ca. 92 83p. student - eric · 2013. 8. 2. · document resume ed 355 064 rc 019 004 author flores,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 355 064 RC 019 004

AUTHOR Flores, Juan M., Ed.TITLE Chicanos in Higher Education.INSTITUTION Association of Mexican American Educators, Inc.SPONS AGENCY Tomas Rivera Center, Claremont, CA.PUB DATE 92NOTE 83p.PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022)JOURNAL CIT Journal of the Association of Mexican American

Educators; 1992

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Teachers; Educational Experience;

*Educational Opportunities; *Educational Policy;Elementary Secondary Education; *Equal Education;*Higher Education; *Mexican Americans; MinorityGroups; Professors; Sex Discrimination; StudentFinancial Aid; Tenure; Women Faculty

IDENTIFIERS *Chicanos; Empowerment; Isolation (Professional);*Latinos

ABSTRACT

This "special theme" journal issue focuses on highereducation of Chicanos and Latinos. The journal includes the followingarticles: (1) "Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino Professors in U.S.Universities" (Hisauro Garza); (2) "Analysis of Tenure Among HispanicHigher Education Faculty" (Richard R. Verdugo); (3) "Experiences ofMultiple Marginality: A Case Study of Chicana 'Scholarship Women'"(Holguin Cuadraz); (4) "Hispanic Underrepresentation in HigherEducation: A Personal Perspective" (Mario L. M. Baca); (5) "PolicyIssues that Close Access to Higher Education: Toward the Empowermentof Latino/Chicano Youth" (Alberto M. Ochoa and Others); (6) "Accessor Deterrence? Student' Financial Aid and Low-Income Chicanos/Latinos"(Whitney Laughlin); and (7) "Induction Programs for BilingualTeachers: Addressing the Needs of Teachers in Language MinorityEducation" (Joan Wink and Juan M. Flores). (LP)

*************************************************:********************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

O .

SPECIAL

THEME

EDITION

1992

Chicanos inHigher Education

AMC k

F11100 IMUIVO

THE JOURNAL OF

THE ASSOCIATION OF

MEXICAN ANIERICIN

EDUCATORS, INC.

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION0,4Pce Or Em,cahonat Research and rhornvennentEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)C Trim document has been reproduced as

received from the person or oroarazaf (ononglnahno ItMinor changes have been made 10 ,morovereoroduct.on auatay

Powds of view %mons staled m trim dock,meat do not necessarav represent officialOERI posohon or poacY

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

e 2 VI .

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

BEST COPY AV/411LE

Journal of the Association ofMexican American Educators, Inc.

Editor

Dr. Juan M. Flores, California State University, Stanislaus

Associate Editor

Dr. Rene A. Merino, California State University, Sacramento

Guest Editor

Dr. Adalberto Aguirre, University of California, Riverside

Editorial Board

Dr. David Baral, Associate Dean, School of Education, University of the PacificDr. Bernice Bass de Martinez, Dean, School of Education, Seton Hall UniversityDr. Diane Cordero de Noriega, Associate Dean, Educational Support Services,

California State University, SacramentoDr. Alan Crawford, Professor, Teacher Education, California State University,

Los AngelesDr. Diana Mayer Demetrulias, Dean, School of Education, California State

University, StanislausDr. Dolores Escobar, Dean, School of Education, California State University,

San JoseDr. Leodoro Hernandez, Professor, Teacher Education, California State

University, StanislausDr. Finian McGinn, Adjunct Professor, California State University, FresnoDr. Susana Peregoy, Associate Professor, Teacher Education, San Francisco

State UniversityDr. Theresa Perez, Chair, Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Technology,

California State University, FresnoDr. Carol Urzua, Associate Professor, Teacher Education, Fresno Pacific CollegeDr. Atilano Valencia, Professor, Educational Research, Administration, and

Foundations, California State University, FresnoDr. James Vasquez, Professor, Teacher Education, University of Washington

Call for Manuscripts1993 Theme: Challenges of Diversity

Under the leadership of the Executive Board, the Association of Mexican American Educators(AMAE) annually publishes the Journal which deals with issues of importance to theeducation of Mexican American students. Articles deal with educational, social, political,cultural, and psychological issues. The Journal of the Association of Mexican AmericanEducators, Inc. is a refereed journal.

The selection of manuscripts will be conducted as follows:

1. Manuscripts will be judged on merit and relevance to the theme of the issue.2. Manuscripts should not have been previously published in journal form, nor should they be

under consideration by another journal at the time of submission.3. Each manuscript will be reviewed blindly by reviewers with expertise in the area treated by

the manuscript. Those recommended by the reviewers will then be considered by theeditorial board, which will make the final selections.

Manuscripts should be submitted as follows:

1. Three typewritten copies without name identification, but with a separate cover sheetincluding name, address, phone, and title must be submitted. All illustrations, charts, andgraphs should be camera-ready or on disk. Manuscripts can be returned only if accompaniedby a self-addressed, stamped envelope.

2. Manuscripts should be no longer than 15 double-spaced, typewritten pages, including tablesand graphs. They may be submitted in the form of narratives, research articles, short stories,poems, or book reviews. Manuscripts may also be submitted in Spanish. For writing andeditorial style, follow directions in the Publication Manual of the American PsychologicalAssociation (1983, third edition). References must follow APA style.

Send manuscripts by February 1, 1993 to:Dr. Juan M. Flores, Department of Teacher EducationCalifornia State University, Stanislaus801 W. Monte Vista AvenueTurlock, CA 95380

44-

The Journal of theAssociation of Mexican American Educators, Inc.

1992

Editor's CornerJuan M. Flores 4

Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino Professors in U.S. UniversitiesHisauro GarzaCalifornia State University, Fresno 6

Analysis of Tenure Among Hispanic Higher Education FacultyRichard VerdugoNational Education Association 23

Experiences of Multiple Marginality: A Case Study of Chicana "Scholarship Women"Holguin CuadrazUniversity of California, Santa Cruz 31

Hispanic Underrepresentation in Higher Education: A Personal PerspectiveMario L. M. Baca, ProfessorCalifornia State University, Fresno 44

BookmarksMarisol Baca 52

Policy Issues that Close Access to Higher Education: Towards theEmpowerment Of Latino/Chicano Youth

Alberto M. OchoaRuben W. EspinosaJesus NietoCalifornia State University, San Diego 53

Access or Deterrence? Student Financial Aid and its Effect on Hispanic StudentsWhitney LaughlinSouthwest College Horizons 60

I Come From A Country Not So Far AwayCecilia Carrasco 72

Induction Programs for Bilingual Teachers: Addressing the Needs ofTeachers in Language Minority Education

Joan WinkJuan M. FloresCalifornia State University, Stanislaus 73

The Editor's Corner

The current literature on the education of Chicanos and Latinos reveals a variety ofproblems and challenges facing our communities, particularly as they relate to higher education.It is with this extant literature in mind that the AMAE Journal decided to dedicate the currentissue of the journal to study the experiences of our communities in relation to higher education. Iam extremely pleased with the quality and variety of articles that have surfaced in this blind reviewprocess. It is with a significant sense of pride that we offer to you this current edition of the Journal.

The pipeline through the public schools to higher education for Chicanos and Latinos isgreatly constricted, and the trend does not seem to be improving, despite claims of some groups.Even when these students get through the K-12 pipeline, Chicanos and Latinos tend to under-enroll in the University of California and the California State University. A large number ofeligible students choose not to enroll in the CSU and the UC even though they have met all of therequirements. Baca and Ochoa et al., address some of the issues related to the recruitment andretention of Chicanos and Latinos in higher education and the significant gap that exists betweenthe needs of our communities and the extent to which higher education in California has addressedtheir needs. The funding reductions that we have recently experienced in California, particularlyas tbsy relate to higher education, cannot help but exacerbate an already difficult situation.

Once Chicano students arrive on college campuses, other difficulties present themselves,including the question of financing a college education. Laughlin eloquently describes theproblems that Chicano students experience related to financial aid. Often when students areprovided with financial aid to attend a university, the economic difficulties oftheir families do notdisappear into the background. The contributing role that the eldest children traditionally playin the Chicano family takes it toil, and financial aid that was intended for books often finds its wayto support a poverty stricken family. Thus, the responsibilities ofan older child to contribute tothe family often can conflict with the education of this student, and many often end up having toleave school.

Chicanos who are fortunate enough to enter graduate school and choose the route toacademia often end up with another set of problems. Garza and Verdugo very eloquently discusssome of the challenges and issues faced by Chicanos who choose to become professors in institutesof higher education. Many Chicano/Latino faculty express a sense of isolation and insulation thatthey experience at a variety of levels in the university. First, they are initially isolated by theirdiscipline. They tend to be represented in disciplines such as Ethnic Studies, Bilingual Educationor some other minority/language minority related discipline, disciplines whose validity is oftenquestioned by traditional academics. Second, they are also isolated by their academic peersbecause they are often the only minority member in their department, or in such small numbersas to minimize their impact. Finally, they tend to be isolated socially because of a lack of cohesivesupport groups for Chicano faculty across disciplines. The most significant manifestation of thisisolation is most evident in the lack of professional development that Chicago faculty oftenexperience, often resulting in being denied tenure, promotion or future professional opportunities.

Chicanas face an additional set of problems and issues. Holguin-Cuadraz does an excellentjob of analyzing the multiple barriers that Chicanas face on entering the scholarship world. TheChicana is faced with barriers related to race because of her ancestry, but she is also confrontedby sexism because of her gender. These are dissicult obstacles that need to be addressed if we arto increase the number of Chicanas entering academia.

