Strategic Diversity Leadership

STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP
COMPANION VOLUME
THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER

Strategy, Structure, and Change Management
Damon A. Williams and Katrina Wade-Golden
Also available as
THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP SET
STRATEGIC
DIVERSITY
LEADERSHIP
ACTIVATING CHANGE AND TRANSFORMATION
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
DAMON A. WILLIAMS
Foreword by William G. Tierney
STERLING, VIRGINIA
copyright 2013 by
Stylus Publishing, llc.
Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC
22883 Quicksilver Drive
Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted

or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying, recording and information storage and
retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Williams, Damon A.
Strategic diversity leadership / Damon A. Williams.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57922-819-4 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-57922-821-7 (library networkable e-edition)
ISBN 978-1-57922-822-4 (consumer e-edition)
1. MinoritiesEducation (Higher)United States.
2. Educational leadershipUnited States. 3. Educational
equalizationUnited States. I. Title.
LC3731.W53 2013
378.1'9820973dc23 2012045091
13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-819-4 (cloth)

13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-821-7 (library networkable
e-edition)
13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-822-4 (consumer e-edition)
Printed in the United States of America
All rst editions printed on acid free paper

that meets the American National Standards Institute
Z39-48 Standard.
Bulk Purchases
Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops
and for staff development.
Call 1-800-232-0223
First Edition, 2013
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my wife Kisha,
it starts and ends with you.
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
FOREWORD xi
William G. Tierney
INTRODUCTION 1
Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and
Transformation in Higher Education
PART ONE: WHY IS DIVERSITY IMPORTANT IN THE

NEW MILLENNIUM?
1. DIVERSITY IN THE NEW ECONOMY 31

Navigating the Perfect Storm
PART TWO: WHAT IS DIVERSITY?
2. TOWARD A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DEFINITION

OF DIVERSITY 81
3. HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY

MODELS 129
PART THREE: WHAT IS STRATEGIC DIVERSITY

LEADERSHIP?
4. WHY DIVERSITY EFFORTS FAIL 163

The Cheetah and the Wolf
5. THE ARTFUL SCIENCE OF STRATEGIC DIVERSITY

LEADERSHIP 206
vii
viii CONTENTS
6. BEING ACCOUNTABLE 256

Building a Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard
7. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL

DIVERSITY PLANS 302
8. ACTIVATING THE DIVERSITY CHANGE JOURNEY 368

A National Portrait of Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education
9. DIVERSITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND

TASK FORCES 408
REFERENCES 439
INDEX 459
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
G
enuine gratitude goes to my family and friends for their love, sup-
port, and sacrices, during my sustained recesses in developing this
work. It was a creative journey that took so much to realize. I
appreciate your patience through the long silences and unreturned phone
calls, as my nearly every moment was consumed with my leadership respon-
sibilities and dogged desire to produce two books worthy of the investment
that each of you have made in me through the years.
I am especially thankful for my father and mother, Stephen and Melanie
Williams, and my grandparents Melvin and Katherine Williams, Arthur and
Marjorie Stephens, and Charles and Mary Fields, who sacriced so much to
ensure that I received the best education possible.
This work would not have been possible without my coauthor on The
Chief Diversity Ofcer, research partner, and sisterDr. Katrina Wade-
Golden. You are an amazing scholar, wonderful mother, wife, sister, and friend
to all that know you. I am so happy for you, Roderick, Dash, and Acie
my accomplishments are partially a reection of your friendship and support
through the years. I am thankful to have you in my life and look forward to
our continuing partnership and collective contributions to this work.
I have been particularly privileged to have a number of mentors and role
models who have made powerful contributions to my development through
the years. Ronald Taylor, Gerald Gurin, Frank Longstreth, Sallye McKee,
John Matlock, Ron Crutcher, Alma Clayton-Pedersen, Marvin Peterson,
Cheryl Apprey, Susan Mosley-Howard, Lester Monts, Rodney Coates, Wal-
ter Kimbrough, and Charlie Nelms have been particularly strengthening in
their vision, support, and role modeling.
Of special signicance was the generous and clarifying aid of my editor
John Ramsburgh, who with patience and powerful attention to the nuances
of writing provided stellar assistance through multiple drafts of this manu-
script. Your critical and careful reading provided valuable feedback on mat-
ters of substance, mechanics, and style, as you served as an insightful
sounding board for my hopes and dreams with the project. You are truly
gifted and I look forward to continuing our work together.
ix
x ACK N O W L ED GM EN TS
I also thank Dan Chen of Pixedge, who designed the cover and models
embedded throughout both books. Dan, you are my design hero, a true
creative whose artistic talents are only matched by the depth of your techni-
cal expertise, and the kindness through which you give of your time and
brilliance. I am thankful to count you as an ally in my efforts to bring clarity
and insight into the process of leading organizational change.
To the men and women, the chief diversity ofcers, and diversity cham-
pions, who shared their ideas and experiences in this work, I am eternally
grateful to your struggle and the depth of your commitment to issues of
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Please know that I will always maintain the
highest standards of integrity, focus, and commitment to helping those who
are vulnerable, and leading our institutions to become inclusive and excellent
for all.
Kudos to John von Knorring, publisher of Stylus Publishing, who was
eternally patient and supportive as this book dragged into the third and
fourth years of writing, and ultimately became two books that complement
and extend one another. Your efforts to provide a tier-one publishing plat-
form for diverse ideas make you a powerful leader in the strategic diversity
leadership movement. I am thankful to call you a friend and ally in this
work.
Finally, to my staff, students, and colleagues at the University of
WisconsinMadison and the University of Connecticut, I appreciate your
investment in this project and understanding of the life that I have chosen
to lead as a scholar-administrator-educator. Your genuine concern for the
broader mission of diversity, equity, and inclusion is a reection of the true
character and commitment that each of you possess. While too many exist
to nameplease know that I am eternally grateful for your contributions
toward making this work possible.
FOREWORD
I
n his 1903 epic The Souls of Black Folk, W. E. B. Du Bois commented
that the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color
line. Damon Williams makes the case that the problem has extended
into the twenty-rst century as well, but he makes the argument more com-
plex. Whereas Du Bois wrote about race and ethnicity, Williams employs a
broad, overarching denition of diversity. He includes not only race, but
also gender, LGBT, disability, and other matters related to ones identity.
Strategic Diversity Leadership makes the assumption that diversity is cen-
tral to a successful country, but for diversity to succeed necessitates strat-
egyit does not just organically happen. Such an observation is crucial.
An analogy is apt: At my own institution, the University of Southern Cali-
fornia, we are in the midst of a capital campaign. We wish to raise 6 billion
dollars over seven years. Or actually, we do not wish to raise money; we
intend to raise money. Our intent is based on a strategic plan on how to do
it. As with any capital campaign, we quietly raised about $1 billion before
we launched the campaign. We hired many development ofcers to help
with the activities involved. We wrote a strategic plan. We gured out our
objectives. We have benchmarks on how much we want to raise each year.
We know what we need to do to reach our target and what we will do if we
fall behind. The deans and the faculty have their marching orders. In effect,
the entire institution is focused on what needs to be done to reach a goal
that is among the most ambitious in higher education.
Williams makes the case that if we are serious about diversity then we
need similar actions. Whereas in the twentieth century we may have said
that diversity was a moral imperative, Williams suggests that in the twenty-
rst century it is also an economic and social imperative. As the country
becomes more diverse, it is incumbent upon postsecondary institutions to
help the country enable diversity to succeed. And for that to happen, one
needs to be strategic.
Strategy also suggests that we not only need a plan, but that we must
recognize a one size ts all approach is likely to fall short. In fund-raising
xi
xii FOREWORD
we would most likely work with a donor who wishes to endow an athletic
center differently from someone whose concern is cancer research. Similarly,
the needs of Native American students in a rural area are likely to be different
from urban Latino students. We know that homeless youth are among the
least likely to graduate from high school and eventually get a four-year
degreeabout 3 out of 100. For us to strategically help these students is
different from what we might do to ensure that students who have a disabil-
ity feel fully engaged on campus.
In effect, Williams extends Vincent Tintos idea about engagement on
college campuses with what we have learned over the last generation. Yes,
individuals need to be engaged for diversity to succeed. But the terms of
engagement ought not to be the same for everyone. Rather than an assimila-
tionist framework, Williams is calling upon what I have dened elsewhere as
a model of cultural integrity. In doing so, the model moves away from a
decit framework and toward a framework that honors the strength of multi-
ple groups and individuals. Implementing such a model is not easy in part
because the work involves honoring the multiple subject locations and iden-
tities of those with whom we work, live, and educate. Ultimately we also
need to set clear goals about where we want to head; diversity, then, also has
endpoints that need to be achieved.
We ought to appreciate the optimism and ambition of this book.
Because of the depth of the text we understand that progress has been
madebut Williams suggests that we have not yet done enough. Because
his denition of diversity is broad, signicant, and deep, he also challenges
us to go beyond easy ideas about how to proceed.
This is also a text of the twenty-rst century which acknowledges that
more opportunities and pitfalls for such discussions exist. The advent of
social media enables us to communicate faster and with more groups and
individuals than we have ever done in the past. Such a capability affords us
great opportunities, but also makes our work more challenging. As technol-
ogy speeds up, the timeframe in which we are supposed to accomplish our
tasks lessens. The leisurely tempo of how organizations were to face their
decisions only a decade ago is now likely to happen simply with several clicks
of a mouse in virtual time.
Strategic Diversity Leadership is a moral compass for how we are to pro-
ceed in the twenty-rst century. The book necessitates that we take risks into
uncharted territory. The text helps us prepare for the trip, offers a rationale
for why the trip must be taken, provides a sense of what we are to accomplish
on the trip, explains the benets of undertaking the trip, and nally suggests
F O R EW O R D xiii
initial paths that we might take. With Williams as our guide, the odds are
pretty good we will get where he wants us to go. But rst we need to read
the book.
William G. Tierney
Los Angeles, California
INTRODUCTION
Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change
and Transformation in Higher Education
In a global economy, where the most valuable skill you can sell is your
knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity.
It is a prerequisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing
occupations require more than a high school diploma, and yet just over
half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the high-
est high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation, and half of the
students who begin college never nish. This is a prescription for eco-
nomic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today
will out-compete us tomorrow.
President Barack Obama in his rst speech to a Joint
Session of Congress, February 24, 2009
I
n his rst speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Barack
Obama announced his goal that by 2020, the United States should have
the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. His remarks
point to a powerful force confronting every country on earth: the emergence
of a knowledge-based, global economy (Alfred, 2005; Carnevale, Smith, &
Strohl, 2010; Peterson & Dill, 1997). The new drivers of this economy are
developing countries like China, India, and Brazil. And the new currency of
this economy is information, which gets exchanged each day through billions
of clicks on the World Wide Web. To compete, countries around the world
are making unparalleled investments in education, recognizing that the
country with the best-educated workforce will win the information race.
Incredible strides have been made by countries like Finland and South
Korea, where governments have made nancial commitments to education
in ways that they normally reserve for their largest industries. Sadly, the
1
2 I N T RO D U CT IO N
United States has not answered this challenge, and massive cuts to all levels
of education have had a powerfully demoralizing impact on our entire educa-
tional system. In the most recent ranking of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States ranked four-
teenth out of 34 countries in reading, seventeenth in math, and twenty-fth
in science, earning an overall score of average.1 According to Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan, The hard truth is that other high-performing
nations have passed us by during the last two decades. . . . In a highly
competitive knowledge economy, maintaining the educational status quo
means Americas students are effectively losing ground.2
As explored in Chapter 1, the rise of the global economy is only one of
ve major factors powering the perfect storm of challenges to our educa-
tional system. However, the global economy is worth emphasizing here
because it also highlights the particular opportunity, and competitive advan-
tage, that the United States still holds in the world. As one of the most
diverse developed countries in the world, the United States has enshrined in
its Constitution principles that uphold the value, legitimacy, and equity of
ethnic and racially diverse people and women. Moreover, our colleges and
universities are not only widely acknowledged as the best in the world, they
are also among the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse. Increas-
ingly in recent years, researchers have demonstrated conclusively that more
diverse learning environments lead to improved creativity, problem-solving,
and critical thinking (P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; P. Gurin,
Lehman, & Lewis, 2004; Hurtado, 2007). Thus, diversity helps establish a
powerful learning context for students to achieve what the Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) refers to as essential learning
outcomes (AAC&U, 2007). These outcomes include integrative learning,
inquiry learning, global learning, and civic learning. Students who
acquire these outcomes are better able to envision multiple perspectives,
explore diverse social and cultural contexts, and engage with the challenges
and opportunities of a society and economy that are now globally connected.
They are, in other words, best able to compete in the global economy, and
become productive members of an increasingly diverse American society.
Thus, promoting diversity is no longer simply a question of answering
our moral and social responsibilities, but a matter of academic and institu-
tional excellence. To take advantage of the clear intellectual and competitive
benets that a more diverse learning environment fosters, academic leaders
need to become simultaneously more strategic and proactive in their
approach to designing and implementing diversity policies and programs. In
I N T RO DU CT IO N 3
short, they need to become strategic diversity leaders.3 For too long, diversity
has been allowed to sit on the back burner of many aspects of American
higher education, from mission development and fund-raising to curriculum
design and performance evaluations.
Working from research compiled over several years, two contributions
are offered to the eld of strategic diversity leadership. The rst book in a
companion volume set, Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and
Transformation in Higher Education, establishes a foundation for understand-
ing diversity efforts in twenty-rst-century American higher education. It
begins by laying out the history of diversity efforts before turning to detailed
proposals for developing and implementing effective diversity policies, in-
cluding strategic diversity plans; accountability scorecards; recruitment and
retention programs; and leadership, resource, and infrastructure develop-
ment. The second book, The Chief Diversity Ofcer: Strategy, Structure, and
Change Management, written in partnership with Katrina Wade-Golden at
the University of Michigan, provides systematic guidance on how best to
dene, design, and deploy the role of the chief diversity ofcer (CDO) in
higher education. Depending on the readers particular expertise and inter-
ests, one book may prove more germane than the other. Although the books
have been written in such a way that each can stand on its own, they cover
different aspects of strategic diversity leadership and ideally should be read
together.
From its beginnings during the civil rights movement, to its recent reor-
ganization in response to trends in social science validating diversitys educa-
tional benets, the diversity movement in American higher education has
fought long and nobly to carve out a place for the rights and concerns of
diverse individuals and groups on college and university campuses. And this
movement has achieved great strides. They include funding diversity and
inclusion ofces; founding departments in ethnic, racial, gender, and inter-
national studies; promoting diversity-themed research disciplines; and estab-
lishing support systems and resources for students, faculty, and staff along a
number of different dimensions. However, to take our efforts to the next
level and move from incremental to transformational change, we need to
shift the way we think about diversityour diversity paradigmand ap-
preciate that diversity is no longer only about protecting the rights, and
enhancing the opportunities, of historically disadvantaged individuals and
groups. It is also, essentially, about achieving academic and institutional
excellence, positioning American colleges and universities to compete and
win in the global marketplace.
4 I NT R O DU C T I O N
Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and

