post-9/11 arab and muslim american community college students: ethno-religious enclaves and...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 04 October 2014, At: 01:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Community College Journal ofResearch and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Post-9/11 Arab and MuslimAmerican Community CollegeStudents: Ethno-religiousEnclaves and PerceivedDiscriminationDiane S. Shammas aa University of Southern California , Los Angeles,California, USAPublished online: 10 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Diane S. Shammas (2009) Post-9/11 Arab and Muslim AmericanCommunity College Students: Ethno-religious Enclaves and Perceived Discrimination,Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33:3-4, 283-308, DOI:10.1080/10668920802580507

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920802580507

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10668920802580507

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920802580507

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

POST-9/11 ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANCOMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS: ETHNO-RELIGIOUSENCLAVES AND PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION

Diane S. Shammas

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Apart from the widescale media attention that Arabs and Muslims havereceived in the United States and abroad since 9=11, these two targetpopulations have been largely unexamined at both the two-year andfour-year college levels. This study represents a pioneering effort ininvestigating whether the post-9=11 backlash against Arabs and Muslimshas penetrated community college campuses, focusing upon the inter-relationships among the level of perceived discrimination, the degree ofdiversity of Arab and Muslim students’ campus friendships, and theirsense of belonging to the college. Two conflict theories are advanced toexplain why perceived discrimination might promote ethnic and religiousclustering among Arab and Muslim community college students.

The study employs a mixed methods design consisting of a 92-itemsurvey and three focus groups. The survey sample consists of 753 ArabChristian, Arab Muslim, and non-Arab Muslim students from 21 com-munity colleges in Southern California and Southeast Michigan. Theprimary finding was that there was a modest but positive relationshipbetween the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage ofcampus friends who are of the same ethnicity but different religion.Student focus groups furnished insight into some students’ reluctanceto report discrimination in surveys. The implications of the study areto develop sensitive measures of the campus climate that draw outmore subtle forms of discrimination. Also desirable would be to expandupon the existing research on the denial or minimization of personaldiscrimination.

Address correspondence to Diane S. Shammas, University of Southern California, 702

Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. E-mail: [email protected]

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33: 283–308, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1066-8926 print=1521-0413 online

DOI: 10.1080/10668920802580507

283

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Apart from the wide-scale media attention that Arabs and Muslimshave received in the United States and abroad since 9=11, thesetwo target populations have been largely unexamined at both thetwo-year and four-year college levels. This absence in the campusdiversity literature is remarkable in light of two recent nationalsurveys. These show that show 76% of young Arab Americans of tra-ditional college age, 18 to 29 years, have experienced personal discri-mination (Arab American Institute [AAI], 2007). They also indicatethat 50% of Muslim Americans between 18 and 24 have reported dis-crimination in school and the workplace (Muslims in the AmericanPublic Square, 2004). Given these alarming statistics, this paperrepresents a pioneering effort in investigating whether the post-9=11backlash against Arabs and Muslims has penetrated communitycollege campuses.

Advocating an open-door policy, community colleges often areperceived as promoting a campus environment that is conducive to har-monious relations between ethnic groups (Maxwell & Shammas, 2007).Yet, with the culturally prevalent stigmatization of Arab and Muslims asenemies to the United States’ national security, there might be distinctivefeatures of the campus climate that might not appear as benign and invit-ing to some Arab and Muslim students. The main objective of this paperwill be to establish whether Arab and Muslim students perceive discrimi-nation on the community college campus. The paper will also investigatethe potential inter-relationships among the level of perceived discrimina-tion, the strength of ethnic identity, and the predominance of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friendships. Using community collegesas the locus of research provides access to first generation and 1.5 genera-tion students who are more likely to be the most vulnerable targets ofdiscrimination.

Simply to situate discrimination against Arab and MuslimAmericans within the context of post-9=11 society imparts a truncatedhistory of the racism directed against these two groups in the UnitedStates. Anti-Arab racism predates 9=11 by over a century, with note-worthy cases found in the United States’ denial of citizenship toSyrian-Lebanese immigrants based upon nativist arguments aboutwhether they were Asian or White (Gualtieri, 2001; Naff, 1985).Throughout the last half-century anti-Arab racism in the United Stateshas been less associated with color than rooted in the geopolitics of theIsraeli=Palestinian conflict and crisis. In my dissertation, I provide anhistorical overview of Arab and Muslim discrimination as witnessed inUnited States’ immigration policy, federal court cases, academic tenurecases, and the mainstream media. Given the space limitations here,I cannot reproduce the historical account, which certainly enhances

284 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

the justification for why the study is long overdue in both the diversityand ethnic relations literature of higher education.

For the present paper I submit below two of the five research ques-tions from my dissertation: (a) If Arab and Muslim students perceivea high level of discrimination against them by fellow students, faculty,or administration, are they more likely to establish a higher percen-tage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friendships ratherthan cross-ethnic and=or cross-faith campus friendships?, (b) Doesa strong ethnic or religious identity predispose a student to engagein a higher percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campusfriendships? It is important to clarify that throughout the study I refergenerically to the student sample as ‘‘Arab and Muslim’’ because thestudents exhibit cultural markers that are linked to an Arabic speak-ing country and=or are affirmed Muslims. The student sample tech-nically is comprised of four subgroups: Arab-descent Christians,Arab-descent Muslims, non-Arab-descent Muslims, and a few casesof Arab-descent of other faiths. For the hypothesis testing I com-bined the four subgroups into one group, Arabs and Muslims, inorder to achieve the recommended sample size for the study.

In the next three sections of this paper, I formulate two hypothesesthat correspond with the two research questions. I discuss the theore-tical underpinnings of the two hypotheses within the context of thecontact hypothesis and two competitive conflict theories. In elaborat-ing upon the two conflict theories that challenge certain assumptionsof the contact hypothesis, I provide the theoretical rationale for whycertain ethnic groups tend to ethnically cluster or, rather, engage inethnically homophilous friendships. I then present the small collec-tion of four-year college studies that examine the interrelationshipsamong perceived discrimination same-ethnic campus friendships,and students’ strength of ethnic identity.