The number of Chicanos entering higher education has actually decreased over the years,especially the number of Chicanos who have entered the teaching profession. This is particularlyproblematic at a time when minority children have become the majority of students in ourCalifornia public school classrooms According to Lisa Marcusson of Western New MexicoUniversity, Hispanic students in Los Angeles, California comprise 53% of the school population,but only 10% of the teachers are Hispanic. This totally skewed distribution of ChicanoLatinostudents and teachers results in a situation in which, according to Walter Mercer, we end upteaching white supremacy without saying a word. Wink and Flores discuss some recommendationsfor first year induction programs for bilingual teachers, a significant number of whom are Chicanoand Latino. There is indeed a crisis in our educational system for the Chicano community, andhigher education is a significant piece of this picture.

We are honored to have had the generous financial support for the publication of this journalissue from the Tomas Rivera Center of Trinity University. Under the direction of Dr. Ray Garzaand with the support of the Pew Foundation, the Center has created a mentor program in whichChicano academic faculty assist Chicano graduate students with the prepraratin of their doctoraldissertations as well as articles for journal editorial review. Some of the authorswhose articles arepublsihed in this issue have been participants in the Center's mentor programthe PewManuscript Project. We thank the Tomas Rivera Center for their generous support.

You can understand why the advisory board of the AMAE Journal decided that we neededto devote significant energy to the study of higher education as is relates to our communities. I amconvinced that this edition addresses issues of importance to all of us. I look forward to hearingfrom you regarding this edition of the Journal, as well as any other issues that are of importanceto you.

Juan M. giores

AMAE Journal, 1992

Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino Professorsin U.S. Universities

Hisauro Garza

The importance of Chicano/Latino professors on a nationalscale, particularly given theaccelerated demographicgrowth rates of Chicanos/Latinos in the United States(Figures 1 and 2), is withoutquestion (Bouvier and Martin,1985). Yet, little is currentlyknown or available on thisincreasingly important group.In particular, their status inuniversities and in the generalcommunity of scholars has beenlargely unassessed. Important-ly, there is a need to analyzethe role race and ethnicity playin the collegiality (or the lackof it) that takes place withinacademe.

As I show in this paper, notonly is academic work on raceand ethnicity seen as suspect,but race/ethnicity can act as acriterion for social placementin the lower segments or strataacross and within depart-ments.' That racism is aproblem in attaining equalemployment opportunities hasbeen well documented(Braddock and McPartland,

1986; Burstein, 1985; Alvarez,Lutterman & Associates, 1979).That this same process existsin the academy, although lessresearched, has also beendocumented (Garza, 1992,1984; Aguirre, 1987; Rochin &de la Torre, 1986; Wingfield,1982; Piliawsky, 1982; Myers,1977; Rafky, 1972).

In this article, I assess thestatus of Chicanos/Latinos inU.S. universities. This is doneby reporting how Latino facultyfeel about their treatment andthe status of their teaching andresearch in these universities.

National Latino FacultySurvey

Much of the data for thispaper come from varioussecondary sources. However,a significant part of theanalysis is based directly ondata from a national survey ofChicano/Latino faculty Iconducted in the first half of1987. The mail questionnairesurvey includes 238 Chicano/Latino faculty representing

four disciplines in four-yearcolleges and universities in thecontinental United States. Thedisciplines represented are: 1)education, 2) social sciences, 3)humanities, and 4) ethnicstudies. According to NationalResearch Council data,upwards of seventy percent ofthe annual awards of non-professional doctoral degreesare awarded to Chicanos andPuerto Ricans in education,social sciences and humanities.

The mailing list for thesurvey was obtained from TheNational Faculty Directory(Gale, 1987), a national listingof some 700,000 names of U.S.faculty in two- and four-yearcolleges and universities.

My thanks to Elizabeth Cohen andRefugio Rochin for their commentson an earlier version of this paper.This paper is dedicated to thememory of Dr. Ralph Guzman,political scientist and social activistat the University of California atSanta Cruz.

Hisauro Garza is Assistant Professor, Department of Chicanoand Latin American Studies, California State University, Fresno.

Garza 7

Figure 1

Hispanic Population GrowthU. S. 1970, 1980, 1990

Millions

Source: Garza, Hisauro. U.S. Census1970, 1980, 1990. Does not includeprobable undercount adjustment.

Other Non-Hisp93 6

Figure 2

Total U. S. Hispanic Population

1980

Hiscanic64

Source: Garza, Hisauro. Adapted fromU.S. Census, 1980, 1990. Does notInclude probable undercount adjustment.

Oahe Non HiSQ919

1990

Hispanic90

8 Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino Professors

The racial/ethnic/nationalbreakdown of the respondingfaculty in this survey is asfollows:

Mexican American/Chicano 116 (48.3%)

Mexican 13 (5.4%)Puerto Rican 17 (7.1%)Cuban American 26 (10.8%)Central & South

American 24(10.0 %)Spaniard 40 (16.7%)Other Latino/

Hispanic 2 (.8%)

Total 238(100%)

A 23-page questionnaire wasmailed in late March of 1987 toChicano/Latino faculty at theircollege addresses in academicfields and specific departments(Table 1). Two waves of follow-up reminder cards were thenmailed, encouraging them tocomplete the questionnaires.In the end, the survey had anadjusted return rate of 63percent. Most of the non-responses or eliminatedquestionnaires were fromfaculty not Spanish surnameby birth but through marriage.

Chicanos/Latinos andOther "Minorities" in U.S.Professoriate

How represented areminorities among theprofessorate? The partici-pation of minorities in highereducation as university facultyis significantly lower than theirparticipation in graduateeducation (Garza, 1992, 1984;Adams & Wadsworth, 1989;

Brown, S., 1988; Thomas, 1987;Pruitt, 1985, 1983; AmericanCouncil on Education, 1985;Brown, Rosen, & Olivas, 1980).It is also low among those whoearn academic doctorates.Graduate education and receiptof doctorate are two importantfactors in the production offaculty (Figure 3). Thefollowing was the racial andethnic breakdown of faculty inthe U.S. in 1983 and 1989(recalculated and adapted fromU.S. EEOC Higher EducationStaff Information, EEO -6data):

1983White (non-Hispanic) 90.2%Black (non-Hispanic) 4.1%Hispanic 1.6 %Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6 %American Indian/

Alaskan Native .3 %

1989White (non-Hispanic) 86.6%Black (non-Hispanic) 4.5 %Hispanic 2.0 %Asian/PacificIslander 4.7 %American Indian/

Alaskan Native .4 %

A total of six percent of theU S. professorate in 1983 wascomprised of African Ameri-cans, Hispanics, and AmericanIndians. However, these sameminorities comprised 19 per-cent of the U.S. population inthe 1980 census (NationalCommission on StudentFinancial Assistance, 1983, p.75).2 Hence, overall, thesethree minority groups wereonly about 1/3 (one-third) aswell represented in the faculty

as they were in the 1980population. When theirrespective proportions of theU.S. population are taken intoconsideration, Chicanos/Latinos are the most under-represented of all minoritygroups in the U.S. profes-soriate. Furthermore, pre-liminary results of the 1990U.S. Census indicate acontinued dramatic growth forChicanos/Latinos (Figures 1and 2). Given this demographicsituation, it is quite likely thatthe representation of Chicanos/Latinos in higher education willhave worsened even more.

Based on these trend data,it would appear that the so-called "minority" groups havebeen gaining while the"majority" group (non-Hispanicwhites) has been losing ground.While this may indeed appearto be the case, a closer analysisreveals a slightly differentstory. Figure 4 combines boththe 1983 and 1989 faculty data.However, in this chart I havereworked these same per-centages in such a way as tostandardize or adjust them forthe proportion each groupmakes up of the entire U.S.population. This seems to be abetter way of gauging absoluteprogress or gains in this arearather than simple rawpercentages.3 This figure tellsa much more sobering story.Things have not only failed toimprove for racial/ethnic"minority" groups, but haveactually worsened forHispanics (decreasing from .3in 1983 to .2 in 1989). What isperhaps even more grave is

Garza 9

Figure 3

Annual Doctorates in the U. S.by Race/Ethnicity 1975, 1980, 1985, 1989

75-85 adjusted for '80 Pop, '89 for '902I

1.51.1 1.1

1975

Non-Hisp White

Asian/Pac. Isl.

19801.0 Perfect Representation

1E:2 Chicano

EE Puerto Rican

Source: Garza, Hisauro. Adapted fromU.S. Census, 1980, 1990, and NationalResearch Council '75, '80, '85, and '89.

Figure 4

1989

African American

Full-Time Professors (All Ranks)by Race/Ethnicity 1983, 1989

'83 adjusted for '80 Pop., '89 for '90

3 2.42.5

2-1.5 1.1

1 0.4 0.30.5

01983 1989

1.0Perfect Numerical Representation

UM Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Source: Garza, Hisauro. Adapted fromU.S. EEOC, 1983-84, 1989-90; and U.S.Census 1980 and 1990.

MU African American

IM Asian/Pacific Isl.

10 Dilemmas of Chicano and Latino Professor;

that this statistic of .2 in 1989is actually for the broadercategory "Hispanic." If thesedata were available for theChicano or Mexican originsubgroup, the figure might beeven lower for this group.

Objectivity, Scholarshipand Social Advocacy

The greatest surge in thenumbers of minority academicsbegan to take place during thesocially turbulent 1960s. It wasa period characterized byintense social pressures forsocial relevance and politicalcommitment particularly onthe part of leaders, intellectualsand other elites. Racial/ethnicscholars often found them-selves unable, if not unwilling,to play the role of detachedsocial analysts. As I willshortly show, on the one hand,they often could not, even ifthey wanted to. On the other,as members of these groups,many had themselves ex-perienced social inequity andwere more predisposed towardactivism and social change.

