43"** 16.78"** 7.34**

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

Means and F-tests for each of the measures are presented in Tables 1-4. One can observe in Tables 1-4 that significant main effects of status are present on all hut 4 of the 14 items. Second, significant main effects of gender are present on 7 of the 14 items. Third, status by gender-significant interactions are present on 6 of the 14 items.

Status Effects

Minority faculty were less satisfied than majority faculty with their employment, salary, promotion opportunities, performance evaluation, and everyday relations at the workplace. Minority faculty were more likely than majority faculty to (1) perceive a lack of opportunity to participate in departmental mat- ters that are nonminority focused; (2) feel excluded from mainstream decision- making sectors; and (3) perceive themselves as buffers in shielding institutional interests from the minority community. Finally, minority faculty were less likely than majority faculty to agree that (1) majority facutty understand the positive aspect of affirmative action; and (2) majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity.

Gender Effects

Female faculty were less satisfied with their salary and promotion opportunities than male faculty. Female faculty were more likely than male faculty to agree that (1) minority faculty are excluded from mainstream decision making; (2) minority faculty are overloaded with minority-oriented institutional demands; and (3) minority faculty are utilized as buffers with the minority community. FinaUy, female faculty are less likely than male faculty to agree that


(1) majority faculty understand the positive aspect of affirmative action; and (2) majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity.

Status x Gender Effects

Comparatively speaking, minority female faculty are less satisfied with their (1) promotion opportunities; (2) performance evaluations; and (3) everyday relations in the workplace. Minority female faculty perceive a lack of opportunity to participate in nonminority activities at the college level, and are more likely to agree that minority faculty are utilized as buffers with the minority community. Finally, minority female faculty are more likely to disagree that majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity.

DISCUSSION

Our findings have shown that majority and minority faculty have different perceptions of the postsecondary education institution and of their respective roles in the institution's environment. In particular, our findings have shown that minority faculty are more dissatisfied with all aspects of the workplace; female faculty are more dissatisfied with their salary and promotion opportunities; and minority female faculty are more dissatisfied with their promotion opportunities, performance evaluations, and everyday relations at the workplace. Our findings support the following general observations in the research literature regarding minorities and women in academe.

First, out findings support the observation that both minority and female faculty share similar levels of dissatisfaction with the workplace environment in academe (Hu-Dehart, 1983; Menges and Exum, 1983; Christiansen et al., 1989; Rosenberg, 1978; Johnsrud and Wunsch, 1991). Second, our findings support the observation that minority female faculty tend to experience dissatisfaction with more aspects of the workplace in academe than either minority male faculty or majority female faculty (Carter, Pearson, and Shavlik, 1988; McCombs, 1989; Golladay, 1989). Third, minority faculty and female faculty share similar experiences in their interactions with the postsecondary education institution (Chused, 1988; Hochschild, 1988; Fernandez, 1988; Nieves-Squires, 1992).

Institutional Participation

Regarding participation in institutional activities, our findings have shown that minority faculty perceive themselves as having little opportunity to participate in nonminority affairs at the department level, feel excluded from mainstream decision-making sectors, and perceive themselves as institutional buffers


with the minority community. Female faculty tend to agree that minority faculty are excluded from mainstream decision-making sectors, overloaded with minority-oriented institutional demands, and serve as institutional buffers with the minority community. In contrast, minority female faculty are more likely to perceive minority faculty as institutional buffers with the minority community, and having little opportunity to participate in nonminority affairs at the college level.

On the one hand, these findings show that minority faculty are dissatisfied with their role in certain contexts within the postsecondary education institution. These findings support the observations in the research literature that minority faculty are (1) treated by higher education institutions as peripheral to the academic enterprise (Arce, 1978; Phillips and Blumberg, 1983; Jacques and Hall, 1984); (2) utilized by higher education institutions as buffers with the minority community (Aguirre, 1987; Garza, 1988, 1991; Rochin and de la Torte, 1986). In addition, our findings suggest that minority faculty in this study see themselves as occupying a specialized niche within the organizational structure of the postsecondary education institution. For example, the perception that minority faculty are institutional buffers between the postsecondary education institution and the minority community suggests that minority faculty occupy a shifting role within the organizational structure that is dependent on the postsecondary education institution's need to respond to minority issues. As a result, minority faculty occupy a niche within the organizational structure of the postsecondary education institution designed to deal with emergent minority concerns.