CONTACT HYPOTHESIS: THE REDUCTION OFPREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION THROUGHCROSS-ETHNIC FRIENDSHIPS

The educational benefits of diverse peer interaction fuel the argumentof many who continually press for campus diversity as an administra-tive priority (Astin, 1993; Gurin, Gurin, Dey, & Hurtado, 2002;Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, & Landreman, 2002). Antonio(2001) observed that students who normally engaged in raciallyhomogenized friendship groups benefited significantly frominterracial interaction. Antonio reasoned that it encouraged them

Post-9/11 Arab and Muslim College Students 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

to leave their ‘‘culture comfort zone’’ of same-race friendships andparticipate in interpersonal challenges (Antonio, 2001, p. 612). Thevalue placed upon diverse peer interaction derives theoretical supportfrom the contact hypothesis. Popularized by Gordon Allport, thecontact hypothesis states that contact between groups, e.g., racialand ethnic groups, reduces prejudice. Allport expanded the theoryby identifying four positive conditions of contact that must be presentbefore the reduction of prejudice can result: (a) equal status of thegroups in the contact situation, (b) common goals, (c) intergroupcooperation, and (d) support of authorities, law, or customs (Allport,1954, pp. 261–281). The contact hypothesis has received wideacceptance among social scientists, particularly those who conductresearch on cross-group or cross-race friendships (e.g., Aboud,Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew &Tropp, 2000; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997).

The mainstay of the contact hypothesis is that cross-group=cross-ethnic friendships will reduce prejudicial attitudes. Yet, thepresent discourse of ethnic clustering will look at the relationshipbetween perceived hostile racial climate and the likelihood of choos-ing a higher number of same-ethnic campus friendships. The pro-blem with the contact theory is that alternative theories entertainpredictor variables, i.e., emotive, social dominance, that mightprevent or decrease the likelihood of contact between ethnic andreligious groups. These theoretical differences pose challenges toAllport’s four conditions of the contact hypothesis. The conflicttheories focus on interethnic or intergroup conflict rather than onequal status, which provides a potent argument for the first hypoth-esis that I present in the paper.

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES TO THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS

The integrated threat theory posits that cross-ethnic contact might notreduce discrimination if negative conditions, i.e., one ethnic group’sanxiety towards, or ignorance about, another constrains both frominteracting with each other (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). The main tenetof social dominance theory is that hegemony exists particularly toensure the maintenance of one social group over another in connectionwith the ‘‘realistic competition for scarce material resources’’ (Sidanius& Pratto, 1993, p. 181). The underlying thread connecting these two the-ories is the perceived realistic threat induced by the struggle over scarcematerial resources such as land, power, jobs, and entry into a highlyselective university. Stephan also refers to ‘‘symbolic threat,’’ which

286 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

are threats to the worldview of the in-group (dominant), such as groupdifferences in morals, values, norms, standards, beliefs, and attitudes(Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998). Thisfear component of Stephan’s integrated threat theory is particularlyuseful in explaining how the U.S. government’s War on Terror, andthe corporate media as its representational apparatus, has reproduceditself in the dominant discourses of Arabophobia and Islamophobiain classrooms and on campus (see Cainkar, 2008, and Naber, 2008,on college students’ narratives of post-9=11 backlash).

Within integrated threat theory, threat resides within the in-group(dominant group) not the out-group (subordinate group). Whereassocial dominance theorists tend to associate threat as being what thedominant group inflicts upon the subordinate group—institutional ter-ror. By ‘‘institutional terror,’’ Sidanius generally has meant the wrongfulincarceration and unfair legal sentencing of ethnic minorities, etc.(Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, pp. 194–195). In its traditional meaning, insti-tutional terror could readily apply to the experiences of at least 100,000Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. who, following 9=11, were subjected toU. S. Immmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, wiretap-pings, seizures of property, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) homeand work visits, detentions, deportations, and interrogations (Murray,2004). The concept, however, can easily be expanded to include theexperience of an even greater number of Arabs and Muslims in the Uni-ted States that Naber characterizes as an ‘‘internment of the psyche’’(Naber, 2006, p. 240). The ‘‘internment of the psyche’’ signifies a stateof consciousness in which one feels in imminent danger of harassment,intimidation, assault, detention, surveillance, or disappearances, even ifthe event does not happen. One example of psychological incarcerationis Naber’s account of university women who feel challenged if they wearthe headscarf on campus—do they exercise the freedom of observingtheir religion or refrain from doing so because of the stereotypic reactionsfrom non-Muslims?

Integrated threat theory and social dominance theory emergeas more relevant theoretical lenses than the contact hypothesis.These theories, when applied to campus intergroup processes,emphasize potential conflict and tension between ethnic groupsthat are institutionally rooted in the dominant structures ofsociety—in this particular case, the U.S. government’s War onTerror and the media’s racialization and demonization of Arabsand Muslims pre- and post-9=11. Since the major focus of thesetheories is on structural discrimination and alienation, in contrastto the central tenets of the contact hypothesis—equal status andcooperation—they provide one rationale for why students who


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

perceive discrimination on campus might retreat into ethnic andreligious enclaves on campus.

Is There a Relationship Between Perceived Discriminationand Same-Ethnic Campus Friendships?

Very few higher education studies have scrutinized the relationshipbetween perceived discrimination and same-ethnic campus friendships.With the exception of Levin and Van Laar’s work (e.g., Levin, VanLaar, & Foote, 2006; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003), most ofthese studies have discussed only the effects of perceived dis-crimination on same-ethnic peer interaction without identifying thevariable specifically as ‘‘same-ethnic or in-group campus friends.’’The early study of Loo and Rolison (1986) signaled the importanceof ‘‘ethnic clustering’’ (in-group peer interaction) among AfricanAmerican college students in providing them cultural support and asense of belonging in an otherwise largely unsupportive campusenvironment. Relevant to the target population under study, Asmar(2003) revealed that Muslim ‘‘communities on campus’’ helped toshield Muslim students from a discriminatory campus (and an evenless benign off-campus environment).

Levin et al. (2003, 2006) have employed a sound research design ininvestigating the relationship between perceived discrimination andsame-ethnic campus friendships. Each of the two studies tested bothdirections of the relationship between the level of perceived(ethnic-based) discrimination and the number of same-ethnic collegefriendships—that is, in the first study, the number of same-ethniccollege friends was the dependent variable, and in the second study,the independent variable. Across all ethnic groups, i.e., AfricanAmerican, Asian, Latino, and Caucasian, both studies revealed a smallto moderate relationship between the level of perceived discriminationafter the first year of college and the number of same-ethnic college friends during the second and their years of college.This was true even after controlling for the effects of demographicand student background variables. Additionally, they reported thatfor Latino and Asian college students, strong ethnic identificationwas a significant mediator between the number of same-ethnic friendsand increased levels of perceived discrimination after the second andthird year of college. This latter finding is consistent with the literatureon the relationship between strong ethnic group identification andthe attribution of higher levels of perceived discrimination (e.g.,Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998).