The larger social andpolitical context of minoritysocial movements of the 1960s,for example, tended toinfluence or coerce its young,emerging intellectuals/scholarsoften into assumingnationalistic postures indefense of their communitiesin both their social actions andin their written works. Theywere almost forced by historicaland structural circumstancesto play a more direct advocacyrole versus the more typical

detached scholarly roilnormally given to intellectualsand scholars. This is not meantto imply that all the emergingminority intellectuals felt thesepressures and adopted com-mitted and engaged modes. Formany, this larger politicalcontext, coupled with the oftenunrealistic and unfair expecta-tions of them by the university,create conflicting demands andexpectations. This conflict, thatmight be characterized by "rolebalance, marginality" (Hughes,1945; Stonequist, 1937; Park,1928) or "status inconsistency"(Lenski, 1954; Goodenough,n.d.), creates a situation wherethe newcomers to academeoften find themselves playingthe role of Simmel's (1950)"stranger" and outsider.

Direct commitment, advo-cacy and action were seen asand probably wereabsolutelynecessary. Minority scholarswere (are) placed in a dilemmabetween being a strictacademic, a scholar-advocate,an advocate-scholar or a strictadvocate. This dilemma, Isuspect, continues to hauntmany of them today. Theexpectations and pressures ofthe university have generallybeen at odds with those of theseracial/ethnic minority com-munities. On the one hand,the university demands thecultivation of objectivedetachment, while on the otherminority communities needpractical involvement in socialaction for political change. Thislarger social and politicalcontext and these kinds ofattendant social pressures have

'noved many scholars froma_iong these groups to seekans st.rs and skills that directlytranslate into meaningfulresolution to the social injusticeand inequality facing theircommunities. This process hasprompted many minorityscholars to move into racial/ethnic topics as areas ofsubstantive research in theirown academic careers.

These scholars' specializa-tions are an important factorin the departmental concentra-tion and segmentation ofChicano/Latino faculty. MostChicanos/Latinos in the socialsciences, education andhumanities are involved inresearch on Chicano/Latino-related areas. For example, inthe 1987 National LatinoFaculty Survey sample, two outof three Chicano/Latino facultyin these three disciplines wrotedoctoral dissertations dealingwith their own racial/ethnicgroup, Latin America, minori-ties, or other very closelyrelated topics.

It seems that it is preciselythese research areas andperspectives which help keepthem in the role of second classacademic citizens. This type ofresearch and involvement withtheir respective communities,as we shall shortly see,continues to be negativelyevaluated within the halls ofacademia. Furthermore, thisascription to secondary statusis also fueled by the propensityof these scholars to beconcentrated and segmentedwithin and across academicdepartments (aochin & de la

Garza 11

Torre, 1986). They tend to beseen as concentrations andsegments of ethnic politics,rather than those of legitimatescholarship. Thus, they arecaught in a classic double-bindsituation.

Nonetheless, the increasingnumber of Chicano scholars, aslimited as this number may be,have tended to have a positiveimpact on social scholarshipand research. Since the mid-1960s, there has been anemerging and growingscholarship that is unique inthis country's history. Scholarsfrom within the Chicano group,as have African Americans andother racial/ethnic minorities,are now contributing to re-interpreting the history of thegroup and challenging modelsfrom the social sciences. Manyof those models, which wereeither derived from studies ofChicanos or applied to them,often came from "culturallydeterminist" positions,assumptions and stereotypes.Those works generally positedthat there was somethinginherently culturally- orvaluatively-"deficient" inChicanos which made them notsucceed in society in generaland in school in particular. Thenew focus of these Chicanoworks which began in the 1960sincreasingly pinpoints andanalyzes institutional barriersand racial/ethnic discrimina-tion as the principal detrimentsto success and upward mobilitywithin this community.Importantly, these newerworks deal with notions aboutthe diversity (heterogeneity) of

the culture and values of thiscommunity as opposed to theoften homogenetic notionsabout a traditional, uni-dimensional, "deficient" orpathological Mexican culture ofprevious social science models.However, these subjects andperspectives of social researchnot only challenge manyestablished academic dis-courses, but because they arealso new to academe tend to beviewed askance withinacademia. Thus, even withinan institution that prides itselfin seeking knowledge andthereby being receptive to newideas, there is resistance tothese particular new ideaswhich these minoritynewcomers bring to academe.

Race, Ethnicity .IndAcademic Segni f: itation

There is no ,,aestion thatChicanos/Latinos tend to beheavily concentrated in onlycertain departments, andtypically in the lower sectors ofthose departments. Withrespect to the concentration ofChicanos/Latinos in certaindisciplines and sub-areas,Rochin & de la Torre (1986)found that Chicano faculty tendto be heavily concentrated inChicano Studies and relatedprograms and departments andsub-specialties (e.g., Spanish,Bilingual Education, etc.).They state that 41 percent ofthe Hispanic faculty in theUniversity of California systemin the social sciences andhumanities are actually

employed by Chicano Studiesprograms.

Similarly, their participa-tion on departmental or

mpus-wide committees isoften circumscribed by racial/ethnic factors. In a ques-tionnaire survey of 159 Chicanofaculty in the southwest,Aguirre (1987) found that 43percent of assistant, associateand full professors combinedare involved in affirmativeaction or Mexican-Americancommunity-related committeeson campus, and 57 percent oncommittees concerning therecruitment and retention ofChicano students. Thesefigures are almost identical tothose in the 1987 NationalChicano/Latino Faculty Surveyin the present study. Whenasked, in an open-endedquestion, what kinds of otherpositions similar to dean,department chair, director oforganized research unit, etc.respondents had held on theircampuses, 78 checked off thisquestion and specified whatkind of other position this was.Of these 78 open-endedresponses, 57.7 percent werevarious directorships, chairs,coordinatorships, etc. ofprograms concerned exclu-sively with such things aslanguage, minorities, culture,study abroad, affirmativeaction, etc.

Rochin and de la Torre(1986) convincingly show thatplacement in Chicano Studiesprograms and these kinds ofcommittee participation havealmost literally become theunofficial way of implementing


affirmative action mandatesand guidelines, becoming a sortof affirmative action "dumpingground," separate from andwith little interconnection toand discourse with the rest ofthe scholarly community of theuniversity. Given thissituation, it would seem thatthe motivation by those inuniversity decision-makingpower is to comply withaffirmative action requisitesand pressures rather thanhiring minorities in their ownright. It is this phenomenonwhich has at times beenreferred to as the "ghetto-ization" or, as in the presentcase, the "barrioization" of theuniversity (Garza, 1988).

ViewsTon Scholarship andUniversity Life

In order to compare theviews of Chicano/Latinoscholars and non-Chicanos/Latinos on a number of issues,data from the 1984 Carnegienational faculty survey (TheChronicle of Higher Education,1985) are used in the presentanalysis to compare with the1987 National Latino FacultySurvey. When the Chicano/Latino survey questionnairewas designed, it was developedwith this comparative purposein mind. Therefore, a fewidentical or very similarquestions from the Carnegiesurvey were included in theLatino survey. Much of whatfollows is based on thesecomparisons.

Scholarship

Perhaps it is appropriate tobegin this section on facultyviews with those views dealingwith the basic hallmark of whatmost faculty do in universities:scholarly teaching andresearch. Our interest here isto find out how these scholarssee themselves and how theybelieve they are seen by othersin academe.

Chicano/Latino scholarsbelieve in the role of thescientific and scholarlyenterprise at levels as high orhigher than non-minorityprofessors. For example, Table2 shows that 89.7 percent ofChicanos/Latinos and 78.5percent of professors overall(Carnegie data) considerthemselves intellectuals.While no Carnegie survey dataare available for comparative

Table 1

Academic Fields and Departments Sampledin the 1987 National Latino Faculty Survey

Field/Department N Percent

HumanitiesSpanish Language & LiteratureHistory

127 53.2

Education 50 20.8Social Sciences

Anthropology"Political Science/Government'Sociology

45 19.1

Ethnic StudiesMexican American/Chicano StudiesLatino/Hispanic StudiesPuerto Rican StudiesCuban Studies

Comparative Cultures-To

16 6.9

ta 238 100.0

Garza 13

purposes on this question, 83.4percent of Chicanos/Latinosfeel they "share in a traditionof scientific research," and 84.9percent are "committed to therules and standards forscientific pursuits." However,although they believe verystrongly in the academicenterprise, they do not believethe academy believes in them.One out of every four (23.7percent) Chicanos/Latinos donot "feel accepted as scholarson an equal basis" by theirdepartments. Also, Chicano/Latino responses are some-what more positive to the twoquestions which ask about"shading] in a tradition ofscientific research" (83.4percent) and that they are`committed to the rules andstandards for scientificpursuits" (84.9 percent), thento "shading] in a particularsense of belonging to a scientificcommunity" (73.8 percent).This difference suggests that,while they are committed tothese academic/scientific idealsand have appropriated thesescholarly ideals for themselvesin their own academic careers,they do not feel they belong tothat community which upholdsand promotes these idealstheuniversity.

Despite the fact that thesescholars are often seen as beingmore interested in "minorityservice" (Suinn & Witt, 1982)and minority- or Chicano/Latino-related advocacy bynon-Hispanic and non-minorityfaculty, they actually subscribeto broader, traditional aca-demic and scientific values

often at rates higher than donon-minority faculty (see Table2). However, what is somewhatsurprising and salutary in allof this is that they subscribe tothese traditional academicbeliefs despite the fact thatmany of them are concentrat-ed in minority and/or Chicano/Latino-related departmentsand subareas (e.g., Spanishlanguage and literature,Chicano Studies, Politics andSociology of the ChicanoCommunity, etc.); which onewould think would produce in-group biased values andoutlooks. Given that the primemotivation for hiring Chicanos/Latinos seem to often beaffirmative action require-ments (Rochin & de la Torre,1986), it seems reasonable toconclude that Chicano/Latinofaculty are often seen primarilyas affirmative action cases andonly secondarily (if at all) asscholarly equals, or as scholarsin their own right.