Second, the general impact of perceived exclusion from certain contexts in the postsecondary education institution can result in a heightened sense of "institutional marginality" among minority faculty, especially when one considers minority faculty as "new" types of people who have entered a desirable occupa- tional status (see Lang, 1984; Phillips and Blumberg, 1983; Avalos, 1991). In turn, the institutional marginality of minority faculty facilitates the higher education institution's maintenance of secondary institutional discrimination--the maintenance of established patterns of action that impact negatively upon a given population" (Alvarez, 1979, p. 5). Thus, the perception by minority faculty that they are excluded from certain types of activities within the higher education institution is a reflection of their "institutional marginality"--an institutional marginality that is interpreted by minority faculty as a cumulative process of absence from participatory institutional activities.

On the other hand, our findings have shown that minority faculty do not perceive themselves as overloaded with minority-oriented institutional demands. While minority faculty perceive some opportunity to participate in nonminority affairs at the college, campus, and university system-wide levels, they perceive little opportunity to participate in nonminority affairs at the depart-


mental level. Minority faculty also perceive themselves as excluded ffom mainstream decision-making sectors, and as institutional buffers with the minority community. How can one explain this dilemma in minority faculty members' perceptions of opportunity to participate in some institutional contexts but not in others?

Explaining the Dilemma

One explanation for this dilemma is that minority faculty perceive the opportunity to participate within institutional contexts regarding nonminority affairs as separate from the one context where they could have the greatest impact from their participation--the department. The exclusion of minority faculty from participation in nonminority affairs at the departmental level isolates minority faculty from decision making that shapes the academic character of the department and from a network structure that determines the department's alignment with resource allocation processes within the institution. The exclusion of minority faculty from decision making focused on nonminority issues at the department level also isolates minority faculty from networking activities with other academic faculty at other institutions involved with departmental politics and academic discipline issues.

Second, if a faculty member's academic department is the context within which he or she legitimates his or her role in institutional decision making, then exclusion from it limits his or her visibility to the larger institutional community as a legitimate participant in institutional decision making. In addition, the exclusion of minority faculty from decision-making contexts regarding nonminority affairs at the departmental level limits the sponsorship of minority faculty by the department to other institutional contexts. As a result, the exclusion of minority faculty from nonminority activities at the departmental level prevents minority faculty from assuming a legitimate decision-making role in the department, and excludes minority faculty from receiving departmental sponsorship for participation in nonminority activities within other institutional contexts.

Another explanation for this dilemma is that segmented contexts exist for minority faculty participation within the organizational structure of the postsecondary education institntion. Similar to a segmented labor market (Smith and Hixson, 1987; Rosenblum and Rosenblum, 1990), these segmented contexts isolate minority faculty from ongoing social activities and processes within the higher education institution that shape the ideological character of the institution. Also, these segmented contexts increase the separation of minority faculty from an institutional network structure necessary to the building of powerful alliances (Kanter, 1988). The value of these segmented contexts to the postsecondary education institution is that they make minority faculty visi-


ble, yet invisible, in ongoing social activities and processes. As a result, these segmented contexts area tool employed by the postsecondary education institution to shield itself from criticism that minority faculty are not visible in its organizational activity (see Aguirre, 1981).