288 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

In general, most higher education studies associate positive inter-racial campus experiences with openness to interracial interaction(e.g., Lee & Davis, 2000; Steward, Jackson, & Jackson, 1990). How-ever, there is a small strand of educational research that defendssame-ethnic friendships as a manifestation of self-preservation ratherthan self-segregation under conditions of a hostile or unfamiliar cam-pus environment (Ethier & Deaux, 1990; Martinez Alem�aan 1998;Shaw & Coleman, 2000; Tatum, 1999; Villalpano, 2003).

In review of the foregoing studies, most of the findings demonstratesupport for the relationship between perceived discrimination and thelikelihood of same-ethnic campus friendships. A few studies haveaddressed the interrelationships among ethnic group identification,perceived discrimination, and the propensity for forming same-ethniccampus friendships. Thus, based on the evidence presented, I proposethe following two hypotheses: 1) Among Arab and Muslim students,there is a positive relationship between the level of perceived discrimi-nation on campus and the percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends; conversely, there is a negative relationshipbetween the level of perceived discrimination on campus, and the per-centage of different-faith and different-ethnicity campus friends; 2)Among Arab and Muslim students, there is a positive relationshipbetween the strength of ethnic identity and the percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends.

In both statements of the first and second hypotheses, I include same-faith friends as an option to same-ethnic friends. Since 9=11, there hasbeen a resurgence among Muslim Americans, particularly second gen-eration, of asserting their religious identity over their individual ethnici-ties (Peek, 2005; Rippy & Newman, 2006). Time constraints also did notallow for the implementation of a longitudinal design, as used in Levinet al.’s work, in order to test the inherent causal directionality of thehypotheses. In the following section, I provide theoretical definitionsfor perceived discrimination, ethnic identity, campus friends of sameancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different religion, samereligion and different ancestry, and different religion and differentancestry.

THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS

Perceived Discrimination

Culling from a plethora of theoretical and operational definitions inthe four-year college literature (e.g., Miller, Hughes, Anderson, Cannon,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Perez, & Moore, 1998; Rankin, 2005; Sol�oorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000),I define perceived discrimination as students’ feelings of exclusion onthe community college campus that are generated by overt and covertprejudicial remarks and actions by other students, faculty, andadministration. Like other minority groups, Arab and Muslim Amer-icans are exposed to insidious covert forms of communications,‘‘micro-aggressions’’ (Sol�oorzano et al., 2000, p. 1), which refer tosubtle insults or slights, intentional or unintentional, targetedtowards their ethnicity and religion. Perceived discrimination repre-sents the independent variable in hypothesis one.

Same-Ethnic and/or Same-Faith Campus Friends

In hypotheses 1 and 2, for the sake of brevity, the dependent variablesare stated in an abbreviated fashion as the ‘‘percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends’’ The percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends is comprised of four clustervariables: the percentage of same-ethnic and same-faith campus friends,the percentage of same-ethnic and different-faith campus friends, thepercentage of same-faith and different-ethnicity campus friends, andthe percentage of different-faith and different-ethnicity campusfriends. These ethnic=faith friendship group variables were con-structed to accommodate all types of friendships that might occuramong the target population chosen for the study. Same ethnic or eth-nicity refers to campus friends from one’s own ancestral country orsame-language-speaking region (as in the predominantly Arabic-speaking Middle East). Similarly, same-faith signifies campus friendswithin one’s own religion. Thus, denominations or sects within thelarger religion, i.e., Christianity or Islam, are considered the samereligion. Different ethnicity signifies campus friendships outside ofone’s ancestral country or outside of one’s same-language-speakingregion.

Ethnic Identity

Ethnic identity is the independent variable of the second hypothesis.My theoretical definition is derived from Phinney’s Ethnic Identitysubscale, which incorporates one’s perceptions of attachment andbelonging to one’s ethnic group, positive and negative attitudestowards one’s ethnicity, and ethnic involvement or social participa-tion, and cultural practices. Phinney (1992) has maintained that thesethree dimensions of her ethnic identity theory apply to most ethnicgroups. McNeill (2001), however, has argued that the components

290 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

of Phinney’s ethnic identity theory might not be a generic fit interms of how certain ethnic groups perceive themselves. Althoughin this study I use Phinney’s scale to measure the strength ofArab and Muslims’ ethnic identity, her theory does not fullyaccommodate the ethno-religious component of ethnic identity, anobserved characteristic among Arabs and Jews alike (Eid, 2003;Gans, 1994).

Finding an Ethnic Identity Theory That Works with Arabsand Muslims

For those born in the Middle East, religious affiliation is so pro-foundly embedded in national identity that the difference betweenethnic identity and religious identity often becomes blurred. Eid(2003) noted that among second-generation Arab Canadian Christianand Muslim college students, religion served as an ‘‘ethnic like ’’ iden-tity marker. For example, predicated upon a previous legacy ofreligious and political dominance in their countries of origin, manyArab Christians have resisted association with an Arab ethnic iden-tity, even in their host country (Ahdab-Yehia, 1983; Maila, 2004;Sengstock, 1982). For many of these religious minorities, an Arabidentity is equated with being Muslim (El-Hamamsy, 1977; Rabbath,1977). In North America and Europe, the ethnicization of Muslimidentity has not only emerged within the communities themselves asa means of claiming space within non-Muslim territory, but also asan exclusionary process engaged in by policymakers and the media(Shadid, 2006). Conversely, in the United States the conflation ofArab with Muslim has led erroneously to the Islamicizing of all Arabor Arab Americans—that is, all Arabs are Muslims (Suleiman, 2004).

Conventional anthropological theories that focus on the objectivedefinitions of ethnicity (e.g., classifying a group of people solely onshared observable cultural traits, nationality, and language) do notembody the current notion of ethnicity as being negotiated, sociallyconstructed, and involving human agency and invention (e.g., DasGupta, 1997; Isajiw, 1974; Omi & Winant, 1994). In contrast to theGeertzian conceptualization of ethnicity as ‘‘primordial attachments’’(Geertz, 1973, pp. 249–260), Barth’s (1969) main thesis was thatethnic boundaries may shift as group members retain, discard, andrecreate cultural elements in response to changes in their immediateenvironment (i.e., ecological economic, political) and to interethnicgroup contact.