Another perhaps even moreimportant area on which theysignificantly differ is in thebelief of the relationshipbetween personal politicalvalues and scholarship.Although the survey questionswere slightly differentlyworded, there is comparabilitybetween the Chicano/Latinoand the overall Carnegiefaculty data. Sixty-five percent(65.6 percent) of Chicanos/Latinos and only 27.9 percentof faculty overall believe that"a person's research inevitablyreflects his or her politicalvalues." Yet, despite believingthat personal political values

are implicit in a person'sresearch, Chicanos/Latinossubscribe in as high or highernumber to traditional notionsabout scholarship and intellec-tualism.

However, as Table 3 shows,two out of every five (43.5percent) Chicano and PuertoRican professors combined feelthat research by members oftheir own racial/ethnic groupis seen as academically inferiorand illegitimate within theirdepartments. This perceptionholds even more strongly in thehigher prestige universities(50.0 percent) compared tothose with lesser prestige (29.3percent).4 Related ly, two outof every five (39.5 percent) ofChicanos and Puerto Ricansfeel that research on their ownracial/ethnic group is also seenthis way outside their univer-sities in the larger world ofscholarship overall. However,faculty in high prestige schoolsare significantly more likely tofeel this way (47.8 compared to26.4 percent). In a relatedquestion, a full 85.6 percent ofChicanos and Puerto Ricansfelt that research on their owngroup is either rated as beingof low quality (45.2 percent), orof high(er) (40.4 percent)quality when Anglos do thiskind of research. This meansthat the rest, or only 14.4percent actually think this kindof research is either highly (5.8percent) rated no matter whodoes it, or high(er) when doneby Chicanos/Latinos (8.9percent). This suggests thatthe negative evaluation of thiskind of research is perceived


by Chicanos and Puerto Ricansas biased against both the topicof research as well as theminority person doing it.

Teaching and Research

As stated earlier in thispaper, two out of every threeChicanos/Latinos teaching ineducation, humanities, socialsciences and ethnic studieswrote dissertations dealingwith their own group, Latin

America, minorities or veryclosely related topics. Moreimportantly, three out of everyfour of this group currentlyteach courses dealing withtheir own racial/ethnic groupand; or other Latino/Hispanicmatters (Table 4). Of thosecurrently conducting research,85 percent are involved inresearch concerning their ownracial/ethnic Hispanic group;and of these, over half (57percent) spend from 41 to 100

percent of their weeklyresearch time on this samesubject (Table 5).

Slightly over half (57.7percent) of Latino/Hispanicfaculty in four-year colleges anduniversities applied forresearch funds within the lasttwo years either as principalinvestigator or as co-principalinvestigator (Table 6).Chicanos/Latinos or Hispanicsin the social sciences areconsiderably more likely to

Table 2

Comparison of Academic and Political Views of US Professorsby Total US Faculty and Hispanic Faculty

1984, 1987

"Agree with reservations" to"Strongly Agree"

LatinoSurvey Question Faculty All Faculty

1987* 1984**n my le I , a person s researc

inevitably reflects his or her politicalvalues. (Carnegie version: In mysubject, a person's teaching andresearch . . . .

B. I consider myself an intellectual.C. I consider myself a scholar.

As an academic, I feel I

D. share in a tradition of scientificresearch.

E. share in a particular sense of belongingto a scientific community.

F am committed to the rules andstandards for scientific pursuits.

G. In my department, I feel accepted as ascholar on an equal basis.

65.6

89.793.1

83.4

73.8

84.9

76.3

27.9

78.5

/* Garza, H. (1987). [National Latino Faculty Survey.] Unpublished

raw data. :-** Chronicle of Higher Education. (1985). 1984 Carnegie National

Faculty Survey

Garza 15

Table 3

Perceptions of Chicano and Puerto Rican Faculty on'.o - tine Group-Based Research is Rated in Academic,

by University Prestige, 1987

Qt actionAll

UniversitiesHigh **PrestigeUniversities

Low **PrestigeUniversities

N ** % N ** % [ N ** %A. Research by members of my

own racial or ethnic group isseen as academicallyinferior and illegitimatewithin my department

124 54 43.5 68 34 50.0 58 17 29.3

B. Research on the topic of myown racial or ethnic group isseen as academicallyinferior and illegitimatewithin my department

124 49 39.5 69 33 47.8 57 15 26.3

C. In your opinion, how do youthink research on your ownethnic/Hispanic group isgenerally rated by those indecision making positionsin most academic depts ofUS universities?

104 56 49

Low no matter what personor group does it

47 45.2 31 55.4 18 36.7

High(er) when Anglos ornon-Hispanics do it

42 40.4 19 33.9 1 22 44.9

High(er) when members ofmy own ethnic or Latino/Hispanic group do it

9 8.7 5 8.9 4 8.2

High no matter what personor group does it

6 5.8 1 1.8 5 10.2

Source: Garza, H. (1987). [National Latino Faculty Survey]. Unpublishedraw data.Answering "Agree with reservations" to "Strongly agree"

** See Endnote #4.


percent compared to 2.4percent) where appliedresearch is more common.

Social Pressures and TimeDemands

Another important area inwhich Chicano/Latino scholarsseem to stand out among mostuniversity academics is in thepressures and demands thatare made on their time. Sincequite often they may be theonly Chicano/Latino in thedepartment, they are highlysought after to participate in aplethora of minority-relatedcommittee meetings. Amongthe top reasons (ranked fifthout of 18 reasons) psychologydepartment chairpersons statefor the lack of tenure amongminorities is "Being given tooheavy teaching/advising/committee load" (Suinn &Witt,1982).5 Moreover, becauseof their singular status, nearbyLatino communities anduniversity students also makeexcessive demands on theirtime. For example, three outof every four (73 percent)Chicano and Puerto Ricanfaculty combined feel they havegreater demands made on theirtime than do "Anglo" or non-Hispanic white professors.

These types of "minorityservice" are not used toevaluate the minority scholarfor tenure and promotion.Moreover, as Suinn and Witt(1982) note, "minority service,'when used, is negativelyevaluated. "Too much minorityservice" was seen by psychologydepartment chairpersons as

the number one obstacle tominorities receiving tenure(Suinn & Witt,1982).

riere can be no doubt thatthe extent of extra pressuresand demands from activepolitical minority communitiesfar exceeds those of the averageprofessor. For example,monumental efforts are oftenmade and energies expendedby young Chicano and PuertoRican scholars in attemptingto "legitimate" their researchtopics and perspectives. Thisconstantly open question oflegitimacy (Garza, 1992, 1984;Rochin & de la Torre, 1986),combined with the battles fortenure, often mean that theseyoung scholars often encounter"no-win," personally and pro-fessionally destructive situa-tions. In addition to teaching,committee work, research andwriting, obligations fromChicano/Latino students andcommunity for attention, meanthat they are often stretched tcthe limits with little or noinstitutional support orrewards for their efforts.

The various fronts on whichthese newcomer scholars haveto "do battle" are often so variedand numerous as to make thestrained, hectic pace of themodal young "white" professorin a typical department seemas if he or she is "having iteasy." Besides going "atbreakneck speed," they oftenfind themselves exhausted,frustrated, discouraged, andwondering if it is all worth it(Garza, 1984). As RichardRobbins (1974) states in hisshort biography of Charles S.

Johnson, the eminentsociologist from the AfricanAmerican community at theUniversity of Chicago in theearly 1900s:

Given the depth andpervasiveness of racism inthe United States, if a manor woman is a historian andblack, a sociologist andblack, then he or she iscompelled to work out adistinctive role-balancebetween scholarship andadvocacy, between creativityand commitment. . . .Whatever the balanceachieved, precarious orseemingly serene, the innercosts exacted have oftenbeen high for a black scholar.(1974, pp. 57-58)

More recently, a compara-tive workload study in 1990 offaculty in the California StateUniversity system and othercomparable universities acrossthe country, found that racial/ethnic minority professors aremore likely to have heavieruniversity academic loads(CSU Faculty Workload Study,1990). This does not even beginto address the pressures fortheir community involvementfrom their respective albeitneedy surrounding communi-ties. Yet these "extra-curricular activities" directlyimpact the amount of time theyhave to do the necessaryresearch and writing, scimportant to their academicmobility and survival. Suchactivities are most often notevaluated as part of their

Garza 17

Table 4

How Often Chicano and Puerto Rican Faculty (Combined)in Four-Year Colleges and Universities Teach Classes

on Subject of Own Ethnic Group and/or Hispanics,by Academic Field, 1987

Chicano/Puerto Rican Faculty

How Often Education Humanities Social Ethnic TotalSciences Studies

Never to 16 8 11 1 36Rarely 36.3 19.0 42.3 7.7 28.8

Sometimes to 28 34 15 12 89Always 63.7 81.0 57.3 92.3 71.2

Total 44 42 26 13 125100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Garza, H. (1987). [National Latino Faculty Survey]. Unpublishedraw data, 1987.

tenure and promotion packageby tenure and promotioncommittees. It seems that,particularly in those cases inwhich minorities are heavilyinvolved in these types ofactivities, they are more apt tohave inherently extra-academic evaluations enterinto the equation eitherformally or informally, sincethey are seen as "spending toomuch time in minority service."There can be no doubt thatthese types of contradictorymessages i.e., hired with theknowledge that the Chicano/Latino scholar is engaged inracial/ethnic research on theone hand, has morecommunity-based demands onhis or her time, and on theother, negatively evaluated fortheir "minority service" inprofessorial recruitment,placement and promotion placethe minority scholar at a cleardisadvantage. They are thusoften caught in a "no-win"situation.