Transformation in Higher Education
Strategic Diversity Leadership, therefore, aims to answer two ambitious chal-
lenges simultaneously and in an integrated fashion: rst, to engage deeply
with the theoretical issues that pertain to diversity; and second, to provide
specic and practical tools to help colleges and universities either launch
their strategic diversity plans or improve their existing efforts. Chapter 1
gives a background of the complex social, political, and economic forces
that are reshaping the diversity debate in higher education, and Chapter 2
investigates the complex and always changing understanding of diversity that
exists in higher education. This book is written from the perspective that
advancing diversity requires an appreciation of diversity as an evolving, multi-
dimensional concept, what might be called the diversity idea. The term
diversity idea is attractive because ideas, like diversity, are always changing.
Indeed, despite some similarities, the diversity idea of 2013 departs signi-
cantly from the diversity idea of 1980, and even more from the diversity idea
of 1950. The legal, political, demographic, social, organizational, and historic
context continues to evolve; as a result, higher education leaders must evolve
as well.
Understandably, there are concerns, including among the ranks of diver-
sity advocates, that embracing a more complex and uid understanding of
diversity presents a potential risk; by trying to encompass a wider set of
concerns and obligations, institutions may lose their focus with respect to
the vital ongoing work of increasing the access and equity of historically
disadvantaged populations in higher education. Especially today, as the
conservative right tries to use the courts and legislative measures to thwart
diversity efforts, we need to redouble our commitment to increasing the
enrollment and retention of ethnic and racial minorities in colleges, and to
increasing the representation of both minorities and women in the science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) elds, as well as in professional
elds like law, medicine, and business.
Indeed, even as these books go to press, the Supreme Court is set to rule
in Fisher v. University of Texas,4 the most recent conservative challenge to
afrmative action and race-conscious admissions policies in higher educa-
tion. Considering its conservative leanings, it is possible that the Supreme
Court will further limit the admissions tools available to public and private
colleges and universities who consider race and ethnicity as part of their
admissions processes. Although a potentially immediate and negative blow
I N T R O DU CT I O N 5
to the admission of African American and Latino students to selective under-

graduate and graduate schools, not even the Supreme Court can hold back
profound shifts now taking place in both academia and American society.
Thanks to new demographic trends and a growing awareness of the pro-
found benets of diversity, academic institutions are beginning to embrace
diversity as a mission imperative, not just a social justice cause. The task
before us all is to nd ways to integrate diversity into the core missions of
academic institutions and build policies that pass Constitutional muster
while enhancing the diversity of our campuses. These efforts will rely on
both hard work and creativity, as well as new approaches to diversity even
among its strongest advocates. After all, the historic tension between address-
ing long-standing discrimination and opening the diversity tent wide enough
to include everyone will not be resolved overnight. But it must be resolved
soon.
Rather than viewing diversity from an either/or perspective, our com-
munity should respond to these historic commitments and emerging oppor-
tunities with a both/and answer. Responding to the concerted attacks on
afrmative action, both Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity
Ofcer explore creative ways that diversity leaders can dynamically build
diversity into their efforts. Rather than encourage a general and nebulous
approach to pursuing the traditional aims of diversity, these books offer
specic initiatives and policies to enhance diversity efforts. The two books
also work to address ways to build capacity among new and emerging diverse
groups within the campus environment, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgendered, and queer (LGBTQ) community; the disabled; international
and undocumented students; veterans; rst-generation students; and others.
Of course no study can be exhaustive in its treatment of diversity, and omis-
sions, although unintended, are inevitable. I apologize for any oversights and
hope that neither individuals nor communities will feel slighted if they do
not see their particular issues explored to the degree they might wish. This
project should be viewed as part of an ongoing and evolving discussion of
diversity issues in academia; scholars and administrators are encouraged to
take up the models and theories presented here to explore in detail their own
particular circumstances and aspirations.
In fact, while Strategic Diversity Leadership explores both the scholarship
and contemporary theory behind the diversity idea, it also serves as a practi-
cal guide for all members of the academic community who wish to build
and implement concrete policies and programs to advance their diversity
goals. Although the end of this introduction provides a summary of the
6 I N T R O DU C T IO N
individual chapters that follow, it is worth enumerating the practical objec-

tives that inform each chapter. They include the following:
Helping institutional leaders develop a diversity rationale and institu-

tional denition of diversity that can then be infused into the primary
teaching, research, and service missions of academic institutions
(Chapters 1 and 2)
Elaborating the three dominant organizational diversity models that
currently exist on college and university campuses, and explaining
how to integrate them to improve outcomes (Chapter 3)
Explaining how institutions can go from a defensive, reactionary pos-
ture with respect to diversity challenges, toward a strong, robust
diversity change agenda (Chapter 4)
Exploring specic recommendations for building and funding insti-
tutional capacity, empowering diversity leadership, and navigating
the difcult waters of academic bureaucracies (Chapter 5)
Constructing a strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) to eval-
uate diversity policies and programs before, during, and after the
implementation of a diversity strategic plan (Chapter 6)
Addressing the inherent and recurrent challenges that confront ongo-
ing diversity efforts, whether implemented through a centralized,
integrated, or decentralized approach (Chapter 7)
Chapter 8 offers an overview of a major survey project the author undertook

involving over 700 higher education institutions across the country and
examining the degree to which institutions are building their strategic diver-
sity capabilities and practicingor not practicingkey diversity best prac-
tices. Chapter 9 provides guidance to assist leader in their efforts to establish
high performing campus diversity committees, outlining ve key contingen-
cies that must be resolved by senior leaders when tasking the issue. In addi-
tion, all the chapters explore specic historical examples of crisis incidents
and actual diversity plans, as well as programs and policies at every level of
academia, from community colleges to large research universities. To treat
specic case studies with as much tact and discretion as possible, particular
comments and condential feedback are at times left unattributed to a par-
ticular institution or leader. The ideas and writings of leaders in the diversity
eld also appear throughout, including Walter Allen, James Banks, Joe
Berger, Estella Bensimon, Christopher Brown II, Mitchell Chang, Alma
Clayton-Pedersen, Art Coleman, Taylor Cox, Patricia and Gerry Gurin,
John Matlock and Katrina Wade-Golden, Sylvia Hurtado, Jerlando Jackson,
I N T RO D U CT IO N 7
Adriana Kezar, Jonathan Alger, Jeffrey Milem, James Anderson, Gary

Oreld, Marvin Peterson, Raechele Pope, Laura Rendon, Daryl Smith,
David Thomas, Roosevelt Thomas, William Tierney, and many others who
have focused an organizational lens on questions of diversity, equity, and
inclusion.
Becoming a Strategic Diversity Leader