In this paper I define ethnicity objectively as those who share thesame ancestral country or geographic region and speak the same


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

language, but I add the provision that the perception of one’sethnicity is subject to change within the context of the ethnicityand religion of the person with whom he or she comes into contact.For example, if a Lebanese Christian befriends an Iraqi Muslim, bothmight deemphasize the religious boundary between them andmaximize their ethnic similarity, i.e., speaking Arabic and sharing acommon cultural community. Alternatively, if an Arab Muslimchooses a friend who is of the same religion, i.e., Pakistani Muslim,he or she might view their ethnic difference as secondary to theirsame-faith—Islam becomes a shared ethnic-like identity. Since twospecific studies have demonstrated moderately high correlationsbetween measures of ethnic identity and religious identity for targetpopulations of Arab and Muslim Americans, in the following Meth-ods section I discuss how I performed a factor analysis to determine ifreligious identity items should be incorporated into the ethnic identityscale used in this study.

METHODS

Sample

The target population was 753 Arab and Muslim community collegestudents from 15 southern California community colleges and 6southeastern Michigan community colleges. Of those students whoreported their gender, there were 409 females and 292 males. Thesample consisted of four subgroups: Arab-descent Christians, Arab-descent Muslims, non-Arab-descent Muslims, and Arab descent ofother faiths (neither Christian nor Muslim). Of these students, 44%were first generation, 19% 1.5 generation, and 37% second generation(U.S. born). The mean age was 20.3 years, SD¼ 2.04. Table 1 showsthe frequency distribution of the four major subgroups of the sample.There were 496 Arab-descent students (192 Arab-descent Christians,

Table 1. The number and percentage of students by Arab-descent Christian,

Arab descent of other faiths, Arab-descent Muslim, and non-Arab-descent

Muslim, Total N¼ 753

Arab-descent

Christian %

Arab-descent

other faiths %

Arab-descent

Muslim %

Non-Arab-

descent Muslim %

Total

students Total (%)

N¼ 192 25 N¼ 20 3 N¼ 284 38 N¼ 257 34 N¼ 753 100

292 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

20 Arab-descents of other faiths, 284 Arab-descent Muslims) and 257non-Arab-descent Muslims. The highest percentages of students wereArab-descent Muslims, 38%, and non-Arab-descent Muslims, 34%.

I determined Arab descent by employing three different criteria: (a)identification with an Arab or Arab American ethnicity; (b) born inan Arabic-speaking country, or at least one of the parents or grand-parents was; and (c) Arabic as the primary language spoken withfamily, siblings, or friends. I derived these criteria of Arab descentfrom contemporary Arab-American studies (e.g., Naber, 2008; Read,2008). In this study, if the respondent marked an Arab or ArabAmerican ethnicity on the survey, I used the first criterion to defineArab descent. I applied the second criterion of Arab descent torespondents who wrote in an Arab nationality (e.g., Lebanese, Egyp-tian). For those students, who identified as Middle Eastern, Cauca-sian, or Chaldean on the survey, I based Arab descent uponwhether they met the second and third criteria. I specifically addedthe third criterion, ‘‘Arabic as the primary language spoken,’’ toexclude those cases that identified with Middle Eastern or Caucasian,but were of a non-Arab ancestry who happened to be born, or theirparents and grandparents were, in an Arabic-speaking country.

Table 2 presents the frequency distribution of the three Arabdescent groups, Arab-descent Christians, Arab-descents of otherfaiths, and Arab-descent Muslims, by their reported ethnicities onthe survey. Table 2 reveals the importance of religion in shapingArab-descent students’ perceptions of their ethnicity. Of Arab-descent Muslims, 97% identified as being Arab or Arab American,

Table 2. The number and percentage of Arab-descent Christian, Arab-

descent Muslim, and Arab descent other faith students by self-reportedethnicity, total N¼ 496

Ethnicity

Arab-descent

Christian (N) %

Arab-descent

other faith (N) %

Arab-descent

Muslim (N) % Total

Arab=Arab-American 72 38 10 50 277 97

Caucasian 2 1 2 10 0 0

Iraqi Chaldean 35 18 0 0 0 0

Middle Eastern (e.g.,

Egyptian Copts,

Lebanese Maronite,

Iraqi Chaldeans

78 40 6 30 1 <1

Mixed Arab 5 3 2 10 6 2

Subtotals 192 100 20 100 284 100

Arab descent total 496 39% 4% 57% 100%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

as compared to only 38% of Arab-descent Christians. The post-9=11Detroit Arab-American study (Baker et al, 2004) also reported thesame finding, but the percentage difference between the two groupswas not as striking as found in the present study. Among theArab-descent students of other faiths, about 50% identified withbeing Arab=Arab American, and 40% associated with the MiddleEastern identity.

Non-Arab-descent Muslim Students

Like Arab-descent Muslim students, non-Arab Muslim students weredetermined by responding in the survey that one of the sects of Islamwas their religion (e.g., Sunni, Shiite). The non-Arab-descent Muslimstudents represented 40 ethnicities (e.g., Iranian, Afghani, Kurdish,Turkish, Indian, Pakistani, Somali, Vietnamese, Cambodian,Bosnian, African American, Latino, and Asian). Table 3 shows thefrequency distribution of non-Arab Muslim students by reportedethnicity on the survey. For the sake of parsimony, I reduced the40 ethnicities to eight ethnic group classifications. As Table 3 illus-trates, this diverse ethnic representation of Muslim students chal-lenges the popular misconception that all Muslims are of Arabdescent (Joseph, 1999). Middle Eastern and South Asian representthe largest percentages of ethnicities reported by the non-Arab-descent Muslim group, 45% and 23%, respectively. Of the totalsample of students (N¼ 753), Middle Eastern ethnicity was reportedby 38% of Arab-descent Christians and 62% by non-Arab descentMuslims who were predominantly Iranian, Afghani, and Kurd. The

Table 3. The number and percentage of non-Arab-descent Muslim students

by ethnicity Total N¼257

Ethnicity N Percentage

African American 18 7

Asian 8 3

Caucasian 13 5

European (e.g., Bosnian, Albanian) 5 2

Latino 8 3

Middle Eastern (e.g., Iranian,

Afghani, Kurd)

117 45

Southeast Asian=Subcontinent India 58 23

Sub-Saharan African 30 12

Totals 257 100%

294 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

less represented ethnicities of the non-Arab Muslim group were Sub-Saharan African, 12%; African American, 7%; Caucasian, 5%;Latino, 3%; and European, 2%.

Students’ Claimed Religious Affiliations

Students reported 21 religious denominations or sects on the survey,which were represented categorically as Christian, Muslim, and otherfaiths. Of the student sample, 25% were Arab-descent Christians, 72%Arab-descent and non-Arab-descent Muslims, and 3% of Arab-des-cent of other faiths (e.g., Bahai, Druze, Jewish, agnostic, and atheist).