Conclusions and PolicyImplications

I have tried to show that: 1)Chicanos/Latinos continue tobe the most underrepresentedracial/ethnic minority group inthe U.S. professoriate; 2)substantial numbers of theChicano/Latino group areconcentrated in only certainfields of the academy, creatinga sort of "academic barrio" orminority "dumping ground"; 3)this faculty subscribes tointellectual and academicvalues at rates as high orhigher than non-Chicano/Latino faculty; 4) Chicano/Latino faculty have addedpressures and demands ontheir time which, whenconsidered for tenure andpromotion matters, arenegatively evaluated; ",)Chicano/Latino faculty are iarfrom satisfied with thetreatment they receive in theuniversity; and relatedly 6)racial/ethnic group-related

research continues to be seenas academically illegitimateand of inferior scholarlyquality, and that thosejudgments by those in academicdecision making positions oftenextend to minority scholarsthemselves.

There is no question that thesituation at all levels of theeducation continuum from highschool to graduate schu. anddoctorate are far from optimumfor minorities. These low levelsof success seriously impact theproduction and recruitment"pipeline" of qualified andtalented academics andresearchers from minoritycommunities, and quite likelyhave negative ripple effects indiscouraging future genera-tions of minorities fromaspiring into higher educationand university teaching andresearch.

The need for scholars andresearchers from within thesegroups is extremely important.They play key roles as research-


ers, lecturers, advisors andspokespersons oftentimes onissues concerning Chicanos/Latinos and racial/ethnicminorities. These are all issueswhich become increasinglypressing as these groupscontinue to dramaticallyincrease in population size andas important national groups.

Minority faculty areinstrumental in sensitizingeducational, governmental andrelated agencies to minorities'educational needs by focusinguniversity and nationalattention on previouslyneglected issues and topics.They also help create aculturally diverse, relevant,receptive and supportiveuniversity setting for minoritystudents as well. Thisprofessoriate often plays keyroles in attracting, retainingand graduating these students.Besides contributing generallythrough their roles as re-searchers and teachers to theadvancement of learning andculture, they also directly

contribute to the personaldevelopment of the youngminds and leaders of eachgeneration. The presence ofthese scholars on campusmakes the experience andexpectations of Chicano/Latinoundergraduate and graduatestudents that much moremeaningful in general andcredible in particular. Asscholars who may havethemselves struggled to attaintheir own education and career,they are in particularlystrategic positions to providethe necessary and meaningfulrole models, mentoring andmotivation necessary for manyChicano/Latino and otherminority students to stay andsucceed in college. However,colleges and universities needto acknowledge this specialresource and develop policiesfor incorporating these "extraskills" in tenure and promotiondecisions.

Changing this less thanoptimal situation of Chicanos/Latinos and other minorities

in higher education and in theprofessoriate will take somestrong medicine. Changes needto take place in recruitment,admissions, and hiring.Equally as important, if notmore important, significantchanges will need to beimplemented within univer-sities in treatment andevaluation of minorities andtheir scholarship. Relatedly,academic apertures andinnovations will need to bemade which both allow forthese different perspectives aswell as share decision makingpower with these new actorson the academic scene.

The world, but particularlythis nation, is generally akaleidoscope, a mixing bowl, arainbow of people, nations andcultures. The very basis of thefounding of this nation wasdiversity. It is, after all, thisextraordinary diversity ofpeoples, cultures, perspectives,skills, etc. all working togetherin the same nation (sort ofunder the same roof) that gives

Table 5

Percent of Total Weekly Research Time Devotedby Hispanic Professors to Subject of Own Ethnic

and/or other Latino/Hispanic Group(s)

Research by

Percent time All Latino/Hispanic

Chicano/ PuertoRican

Other Latino/HispanicGroups

0 (None) 23 (15.0) 19 (20.0) 4 (7.2)

1-40% 55 (35.9) 29 (30.5) 26 (46.4)

Total n=151 (100.0) n=95 (100.0) n=56 (100.0)

Source: Garza, H. (1987). [National Latino Faculty Survey]. Unpublishedraw data, 1987.

4 ,)

Garza 19

Table 6

Research by Hispanic Faculty atFour-Year Colleges and Universities

in the US, 1987

Research Rank All Latino/ Chicano Puerto Cuban Central/ SpanishArea Hispanics Rican South

AmericanCo/Prin - 121 (57.7) 67 (58.3) 10 (68.8) 8 (32.0) 10 (43.5) 25 (62.5)cipal n=210 n=115 n=17 n=25 n=23 n=40Investi-gator (a)Basic 1 175 (81.8) 86 (78.2) 13 (76.5) 23 (92.0) 19 (82.6) 34 (87.2)Research(b)

n=214 n=110 n=17 n=25 n=23 n=39

Ethnic 2 109 (51.2) 69 (62.2) 8 (47.1) 13 (54.2) 8 (36.4) 11. (28.2)Research(c)

n=213 n=111 n=17 n=24 n=22 n=39

Applied 3 71 (33.8) 52 (47.3) 7 (43.8) 3 (12.5) 4 (18.2) 5 (13.2)(Community)

n=210 n=110 n=16 n=24 n=22 n=38

Research(d) .

Source: Garza, H. (1987). [National Latino Faculty Survey]. Unpublished rawdata, 1987.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Survey Question: Did you apply for funds as the principal or co-principalinvestigator during the last two years?Survey Question: Are you presently engaged in any independent researchundertaken primarily to advance basic knowledge in your discipline?Survey Question: Are you presently engaged in a research project exclusivelyor primarily related to the study of your own ethnic group and/or other Latino/Hispanic group(s)?

(d) Survey Question: Are you presently engaged in independent research undertakenprimarily for applied or community-oriented purposes?

1. Independent research undertaken primarily to advance basic knowledge in mydiscipline.

2. A research project exclusively or primarily related to the study of your ownethnic group and/or other Latino/Hispanic group(s)?

3. Independent research undertaken primarily for applied or community-orientedpurposes?

the United States its distinctivenational character. It is trulytime, particularly given themany eastern Europeannations' example (with theirdiverse cultural and nationalgroups) of seeking democracy,to include in our own nation'snotion of democracy thecultural democracy so stronglyadvocated for this country by

Horace Kallen (1915, 1924)three quarters of a century ago.Differences and diversity arenot this nation's weakness;they are its strength.

Short of serious andconcerted efforts in these areas,with the appropriate commit-ment of necessary resources, itis doubtful the secondary socialstatus of "minority" scholars

0f.A.

will attenuate anytime soon northeir social scholarship receivethe acceptance it deserves. Leftunchecked, these problems willcontinue to divide the academyalong racial/ethnic lines.Moreover, Chicano/Latino andother "minority" professors willcontinue to feel as unwelcomeoutsiders to academe, anduniversities will continue to


miss great opportunities forseriously enfranchising,incorporating and utilizing arich, new resource. Universi-ties who persist with "businessas usual" will thus continue thecultural, intellectual, andstructural lag between thegiven and the possible, betweenthe past and the future.

References

Adams, M. & Wadsworth E. (Eds.).(1989). The role of the faculty inmeeting the national need forAfrican-American, AmericanIndian and Latino Scholars. StonyBrook, NY: State University ofNew York.

Aguirre, A., Jr. (1987). Aninterpretative analysis of Chicanofaculty in academe. Social ScienceJournal, 24, (1), 71-81.

Alvarez, R., Lutterman, K. G, &Associates. (1979). Discriminationin organizations. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

American Council on Education.(1985). Minorities in highereducation: Fourth annual statusreport, 1985. Office of MinorityConcerns. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Bouvier, L. F. & Martin, P. (1985).Population changeand California'sfuture. Washington, DC:Population Reference Bureau, Inc.

Braddock, J. H. & McPartland, J. M.(1986). How minorities continue tobe excluded from equal employmentopportunities: Research on labormarket and institutional barriers.Center for Social Organization ofSchools. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity.

Brown, G. N., Rosen, N. L., Hill, S. T.,& Oliva', M. A. (1980) Thecondition of education for HispanicAmericans. Washington, DC:National Center for EducationStatistics.

Brown, S. V. (1988) Increasingminority faculty: An elusive goal.Minority Graduate Education

Project. Princeton, New Jersey:Educational Testing Service.

Burstein, P. (1985). Discrimination,jobs, and politics: The struggle forequal employment in the UnitedStates, 1940-1980. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

California Faculty Association. (1990).CSU faculty workload study.Fullerton, California: CaliforniaState University.

California Postsecondary EducationCommission 1981 faculty dataobtained via personalcorrespondence with University ofCalifornia President's Office, April14,1986. N o specific source citationindicated on data tables.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies inHigher Education. 1(976). Aclassification of institutions ofhigher education. CarnegieFoundation for the Advancementof Teaching. Berkeley: CarnegieCouncil on Policy Studies in HigherEducation.

Chronicle ofHigherEducation. (1985,December 18). New Carnegie datashow faculty members unt.about the state of academe andtheir own careers.

Gale Research Company. (1987). Thenational faculty directory. Detroit,MI: Gale Research Co.

Garza, H., (1992) Academic power,discourse, and legitimacy: Minorityscholars in U.S. universities. InMary Romero (Ed.) Proceedings ofthe National Association forChicano Studies (NACS)Conference. CommunityEmpowerment and ChicanoScholarship. .

Garza, H., (1988, Fall-Winter) The`barrioization' of Hispanic faculty.Educational Record .

Garza, H. (1987). [National LatinoFaculty Survey]. Unpublished rawdata.

Garza, H. (1984). Nationalism,Consciousness, and Social Change:Chicano Intellectual s i n the UnitedStates. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

Goodenough, W. H. (n.d). Rethinking`status' and 'role'. In MichaelBanton (Ed) The relevance of

models in social anthropology.London: Tavistock.

Hughes, E. C. (1945, March).Dilemmas and contradictions ofstatus. American Journal ofSociology, 50.

Kallen, H. M. (1924) Culture anddemocracy in the United States.New York: Boni and Liveright.

Kallen, H. M. (1915, February 18,25).Democracy versus the melting pot.The Nation.