Affirmative Action and Cultural Diversity

Our findings have shown that minority faculty and female faculty are less likely to agree that majority faculty understand the positive aspect of affirmative action and that majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity. In addition, minority female faculty are less likely to agree that majority faculty are sensitive to the need for cultural diversity. These findings are sup- portive of general observations in the research literature regarding affirmative action and cultural diversity in academe: (1) Majority male faculty perceive affirmative action as an attack on the academy (Bell, 1986; McCombs, 1989; Exum, 1983; Reyes and Halcon, 1991). (2) Majority male faculty perceive affirmative action as a threat to the exclusion of minority and female faculty from certain positions in the university (Gmnig, 1989; Rooke, 1989; Milward et al., 1983; Sutherland, 1990). (3) Majority male faculty perceive affirmative action as the denial of opportunity to young white males in the academy (Veilleux and Tougas, 1989; Bunzel, 1990). Given our findings, it may be that minority and female faculty perceive majority male faculty as resentful of affirmative action and its goal of cultural diversity (see Hill, 1983; Nigg and Ax- elrod, 1981; Ross, 1990; Eaves, Png, and Rameyer, 1989; Littleton, 1987; Thomas, 1990; Lynch and Beer, 1990; Witt, 1990). As a result, minority and female faculty may also perceive majority male faculty as resistant to opening the doors of academe to enhance its representativeness of minority populations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our findings have shown that majority and minority faculty have different perceptions, or different views, of the postsecondary education institution and of their respective roles within the institution. In general, minority faculty perceive some opportunity to participate in some institutional contexts, but they perceive themselves as excluded from others. As a result, the segmented position minority faculty hold within the organizational structure of the postsecondary education institution may be instrumental in reinforcing their perception that they are peripheral participants in academe. More importantly, the organizational culture of the postsecondary education institution may enhance this perception by placing minority faculty within an organizational niche that re- sponds as an institutional buffer to emergent minority issues.


While out findings have shown that minority faculty have definite perceptions of their role in academe, we need to examine further the manner in which minority faculty are socialized by the organizational culture of the postsecondary education institution to accept their roles. In particular, we need to examine the role majority faculty play in either supporting or challenging the perception minority faculty have for their role in academe, especially the perception held by minority faculty that they are peripheral participants. One must keep in mind that minority faculty, for the most part, have embarked on "extraordinary careers" in that they have managed to transcend the social expectations ascribed to them by U.S. society. If this is how "extraordinary persons" feel within postsecondary education institutions, then how will they bring about the institutional change necessary to open the doors of academe to a growing minority population?

Acknowledgments. Our thanks to Arturo Madrid and the Tomas Rivera Center for giving us the opportunity to discuss the ideas in this paper. Thanks also to Gloria Cuad- raz for providing us with some insight regarding the concept of "extraordinary careers" and minority faculty. The comments from the anonymous reviewers for the journal were invaluable in the revision of this paper. Funding for the research reported in this paper came from the Office of the Associate Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Colorado, and the Academic Senate Research Office at the University of California--Riverside.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, A., Jr. (1981). Chicano faculty in postsecondary educational institutions: Some thoughts on faculty development. California Journal of Teacher Education 8:11-19.

Aguirre, A., Jr. (1987). An interpretative analysis of Chicano faculty in academe. So- cial Science Journal 24: 71-81.

Alvarez, R. (1979). Institutional discrimination in organizations and their environments. In R. Alvarez, K. Lutterman, and Associates (eds.), Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 2-49.

Arce, C. (1978). Chicano participation in academe: A case of academic colonialism. Grito del Sol: A Chicano Quarterly 3: 75-104.

Astin, H., and Burciaga, C. (1981). Chicanos in Higher Education: Progress and At- tainment. Los Angeles: University of Califomia-Los Angeles Higher Education Re- search Institute.

Avalos, M. (1991). The status of Latinos in the profession: Problems in recruitment and retention. PS: Political Science and Politics 24: 241-246.

Bell, D. (1986). Strangers in academic paradise: Law teachers of color in still white schools. University of San Francisco Law Review 20: 385-395.

Bjork, L., and Thompson, T. (1989). The next generation of faculty: Minority issues. Education and Urban Society 21: 341-351.

Brooks, R. (1987). Anti-minority mindset in the law school personnel process: Toward an understanding of racial mindsets. Law and Inequality 5: 1-31.

Bunzel, J. (1990). Minority faculty hiring: Problems and prospects. American Scholar 59: 39-52.