As demonstrated in Chapter 4, colleges and universities behave most often
like cheetahs when it comes to diversity crises, acting in a reactionary burst
of energy but often doing only what is immediately needed to resolve a
diversity crisis. The difference between cheetah institutions and academic
institutions that act like wolves, taking a coordinated and proactive approach
to diversity issues, centers in part on leadership. Chapter 5 of this book is
dedicated to exploring the ve dimensions of strategic diversity leadership.
And for readers interested in delving more deeply into leadership issues,
much of The Chief Diversity Ofcer is devoted to questions of diversity lead-
ership and the emerging role of the CDO in higher education and other
areas of organizational life.
In some ways, academic institutions are still a few steps behind the busi-
ness sector with respect to diversity issues. By drawing on leadership best
practices that exist not only in academia but also in other elds and disci-
plines, these books attempt to give anyone interested in promoting diver-
sitywhether a diversity ofcer, student, faculty member, staff person, or
administratorthe requisite tools for acting on his or her diversity priorities.
They are not solely intended for diversity professionals and specialists, but
for any and all diversity champions who want to become disciplined strategic
diversity leaders. Indeed, the skills and activities outlined in the following
pages are available to anyone involved in initiating, facilitating, or imple-
menting diversity-themed initiatives, whether or not he or she has an ofcial
title recognizing that responsibility.
In the new millennium, institutions will look more and more to strategic
diversity leaders, not only to help make their campus communities more
diverse, equitable, and inclusive, but also to improve their academic teaching
and research objectives. To become a strategic diversity leader requires a
mindset that can read external and internal pressures, navigate often treach-
erous organizational politics, leverage the best of what is known about
diversity-themed change management science, and engage others in the
process of moving the notoriously complex and tradition-bound cultures of
academic institutions forward.
8 I N T RO DU CT IO N
Whether one is going to lead campus diversity planning efforts, start a

campus club or organization, develop new faculty diversity recruitment poli-
cies, or chair the campus diversity committee, one should act from a place
of informed understandingnot simply from common-sense insights that
result from living in a diverse world, or having a sensitivity or passion for
diversity issues. This is especially true of presidents, provosts, deans, and
other senior leaders entrusted with engaging diversity as an institutional and
strategic priority. One of the striking features of the survey results reported
in Chapter 8 is how few institutions reported offering diversity training and
educational programs for senior leadership. Given the vital role these admin-
istrators play in guiding strategic diversity efforts, the lack of outreach and
trainings suggests a disconnect between the rhetoric of institutional commit-
ment and the reality for those in actual positions of authority. Although one
should not expect senior administrators to have the same expertise as their
CDOs, gaining a better understanding of the major trends in the diversity
eld will help them serve all their students, faculty, and staff. After all, at
this point a diverse learning environment is in the best interests of every
academic institution that strives to fulll its educational mission.
Every week the author receives several calls from campus leaders strug-
gling to develop, reinvigorate, or reframe their diversity efforts. Their most
common concern is that their institutions are not taking a disciplined
approach to building diversity-centered capacity. These offerings constitute
a response to those calls for help and an effort to serve the emerging eld of
strategic diversity leadership. In the twenty-rst century, there is no reason
why campus leaders should struggle to develop and implement high-caliber
diversity plans and accountability systems. The battle cry of Strategic Diver-
sity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Ofcer is that no matter what policy
model ultimately emerges, only a paradigm shift of the highest order will
allow us to face the challenges and opportunities of a diverse, global, and
interconnected reality still stratied along fault lines of race, ethnicity, gen-
der, sexual orientation, disability, economic background, and national-origin
status.
The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model

As mentioned earlier, the diversity equation is complex, as a perfect storm
of economic, demographic, legal, and historic challenges pushes diversity to
the fore as one of the most difcult issues facing higher education today.
The success of an institutions diversity efforts hinges on a complex set of
I N T RO D U CT IO N 9
interlocking dynamics, including environmental realities, scal constraints,

the formal diversity infrastructure, institutional politics, and a host of other
variables. It is for this reason that the big-picture strategic diversity goals of
our institutions must be understood in terms of the environmental, organiza-
tional, and temporal contexts of a campuss overall strategic vision for the
future.
Figure I.1 brings these concepts together visually in the Strategic Diver-
sity Leadership Model, which presents a broad overview of the major con-
cepts and principles that strategic diversity leaders must understand to be
effective, and provides a touchstone for the themes that guide the rest of this
book. The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model seeks to provide a frame-
work for understanding the complex context in which strategic diversity
leaders practice their artful science, the central theme of Chapter 5. Rather
FIGURE I.1
The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model
than offer a framework for micromanagement, the strategic diversity leader-

ship model provides a broad umbrella under which various campus diversity
ofces, initiatives, policies, and coordinating structures can nd their roles
and create value.
The External Environment

This model presents several concentric and overlapping circles to give a sense
of the multidimensional reality of strategic diversity leadership. This multi-
dimensional aspect is a common theme in the organizational literature
and vital to understanding how diversity leaders must navigate the turbulent
cultural, political, and administrative contexts of colleges and universities
(Berger & Milem, 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Morgan,
1986; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005). Working from the outer ring
inward are the constellation of concerns that open Chapter 1. The perfect
storm now taking place on college campuses is powered by (a) the emer-
gence of a knowledge-based global economy; (b) changing demographics; (c)
persistent educational inequalities along racial, ethnic, economic, and gender
lines; (d) the crystallization of the importance of diverse experiences for all
students as an educational and workforce imperative; and (e) continuing
legal and political challenges to diversity and afrmative action. A sixth
dynamic includes what I have termed isomorphic diversity forces. Isomorphic
forces refers to the complementing and overlapping strategies, structures, and
processes that academic institutions adopt as a way of legitimating their
diversity efforts when compared against their peers, the standards of the
industry, and the demands of the profession. Because of their complexity,
these isomorphic forces are explored in detail in The Chief Diversity Ofcer.5
The Institutional Context

Moving inward, the next sphere gives a sense of the complex historical,
nancial, cultural, and structural forces that dene the campus environment.
As challenging as the task often proves, especially for new diversity ofcers,
administrators, and staff, an effective diversity leader must be well informed
about both the historical context of inclusion and exclusion at his or her
institution and its broader strategic reality. As a result, strategic diversity
leaders must be able to navigate the historical, cultural, and political dynam-
ics of a myriad of diverse groups. This means not only knowing the institu-
tions history, but also being aware of the contemporary context, and how
history and context shape perceptions of diversitys importance on campus.
I N T R O DU CT IO N 11
These issues are addressed throughout Strategic Diversity Leadership, but

most explicitly in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. As this ring indicates, a number of
other factors help determine the obstacles and opportunities for implement-
ing a strategic diversity model. Several of the most prominent are featured
here, including the scal reality of the institution, its mission and selectivity,
the institutions diversity brand, and the institutions geographic location
and cultural setting. Finally, this phase of the model takes into account the
support and commitment of senior leadership. Unless senior institutional
leaders are invested in change, the chance of implementing new policies and
programs diminishes signicantly.
Theories of Leadership
Chapter 5 explores in detail the ve overarching leadership frameworks that
dene strategic diversity leadership: (a) organizational learning, (b) structural
leadership, (c) political leadership, (d) symbolic leadership, and (e) collegial
leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Although diversity champions can dream
of change, unless they can exercise effective leadership as they navigate their
campus environments, little meaningful change will occur. Strategic diversity
leaders must be able to use a conuence of different leadership lenses to activate
change on their campuses. These lenses include focusing on organizational
learning, building capacity, and creating formal organizational structures and
processes of change. Throughout the change process, leaders should use clear
and compelling symbols to create positive associations for their diversity
efforts. This is accomplished by tapping into the rich myths, rituals, and tradi-
tions that are already a part of the campus culture. Finally, diversity leaders
must be able to manage multiple relationships and involve the broader campus
community in a conversation about diversity, nding ways to create buy-in
from all stakeholders, not just minority individuals and organizations.
In reviewing the various activities of most diversity leaders, one would nd
a number of approaches used simultaneously to achieve different levels of
effect. The most effective leaders are passionate about issues of diversity, and
communicate that passion in word and deed. They view organizational life as
an arena where they can nd creative ways to pull issues of diversity, equity,
and inclusion into the cultural tapestry of what matters most on campus.
Because an organizations survival over time often depends on its conforming
to normative expectations rather than simply operating with greater efciency
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; C. Oliver, 1991), the
importance of ensuring both understanding and acceptance of new strategies
among key constituents is central to legitimizing a strategic diversity plan.
12 I N T R O DU CT IO N
The Strategic Diversity Core

At the core of the model are ve related concepts. They include the strategic
diversity goals of the institution, the institutional denition of diversity, and
three interconnected rationales for promoting diversity: the social justice
rationale, the business rationale, and the educational benets rationale. As
explained earlier, the justication for diversity no longer needs to rest solely
on the social justice case for addressing past discrimination or leveling the
playing eld for historically disadvantaged individuals and groups. We are
witnessing the coalescence of social justice, economic, and educational
aspects of diversity, achieving a kind of synergy. The new diversity idea is
built on an increasingly dynamic conversation about managing and leading
diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as a fundamental strategic priority for
corporations, nonprots, government agencies, the military, K12, and higher
education systems (Lipson, 2004). Higher education leaders must get up to
speed with these changes. Diversity has become a societal imperative in the
new global economy, fueled by factors that range from socioeconomic vital-
ity, global competitiveness, student learning, and organizational excellence.
Some of the most powerful voices driving this shift can be found among
corporate and military leaders; both of these sectors have been outspoken in
the need for more robust diversity efforts.6 During the 2003 Supreme Court
hearings on the admissions policies at the University of Michigan, military
and corporate leaders led amicus curiae briefs supporting Michigans di-
versity policies. Although conservative forces continue to wage attacks on
afrmative action, they are in some sense ghting a losing battle against a
gradual cultural shift that now recognizes the intrinsic value of diversity.7
Leaders in the military and corporate America recognize that diversity is
essential to our economic competitiveness, social stability, and even national
security. As noted by Lipson (2004), Sandra Day OConnor cited both the
military and Fortune 500 companies in the Grutter v. Bollinger majority
opinion:
These benets are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses
have made clear that skills needed in todays increasingly global market-
place can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people,
cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. What is more, high-ranking retired ofcers
and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that [b]ased on
[their] decades of experience, a highly qualied, racially diverse ofcer
corps . . . is essential to the militarys ability to fulll its principal mission
to provide national security. . . . Moreover, universities, and in particular,
I N T R O D U CT IO N 13
law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our
Nations leaders. . . . In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy
in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be
visibly open to talented and qualied individuals of every race and ethnic-
ity. (pp. 1920)
The perspective embodied by Justice OConnor suggests that we must proac-

tively manage diversity as a core asset that is vital to fullling our educa-
tional mission and delivering broader economic and social benets. The
business case for diversity centers on creating and sustaining an environment
in which diverse talents can thrive, capitalizing on the over 1.6 trillion in
domestic spending power of ethnically and racially diverse groups while
advancing a corporate responsibility agenda dedicated to outreach and envi-
ronmental and social sustainability (Humphreys, 2012; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001).
Thus, strategic diversity leadership hinges on threading the needle
among these complex and shifting rationales for diversity. It means being
ready one day to help students and colleagues organize an effective diversity
and inclusion training that truly empowers and informs participants. The
next day it means presenting on the most recent data about diversity educa-
tional outcomes to alumni donors or the business community. It means
being able to move between a nuanced and sensitive negotiation of ethnic,
racial, gender, disability, and citizenship issues at the individual level to artic-
ulating the broader strategic and educational principles that guide institu-
tional policies at the highest levels.
Diversity Leadership as Artful Science