Survey Recruitment

I selected the 21 community colleges to recruit students on at leastone of the following three criteria. First, there were a sizeable percen-tage of Arab-descent students and Southeast Asian and Africanstudents of the Muslim faith. Second, their Muslim, Arab, Iranian,or Pan-African student organizations were active on campus. Third,Arabic and Farsi language courses were regularly offered in thecurriculum in order to provide easier access to students of Arabic,Iranian, and Islamic heritages.

Students were surveyed at eight locations, seven on campus andone off-campus, the frequency distributions of which are shown inTable 4. Table 4 shows that about one-third of the 753 respondents

Table 4. Number and percentage of Arab and Muslim students surveyed at

eight locations, N¼ 753

Survey locations N Percentage

Library 184 25

Cafeteria 55 7

11 general studies courses (history,

anthropology, sociology, biology,

chemistry, and physics)

33 4

11 ESL courses (levels 1, 2, 3, & 4) 107 14

20 Language courses (Arabic and Farsi) 230 31

Student organizations (e.g., Muslim

student organization, Desi Club, and

Pan-African Club)

79 11

Other campus sites (outside library) 9 1

Places of worship (3 churches, 1 mosque)

and Arab-American festival

56 7

Total 753 100%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

were surveyed in 18 Arabic and 2 Farsi language classes, anotherthird in cafeterias and libraries, and the remaining percentage of stu-dents were surveyed from general studies courses, ESL classes (predo-minantly intermediate and advanced levels), Muslim and ethnicstudent organizations, and places or worship. Whenever possible,at each of the 21 community colleges, I made an effort to recruitand survey students uniformly from most of all the seven campuslocations.

Survey Administration

Students were administered a 92-item survey questionnaire. At sevenof the eight survey locations, the students generally took from 15 to30 minutes to complete the survey after I had given them about a10-minute introductory explanation of the project and instrument.During that time, I reiterated to the students, as outlined on the Insti-tutional Review Board information sheet distributed to them prior tothem taking the survey, that their participation was voluntary,confidential, and anonymous. Each student received a $6 SubwaySandwich cash card for their survey participation.

Focus Group Recruitment

I conducted three focus groups in order to provide in-depth explana-tions for some of the survey results found. This was particularlyimportant with respect to students’ disclosure in surveys concerningtheir experiences with discrimination on campus. I recruited twofocus groups from an ESL and an Arabic language class at two com-munity colleges in southeastern Michigan. The third focus group wasfrom a contact at a southern California social service organizationwhose clientele was primarily Arab and Muslim families. Ten ofthe 16 focus group participants had taken the survey at their respec-tive community colleges. The focus groups lasted between 45 minutesand 1.5 hours.

SCALES

Perceived Discrimination Scale

The Perceived Discrimination Scale consisted of nine survey items.The nine items attempted to tap overt and covert forms of perceiveddiscrimination at the personal and group level. There has been

296 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

compelling evidence to suggest that respondents are more likely toperceive a higher level of discrimination directed at their groupthan at themselves (e.g., Crosby, 1984; Rippy & Newman, 2006;Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde,1990). Four of the nine items asked direct statements about feelingpersonally discriminated against because of one’s ethnicity or reli-gion. Another two items aimed at measuring perceived discriminationagainst one ethnic or religious group. The remaining three items donot refer directly to perceived discrimination, but are positivestatements about the campus climate, i.e., institutional support,openness to racial and religious discussion and campus diversity.The rationale for including these three items was that a successionof discrimination-phrased items on the survey might lead studentseither to underestimate or to overestimate their perceptions of discri-mination on campus.

A Principal Components factor analysis with Varimax rotationshowed that the six discrimination-worded items and three campusclimate items loaded on factors 1 and 2, respectively. Factors 1 and 2accounted for 47% and 19%, respectively, of the total varianceexplained (eigenvalues> 1 at 4.21 and 1.69). The Cronbach alphareliability statistic was within an acceptable range (a¼ .83)

The Perceived Discrimination Scale was constructed from meanscores that were generated from students’ responses to each of thenine survey items. Based on a 5-point rating scale (strongly agree,agree, not sure, disagree, strongly disagree), the mean value forthe perceived discrimination scale was 2.21, SD¼ .70, N¼ 703.A score that exceeds 2.21 indicates higher levels of perceived dis-crimination. Although a mean score of 2.21 is not strikingly high,it is useful to contextualize this score by comparing the Arab andMuslim group mean score on perceived discrimination with anon-Arab and non-Muslim student group. The comparison groupof non-Arabs and non-Muslims (N¼ 555), which predominantlywas comprised of African Americans, Latinos, Asians, andWhites, displayed a recognizably lower group mean score of1.94, SD¼ .574. A post hoc comparison indicated that the meanscores for subgroups of the Arab and Muslim group were signifi-cantly higher than three of the four subgroups of the non-Araband non-Muslim group.

Four Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales

The four ethnic=faith friendship group variables were measured bythe students’ self report of the percentage of their campus friends


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

who were of the same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry anddifferent religion, same religion and different ancestry, and differentreligion and different ancestry. On the survey I substituted the word‘‘ancestry’’ for ethnicity in the event that respondents did not under-stand fully the term ‘‘ethnicity’’ or did not identify with a particularethnic group.

Students were presented with five different activities, i.e., studywith campus friends that are classmates, studying with campusfriends that are outside of one’s class, talk with campus friends abouttopics unrelated to studies, dine with campus friends, and participatein on- and off-campus activities with campus friends. For each ofthese activities they were asked to report the percentage of campusfriends that were of the same ancestry and same religion, same ances-try and different religion, same religion and different ancestry, anddifferent religion and different ancestry. If their friends fell into onlyone, two, or three of the four response categories, the respondentswere to place 0 % in the remaining categories. All assigned percen-tages had to add up to 100%.

A Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax rotationon the 20 ethnic=faith friendship group items indicated that samereligion and different ancestry, and same ancestry and different reli-gion loaded on factors 2 and 3, respectively. Although same ances-try and same religion, and different religion and different ancestryloaded on factors 1, 2, and 3, their highest loadings were on factor1. These latter two measures share the same factor, because theforced-choice format of the 20 items suppresses a fourth factor.That is, the scores or percentages assigned to the four friendshipgroup response categories are ipsative, signifying that they sum toa constant—100%, and the values of the three measures predeter-mine the value of the fourth measure. One advantage of a forcedchoice format is that it minimizes response bias because respondentsare required to stop and think where and how they will distributethe scores or percentages across the response categories (Thomas,Fann-Thomas, & Schaubhut, 2008). All three factors explained75% of the total variance.