Lenski, G. E. (1954, August). Statuscrystallization: A non-verticaldimension of social status.American Sociological Review, 19

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociologicalimagination. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Myers, S. L. Jr. (1977,June). Personaltestimony: The agony of the Blackscholar in the white world. PhiDelta Kappan, 58,(10).

National Commission on StudentFinancial Assistance. (1983). Signsof Trouble and Erosion: A Reporton Graduate Education in America.Washington, DC; New York Officeof External Affairs, New YorkUniversity Distributor.

National Research Council. (1989).Summary Report, 1989. Office ofScientific and EngineeringPersonnel, Doctorate Records File.Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

National Research Council, (1985)Summary Report, 1985. Office ofScientific and EngineeringPersonnel, Doctorate Records File.Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.



Park, R. E. (1928, May). HumanMigration and the Marginal Man.American Journal of Sociology,33(6).

Garza 21

Piliawsky, M. (1982) Exit 13:Oppression and racism inacademia Boston: Southend Press.

Pruitt, A. S. (1985). Discrimination inrecruitment, admission, andretention of Minority Graduatestudents. The Journal of NegroEc'.-acation,54(4).

Pruitt, A. S. (1983) Does minoritygraduate education have a future?Planning and Changing, 14(1).

Rafky, D. M. (1972, December). TheBlack scholar in the academicmarketplace. Teachers CollegeRecord, 74(2).

Robbins, R. (974) Charles S. Johnson.In James E. Blackwell and MorrisJanow:tz (Eds.), Black Sociologists.Chi._ago: University of ChicagoPress.

Rochin, R. I. & de la Tone. A. (1986).Chicano studies and affirmativeaction in higher education:Complementari ti es and prevailingissues. mimeographed. ChicanoStudies Program. Davis:University of California.

Simmel, G. (1950 ). The Stranger(originally, 1908). In Kurt Wolff(Ed.) The Sociology of GeorgSimmel (pp. 402-408). Glencoe,Illinois: Free Press.

Smith, A. (1981). The Ethnic Revival.New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Stonequist, E.V. (1937). Themarginalman: A study in personality andculture conflict. San Francisco,California: Charles Scribner'sSons.

Suinn, R. M.& WittJ. C. (n.d.). Surveyon ethnic minority facultyrecruitment and retention.Mimeograph Colorado StateUniversity. ca. 1982 ???

Thomas, G. E. (1987, August). Blackstudents in U.S. graduate andprofessional schools in the 1980s:A national and institutionalassessment. Harvard EducationalReview, 57(3).

U.S. DepartmentofCommerce. (1990).U.S. Census of Population, Bureauof the Census. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. DepartmentofCommerce. (1980).General Population Character-istics, United States Summary,

Report PC 1-B1, Bureau of theCensus. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (U.S.EEOC). (1989).Higher Education StaffInformation. EEO -6 data.Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (U.S.EEOC). (1983).Higher Education StaffInformation, EEO -6 data.Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Wingfield, H. L. 1(982). Affirmativeaction: The shootout over racismand sexism at the University ofOregon, 1973-1975. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Eugene,Oregon: University of Oregon.

ri,eJ


Notes:

' For theoretical discussions andanalyses of "segmentation" as appliedto labor markets and the subordinateplacement and incorporation ofminorities, see Michael Reich's RacialInequality: A Political-EconomicAnalysis, Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1981;Michael Reich et al. "A Theory of LaborMarket Segmentation," AmericanEconomic Review, vol. 58, no. 2,1973;and Mario Barrera's Race and Classin the Southwest, Notre Dame,Indiana: University of Notre DamePress, 1979

2 This six percent figure includesboth two-year and four-year collegesand universities. Since all availabledata seem to indicate a fairly highconcentration of minorities in two-yearcolleges, it seems reasonable to deducethat the actual percentage ofminorities as faculty in four-yearinstitutions is significantly lower thanthis six percent. In California, forexample, while 5.1 percent of thecommunity college faculty in 1981 wasHispanic, only 2.5 percent of theCalifornia State University systemand 2.4 percent of the University ofCalifornia system faculties were madeup by this group (CaliforniaPostsecondary Education Commissiondata per personal correspondencewith the Office of the President,University of California, Berkeley,April 14, 1986).

3The scores for both Figures 3 and4 were derived on the following basis.The percentages that each nationalracial/ethnic group constitutes of thetotal U.S. doctorates awarded and ofthe total full-time faculty was dividedby the percentage that each of thesegroups made up in the U.S. populationfor each of the two decennial censusyears (1980 and 1990). For example,in 1989 Hispanics constituted twopercent of all full-time faculty in theUnited States. They made up 9percent of the 1990 U.S. population.Dividing 2 by 9 yields the figure of .22(rounded to .2). Hence, Hispanics areonly one-fifth as represented in the

pool of those holding full- time facultyappointments as they are in the U.S.population. Conversely, they are .8or eight- tenths or eighty percentunderrepresented in the ranks of theU.S. full-time professoriate. Observein Figure 4 that in 1989 Asian/PacificIslanders were 1.6 or sixty percentoverrepresented among full-timeprofessors, given their percentage ofthe U.S. population in 1990.

4 The college and universityclassification system developed by theCarnegie Council on Policy Studiesin Higher Education (1976) is used inthe assignment of colleges anduniversities in this paper to eitherhigh or low prestige categories asfollows:

Research Universities I and II,High Prestige, equals Doctorate-Granting Universities I and II.

Comprehensive Universities andColleges I and II, Low Prestige, equalsLiberal Arts Colleges I and II.

5 With regard to this workloadissue, it is instructive to note that asa group Chicanos typically carryheavier academic teaching loads. Thisis above and beyond the heaviercommunity needs and demands towhich many, if not most, of them haveto respond. For example, as footnotenumber two above clearly shows,Chicanos are much more likely to beteaching in colleges and universitieswhere their workloads aresignificantly heavier (e.g., CaliforniaState University compare with placessuch as UC Berkeley or Stanford withmuch lighter teaching loads). Formore a discussion of these facultyworkload issues, see the CaliforniaFaculty Association's CSU FacultyWorkload Study (1990).

As Anthony Smith states:"Nationalism has endowed ethnicitywith a wholly new self-consciousnessand legitimacy, as well as a fightingspirit and political direction," TheEthnic Revival, 1981, p. 19, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

AMAE Journal, 1992

Analysis of Tenure Among Hispanic HigherEducation Faculty

Richard R. Verdugo

It is commonly assumedthat faculty in higher educationare promoted on the basis ofmerit. But faculty do not spendall their time on research sincethere are other activities andresponsibilities that competefor their time. Facultymembers are frustrated byadministrative and teachingresponsibilities because theyinterfere with their scholarlypursuits.

The ability to balanceresearch and teaching is furthercomplicated by institution type.Some institutions of highereducation are primarilyteaching institutions and placeless stress on research inpromotion or tenure decisions,while others stress research. Itwould seem quite plausible,then, that the allocation ofhighly valued rewards inacademe are affected by insti-tution type. And it is withininstitutions that facultyattempt to find the balancebetween research and teachingif they expect to be rewardedwith rank, salary or tenure.

In the broadest sense,institutions of higher educationfall into one of three categories:large research-oriented uni-versities; four-year colleges; andtwo-year community colleges.The environments within eachof these kinds of institutionscreates a problem for studyingthe reward allocation processamong faculty because theweight attached to teaching andresearch differs significantlyacross each type of institution.Clark (1989), for instance, notesthat teaching loads in theleading universities range fromtwo to six hours a week, andfaculty are expected to spend atleast half of their timeconducting research. Incontrast, Clark notes that 12hours in the classroom arecommon in four-year colleges,and classroom hours incommunity colleges range from15 to 21 hours per week. Clarkidentifies several other factorsthat vary by institution type.As we descend the hierarchy,from universities to two-yearcommunity colleges, a greater

proportion of the students areenrolled in remedial courses;the proportion of part-timefaculty becomes greater; theinstitution is less prized for itsscholarship and research, andpeers are less likely to be areference groupin short, theinstitutional culture is weakerand less satisfying; facultyauthority grows weaker (thatis, decision making is performedby school administrators); andunion activity increases.

If academic cultures differgreatly by institution type, thenit is quite possible that factorsaffecting the distribution ofrewards, e.g., salary, rank, andtenure would also differ. Inless prestigious academicenvironments where authorityrests with school adminis-trators, where teaching loadsare heavy, and where peers arenot the reference group, asmaller proportion of facultyare rewarded than faculty inmore prestigious institutions.Research productivity is atangible that peers and schooladministrators can quantify

Richard R. Verdugo is Senior Researcher, National EducationAssociation, Washington, D. C.

/JCJ

24 Analysis of Tenure

and use to promote faculty;teaching excellence is lessquantifiable. Another explana-tion is that in large researchuniversities, faculty work withadministrators in developingstandards that are used in thedistribution of rewards. In lessprestigious colleges, standardsfor the allocation of rewardsare set by administrators whomay not always have theinterests of faculty in mind.Institution type, then, is animportant factor in studying theallocation of rewards in highereducation.

There is, then, anhypothesis that may be culledfrom this literature on howinstitution type affects thedistribution of rewards inacademe. Rewards to facultyare tied to four criteria:research, teaching, committeework, and community service.The weight assigned to each ofthese criteria in allocatingrewards differs by institutiontype: universities give greaterweight to scholarship than toother criteria in allocatingrewards; four-year colleges givegreater weight to teaching andsome to scholarship inallocating rewards; and two-year colleges consider onlyteaching and student counsel-ling in allocating rewards.