Whether at the highest levels of institutional life or at its base, strategic diver-
sity work is the artful science of anticipating change, framing efforts in ways
that others can understand, and managing the change journey. Much like the
managing diversity movement of the corporate sector (e.g., Cox, 2001; D. A.
Thomas, 2004), academic institutions are recognizing that diversity success
should no longer reect a mix of good will and haphazard, disconnected
efforts. Diversity success must be viewed as fundamental to the strategic and
operational excellence of the institution, requiring an intentional approach to
change management and strategy development to achieve its goals.
Our denition of strategic diversity leadership is grounded in the
assumption that effecting pervasive change around issues of diversity, like
any other domain, is both art and science. Diversity goals are never easily
achieved. Consequently, campus diversity champions, regardless of their
institutional role, must be sophisticated in their approach and willing to cut
against the grain of tradition, artfully navigating issues both anticipated and
unanticipated, and applying the best diversity science possible to move the
agenda forward and overcome an often deeply ingrained legacy of exclusion.
At its core, this philosophy of leadership involves chief diversity ofcers,
senior leaders, deans, department chairs, faculty, students, alumni, and other
diversity champions, actively working together with one goal in mind: to
move beyond the cycle of diversity crisis, action, relaxation, and disappoint-
ment that has been replayed so frequently on college and university cam-
puses. To achieve this goal and make diversity a matter of excellence requires
a leadership paradigm that focuses on ve key principles that inform every
chapter of this book and my philosophy of leading diversity-themed change
in the academy. Box I.1 provides an overview of these ve principles.
BOX I.1
Principles of Strategic Diversity Leadership
Principle 1: Redene issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion as fundamental to the
organizational bottom line of mission fulllment and institutional excellence.
Principle 2: Focus on creating systems that enable all students, faculty, and staff to
thrive and achieve their maximum potential.
Principle 3: Achieve a more robust and integrated diversity approach that builds on
prior diversity models and operates in a strategic, evidence-based, and data-
driven manner, where accountability is paramount.
Principle 4: Focus diversity-related efforts to intentionally transform the institutional
culture, not just to make tactical moves that lead to poorly integrated efforts and
symbolic implementation alone.
Principle 5: Lead with a high degree of cultural intelligence and awareness of
different identities and their signicance in higher education.
Principle 1:
Redene issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion as fundamental to
the organizational bottom line of mission fulllment and
institutional excellence.
A grounding assumption of strategic diversity leadership is that the world
has changed, and, as a result, organizations of all kinds must place greater
emphasis on hiring, retaining, and leveraging the contributions of diverse

members, elevating them as full participants within the institution as a way
of driving organizational performance and excellence.
Whereas the traditional mindset has been that diversity represents de-
cit, the strategic diversity leadership mindset views diversity as an essential
asset to increasing learning, fostering research, driving workplace productiv-
ity, enhancing morale, inspiring creativity, and improving the institutions
success and reputation. If leaders have no framework for improving diversity
or of measuring our efforts, we cannot expect our institutions to achieve
academic excellence.
Principle 2:
Focus on creating systems that enable all students, faculty, and staff
to thrive and achieve their maximum potential.
The second premise is that the learning, communal, and work environment
of the institution must be structured in such a way that people of different
backgrounds can feel included, supported, and engaged. As a result, the onus
is on leaders at all levels to create support systems, training programs, out-
reach efforts, afnity structures, and other initiatives that will allow diverse
individuals and groups to ourish on campus. This means recognizing struc-
tural inequalities in their various forms and grappling with the challenge of
how to engage with ethnic, racial, gender, economic, disability, and other
concerns that celebrate difference without privileging one group over
another.
Principle 3:
Achieve a more robust and integrated diversity approach that builds
on prior diversity models and operates in a strategic, evidence-based,
and data-driven manner, where
accountability is paramount.
The third principle of strategic diversity leadership is that leadership must

embrace and maximize all the diversity-related technologies of our campuses
in an integrated and mutually supportive way. Hence the major systems of
diversity engagement explored in Chapter 3the Afrmative Action and
Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the
Learning, Diversity, and Research Modelmust be aligned and synchro-

nized. Rather than viewing these systems as separate efforts, we must envi-
sion them as bundles of capabilities that span areas like academic affairs,
student affairs, administrative affairs, legal affairs, and so on. The key is to
bring them into correspondence with each other so that their collective effect
equals more than the sum of their parts.
Principle 4:
Focus diversity-related efforts to intentionally transform the
institutional culture, not just to make tactical moves that lead to
poorly integrated efforts and symbolic implementation alone.
The strategic diversity leadership philosophy inherently focuses on inten-

tional and planned change. The goal is to accomplish long-term, transforma-
tional change at the core of college or university culture. Whereas rst-order
changes refer to minor adjustments such as developing a new diversity ofce
or establishing a new diversity requirement, transformative changes by con-
trast often create new patterns of behavior and assumptions governing orga-
nizational life. That is, such changes create an institutional culture in which
diversity is fundamental to all aspects of campus life, from how we teach our
courses, fund our programs, and select our leadership, to how we produce
our scholarship and drive our policies. Ideally, we can imagine a reality in
which a CDO is no longer necessary, simply because diversity is a fundamen-
tal value shared by everyone in academia.
Principle 5:
Lead with a high degree of cultural intelligence and awareness of
different identities and their signicance in higher education.
Cultural intelligence is a fairly new idea that builds on earlier concepts

like intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) (D. C.
Thomas & Inkson, 2003). Like EI, cultural intelligence cannot be acquired
through rote memorization or the purely statistical analysis of the character-
istics of a particular individual or group (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003).
Cultural intelligence is achieved iteratively over time by interacting with,
studying, and observing individuals who are culturally different (D. C.
Thomas & Inkson, 2003). To become culturally intelligent, one must be
I N T R O DU C T I O N 17
involved in a dynamic and interactive process in which cultural challenges

are resolved and then built on.
Although strategic diversity leaders dene diversity in broad terms so as
to include a host of different social, cultural, racial, ethnic, gender, and other
factors, they also recognize that every group is nested in a unique institu-
tional reality. Although each individual is important and valued, no two
diversity challenges are the same. Strategic diversity leaders understand this
fundamental truth, even when they may not know the precise details of
every challenge. As a result, they do not take a standardized or cookie-
cutter approach to addressing diversity challenges. In higher education
especially, in which governing structures are more uid and democratic than
in, for example, the corporate or military world, strategic diversity leaders
must be attuned to the relative levels of cultural intelligence among students,
faculty, staff, and members of the community. Working through both the
formal networks of institutional governance and the informal networks of
campus culture and cocurricular activities, the strategic diversity leader aims
to help every student achieve a degree of cultural intelligence by graduation.
At the same time, the strategic diversity leadership philosophy also requires
cultural intelligence of every faculty member, staff member, and administra-
tor associated with the institution.
A cultural shift of the magnitude proposed by these ve principles will
only occur if changes take place at multiple levels, involving the structural,
political, institutional, and nancial systems of the college or university.
Hence, at all levels leaders must address how individuals teach courses, select
talent, evaluate performance, gauge student potential, create and support
student organizations, foster learning, include diverse individuals, and
understand the big-picture strategic diversity agenda of their institution.
Strategic Diversity Goals in Higher Education

As with the guiding principles, a broad set of interlocking goals lies at the
heart of Strategic Diversity Leadership. These goals connect the threads of
numerous groups, issues, and priorities within the ever-evolving diversity
umbrella. Understanding diversity goals in the current era is one of the rst
steps to becoming more effective and accountable. Although an institutions
diversity agenda should focus with rigor on issues of access and equity for
minorities and women, it must also embrace and champion opportunities to
tie diversity to the academic excellence goals at the core of an institutions
18 I NT R O DU C T I O N
mission. As an associate vice provost at a large research university in the

southwest explained:
Body count diversity, or improving the number of minorities that we

have on campus, is essential, but your diversity agenda has to embrace so
much more. It has to embrace the rich diversity unique to American society
and harness that diversity in the service of learning and institutional excel-
lence. It has to focus on the levels of achievement of diverse individuals, as
much as it does with their levels of representation.
College and university leaders must move from a narrow understanding of

diversity goals and embrace a comprehensive strategic diversity framework
that ties conversations about diversity to academic excellence. For example,
perhaps faculty members representing different departments are seeking to
build a new interdisciplinary research center that focuses on racial and ethnic
health disparities. Perhaps a student affairs division is developing a new stu-
dent leadership program that seeks to include not only members of the
multicultural community, but organizations that are majority White, as well
as student governing and media associations. Perhaps the international
affairs ofce is grappling not only with visa and Student and Exchange Visi-
tor Information System regulations for incoming international students from
the Middle East, but efforts to help them feel welcome on campus during a
time of heightened anxiety. These issues can no longer be viewed in isolation
as tangential to the institutions mission but rather as integral to the institu-
tions core competencies and values. Thus, even as there are ve broad prin-
ciples that should guide the work of strategic diversity leaders, there are four
big-picture goals to help draw diversity efforts into a twenty-rst century
context:
1. Achieving access and equity for historically underrepresented groups

2. Creating a multicultural and inclusive campus climate for the entire
institutional community
3. Enhancing domestic and international research and scholarship
around issues of diversity
4. Preparing all students for a national and global society that is diverse
and interconnected
In our conversations with dozens of campus diversity committees and hun-

dreds of individual leaders, these four goals consistently emerge as the most
I N T R O DU C T I O N 19
essential. Indeed, it has been our observation that most of these conversa-
tions follow a consistent trajectory, moving from the challenges of dening
diversity and developing a strong rationale for diversity efforts, to struggling
with the broad goals that will capture a new and more dynamic appreciation
of diversity. Particularly when there are several groups at the table, all of
them representing a range of different constituencies and backgrounds, it is
important to cast the goals net wide enough to give everyone a stake in the
outcomes. These four big-picture goals help dene the issues in a way that
every member of the institutional community can embrace.
The Strategic Diversity Goals Pyramid

Figure I.2 places these four goals in a pyramid model to provide an accessible
conceptual framework for appreciating the connection between diversitys
historic role and its new, contemporary objectives. Access and equity are
placed at the top of the model because every institutions diversity efforts
should begin with an engagement of the historic and still incomplete goals
of achieving access and equity for racially and ethnically diverse individuals,
women, and other historically disadvantaged groups. Creating a diverse stu-
dent, faculty, and staff community helps create a context in which institu-
tions can become multicultural and diverse in a number of different ways.
Indeed, this aspect of the model could also be extended into a conversation
of vendor relationships and strategic sourcing, ensuring that minority and
FIGURE I.2
Strategic Diversity Goals Model
women-owned companies are treated fairly in an institutions procurement

process.
What holds the model together and sits at the center is the need to build
a multicultural and inclusive campus climate in which every student, staff
member, faculty member, and administrator can thrive. This means not
only mitigating overt acts of discrimination and prejudice, but creating and
promoting identity-themed organizations and initiatives designed to create
an inclusive experience for diverse individuals and groups. Some examples
might include establishing an afnity organization for women faculty mem-
bers, creating an international student center, and establishing a dedicated
prayer and reection area for students of different faiths.
The presence of a diverse faculty, staff, administrators, and students will
enhance the potential of the institution to accomplish the two strategic goals
placed at the base of the pyramid: preparing all students for a diverse and
global world, and pursuing areas of scholarship and inquiry that will help us
to understand issues of diversity across disciplines. Although some adminis-
tration leaders have begun talking about the diverse educational needs of all
students as part of their institutional diversity agenda, they have not similarly
embraced the need to support faculty engaged in ethnic or gender studies, or
others pursuing scholarship that is critical to understanding our increasingly
diverse and multicultural world today. These two goals support the base
corners of the pyramid because they are foundational to higher educations
focus on teaching, learning, research, and service.
Understanding and broadly articulating the educational and research
goals of diversity is essential to dening a strategic diversity agenda that goes
beyond moral and historical imperatives. Furthermore, having a focus on
these two areas establishes a legal and policy anchor for access and equity
diversity efforts that center on increasing the number and success of histori-
cally underrepresented groups of minorities, women, rst-generation college
students, and other groups that may inform an institutions particular de-
nition of diversity. In the twenty-rst century, the primary rationale for
diversity must always ow from a discussion of its educational benets and
the merits of having a diverse and engaged institutional environment. The
Supreme Courts support for this rationale as it relates to student admissions
offers an opportunity to expand our efforts into other areas, including curric-
ulum development, the hiring and retention of diverse faculty and staff,
funding and prioritization of research projects, and efforts to enhance cocur-
ricular learning and service opportunities.
The stakeholders involved with higher education are many, and thus
our goal structure must be robust enough to handle this complexity. To
make diversity a matter of excellence, the campus diversity agenda must
simultaneously expand access and equity, create inclusive environments, and
build the academic diversity capabilities of our institutions. Within the stra-
tegic diversity goals framework offered here, institutional leaders must work
to conceptualize fully the breadth of diversity issues that exist on their cam-
puses. Subsequent chapters in this book return to the strategic diversity goals
pyramid, focusing on issues like developing a campus strategic plan and
creating accountability through a strategic diversity scorecard.
The Chief Diversity Ofcer Study in Higher Education