Across the five student activities, on the average 39% of campusfriends were of the same ancestry and same religion, 13% were the sameancestry and different religion, 21% were the same religion and differentancestry, and 27% were of a different religion and different ancestry.For the four ethnic=faith friendship group scales, the Cronbach alphareliabilities were .94–same ancestry and same religion; .91–same ances-try and different religion; .90–same religion and different ancestry; and.93–different religion and different ancestry.

298 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Ethnic Identity Scale

The strength of ethnic identity was measured by six items acrossthree dimensions: ethnic identity achievement, affirmation andbelonging, and ethnic behavior and practices. The six surveyitems were taken from the 14-item Ethnic Identity subscale ofPhinney’s Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure Scale (MEIM).The Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure has been widely usedin multicultural research, namely with high school students andcollege students. In a review of 12 published studies using theMEIM, a group of investigators reported that the Ethnic Identitysubscale, in particular, demonstrated respectable levels of internalconsistency and moderately strong construct validity based uponexploratory factor analyses (Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Stracuzzi,& Saya, Jr., 2003).

The six ethnic identity items were entered into a PrincipalComponents Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation in order todetermine if all six items loaded on one ethnic identity factor, asreported by Phinney (1992). I also added four religious identityitems into the factor analysis to determine if they would load onthe same factor as the ethnic identity items. As mentioned earlier,in adding religious items to the scale, the assumption was that itmight tap into an ethno-religious identity. The four religious itemsencompassed sense of belonging to one’s religious group, active insocial groups including members of religious group, degree of religi-osity, and belief in the literalness of one’s holy book. The factoranalysis showed that five of the six ethnic identity items loadedon one factor, ranging from .52 to .71 (factor 2). All four religiousitems and one ethnic identity item had their highest loadings on aseparate factor (factor 1). Except for the one ethnic identity item,which had a loading on factor 1 that was not sizeably higher thanon factor 2, the finding seemed to indicate that ethnic identityand religious identity were unique constructs. When the religiousitems were removed from the factor analysis, all six ethnic identityitems clustered together on one factor, which coincided with thefindings of Phinney (1992) and Ponterrotto et al. (2003). TheCronbach alpha reliability statistic for the Ethnic Identity scalewas.75, which was considerably lower than what Phinney reportedfor her four-year college, urban sample (r¼ .90). This lower coeffi-cient might be owing to that only six of Phinney’s 14 subscale itemswere used in this study.

The Ethnic Identity Scale was constructed from mean scores thatwere derived from the responses to the six ethnic identity items. Based


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

on a 5-point rating scale (strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree,and strongly agree), the scale’s mean value was 4.0 (SD¼ 69,N¼ 691), which indicated that Arab and Muslim students had aremarkably strong ethnic identity. To explore whether a high meanscore might be attributable to a halo effect or an extreme response style,I compared Arab and Muslim students’ mean scores with those of thenon-Arab and non-Muslim student group. The mean scores of Non-Arab and non-Muslim students were appreciably lower than Araband Muslim counterparts (mean¼ 3.50, SD¼ .74, N¼ 468). This com-parative finding strengthened the case that the Ethnic Identity Scale wasa valid predictor of Arab and Muslim students’ strong ethnic identity.

RESULTS

First Hypothesis

The first hypothesis maintains that among Arab and Muslim stu-dents, there is a positive relationship between the level of perceiveddiscrimination on campus and the percentage of same-ethnic and=oror same-faith campus friends. Table 5 shows statistically significantbut extremely small-sized relationships between the level of perceiveddiscrimination and the percentage of same ancestry and different reli-gion campus friends (r¼ .087, p<.05), and the percentage of differentreligion and different ancestry campus friends (r¼ .09, p<.05). How-ever, given the relatively large sample size, the strength of these tworelationships is negligible. Thus a conservative interpretation of thefinding presented in Table 5 is that there is no relationship betweenperceived discrimination and the four ethnic=faith friendship groups.

Table 5. Bivariate correlations between perceived discrimination and four-

ethnic=faith friendshipgroups: campus friends of same ancestry and same

religion, same ancestry and different religion, same religion and differentancestry, and different religion and different ancestry

Campus friendship groups Perceived discrimination

Percentage of same ancestry and same religion N¼ 597 0.080y

Percentage of same ancestry and different religion N¼ 593 0.087�

Percentage of same religion and different ancestry N¼ 593 �0.051

Percentage of different religion and different ancestry N¼ 593 �0.093�

�p< .05, yp< .10.

300 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Second Hypothesis

The second hypothesis asserts that there is a positive relationshipbetween the strength of ethnic identity and the percentage of same-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends. As Table 6 indicates, therewere no significant correlations found between ethnic identity and thefour ethnic=faith friendship groups. Therefore, these findings did notsupport the second hypothesis. From the findings, ethnic identity wasnot a strong predictor of students choosing campus friends in any ofthe four ethnic=faith friendship groups.

Focus Group Results

Since the survey results had revealed a lower level of perceived discri-mination than I had expected, I spent more time with focus groupmembers in investigating any types of discrimination that theyencountered, mainly with respect to their ethnicity and religion.Given the space constraints here, I will mention only three of thesix emergent themes accompanied by selected quotes from three ofthe narratives.

In the beginning of the sessions, students responded indifferentlywhen asked about the extent of discrimination experienced on theircampus. Apart from a few isolated cases concerning disrespect forIslam, e.g., a male member of the Muslim Student Associationrecounted that during a club rush week, one student approachedhim and yelled out ‘‘Your prophet is a molester,’’ students’ commentsexuded almost imperviousness to perceiving discrimination on cam-pus. When I began to probe into why respondents might not reportfeeling discriminated against on a survey, a few students mentionedfear and feelings of intimidation, and the view of ‘‘making a big dealout of something’’ if the discriminatory incident cannot be easily

Table 6. Bivariate correlations between ethnic identity and four ethnic=faith

friendship groups: campus friends of same ancestry and same religion, same

ancestry and different religion, same religion and different ancestry, and

different religion and different ancestry

Ethnic=faith campus friendship groups Ethnic identity

Percentage of same ancestry and same religion N¼ 632 0.074

Percentage of same ancestry and different religion N¼ 628 0.004

Percentage of same religion and different ancestry N¼ 628 �0.023

Percentage of different religion and different ancestry N¼ 628 �0.062


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

confirmed. The issue of not making a big deal out of something willbe discussed below as it relates to weighing the social costs ofacknowledging discrimination. In one focus group, a few focus groupmembers admitted that they gravitate towards students of their sameancestry and same-faith when they feel uncomfortable with thecampus climate. One female member remarked that ‘‘she liked tobe around Middle Eastern students’’—even if they were not of hersame-faith—because ‘‘they hold on to the same culture.’’