One group of facultymembers for whom institutiontype might take a significantrole in the allocation ofrewardsis Hispanic faculty. Indeed, asmall but emerging literaturepoints out that Hispanicsfaculty are severely underrepresented in higher educa-

tion, that a large proportion areconcentrated in less prestigiousinstitutions, and that they facemany forms ofracism that affecttheir share of academicrewards, e.g., salary, tenure,rank (Arce, 1978; Fields, 1988;Garza, 1988; Olivas, 1988;Reyes and Halcon, 1988). Thegeneral sense that emergesfrom this literature is that thereward system worksdifferently for Hispanic facultythan it does for non-Hispanicfaculty. That is, those factorsthat are expected to affectrewards operate for non-Hispanics but do not forHispanics. If this were the casewe would expect that thehypothesis we have presentedabove would not apply toHispanic faculty. This papercontributes some empiricalfindings to the small butgrowing body of literature onthe Hispanic professor ate.Specifically, we examine theeffezt institution type has onthe probability of tenure (ahighly desired academicreward). Before continuing, wewould like to address amethodological point. Severalcolleagues are concerned thatthere isn't a control group ofnon-Hispanic faculty in ouranalysis. We have, we believe,two valid replies. First, ouraim is to apply a theore;,ir.alframework among Hispanicfaculty that has receivedconsiderable verification. Tobe sure, the framework isn'tperfect since there are caseswhen academic rewards aredenied to faculty who appear tohave performed as expected. It

P,u

is, nevertheless, a frameworkwhich is an important norm inacademe and one by whichfaculty are evaluated.Methodologically, if we wereestimating a model that hasnever been tested among facultyin general, then our colleagueswould have a valid concern, butwe are not. A second reply wehave concerns the uniquenessof our analysis. Analyses amongHispanic faculty are rare, andanalysis in this area onlyenhances our understanding ofthis somewhat unknown group.We therefore hope that ourstudy is used as a benchmarkfor comparison among futurestudies of this group.

Model Rationale

The model to be estimated inthis study contains items thatvie may call human capitalitems and a second set of controlitems. In higher educationscholarly productivity andexperience are linked toacademic rewards. Indeed, themodel most often thought topredict the allocation ofacademic rewards assumes thisrelationship. We have includedthree kinds of publicationvehicles in our model: refereedjournal articles, chapters inbooks, and books. However,because scholarship is nctequally rewarded acrossinstitutions, we have alsoincluded other items in themodel that are rewarded insome institutions but might notin others: items that measurethe percent of time spent onresearch, teaching, preparing

Verdugo 25

to teach, committee mer..ber-ship, and community serviceactivities.

Control items used in themodel include academicdiscipline, Hispanic ethnicity(Mexican American, PuertoRican, Cuban, South/CentralAmerican), gender, and countryof birth. Academic discipline isused in the model because somefields grant academic rewardsmore easily acquired thanothers. Academic disciplinesthat are characterized by a highdegree of consensus regardingtheoretical frameworks andmethods are more likely togrant tenure than those withlower levels of consensus. Inthis light, research has foundthat the physical and naturalsciences have more consensusthan do the social sciences andhumanities (Lodahl & Gordon,1972).

The Hispanic population isnot homogeneous. Hispanicshave different socioeconomicorigins and different historiesin the U.S. For example,Cubans and South Americanstraditionally have been bettereducated and from highersocioeconomic backgroundsthan Mexican Americans andPuerto Ricans. If there is oneconsistent finding in the socialstratification literature it is thatpersons from higher socio-economic origins have greatersocioeconomic achievementsthan persons from lowersocioeconomic origins. Thehypothesis, then, is thatHispanic faculty of Cuban orSouth/Central Americanethnicity are more likely than

other Hispanic ethnic groupsto have teaching positions inuniversities and, thus, morelikely to have attained tenure.Country of origin is also used asa control item.

Gender is used becauseresearch has shown that womenearn less, and receive academicrewards more slowly than dotheir male counterparts. Thepoor experiences of femalefaculty in higher education hasbeen noted by many scholars (La Sorte,1971;Robinson,1971).

The strategy to be employedin this study is to estimate themodel separately amongHispanic faculty in university,four-year college and two-yearcommunity college settings. Aswe noted, the kind of institutionin which a faculty memberteaches exerts a powerfulinfluence on how he is

ded. In fact, Clark (1989)suggests that institution type"now plays an even morepowerful role" in differentiatingthe professorate. This researchalso found that facultyauthority varies by institutiontype. Faculty in universitysettings tend to work withadministrators (who at one timemay have been faculty) insetting university policy. Thisis not the case in less prestigiousinstitutions where decisions aremade independently byadministrators. These findingshave not changed much overthe years as Clark (1989) notes.We therefore fully expect factorsthat affect the probability oftenure to vary by institutiontype.

Data

Several steps were taken incollecting data for this study.We began by collecting Hispanicsurnamed faculty data fromboth the 1989 National FacultyDirectory and a listing ofSpanish surnames compiled bythe U.S. Bureau of the Census.

In order to locate as manyprobable Hispanic surnamefaculty as possible, the list ofSpanish surnamed faculty wasthen merged with the HigherEducation Directory. Themerging of the files providedtwo critical data: addresses andphone numbers. In total, 11,197faculty with Hispanic surnameswere identified . The samplewas then stratified among 13regions, and 473 Hispanicfaculty were interviewed.

Results

Table 1 presents the meansand standard deviations for allitems in the model, and Table 2presents the probit coefficientsand partial derivatives. Beforecontinuing, a brief discussionwill be made regarding thepartial derivatives. The probitcoefficients must be interpretedcarefully because they do notrepresent the effect on theprobability of tenure resultingfrom a one unit change in thecorresponding independentvariable in the model. Instead,the change in the probability oftenure resulting from a unitchange in an independentvariable depends on theprobability of tenure and, thus,on the initial values of all


Table 1. Means and standard deviations by institution type

UniverityStd.

4-YearStd.

2-YearStd.

Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Tenure 0.71 0.46 0.68 0.47 0.63 0.48Research 40.47 24.40 24.65 24.11 10.59 15.32Teach 38.09 22.11 52.36 26.35 61.00 28.89Committee 10.87 11.76 12.18 13.79 13.75 15.81Community 7.44 12.79 9.30 12.50 10.58 15.24Journal 20.17 20.97 13.23 19.61 2.43 5.69Chapter 4.26 14.05 1.81 4.60 2.48 10.84Books 1.19 2.31 1.13 2.71 0.19 0.73Gender 0.90 0.30 0.81 0.39 0.67 0.47Socsci 0.29 0.45 0.20 0.40 0.19 0.40Humanities 0.19 0.40 0.36 0.48 0.27 0.45Vocbus 0.04 0.20 0.07 0.25 0.22 0.41Math 0.29 0.45 0.17 0.38 0.16 0.37Medicine 0.13 0.33 0.17 0.37 0.09 0.28MexAmer 0.31 0.46 0.38 0.49 0.70 0.46Puerto Rican 0.10 0.30 0.14 0.35 0.06 0.24Cuban 0.11 0.31 0.10 0.30 0.06 0.24SCAmerican 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.43 0.06 0.24U.S. Born 0.39 0.49 0.39 0.49 0.77 0.42Experience 12.71 8.71 13.54 8.10 12.30 7.43

N 119 203 151

Verdugo 27

independent variables and ontheir estimated coefficients.Specifically,

ZProb(Yi = 1)/ZXij =Bj (2) -2 e [(-Z2 ) /21= Bj(Z)

Where (*) is the standardnormal density function andProb(Y i =1) ranges from zeroto one. The expression abovedepends on the point at which(X'B) is evaluated. It will behigher at values of X'B that areclose to the sample mean of Yand lower at probabilities oftenure close to zero and one.Partial derivatives, presentedto estimate the effects ofchanging values of theindependent variables on theprobability of tenure, are alsoreported in Table 2. Partialderivatives were computed byevaluating the above expressionat the sample means.

Data presented in Table 1tend to confirm the imagerypainted by Clark (1989) andothers regarding thedifferentiating functionsbetween large researchuniversities, four-year and two-year higher education institu-tions. Hispanic faculty inuniversity settings tend tospend more time on researchand publishing than Hispanicfaculty in four-year and in two-year settings. Hispanic facultyin university settings spendabout 40 percent of their timeon research and about 38percent on teaching. Incontrast, Hispanic faculty infour-year settings spend overhalfof their time teaching (52%)and only 25 percent of their

time on research. Finally,Hispanic faculty in two-yearcolleges spend 61 percent oftheir time on teaching, and only11 percent on research.Differences in how facultyspend their time are reflectedin their publication records:Hispanic faculty in universitysettings have published, onaverage, about 20 refereedjournal articles; faculty in four-year institutions about 13refereed journal articles; andfaculty in two-year institutionsonly about two articles.

In addition to teaching andresearch differences acrossinstitution type, Clark (1989)points out that faculty in four-year and two-year environ-ments have less of a voice inpolicy-making than faculty inlarge research universities. Ineffect, less prestigious collegesare administrative environ-ments where decisions aremade by administrators. To besure, research universities arealso run by administrators butit appears that faculty andadministrators collaborate onthese efforts. Such a differencein authority may potentiallyaffect the allotment of academicrewards to faculty for at leasttwo reasons: when faculty havea hand in the decision makingprocess it can be assumed theywill look out for their interests,and second, the moreprestigious an institution, themore highly it values its faculty:faculty make an institution'sreputation. Data in Table 1indicate that Hispanic facultyin university settings are morelikely to be tenured than faculty

in four-year and two-yearcolleges.

There are other importantdistinctions by institution type.To begin with, while theproportion of male faculty isgreatest across all institutiontypes, their dominance is leastin two-year community colleges.In other words, there are morefemale faculty in the lessprestigious two-year com-munity colleges than in largeresearch universities. In termsof Hispanic ethnicity, MexicanAmericans comprise the largestproportion of Hispanic facultyat all institution types,reflecting their proportion of theU.S. Hispanic population (about62%). However, the proportionof Mexican Americans in two-year colleges is particularlygreat; Mexican Americanscomprise 70 percent of Hispanicfaculty in two-year colleges.Finally, the majority ofHispanic faculty in universityand four-year colleges were notborn in the U.S.; whereasHispanic faculty in two-yearcolleges were, predominantly,born in the U.S.