Both Strategic Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Ofcer are
informed by an intense, multiyear study undertaken to understand the state
of diversity efforts in American education, as well as the strategic diversity
leaders who are implementing these policies and programs at the ground
level. This study used a mixed methodology consisting of both qualitative
and quantitative components designed to provide deep insights into the
topic of strategic diversity leadership in the academy (Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2008).
The qualitative aspect of the study included intensive interviews with
more than 100 individuals, numerous site visits, more than 200 hours of
audio-recorded data, and the analysis of several thousand pages of internal
institutional documents to develop a grounded understanding of these roles
and the process of strategic diversity leadership in higher education. In con-
sulting visits with dozens of institutions and through a systematic collection
of diversity scholarship, the author has helped compile hundreds of strategic
and diversity plans, reports, position papers, websites and newspaper articles.
Table I.1 summarizes these research resources.
The quantitative dimension of the study involved a national survey built
from our initial qualitative investigations. The target sample for the project
was diversity ofcers broadly dened at more than 2,500 institutions. Out
of the 2,513 ofcers contacted, 772 sent answers, a 31 percent response rate.
The 772 responses were used to create the national context of strategic diver-
sity leadership capabilities explored in Chapters 7 and 8.
This research also informs the detailed examination of the CDO role in
the companion to this book. As mentioned earlier, the CDO role has only
TABL E I. 1
Chief Diversity Ofcer Study Documents Overview
Dimension Description Number
Diversity Plans Plans outlining a comprehensive 87

institutional diversity agenda
Diversity Reports Progress reports, updates, annual reports, 52

and other documents illustrating diversity
efforts, implementation, campus climate
studies, etc.
Dedicated Diversity Position descriptions outlining the strategy, 109

Position structure, and goals of a new position
Descriptions dedicated to accomplishing institutional
diversity goals
Diversity Websites Websites describing campus diversity units 137

and initiatives
Concept Papers for Concept papers delineating new diversity 7

New Positions positions and units, often with a comparative
context
Newspaper Articles Articles announcing new diversity positions, 150

initiatives, responses to institutional crises,
challenges, etc.
Academic and Academic and strategic plans with at least 22

Strategic Plans some component focusing on issues of
diversity
recently begun to emerge as a means of identifying and empowering in one

administrator the skills and responsibilities of a strategic diversity leader.
Because so few diversity leaders are consistently identied with the title Chief
Diversity Ofcer, the author casts a broad net in reaching out to diversity
leaders for qualitative interviews about their work. Leaders were included on
the basis of four criteria: (a) self-classication as a CDO; (b) a direct report-
ing relationship to the president or provost of the institution; (c) institu-
tional rank of either special assistant or senior adviser to the president; vice
president, provost, chancellor; associate vice president, provost, chancellor;
assistant vice president, provost, chancellor; or dean, reecting the institu-
tional titles that most frequently populate the chief designation nationally;
and (e) a diversity element in their title. This process yielded 110 individuals,
who were then interviewed at length.
Book Overview
Strategic Diversity Leadership is organized around three major questions that
have consistently emerged in conversations with scholars and diversity lead-
ers across the country: rst, why is diversity important in the new millen-
nium? Second, what is diversity from an individual, organizational, and
administrative capabilities perspective? And third, what is strategic diversity
leadership? Responding to these overarching questions, this book is divided
into three major sections. Part One introduces the context in which strategic
diversity leadership happens. Part Two focuses on dening diversity from a
number of different perspectives at the individual, organizational, and
national level. Part Three centers on the process and nature of diversity-
themed planning and change initiatives at colleges and universities, focusing
on key issues of culture, strategic planning, organizational learning, and best
practices.
Part One: Why Is Diversity Important in the New Millennium?

The rst section contains Chapter 1, which contextualizes strategic diversity
leadership from an open systems perspective, articulating how colleges and
universities are in dynamic relationship with their environment, and the
need for institutional leaders to be responsive to changes that are swiftly
elevating diversity as a matter of strategic importance. As mentioned earlier,
this perfect storm of factors has elevated and repositioned diversity at the
center of the debate over higher education in America. Only when we can
appreciate these complex forces are we in a position to revisit and reframe
the traditional denition of diversity, placing it in a new and more dynamic
context, the diversity idea.
Part Two: What Is Diversity?

The second section examines the question of what diversity is through a
series of chapters that provide the backdrop for understanding diversity from
a conceptual, individual, institutional, and organizational capabilities
perspective.
Recognizing that the old denitions of diversity no longer work, Chap-
ter 2 offers a new and more dynamic understanding of diversity in the con-
text of the diversity idea, more accurately capturing its uid and evolving
24 I N T R O D U CT IO N
nature. Here readers are provided with an overall framework for understand-
ing the diversity idea from a theoretical, social identity, ideological, and
institutional perspective. More specically, this chapter uses social identity
theory as a lens for thinking about diverse groups, and then presents an
overview of the various mental models that characterize diversity ideology.
These models or perspectives fall into six categories: the equity perspective,
the racialized perspective, the centric perspective, the universal perspective,
the reverse discrimination perspective, and the colorblind perspective. The
rst four perspectives are conducive to promoting diversity efforts, whereas
the last two are hostile. The chapter features national policy guidance pro-
vided by key organizations like the AAC&U, the NASPA Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education, and others with experience helping
colleges and universities dene their diversity agendas.
Chapter 3 introduces a way of looking at ongoing college and university
diversity capabilities as the expression of three models of organizational
change. The Afrmative Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and
Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research
Model, although not discrete, provide an overview for thinking about diver-
sity issues organizationally. Each model is explored in terms of ontology, key
denitions, and the technology of change that it leverages to accomplish its
goals. By linking issues of environmental dynamics and formal organiza-
tional structures to these three models, this chapter establishes the context
for our understanding of the role of strategic diversity leaders and CDOs
as change agents who integrate, coordinate, and amplify campus diversity
efforts.
Part Three: What Is Strategic Diversity Leadership?

The third section answers the question, What is strategic diversity leader-
ship? Returning to an expanded notion of diversity through the lens of
the diversity idea, this section leverages a number of different metaphors
designed to help readers understand the culture of colleges and universities
and the difculty of leading change on campus.
Chapter 4 begins with a discussion of why diversity plans fail, highlight-
ing the challenging cultural dynamics of postsecondary institutions that are
deeply resistant to change and the often crisis-driven approach to diversity
planning and implementation that too often leads to awed implementation
efforts. From here the discussion turns to the multivariate ways available to
lead strategically around issues of diversity. Chapter 5 presents ve organiza-
tional lenses that strategic diversity leaders can apply to overcome resistance
to change and advance the campus diversity agenda: organizational learning,

structural leadership, political leadership, symbolic leadership, and collegial
leadership (Bowman & Deal, 2003). These ve leadership lenses offer essen-
tial tools for every strategic diversity leader to keep in his or her diversity
toolbox.
Chapter 6 tackles the topic of diversity accountability, presenting the
strategic diversity scorecard to help leaders track, monitor, encourage, and
drive progress in their campus diversity efforts. Building on previous research
in this area, this chapter offers a framework and multiple indicators that can
be used to track diversity progress holistically from several perspectives: (a)
access and equity, (b) multicultural and inclusive campus climate, (c) learn-
ing and diversity, (d) diversity research and scholarship, and (e) diversity
leadership commitment. More than a denitive catalogue of indicators, this
chapter provides a foundation for higher education leaders to develop their
own vision of what a strategic diversity scorecard might look like at their
particular institution.
Chapter 7 explores diversity plans in higher education because of their
importance as a structural and symbolic beacon for the entire campus com-
munity. Three types of diversity plans are featured in this discussion: inte-
grated, centralized, and decentralized. The discussion focuses specically on
aspects of the diversity planning and implementation processes at the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin and the University of Michigan, because both of these
institutions have extensive experience in campus diversity planning that have
helped shape strategic diversity leadership, planning, and implementation at
other colleges and universities around the country.
Chapter 8 concludes with an overview of the diversity efforts of over
700 academic institutions across the country. Here presented for the rst
time are national data showing the degree to which institutions have strategic
diversity capabilities in place and are practicing some of the key tenets of
strategic diversity leadership. The analysis here includes a summary of the
presence of diversity scorecards, decentralized diversity plans, centralized
diversity plans, general education distribution requirements, board- or
regent-level reporting efforts, and accountability systems associated with not
only reporting on issues of diversity, but rewarding leaders in this area
through their annual merit review systems.
Chapter 9 concludes this book with much needed guidance for develop-
ing diversity committees, commissions, task forces, and structures. While
common on many campuses, many of these cross cutting diversity structures
struggle to add value to their institutions because they operate absent a clear
26 I N T R O DU CT IO N
denition and purpose for their work. Chapter 9 denes the work of diver-
sity committees, providing a framework for their development, operationali-
zation, and potential closure for committees that have fullled their purpose.
The Diversity Leadership Set