DISCUSSION

Arab and Muslim students do self-segregate into same-ethnic and=orsame-faith campus friendship groups, which seems suggestive of overtor covert inter-ethnic group conflict. A closer examination revealsthat, collectively, the majority of these campus friends are of the sameancestry and same religion; same ancestry, and different religion; andsame religion and different ancestry. Only a little over a quarter ofstudents’ campus friends are of a different religion and differentancestry. Yet, apart from students’ ethnic and religious clustering,there was no support for the second hypothesis—the relationshipbetween the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage ofsame-ethnic and=or same-faith campus friends.

Earlier in the paper I put forth the idea that in negotiating campusfriendships students might be shifting their social identity boundariesto accommodate the ethnic or religious differences between them.The assumption is that in a less benign campus climate, sharing(at least) the same-ethnicity provides students a comfort zone. In col-lege cafeterias, libraries, and student organizations, I have observedthis phenomena play out in Arab and Muslim students’ interactionswith their campus friends. For example, at a Desi Club meeting,Indian Hindus, Pakistani, and Indian Muslims clearly identified withtheir separate religions and ethnicities, but the camaraderie betweenthem was situated around the larger regional, ethnic identity—beingDesi (South Asian).

There was no support found for hypothesis two—ethnic identitywas not a strong predictor of students choosing campus friends inany of the four ethnic=faith friendship groups. Although religiousidentity was not a focal variable in this study, a subanalysis revealedthat there was a small significant relationship between religiousidentity and the percentage of campus friends of the same ancestryand same religion. This result is not entirely clear whether it indicatesthat religious identity might have had more salience for students in

302 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

their choice of same-ethnic and same-faith friends or simply anartifact of a relatively large sample size.

A major concern is why there was little variation in the level ofperceived discrimination on the percentage of campus friends fromthe four ethnic=faith friendship groups. In comparison to non-Araband non-Muslim students, Arab and Muslim students reportedhigher rates of discrimination (two to four times) on four of the ninediscrimination scale items. On the scale as a whole, their group meanscore was sizeably higher than non-Arab and non-Muslim students,but not strikingly so—particularly in light of the discriminationstatistics cited earlier in two recent national surveys on Arab andMuslim Americans. A possible explanation is that racial tensionand conflict may be less overt on community college campuses, whichmay explain why there are relatively positive descriptions of the cam-pus climate in many of the individual community colleges’ institu-tional reports (e.g., Arnold, 1995; Mattice, 1994; Maxwell &Shammas, 2007) as compared to the higher rates of perceived discri-mination reported in the four-year college studies (Levin et al. 2003,2006). In the final section, I address why this assumption is not neces-sarily accurate and advance a few reasons for the under-reporting ofdiscrimination on campus.

Implications for Future Research

Clearly these are institutional and demographic differences to con-sider between community colleges and four-year elite research uni-versities. As compared to the highly selective four-year researchuniversities, community colleges advocate an open-door policy,and demographically, have a disproportionately higher number ofethnic minorities and first-generation immigrants. Because of theseobservable differences in structural diversity, community collegesare more likely to provide a critical mass that might neutralize theeffects of perceived campus discrimination. There is also convincingevidence that minorities may estimate the social costs involvedbefore acknowledging discrimination. Their concern is that the dis-criminatory event might be a false alarm or that nonminoritiesmight perceive them as complainers or oversensitive (Crosby,1984; Feagin & Sikes, 1994: Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Swim et al.,1998). While this second argument is certainly plausible, I maintainthat the source of the underreporting of discrimination lies in theneed for community college researchers to develop more sensitivemeasures of the campus climate. One shortcoming of this study,which is a common characteristic of other studies, is that the survey


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

questions should have focused upon a broader range of discrimina-tory behaviors that students experience frequently on campusthrough their interactions with other students, faculty, staff, andadministration. Equally important are measures that tap into themore subtle forms of discrimination, i.e., microaggressions. Whenresearchers have presented respondents with a wide array of racistverbal and nonverbal behaviors that they have confronted overgiven time periods, the rates of perceived discrimination are moder-ately high (Boughan, 1992; Ladrine & Klonoff, 1996). In including adetailed list of 18 different types of racial bias in his community col-lege campus survey, Boughan (1992) reported that 38% of the stu-dents encountered at least one of the 18 types of discrimination.

It is inconceivable that many Arab and Muslim students’ retreatinto same-ethnic and same-faith friendship groups has made themimpervious to perceiving discrimination on campus. It is far too easyto dismiss the campus climate as having little inter-ethnic or inter-faith conflicts, particularly when it seems more refined methodsof measuring campus climate is warranted. Arguably, it is theresearcher’s moral responsibility to keep restructuring the questions,which will chisel away the barriers of silence, reticence, and defensive-ness so that the suppressed voices of Arabs and Muslims—as well asthose of all minorities—may be heard.

REFERENCES

Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and

friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173.

Ahdab-Yehia, M. (1983). The Lebanese Maronites: Patterns of continuity and

change. In S. Y. Abraham and N. Abraham (Eds.), Arabs in the new world:

Studies on Arab-American communities (pp. 148–162). Detroit, MI: Wayne State

University

Alem�aan, A. M. Martinez (November 5, 1998). Intentional communities: Do they

foster integration or separation? Paper presented at Ashe Symposium, Miami,

FL.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge MA: Perseus Books.

Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of international interaction in the development of

leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher

Education, 42(5), 593–616.

Arab American Institute. (2007). Census 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from

www.aaiusa.org

Arnold, C. L. (1995). Chabot College campus climate survey results: Fall 1994.

Hayward, CA: Chabot College Office of Institutional Research. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED402982.)

304 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Asmar, C. (2003). A community on campus. In A. Saeed & S. Akbarzadeh (Eds.),

Muslim communities in Australia (2nd printing; pp. 139–160). Sydney, Austra-

lia: University of New South Wales Press.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisted. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baker, W., Howell, S., Jamal, A., Lin, A., Shryock, A., Stockton, R. et al. (2004).

Preliminary findings from the Detroit Arab American Study, executive sum-

mary report. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from http://www.umich.edu/

news/Releases/2004/Jul04/daas.pdf

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Boughan, K. (1992). Student perceptions of the racial climate at Prince George’s

Community College, Spring 1992: A preliminary report. Largo, MD: Prince

George’s Community College, Office of Institutional Research. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED346925).

Branscombe, N., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination:

Individualistic versus group level-strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor

(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 243–266). San Diego, CA,

London: Academic Press.

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact:

The effects of group membership salience. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 37, 255–343.