Table 2 presents the resultsand partial derivativesevaluated at the meansfor amodel of tenure amongHispanic faculty. Note that themodel is estimated separatelyfor faculty in university, four-year colleges, and in two-yearcolleges. Results from thi-model are not completelysatisfactory, but do lend someadditional evidence supportingthe concerns about sectordifferences. In university set-tings, the environment is peer-


Table 2. Results from a probit model of tenure among Hispanic faculty by institution type

UniversityProbit Partial

4-YearProbit Partial

2-YearProbit Partial

Predictor Coefficient Derivative Coefficient Derivative Coefficient Derivative

Intercept -2.5849 -1.5045 0.8923Research 0.0037 0.0015 -0.0007 -0.0003 -0.0184 -0.0175Teach 0.0085 0.0035 0.0132 0.0053 -0.011 -0.0104Committee 0.089 0.0363 0.0116 0.0046 -0.0015 -0.0014Community -0.0123 -0.0050 -0.0038 -0.0015 -0.0026 -0.0025Journal 0.0319 0.0130 0.0101 0.0040 -0.0206 -0.0195Chapter 0.1469 0.0599 0.1405 0.0561 0.0122 0.0116Books 0.0461 0.0188 0.1859 0.0742 0.1446 0.1371Gender 0.178 0.0725 0.3024 0.1207 -0.1652 -0.1567Socsci 0.1208 0.0492 -0.4826 -0.1926 -0.1852 -0.1756Humanities 0.3951 0.1610 -0.3005 -0.1199 -0.289 -0.2741Vocbus -0.5516 -0.2248 -0.1607 -0.0641 -0.4673 -0.4432Mathematics 0.4903 0.1998 0.3104 0.1239 -0.4787 -0.4540Medicine -0.1555 -0.0634 -0.8181 -0.3264 0.1249 0.1185MexAmer 0.7739 0.3154 0.3722 0.1485 -0.2996 -0.2841Puerto Rican 0.9415 0.3837 0.4119 0.1644 -0.0393 -0.0373Cuban 0.3551 0.1447 0.2715 0.1083 0.6166 0.5848SCAmer -0.5212 -0.2124 -0.144 -0.0575 -0.4699 -0.4455U.S. Born -0.2376 -0.0968 0.2962 0.1182 -0.0011 -0.0010Experience 0.0739 0.0301 0.0463 0.0185 0.083 0.0787

L.R. Chi-Square 70.0084 166.3136 151.3986

Significant at .05 level.** Significant at .10 level.

Verdugo 29

based: faculty have input intothe decision making process andwhere rewards (includingtenure) tend to be allotted onthe basis of merit where meritis based on scholarlyproductivity. While only threeof the eleven items exertstatistically significant effectson tenure in university settings,these three fall into the domainof the framework presentedabove. Thus, percent of timespent on committee work tendsto increase the probability oftenure. In this study, the valueof .089 for the estimated probitcoefficient indicates that at themean levels of the explanatoryvariables a one percent increasein the amount of time spent oncommittee work will result inthe probability of tenureincreasing by about .04.Scholarly productivity is alsomore highly valued inuniversity settings. In fact, forfaculty in such environments itmay be the single mostimportant factor determiningacademic rewards. Ofthe threepublishing vehicles used in thisstudy, only the number ofrefereed journal articles exertsa statistically significant effecton tenure. In fact, the numberof refereed journal articlesincreases the probability oftenure by .013. Finally,teaching experience in highereducation is associated withtenure. To wit, experienceteaching in higher educationamong Hispanic faculty inuniversity settings increasesthe probability of tenure by .030.

If university settings areplaces where faculty spend most

of their time on research andless on teaching, faculty in four-year college settings spend mostof their time teaching and littleon research. Fortunately,Hispanic faculty in suchsettings are rewarded, in termsof tenure, for the amount oftime they spend teaching.Indeed, among Hispanic facultyin four-year colleges, time spentteaching or preparing to teachincreases the probability oftenure by .01. Though Hispanicfaculty spend less of their timeon research, they are rewardedfor these efforts in terms oftenure. Publishing a chapterin a book increases theprobability of tenure by .06among Hispanic faculty in four-year institutions. Finally, aswas the case among Hispanicfaculty in university settings,experience teaching in highereducation increases theprobability of tenure by .02 forfaculty in four-year institutions.

Two-year community col-leges have students distinctlydifferent from those in otherinstitutions of higher education.They are most likely to be fromworking-class or blue-collarbackgrounds, to have per-formed less well in high school,to be in remedial courses inorder to learn basic skills, andare more likely to takevocational courses. In general,two-year community collegesare perceived as extensions ofhigh schools, and places wherestudents can learn a trade.

In terms of faculty, a largeproportion do not haveDoctorates, tend to begeneralists rather than

specialists, have heavy teachingloads, and tend to work inadministrative environmentsthat is, decisions are more likelyto be made by administrators.In such environments, it is littlewonder that experienceteaching in higher education isthe only item to exert astatistically significant effect ontenure. Thus, experienceteaching in higher educationincreases the probability oftenure among Hispanic facultyin two-year community collegesby .08.

Conclusion

Not all faculty in highereducation are rewarded fortheir scholarly productivity; infact, the heavy teaching loadsof many faculty seriouslyhampers their being productivescholars. Institution type is animportant factor that questionsthe generality of the traditionalacademic model. Differencesregarding the management ofthe school, faculty culturewithin the institution, thequality of students, and, mostimportant, the varyingemphasis placed on researchand teaching all affect howfaculty spend their time andare thus rewarded.

Though previous researchhas identified several im-portant problems facing theHispanic professorate, it hasfailed to note how theseproblems might differ byinstitution type. In attemptingto shed some light on one formof academic reward, tenure, weestimated a probit model of


tenure separately among anational sample of Hispanicfaculty in universities, four-year institutions, and two-yearcommunity colleges. Resultssuggest that factors affectingtenure differ by institution typeand tend also to support thenotion that institution typegreatly affects the tenure statusof Hispanic faculty. That is,faculty in university settingsspend more time on rjesearchand are rewarded for thisactivity, faculty in four-yearinstitutions spend more timeon teaching and a little onresearch and they too arerewarded for their efforts.Finally, faculty in two-yearcommunity colleges spend mostof their time teaching, but, alas,they are not rewarded for theirefforts. In fact, only one factoraffects the probability of tenureamong two-year communitycollege faculty, teachingexperience in higher education.

In conclusion, whileHispanic faculty in highereducation face many problems,scholars and policy makersshould consider institution typeas one factor differentiating thisgroup in formulating publicpolicy.

References:

Arce, C. (1978). Chicano participationin academe: A case of academiccolonialism. Grito del Sol: A ChicanoQuarterly 3, 75-104.

Cole, J. P.(1979). Fair Science: Womenin the Scientific Community. NewYork: Free Press.

Clark, B. (1989, June-July). Theacademic life: Small worlds, differentworlds. Educational Researcher, 4-8.

Fields, C.M. (1988, May 11). Hispanics,state's fastest-growing minority,shut out of top positions at U. ofCalifornia, leaders say. TheChronicle of Higher Education . pp.A9-A10.

Garza, H. (1988.) The Barriozation'of Hispanic faculty. EducationalRecord 68(4)169(1): 122-24. HigherEducation Research Institute, Inc.1982 Final Report of the Commissionon the Higher Education ofMinorities. Los Angeles: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

La Sorte, M. A. (1971). Academicsalaries, equal pay for equal work?Journal of Higher Education ,42,265-278.

Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972).The structure of scientific fields andthe functioning of universitygraduate departments. AmericanSociological Review 37, 57-72.

Olivas, M. A.(1988). Latino faculty atthe border: Increasing numbers keyto more Hispanic access. Change20, 6-9.

Reyes, M. de la Luz & Halcon, J. J.(1988). Racism in academia: Theold world revisited. HarvardEducational Review, 58(3), 299-314.

Robinson, L. H. (1971). The status ofacademic women. Review 5.(Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing-house on Higher Education).

3 ti

AMAE Journal, 1992

Experiences of Multiple Marginality: A CaseStudy of Chicana "Scholarship Women"

Holguin Cuadraz

In Hunger of Memory,Richard Rodriguez (1982)writes poignantly of hiseducational experiences as aMexican American scholarshipboy. The scholarship boy isportrayed as an "uprooted andanxious" individual, who,through the scholarshipsystem, transcends class lines,only to remain an outcast inthe new more privileged class(Hoggart, 1957). For Rodriguez,his path as a scholarship boyresulted in the loss of hisSpanish language, culture, andintimacy between himself andfamily members.

The case study reported hereexplores the educational andlife experiences of ten Chicanascholarship students. Toillustrate their lives asscholarship students, childhoodaccounts were contrasted totheir experiences as graduatestudents at a major eliteuniversity. The first objectivewas to consider the unique roleof working class achievers inthe conjunction of educationand the social structure. The

second objective was to locatethe social and political contextfor their experiences ingraduate education. AsRodriguez (1982) laments, "Iwas a scholarship boy whobelonged to an earlier time. Ihad come to the campus singly;they had come in a group" (p.160). The point is that thescholarship path was no longersimply a matter of individualachievement, but was astructural opportunity whichbecame accessible to those whoachieved but had historicallybeen excluded. The thirdobjective was to explore theirlife experiences as scholarshipstudents, which were experi-ences of multiple marginality.In this context, "thesimultaneity of experience"(Moraga, 1983; Zavella, 1989)may be best expressed as"simultaneous marginality":that is, their journeys out ofthe working class and into thepredominantly middle-classenvironment of a majoruniversity (Karabel, 1975),combined with their member-

ca. 92 83p. student - eric · 2013. 8. 2. · document resume ed 355 064 rc 019 004 author flores,...

Documents