Collectively referred to as The Diversity Leadership Set, both Strategic
Diversity Leadership and The Chief Diversity Ofcer seek to provide a compre-
hensive picture of diversity in higher education and how to lead change
efforts. Working from an open systems perspective, these books aim to help
the reader frame diversity issues appropriately, develop strategic focus, align
capacity, and navigate the turbulent cultural and political waters associated
with all change efforts at institutions of higher learning. In short, together
they offer a passport into the strategic diversity leadership movement for
some, a platform to accelerate the leadership process for others, and a toolkit
to tighten the language and understanding of diversity issues for all. These
volumes offer metaphors, stories, recommendations, and data designed to
inspire and engage as the reader contemplates his or her own investigations
and activities.
Some readers will nd the mix of theory, research, and practice challeng-
ing. The intention is to ground any theoretical material in the lived experi-
ences of individuals and the concrete examples of institutions reecting the
authors (Katrina Wade-Golden is a coauthor of the companion volume)
background as scholars, administrators, and educators. The great hope is
that the innovative structure of these books will inspire scholarship, action,
and efforts to build on and, when necessary, challenge the theories offered
here. Given the mentoring role that so many people have played throughout
the authors careers, we are proud to showcase their voices here, offering
their advice on ways to make our educational system, and by extension our
society, more diverse, inclusive, and welcoming. It is to be hoped that this
book helps diversity champions everywhere take one more step forward on
their journeys as strategic diversity leaders.
Notes
1. Data taken from the online analyses system hosted by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment (2009).
Retrieved January 5, 2012, from http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Proles/. See also, www.ed
.gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/.
2. Mintz, S. (2012). U.S. failing to meet global education and competiveness challenges.
Ethics Sage [blog]. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from www.ethicssage.com/2011/11/us-failing-
to-meet-global-education-and-competiveness-challenges.html
3. Strategic diversity leadership is part of the diversity management literature that entered
the organizational lexicon in the 1990s as the corporate community began to move away from
antidiscrimination and compliance-based perspectives toward a more organizational, mission-
centered argument regarding the importance of diversity (Cox, 1991; D. A. Thomas, 2004).
Although numerous terms exist, such as valuing diversity, leveraging diversity, and managing
inclusion, we refer to strategic diversity leadership as the managing diversity philosophy or
school of leadership. This term allows for connectivity to the broader conversation of diversity
and inclusion, but takes into account the unique realities of the postsecondary knowledge
industry and its broader focus on leadership as opposed to management.
4. The case is Fisher v. University of Texas (docket 11345). The Courts decision will be
made by an eight-Justice court, because the newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, has disqual-
ied herself. She was the U.S. Solicitor General in March 2010, when the Justice Department
led a brief in this case in the Fifth Circuit Court.
5. In the companion volume to this book, six emerging forces are discussed as isomorphic
energies that are reshaping issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion into a strategic diversity
leadership movement taking place across higher education, and indeed all organizational sec-
tors. These factors are (a) diversity research, (b) diversity ofcer afnity organizations, (c)
diversity management and certication programs, (d) diversity conferences and symposiums,
(e) higher education policy organizations, and (f ) cross-sector partnerships between higher
education, government, and the private sector.
6. Indeed, despite its strong adherence to tradition and conservative culture, the United
States military has become an important avenue for testing and implementing progressive
social policies. Clearly, the integration of the armed forces beginning in 1948 played an impor-
tant role in breaking down racial and ethnic barriers during the second half of the twentieth
century. By the time of both Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), it was
hardly surprising that military leaders should voice support for diversity programs. More
recently, the militarys two top commanders, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, played a key role in overturning Dont
Ask, Dont Tell, which barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Their
testimony came on the heels of an extensive internal military study revealing that a majority
of service men and women supported ending the ban. For the report and subsequent analysis,
see Johnson and Hams (2010) Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated With
a Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.
7. As discussed in Chapter 1, Fisher v. University of Texas will bring the issue of race-
conscious admissions before the Supreme Court in the summer of 2012. Although the deci-
sion may well end afrmative action, its implications for diversity efforts as a whole are less
clear. There are powerful new forces driving diversity efforts in higher education, among
them changing demographics and the recognition that diversity improves learning outcomes
in the classroom. There are also new diversity policies and programs, including race-neutral
alternatives like K12 outreach and pipeline efforts, which diversity leaders can access to
support their efforts.
PA R T O N E
WHY IS DIVERSITY
I M P O R TA N T I N T H E N E W
MILLENNIUM?
1
DIVERSITY IN THE NEW ECONOMY
Navigating the Perfect Storm
I
began this book with President Barack Obamas inspiring remarks from a
2009 speech to a Joint Session of Congress. But these comments offered
more than a somber assessment of the discouraging state of American
education: they were a call to action. The President argued that in order to
compete globally, signicantly more Americans will need to obtain a college
degree. And yet current trends suggest that only 46.4 percent of people in
the critical 2534 age demographic will have earned a college degree by 2020,
leaving the nation nearly 24 million degrees short of the 60 percent needed
to surpass countries like South Korea and Japan (Nichols, 2011). This degree
shortfall, along with changing demographics and an increasingly turbulent
political landscape, has created a perfect storm for leaders contemplating
the role of diversity in higher education. To understand and overcome the
challenges of this perfect storm, academic leaders must fundamentally re-
frame how they approach issues of diversity in our colleges and universities.
They are not alone. In colleges and universities, corporations and non-
prots, the challenge presented by todays global economy requires a concep-
tual shift in our understanding of why diversity matters (Beckham, 2008).
As scholars have noted, diversity has become a vital economic asset. In short,
it offers a means to improve an institutions bottom line. Moreover, this
bottom line encompasses more than economic performance. Researchers
have shown conclusively that a more diverse community improves learning
and problem solving, enhances research and innovation, and strengthens
organizational culture and teamwork (Cox, 1991; Milem, Chang, & Antonio,
2005; Paige, 2007; D. A. Thomas, 2004). These outcomes are increasingly
cited by those seeking to promote diversity in both the workplace and the
academy.
31
32 W HY I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?
The Five Pressure Systems Powering the Perfect Storm

This chapter seeks to help academic leaders understand some of the most
important social and economic issues confronting colleges and universities
today. Operating from the assumption that academic institutions are open
systems in constant exchange with the wider environment (Pfeffer & Salan-
cik, 1978), the chapter posits that organizational boundaries are shifting and
permeable, simultaneously penetrating and being penetrated by the broader
social sphere. Because campuses do not exist in a vacuum, they cannot be
xed in a vacuum. We all need to become more responsive to a changing
world and particularly to new pressures that are exerting themselves on
higher education.
Although it is beyond the scope of this book to address every relevant
external factor, this chapter outlines ve critical pressures powering the per-
fect storm highlighting diversitys importance in the new millennium: (a)
the emergence of a knowledge-based global economy; (b) changing demo-
graphics; (c) persistent educational inequalities along racial, ethnic, and gen-
der lines; (d) the crystallization of the importance of diverse experiences,
both within and outside the classroom, for all students as an educational and
workforce imperative; and (e) continuing legal and political threats to diver-
sity and afrmative action (Figure 1.1). Unless we broaden our approach to
issues of diversity, we risk a future in which diverse students and groups will
feel marginalized on campus and all graduates, whatever their background,
will emerge from college without the necessary skills to compete in the global
economy. By contrast, if we can comprehend the power of these critical
pressures, and chart our way accordingly, we can foster positive, transforma-
tive change, not only in our institutions of higher learning, but throughout
American society.
Pressure One: The Emergence of a Knowledge-Based

Global Economy
As President Obama noted, in todays economy, a secondary education is no
longer a luxury; it is a prerequisite. The Great Recession1 has only amplied
the need for a more educated workforce, as the economic downturn has hit
the educationally disadvantaged hardest, especially Asian Americans, African
Americans, Latinos, older workers, and young people (Carnevale, Smith, &
Strohl, 2010). Our ability to recover will depend on preparing students for a
world where nearly two-thirds of new jobs in the next decade will require at
D IV ER S I TY I N TH E N EW EC O N O M Y 33
FIGURE 1.1
The Perfect Storm Powering Diversitys Emergence as a Strategic Priority
least some college education. This new economy will be powered not by
machines, but by highly educated people. In a lecture delivered to a national
meeting of the Society of College and University Planning, President Emeri-
tus James Duderstadt of the University of Michigan stated:
Just as the space race of the 1960s stimulated major investments in research
and education, there are early signs that the skills race of the twenty-rst
century may soon be recognized as the dominant domestic policy issue
facing our nation. But there is an important difference here. The space
race galvanized public concern and concentrated national attention on
educating the best and brightest, the elite of our society. The skills race
of the twenty-rst century will value instead the skills and knowledge of
our entire workforce as a key to economic prosperity, national security,
and social wellbeing. (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 5)
Over the past several decades, the Midwestern region where the author grew
up has experienced steep declines in manufacturing, leading to a sharp rise
in poverty, crime, and other social problems. As the Internet and other
34 W H Y IS DI V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?
TAB LE 1. 1
Strategic Pressures and Their Implications for
Higher Education Diversity Initiatives
Pressure Description Implications for Higher Education
Emergence of a To compete in the global economy, Need to improve access for Americans
Knowledge-Based signicantly more American citizens will seeking a postsecondary education
Global Economy have to obtain college degrees. They face Need to enhance the range and quality
an economic future in which the ability of educational opportunities for an
to interact with citizens from other increasingly diverse student body
countries and in diverse contexts will be Need to expand international learning
the norm, not the exception. opportunities, focusing on curriculum
development, study abroad programs,
institutional and research partnerships,
and outreach and recruitment
Changing The American population is becoming Need to reevaluate traditional
Demographics more ethnically and racially diverse, and denitions and assumptions about the
older. Despite the persistence of a glass normative student population in light
ceiling in politics and the business of changing demographics
world, women are achieving greater Need to ensure that campuses have
nancial and educational parity with inclusive academic, cultural, and social
men. Overall, the political and social support systems to address the needs of
power of the LGBT community is a more diverse student body
growing. Need to expand research opportunities
to focus on the challenges of a more
diverse student body and society
Need to improve opportunities for
nontraditional students and lifelong
learning
Need to strengthen standards with a
renewed commitment to educational
attainment and outcomes
Persistent Political, Persistent disparities along racial, Need to develop effective techniques
Social and ethnic, and gender lines present an for addressing growing socioeconomic
Economic ongoing challenge to institutions of disparities in American society
Inequalities higher learning seeking to educate an Need to engage in aggressive K12
increasingly diverse student body. partnerships to ensure young people are
prepared before they reach college
Need to redress racial and gender
disparities in STEM degree completion
Need to expand nancial aid programs
for low-income students
D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C O N O M Y 35
The Educational Research has shown that diverse Need to develop powerful academic
and Business Case learning environments lead to more and cocurricular learning opportunities
for Diversity creative and capable students, and that for students, providing tangible
Americas economic future hinges on experiences both within and outside of
creating a workforce capable of thriving the university
in a diverse global economy. Need to improve the cultural literacy
and competency of all students,
regardless of their cultural backgrounds
and values
Need to reframe diversity education as
a prerequisite for success in the global
economy
Political and Legal The legal and political challenges to Need to review all diversity programs
Threats to Diversity afrmative action and diversity will and initiatives to ensure they are
in Education continue, forcing leaders in higher compliant with current state and federal
education to do more than remain law
nominally committed to diversity; they Need to connect the institutions
will have to imagine and implement stated mission with diversity initiatives
new programs and policies to by developing a clear rationale and a
demonstrate the viability and vibrancy robust framework for implementing
of diversity in education. policies and programs
Need to expand research focusing on
the educational and social benets of
diversity and their implications for the
global economy
LGBT, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; STEM, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
knowledge-based resources like information technology and intellectual

property have emerged, what Daniel Pink calls creative jobs have become
the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy (Pink, 2005). Creative jobs
in graphic and web design, sales and marketing, accounting and manage-
ment, health care, law, and teaching require the ability to use information
in dynamic and imaginative ways.
Low-paying service jobs are now a last, dwindling opportunity for those
without some form of higher education. Indeed, during the past 30 years all
net job growth has occurred in sectors that require at least some form of
postsecondary education (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011). One obvi-
ous indicator of the widening gap between high school and college graduates
is their income disparity. As it stands today, the lifetime earning gap between
a high school and college graduate is now more than $1 million and growing
(Symonds et al., 2011). To say that the prospects are daunting for individuals
without a college education is an understatement.
36 W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I U M ?
Around the world, higher learning institutions are responding to the

new reality. Unfortunately, trends examined by the Organisation for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development suggest that the United States has
lost its historic edge in adults with a college degree (Figure 1.2). Particularly
with respect to adults aged 2534, the United States currently ranks twelfth
globally at 41.6 percent (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2010). The United States also has the lowest graduation rates
among those students who actually enroll in college as compared with other
developed nations (OECD, 2010). Meanwhile, countries like Canada (56
percent), Japan (55 percent), and South Korea (58 percent) are ahead and
pulling away. Catching up with these nations will require a tremendous
commitment from all levels of American society.
To make signicant headway, the United States must address disparities
in educational opportunity and achievement, particularly among historically
underrepresented African American, Latino, Native American, and rst-
generation students. The challenge has become more daunting, however, in
light of the fact that higher learning itself is undergoing a revolution. It is
no longer simply about getting student bodies into the classroom. Now it is
about creating opportunities for students to leave the classroom, whether on
study abroad programs or into online learning communities that transcend
state and national borders. The Internet has opened new avenues to informa-
tion and helped lower the constraints of time and space for collaborating
locally and globally. It has made communication simpler and faster. But
colleges and universities must do more to provide students with the training
and resources they need to thrive in the web-powered working environments
of the future.
Pressure Two: Changing Demographics