Carter, D., Pearson, C., and Shavlik, D. (1988). Double jeopardy: Women of color in higher education. Educational Record 68(4)/69(1): 98-103.

Christiansen, M., Macagno-Shang, L., Staley, K., Stamler, V., and Johnson, M. (1989). Perceptions of the work environment and irnplications for women's career choice: A survey of university faculty women. Career Development Quarterly 38:57- 64.

Chused, R. (1988). The hiring and retention of minorities and women on American law school faculties. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137: 537-509.

CU Faculty Senate Minority Affairs Committee (1990). Survey of CU Faculty: A Focus on Minority Affairs. Boulder, CO: Office of the Associate Vicë-President for Person- nel and Human Resources.

Delgado, R. (1988). Minority Law Professors' Lives: The Bell-Delgado Survey. Mad- ison: University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School Institute for Legal Studies Work- ing Paper Series 3.

Delgado, R. (1991a). Campus antiracism rules: Constitutional narratives in collision. Northwestern University Law Review 85: 343-387.

Delgado, R. (1991b). Affirmative action as a majoritarian device: Or, do you really want to be a role model? Michigan Law Review 89: 1222-1231.

Eaves, D., Png, I., and Rameyer, J. (1989). Gender, ethnicity and grades: Empirical evidence of discrimination in law-firm interviews. Law and lnequality 7: 189-214.

Elmore, C., and Blackburn, R. (1983). Black and white faculty in white research universities. Journal of Higher Education 54: 1-15.

Estrada, L. (1988). Anticipating the demographic future. Change 20: 14-19. Ewell, P. (1989). Institutional characteristics and faculty/administrator perceptions of

outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Research in Higher Education 30:113-136. Exum, W. (1983). Climbing the crystal stair: Values, affirmative action, and minority

faculty. Social Problems 30: 383-399. Fernandez, J. (1988). Racism and sexism in corporate America: Still not color- or gen-

der-blind in the 1980s. In D. Thompson and N. DiTomaso (eds.), Ensuring Minority Success in Corporate Management. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 71-99.

Garza, H. (1988). The "barriozation" of Hispanic faculty. Educational Record 68(4)/69(l): 122-124.

Garza, H. (1991). Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino professors in U.S. universities. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Chicano and Latin American Studies, Cali- fornia State University-Fresno.

Golladay, M. (1989). Women and minority faculty in engineering: Reviewing the tig- ures. Engineering Education 79: 573-576.

Grunig, L. (t989). Sex discrimination in promotion and tenure in journalism education. Journalism Quarterly 66: 93-100, 229.

Heberlein, T., and Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis. American Sociological Review 43: 447-462.

Hill, R. (1983). Minorities, women, and institutional change: Some administration concerns. Sociological Perspectives 26: 17-28.

Hochschild, J. (1988). Race, class, power, and equal opportunity. In N. Bowie (ed.), Equal Opportunity. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 75-111.

Hu-Dehart, E. (1983). Women, minorities, and academic freedom. In C. Kaplan and E. Schrecker (eds.), Regulating the lntellectuals: Perspectives on Academic Freedom in the 1980s New York: Praeger, pp. 141-159.

Jacques, J., and Hall, R. (1984). Desegregation in higher education: An examination of traditionally black and white institutions. Sociological lnquiry 54: 382-407.


Johnsrud, L., and Wunsch, M. (1991). Junior and senior faculty women: Common- alities and differences in perceptions of academic life. Psychological Reports 69: 879-886.

Kanter, R. (1988). Ensuring minority achievement in corporations: The importance of structural theory and structural change. In D. Thompson and N. DiTomaso (eds.), Ensuring Minority Success in Corporate Management. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 331-346.

Kujovich, G. (1987). Equal opportunity in higher education ad the black public college: The era of separate but equal. Minnesota Law Review 72: 29-172.

Lang, D. (1984). Race inequality and the academic hierarchy. Integrateducation 22: 81-88.

Littleton, C. (1987). Equality and feminist legal theory. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 48: 1043-1059.