Cainkar, L. (2008). Thinking outside the box, Arabs and race in the United States.

In A. Jamal & N. Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9=11,

from invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 46–80). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University Press.

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral

Scientist, 27, 371–386.

Das Gupta, M. (1997). What is Indian about you?: A gendered, transnational

approach to ethnicity. Gender and Society, 11(5), 572–596.

Eid, P. (2003). The interplay between ethnicity, religion, and gender among second-

generation Christian and Muslim Arabs in Montreal. Canadian Ethnic Studies

Journal, 35(2), 30–60.

El-Hamamsy, L. S. (1997). The assertion of Egyption identity. In S. Ibrahim & N. S.

Hopkins (Eds.), An Arab society in transition. (pp. 50–75). Cairo: The American

University in Cairo.

Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in Ivy: Assessing identity and perceived

threat. Sex Roles, 22(7–8), 427–440.

Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The black middle-class

experience. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books.

Gans, H. (1994). Symbolic ethnicity and symbolic religiosity: Toward a compari-

son of ethnic and religious acculturation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17,

577–592.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gualtieri, S. (2001). Becoming ‘‘White’’: Race, religion, and the foundations of

Syrian=Lebanese ethnicity in the United States. Journal of American Ethnic

History, 20(4), 29–58.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Dey, E. L., & Hurtado, S. (2002). Diversity and higher educa-

tion: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,

72(3), 330–366.

Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002). Students’

precollege preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in

Higher Education, 43(2), 163–186.

Isajiw, W. W. (1974). Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1(2), 111–124.

Joseph, S. (1999). Against the grain of the nation—The Arab. In M. W. Suleiman

(Ed.), Arabs in America, building a new future (pp. 257–272). Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making

attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology and Bulletin,

27(10), 1357–1367.

Ladrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of

racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health

consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 144–168.

Lee, R. M., & Davis, C., III. (2000). Cultural orientation, past multicultural experi-

ence, and a sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college students.

Journal of College Student Development, 41, 110–115.

Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Foote, W. (2006). Ethnic segregation and perceived

discrimination in college: Mutual influences and effects on social and academic

life. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1471–1501.

Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of in-group and out-group

friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes

and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 76–82.

Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a

predominantly White university. Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 58–77.

Maila, J. (2004). The Arab Christians: From the eastern question to the recent poli-

tical situation of the minorities. In A. Pacini (Ed.), Christian, communities in the

Arab Middle East (pp. 25–47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mattice, N. J. (1994). Campus climate survey. Santa Clarita, CA: College of the

Canyons. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374854)

Maxwell, W. E., & Shammas, D. (2007). Research on race and ethnic relations among

community college students. Community College Review, 34(4), 344–361.

McNeill, B. (2001). An exercise in ethnic identity awareness. Journal of Multicultural

Counseling and Development, 29, 274–279.

Miller, M., Hughes, A., Anderson, R., Cannon, S., Perez, E., & Moore, H. (1998).

Campus racial climate policies: The view from the bottom up. Race, Gender &

Class, 5(2), 139–151.

Murray, N. (2004). Profiled: Arabs, Muslims, and the post-9=11 hunt for the enemy

within. In E. C. Hagopian (Ed.), Civil rights in peril: The targeting of Arabs and

Muslims. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Muslims in the American Public Square. (2004). Retrieved on January 10, 2006,

from http://www.projectmaps.com/AMP2004report.pdf

Naber, N. (2006). The rules of forced engagement. Cultural Dynamics, 18(3),

235–268.

306 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Naber, N. (2008). Look, Mohammed the terrorist is coming!: Cultural racism,

nation-based racism, and the intersectionality of oppressions after 9=11. In

A. Jamal & N. Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9=11,

from invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 276–304). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University Press.

Naff, A. (1985). Becoming American: The early Arab immigrant experience.

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. New York:

Routledge.

Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociol-

ogy of Religion, 66(3), 215–242.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice:

Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and

discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use

with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176.

Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Stracuzzi, T., & Saya, R., Jr. (2003).

The Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM): Psychometric review

and further validity testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63,

502–515.

Rabbath, E. (1977). The common origin of the Arabs. In S. E. Ibrahim & N. S.

Hopkins (Eds.), An Arab society in transition (pp. 35–48). Cairo, Egypt: The

American University in Cairo.

Rankin, S. (2005). Differing perceptions of how students of color and White

students perceive campus climate for under-represented groups. Journal of

College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61.

Read, Jen’nan Ghazal. (2008). Discrimination and identity formation in a post- 9=11

era, a comparison of Muslim and Christian Arab Americans. In A. Jamal & N.

Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9=11, from invisible citi-

zens to visible subjects (pp. 276–304). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University

Press.

Rippy, A. E., & Newman, E. (2006). Perceived religious discrimination and its rela-

tionship to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim

Mental Health, 1(1), 5–20.

Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive

or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-

esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72(2), 373–389.

Sengstock, M. C. (1982). The Chaldean Americans. Staten Island, NY: The Center

for Migration Studies.

Shadid, W. (2006). Public debates over Islam and the awareness of Muslim identity

in the Netherlands. European Education, 38, 10–22.

Shaw, K. M., & Coleman, A. B. (2000). Humble on Sundays: Family, friends, and

faculty in the upward mobility experiences of African American females.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 31(4), 449–470.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of

social dominance. In P. M. Sniderman & P. E. Tetlock (Eds.), Prejudice, politics,

and the American dilemma (pp. 173–211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

Sol�oorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro-

aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American

college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984.) The role of ignorance in inter-group

relations. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology

of de-segregation (pp. 229–257). New York: Academic Press.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarznald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998).

Prejudice towards immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory

analysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559–576.

Steward, R. J., Jackson, M. R., & Jackson, J. D. (1990). Alienation and interactional

styles in a predominantly White environment: A study of successful Black

students. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 509–515.

Suleiman, M. (2004). Image making and invisible minorities: A case of Arab

American students. In G. S. Goodman & K. Carey (Eds.), Critical multicultural

conversations (pp. 79–91). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice

and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s

perspective (pp. 38–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?

New York: Basic Books.

Taylor, D. M., Wright, S., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal-

group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a

target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 254–

262.

Thomas, K. W., Fann-Thomas, G., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men

and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Manage-

ment, 19(2), 148–166.

Villalpano, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory

and Latino=a critical theory analysis of a study of Chicano=a college students.

Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 619–646.

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. R. (1997). The extended

contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90.

308 D. S. Shammas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

1:29

04

Oct

ober

201

4

post-9/11 arab and muslim american community college students: ethno-religious enclaves and...

Documents