A second pressure driving the perfect storm is the changing face of Ameri-
can society. For years, demographers have tracked the growth of minority
populations and the fact that Americas population will reach a minority
majority tipping point during this century. The future is approaching
quickly, and this demographic shift offers an unparalleled opportunity to
diversify our campuses even as our emerging knowledge-based, global econ-
omy demands a similar reframing of diversitys importance in this new
reality.
FIGURE 1.2
Percentage of Population Ages 2534 With a
College Degree by Country in 2008
Source: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010)

38 W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?
Racial and Ethnic Trends

Taken together, ethnic and racial minoritiesthose who identify themselves
as non-Whiteaccount for most of the nations population growth among
people 18 and younger (Frey, 2011a).2 From 2000 to 2010, the population of
White youth under the age of 18 declined by 4.3 million, while the popula-
tion of Latino and Asian youth grew by 5.5 million. The accelerated growth
of this new minority3 heralds an increasingly diverse labor force (Frey,
2011a). Although this demographic shift presents obvious challenges, it also
offers a number of clear advantages, not only because other developed
nations are experiencing slower growth rates, but because their populations
lack our diversity. Box 1.1 explores the challenge of undocumented students
in higher education.
BOX 1.1
An Emerging Civil Rights Issue: Undocumented
Students in Higher Education
The rising number of undocumented students is presenting a particularly thorny

civil rights challenge for colleges and universities. In 2010, an estimated 66,000
undocumented students graduated from high school only to nd the doors to sec-
ondary education closed. Many of these young people have resided in the United
States nearly all their lives and consider this country their home. These young people
aspire to contribute their talents to our country.
American law remains ambiguous in its treatment of undocumented students.
Since the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202), K12 education
has been guaranteed for all children regardless of their legal status. However, federal
law denies undocumented college students access to nancial aid and in-state
tuition, although individual states have been able to establish their own tailored poli-
cies. Between 2001 and 2009, 11 states passed laws allowing undocumented stu-
dents to pay in-state tuition while attending college: California, Texas, New York,
Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Wiscon-
sin. Three of these states, California, New Mexico, and Texas, also allow undocu-
mented students to seek state nancial aid (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2011).
In recent years, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina
have taken controversial steps to discourage undocumented students from pursuing
a secondary education, much less a college degree. The most extreme measure, a
(continues)
(continued)
2011 immigration bill passed in Alabama, explicitly bars undocumented students
from attending in-state colleges and requires K12 school ofcials to compile and
submit lists of suspected undocumented students to state education ofcials. This
policy has led to widespread anxiety among minority communities in Alabama and
negative effects on the states economy.
The DREAM Act

In 2007, a bipartisan coalition of federal legislators introduced the Development,
Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This legislation would allow
undocumented students access to in-state tuition and a pathway to a six-year condi-
tional permanent residency upon the completion of a college degree or two years of
military service. Since its introduction, the bill has fallen victim to partisan politics,
despite the massive mobilization of student activists and their supporters during the
2010 legislative session.
If passed, the DREAM Act would provide undocumented students with the oppor-
tunity to gain a postsecondary education and ultimately become eligible for legal
permanent residency, and thus access to a green card and legal employment. Upon
completion of further conditions, these residents could eventually apply for full citi-
zenship. Among other benets, the DREAM Act would also clearly have a positive
inuence on national dropout rates; because the doors to college are essentially
closed to them, undocumented high school students have little incentive to graduate
from high school. For more information about the DREAM Act and the various orga-
nizations involved in this movement visit http://dreamact.info.
Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures (2011) and Stevenson (2004).4
The browning of America is occurring faster than many anticipated

(Figure 1.3). Previous demographic studies projected that the overall popula-
tion would become minority White by 2042, and that the youth population
would reach this state by 2023 (Frey, 2011a). Yet the twin engines of immigra-
tion and birth rates have led to greater than expected growth among minor-
ity populations. For example, in 2009 the birth rate among Whites was 1.9
compared with 3 among Latinos. Looking at trends in immigration, only 15
percent of the growth over the past 10 years was attributable to Whites;
Latinos, Asians, and other new minorities accounted for nearly 80 percent
(Frey, 2011a). Moreover, this statistic excludes the thousands of undocu-
mented families who have come to the United States in search of better
opportunities.
FIGURE 1.3
Race and Ethnicity Populations by Percentage in Major Metropolitan Areas in 2009
Source: United States Census Bureau (2011).

D IV E R S I TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y 41
Current projections suggest that the demographic tipping point may

occur sooner than anticipated and that White children may become a minor-
ity population before the next major census in 2020 (Frey, 2011a). In many
of our nations largest school districts, minorities are already the majority.
A recent Brookings Institute analysis reported that 10 states and 35 large
metropolitan areas now have minority White youth populations, with major
cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Orlando, and Phoenix becoming minority major-
ity in recent years (Frey, 2011b). Indeed, recent reports by the U.S. Census
Bureau showed that the majority of new births in this country are now non-
white Hispanic children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
BOX 1.2
Demographic Shifts in the LGBT Community
Although the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community rarely g-
ures prominently in discussions of demographics, this group has a growing voice
and its needs have increasingly become a priority in academia. Although their con-
cerns do not necessarily mirror those of other minority groups, the LGBT community
deserves a seat at the table in discussions about diversity and inclusion. Indeed, part
of the challenge in addressing LGBT concerns stems precisely from the lack of data
on its demographic size and make-up. For obvious reasons, many LGBT individuals
are reluctant to reveal information about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Nevertheless, the United States 2000 and 2010 censuses counted gay and lesbian
individuals and recorded 646,464 same-sex couples in 2010.
Drawing on information from four national and two state-level population-based
surveys, the Williams Institute of the University of CaliforniaLos Angeles Law
School estimated that in 2009 there were around nine million adults in the United
States who describe themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, roughly 4 percent of
the adult population. Moreover, an estimated 19 million Americans report that they
have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans
acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction. Research also suggests high
concentrations of same-sex couples within communities of color. In other words, to
be gay is no longer to be urban and White, as the LGBT community is experiencing
its own growing diversity.
If we are to take diversity seriously in higher education, we must demonstrate
greater responsiveness to the concerns of LGBT students, faculty, and staff. Whether
granting health, retirement, and other benets to partners, spouses, and family mem-
bers; establishing LGBT ofces and afnity groups; or making space for queer theory
(continues)
42 W HY I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N EW MI L L EN N I U M ?
(continued)
in the curriculum; institutions committed to diversity have a variety of immediate
tools at their disposal.
The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index conducts ongoing reviews assessing
how welcoming colleges and universities are toward LGBT students. Third-party
accountability mechanisms deserve inclusion in traditional publications like the U.S.
News and World Report and Barrons College Reporter. These types of assessments
will be increasingly important to a business community ever more committed to
recruiting its next generation of leaders from institutions that value diversity.
Sources: Gates (2011); Gates & Cooke (2010); Gates & Ost (2004).
Current demographic and educational trends now make clear that colleges
and universities must become proactive on diversity issues. Americas future
depends increasingly on the human capital of our next generation of young
people. The persistence of educational inequities at all levels is jeopardizing
this future. Indeed, some researchers have begun to think about diversity as a
matter of social sustainability, as our society can no longer afford to waste so
much diverse human capital if we are to maintain our quality of life. The
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE) argues that in its simplest form, sustainability is best dened as
ensuring well being in three interrelated dimensions: the environment, the
economy, and society (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 2010). Social disruptions, including poverty, inequity, and
corruption divert resources from areas of need, damaging our capacity to plan
for the future and threatening the stability of our social and environmental
health. Working with other nonprots and higher education associations,
AASHE has developed the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating Sys-
tem (STARS). STARS recognizes the sustainability efforts of the full spectrum
of colleges and universities in the United States and Canadafrom commu-
nity colleges to research universities, and from institutions just starting their
sustainability programs to long-time campus sustainability leaders. This system
includes social diversity as a key element in efforts to create a broad sustainabil-
ity movement in higher education.
Pressure Three: Persistent Societal and Educational

Inequality
The increasing diversity of the American population is both our greatest
strength and most serious challenge. The potential fruits of our diverse soci-
ety are threatened by persistent and pernicious social, economic, and educa-
tional inequalities. Far from moving toward one nation, American society is
D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W EC O N O M Y 43
being fractured by ongoing economic, political, and social division. As we

turn our attention to the educational inequalities in America, the stakes for
higher education could not be higher.
Disparities in K12 Education

Although the primary subject of this book deals with diversity issues in
higher education, the challenges begin in our primary and secondary schools.
Tragically, Americas K12 educational system is becoming increasingly char-
acterized by a stark dichotomy (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center,
2010). One part of the educational system enjoys strong learning environ-
ments, capable teachers, parent engagement, and a consistent focus on pre-
paring students for college. The other part of the system is characterized by
low test scores and graduation rates, demoralized teachers, decaying school
buildings, and a shocking trend of students not completing high school,
much less enrolling in college.
Although national aggregate statistics on the K12 achievement of Asian
Americans and Pacic Islanders (AAPIs) are comparable to Whites, the same
cannot be said for other minority groups. According to the most recent
National Center for Education Statistics report, African American, Latino, and
Native American/Alaska Native youth trail their White peers in achievement
in both math and reading scores drawn from the National Assessment for
Educational Progress (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 2009, twelfth grade White
students scored 27 points higher in reading and 30 points higher in math on
average than African American students (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Similar gaps
exist between White and Latino students: Whites scored 22 points higher in
reading and 23 points higher in math on average. At the same point in their
educational experience, Native American/Alaska Native youth lag 17 and 22
points behind their White peers in math and reading respectively. These dis-
parities exist across multiple years of data and for nearly all grade levels (Sny-
der & Dillow, 2011). As these ndings demonstrate, American schools are
failing many ethnically and racially diverse young people. Box 1.3 specically
addresses disparity issues in the AAPI community.
44 W H Y IS DI V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?
BOX 1.3
The Fallacy of the Model Minority Myth: A Story of Success,
Disparity, and Continuing Racial Dynamics
It is standard practice in many elds to count individuals from vastly different back-
grounds in the panethnic category of Asian American Pacic Islander (AAPI). Japan,
India, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Pacic Islands are all very different places,
yet they are often lumped together awkwardly in the AAPI group. As a result, educa-
tors and policy makers lose sight of the different challenges particular subgroups
face. AAPI students are often designated model minorities and as far back as the
1960s, Asian communities were held up as examples to disparage African American
and Latino groups.
The model minority stereotype promotes the idea that AAPI youth succeed
because their families value learning and hard work. Accordingly, Asian parents are
a relentless force in their childrens lives, demanding academic excellence even at
the expense of the emotional well-being of their children. Touting the superior child
rearing techniques of Chinese women, Yale University law professor Amy Chuas
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother is only the latest contribution to the model minor-
ity myth. Arguing that there is something deeply rooted in Asian culture that lends
itself to success in school and life, Chua connects the Asian American experience to
an even older American narrative, the pull yourself up by the bootstraps story of
individualism and hard work. Although Chua has inspired some, and mortied oth-
ers, her discussion at times passes over a number of issues that are highly conse-
quential for understanding minority subgroups lumped under the Asian heading. As
a wealthy, well-educated, second-generation Chinese American, Chua has enjoyed a
degree of educational and economic privilege not open to many minority communi-
ties, even members of her own racial and ethnic group. Cultural values, including
parenting techniques, do not exist in a vacuum. The parenting techniques that Amy
Chua assigns to her race are actually common in both majority White culture and a
broad spectrum of minority communities. What these families have in common is
access to education and economic opportunity. Herein lies the deeper story of the
cultural, economic, and social challenges facing ethnic minorities.
Digging beneath the surface, it is worth noting that, although some AAPIs score
higher on standardized test scores on average, these results are heavily inuenced
by socioeconomic variables and vary widely among various subgroups. Lumping
Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Pacic Islander groups together with more
afuent Japanese, Indian, and South Korean minorities does a disservice to the spe-
cial abilities, and specic challenges, of each. Examining difculties faced by eco-
nomically disadvantaged and newer immigrant communities, like Southeast Asians
(continues)
D IV ER S I TY IN TH E N EW EC O N O M Y 45
(continued)
and Pacic Islanders, would help give a more accurate understanding of their test
scores and ability to access postsecondary education.
Indeed, when controlling for economic factors, the reality for most Asian Ameri-
can students centers often on rst-generation students attending open-enrollment
two- and four-year public institutions. Many AAPI students face the same challenges
of other historically underrepresented communities lacking the cultural and eco-
nomic capital required to access selective postsecondary institutions. Although no
one would dispute the value of hard work, the model minority myth ignores the
serious challenges many AAPI communities face. Moreover, this myth widens the
division between Asian Americans and other ethnic groups, positioning AAPI success
as a counternarrative to stereotypes that assign a culture of poverty and low
achievement to other ethnic and racial groups. This stereotype is also unwelcome to
many AAPIs, who often feel invisible in discussions about diversity, equity, and inclu-
sion. By dening the challenge of achievement and its solution entirely through the
lens of individual effort, we ignore other dynamics that dramatically inuence individ-
ual success. Understanding these dynamics is essential as strategic diversity leaders
seek to grasp these and other critical factors that complicate the discussion of diver-
sity today.
Sources: Asian/Pacic/American Institute and the Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Pol-
icy at New York University (2008); Chua (2011).
The Crisis of Male Youth of Color