Lopez, T. (1991). Some African American and Hispanic Voices from the University of Toledo. ERIC Document ED 328 153.

Lynch, F., and Beer, W. (1990). You ain't the right color pal: White resentment of affirmative action. Policy Review 51 : 64-67.

Magallan, R. (1983). Insights into the needs of a new source of students. Case Currents 9: 8-10.

McCombs, H. (1989). The dynamics and impact of majority processes on higher education, the curriculum, and black women. Sex Roles 21:127-144.

Menges, R., and Exum, W. (1983). Barriers to the progress of women and minority faculty. Journal of Higher Education 54: 123-144.

Milward, H., Denhardt, K., Ruker, R., and Thomas, T. (1983). Implementing affirrna- tive action and organizational compliance: The case of universities. Administration and Society 15: 363-384.

Nieves-Squires, S. (1992). Hispanic women in the U.S. academic context. In L. Welch (ed.), Perspectives on Minority Women in Higher Education. New York: Praeger, pp. 71-92.

Nieves-Squires, S. (1991). Hispanic Women: Making Their Presence on Campus Less Tenuous. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges Project on the Status and Education of Women.

Nigg, J., and Axelrod, M. (1981). Women and minorities in the PSA region: Results of the 1979 survey. Pacific Sociological Review 24: 107-128.

Olivas, M. (1988). Latino faculty at the border: Increasing numbers key to more His- panic access. Change 20: 6-9.

Peterson, M., and White, T. (1992). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their environment: Different views or different models of organization? Research in Higher Education 33: 177-204.

Phillips, W., and Blumberg, R. (1983). Tokenism and organizational change, lnter- grateducation 20: 34-39.

Reyes, M. de la luz, and Halcon, J. (1991). Practices of the academy: Barriers to access for Chicano academics. In P. Altbach and K. Lomotey (eds.), The Raciat Crisis in American Higher Education. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 167- 186.

Rochin, R., and de la Ton'e, A. (1986). Chicano studies and affirmative action in higher education: Complementarities and prevailing issues. Unpublished manuscript, Chi- cano Studies Program, University of California-Davis.

Rooke, P. (1989). Re-ordering out partiality: Reflections on careerism and feminist commitment in academia. Journal of Educational Thought 23: 106-119.


Rosenberg, B. (1978). Retrenchment in education: The outlook for women and minorities. In S. Abramowitz and S. Rosenfeld (eds.), Declining Enrollment: The Chal- lenge of the Coming Decade. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 371-404.

Rosenblum, G., and Rosenblum, B. (1990). Segmented labor markets in institutions of higher learning. Sociology of Education 63:151- t 64.

Ross, K. (1990). Eight myths about minorities in higher education. College Board Re- view 155: 12-19, 45-47.

Smith, C., and Hixson, V. (1987). The work of university professor: Evidence of segmented labor markets inside the academy. Current Research on Occupations and Professions 4: 159-180.

Smith, E., and Witt, S. (1990). Black faculty and affirmative action at predominantly white institutions. Western Journal of Black Studies 14: 9-16.

Solmon, L., and Wingard, T. (1991). The changing demographics: Problems and opportunities. In P. Altbach and K. Lomotey (eds.), The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 19-42.

Sutherland, M. (1990). Black faculty in white academia: The fit is an uneasy one. Western Journal of Black Studies 14: 17-23.

Thomas, R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirrning diversity. Harvard Business Review 68: 107-117.

Veilleux, F., and Tougas, F. (1989). Male acceptance of majority programs for women: The results of altruistic or egotistical motives? International Journal of Psychology 24: 485-496.

Willie, C. (1988). Initiation of desegregation litigation: A majority or minority respon- sibility. In J. Williams (ed.), Desegregating America's Colleges and Universities. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 103-111.

Witt, S. (1990). The Pursuit of Race and Gender Equity in American Academe. New York: Praeger.

Ze]ler, R., and Carmines, E. (1980). Measurement in the Social Sciences: The Link Between Theory and Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Majority and minority faculty perceptions in academe

Documents

Transcript of Majority and minority faculty perceptions in academe