The challenge to attending college for young men of color is nothing less
than a national crisis, in which an alarming number of young men live in
poverty and are either unemployed or incarcerated (College Board Advocacy
and Policy Center, 2010). Entire generations have been pushed to the mar-
gins of society, living on the outskirts of the economic, social, and cultural
mainstream. In 2005 in New York City, which has the largest public school
system in the nation, only about 44 percent of Black and Latino males gradu-
ated after six years of high school (Meade, Gaytan, Fergus, & Noguera,
2009). And nationally, Latino males are the most likely demographic group
to drop out during middle school. A 2010 report by the Schott Foundation
for Public Education, Yes We Can: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Educa-
tion and Black Males, reported that only 47 percent of African American
males graduated from public high schools in the 20072008 school year.
The Kellogg, Ford, and Lumina Foundations; the College Board; and
numerous others have partnered with schools, postsecondary institutions,
and community organizations to fund a series of projects designed to reverse
46 W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?
these alarming trends. In the Educational Crisis Facing Young Men of Color,
the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center argues that the challenge of
educational attainment is one confronting minority male students across
racial and ethnic backgrounds touching African American, Latino, Asian
American, and Native American youth (College Board Advocacy and Policy
Center, 2010). This study lists among these challenges the lack of male role
models, a low estimation of education as a viable pathway to success, and
language and community barriers. The report calls for a more strategic
approach that would require the coordination of K12 schools, colleges and
universities, state higher education accreditation bodies, and the private
sector.
One successful K12 program highlighted by the College Board is the
Harlem Childrens Zone. The multilayered approach championed by Har-
lem Childrens Zone founder Geoffrey Canada focuses on partnering at all
levels of the community. Efforts include developing successful mentoring
programs, providing positive male role models, engaging in parental devel-
opment and job training, and establishing a comprehensive network of sup-
port available to students year round. Students in the Harlem Childrens
Zone have shown impressive gains that validate the importance of a compre-
hensive approach to educating children. Moreover, by offering a comprehen-
sive array of child and family services through the schoolsfrom parenting
classes and job training to health care servicesthe Harlem Childrens Zone
is making signicant contributions to the broader community outside the
classroom walls (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010).
BOX 1.4
The Crisis of Young African American Males
and the Response by Higher Education
The African American male crisis is an ongoing challenge for strategic diversity leaders.
When compared with other demographic groups, African American males fare worse
across nearly every indicator of economic, educational, and social wellbeing. Their
plight is harmful to the African American community, our nation, and our democracy.
African American children are still suffering the tragic legacy of racism and exclu-
sion. Despite some progress, our public education system has not responded ade-
quately. Disparities in achievement levels and graduation rates for African American
children persist, even across socioeconomic strata. Poverty, disenfranchisement,
(continues)
(continued)
and other ills lead to higher classroom management and disciplinary challenges.
Although African American students comprise only 17 percent of public school stu-
dents, they make up 41 percent of special education placements, of which 85 percent
are males.
The failure to educate and empower all our young people is a massive cost shoul-
dered by our whole society. Colleges and universities have a vital role to play devel-
oping targeted efforts focused directly on these challenges. Already institutions like
The Ohio State University, Clemson University, Morehouse College, Philander Smith
College, the CUNY System, the University of Georgia, and others have mounted Black
Male Initiatives.
These institutions have joined a loosely afliated coalition trying to enhance K12
preparation, higher education participation, providing mentorship, assistance with
social reintegration after prison and other resources designed to address the African
American male crisis. Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to develop
cross-sectional partnerships with K12 school systems, community organizations,
prisons, corporations, and government organizations. Only by working together can
we achieve traction and improve the lives for generations of young men who could
play a vital, positive role in our nations future.
Sources: Beleld & Levin (2007); Gilmer, Littles, & Bowers (2008); Sen (2006).
Higher Education Diversity on the Rise

Although numerous challenges confront ethnically and racially diverse
youth, traditional and virtual campuses alike are gradually becoming more
diverse. Indeed, one of the positive trends of the last 30 years is the slow but
consistent increase in the percentage of Latino and African American college
students at the associate, baccalaureate, and postbaccalaureate levels. The rise
of racial and ethnic minorities in higher education is essential if we are to
have the numbers of educated citizens that our economy requires (Snyder &
Dillow, 2011).
As noted in Figure 1.4, from 1980 to 2009 the number of African Ameri-
can students pursuing an associate or bachelors degrees rose from 10 to 15
percent, the number of Latino undergraduate students rose from 4 to 13
percent, and the number of AAPIs rose from 2 to 7 percent, even as the
overall college population increased substantially. During the same period,
the percentage of White students fell from 83 to 62 percent, reecting demo-
graphic shifts and the overall aging of the White population.
Although the Native American and Alaska Native populations are not
appreciably driving demographic growth in the United States, these groups
FIGURE 1.4
Percentage Distribution of Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions
by Race and Ethnicity: 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2009
Source: Snyder & Dillow (2011).

are still important. Over the last 30 years, Native American/Alaska Native
representation in higher education has remained at, itself a partial reection
of an overall largely static population that hovers between 0.8 and 1.1 percent
of the population (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Unfortunately, this group is
often absent from discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, sometimes
dismissed as too small to matter.
A review of undergraduate enrollment levels in 2009 reveals that the
majority of African American, Latino, Native American, and AAPI students
attend public two-year institutions (Table 1.2). Nearly 52 percent of Latino
students attend public two-year institutions, followed by 45 percent of
American Indian/Alaska Native students, 42 percent of AAPI students, and
40 percent of African American students. Nearly 13 percent of African Ameri-
cans attend four-year private for-prot institutions, compared to 5.8 percent
for Whites.
Two-year and community colleges provide vital access to ethnically and
racially diverse students by offering affordable education, open enrollment,
and course and geographic convenience. These institutions are also critical
for returning and part-time students. Often more nimble and capable of
building partnerships with businesses and governments, two-year and com-
munity colleges can create tailored programs to meet job training require-
ments in the health care and technical elds, including nursing, information
technology, advanced manufacturing, and green jobs. Although these insti-
tutions make a postsecondary education more accessible for minority groups,
they have been criticized for not sufciently preparing students for obtaining
a bachelors degree (Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2011).
For these institutions, future success means partnering more closely with
bachelor-degree granting institutions, enabling students to transfer between
institutions and complete their coursework without having to repeat classes.
In the knowledge-based, global economy, Americas competitive edge will
hinge in part on the success of two-year and community colleges. In the
coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow
twice as fast as those requiring no college experience, and these two-tier
institutions are key to meeting this challenge (IHEP, 2011).
Disparities in Completing College

Although more ethnically and racially diverse students are enrolled in college
than ever before, their rate of degree completion is uneven, highlighting why
college and university leaders must rally to engage with the perfect storm
TA BLE 1 .2
Number and Percentage Distribution of Fall 2009 Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions,
by Control, Level of Institution, and Selected Student Characteristics
Public Private: Not-for-Prot Private: For-Prot
Student Total
Characteristics All Institutions 4-year 2-year 4-year 2-year 4-year 2-year
Total 100% 35.8 40.4 14.6 0.2 6.8 2.2
Gender
Male 100% 37.7 40.1 14.4 0.2 5.8 1.8
Female 100% 34.4 40.6 14.7 0.2 7.6 2.5
Race and Ethnicity
White 100% 37.9 38.3 16.2 0.2 5.8 1.6
African American/ 100% 29.7 40.3 12.8 0.3 12.8 4.1
Black
Latino/Hispanic 100% 29.7 51.8 8.3 0.1 6.6 3.5
Asian American/ 100% 39.5 41.9 13.3 0.2 3.8 1.3
Pacic Islander
American Indian/ 100% 35.0 44.9 10.0 0.7 7.4 2.0
Alaska Native
Nonresident Alien 100% 43.7 25.6 25.0 0.2 4.7 0.6
D IV E R S I T Y IN T H E N EW E C O N OM Y 51
of diversity challenges. The number of degrees earned for all racial and ethnic
groups has risen overall, but at varying rates (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). A
review of current U.S. Department of Education data on associate degree
attainment between 19971998 and 20072008 suggests that the number of
degrees earned by Latinos increased 50 percent, from 45,900 to 91,300,
whereas the number of degrees earned by African American students
improved 73 percent, from 55,300 to 95,700 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). The
number earned by White students increased 21 percent, from 413,600 to
501,100. In 20072008, African Americans earned 13 and Hispanics 12 per-
cent of all associates degrees awarded, up from the 10 and 8 percent that
they earned respectively in 19971998.
Between 19971998 and 20072008, the number of bachelors degrees
awarded to White students increased 25 percent, from 0.9 to 1.1 million; the
number awarded to Hispanic students increased 86 percent, from 66,000 to
123,000; and the number awarded to Black students increased by 55 percent,
from 98,300 to 152,500 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 20072008, Blacks
earned 10 percent, and Hispanics 8 percent, of all bachelors degrees
awarded, up from 10 years earlier when they earned 8 and 6 percent,
respectively.
Although the total number of degrees awarded increased during the last
10 years for each group, existing data for six-year bachelors degree comple-
tion rates suggests a less positive story with respect to the performance of
minority groups (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Although AAPI students earned
the highest graduation rate with 67 percent, the graduation rate for African
American students remains a worrisome 40 percent (Figure 1.5). And
although Whites achieved 60 percent graduation rates, only 49 percent of
Latino students and 38 percent of Native American/Alaska Native students
completed a bachelors degree within six years.
A closer look at the data by institutional type shows that the disparity in
graduation rates exists across public, private, and for-prot institutions. Sim-
ply put, African American, Latino, and Native American/Alaska Native stu-
dents have consistently lower graduation rates than their White and AAPI
peers.
Private For-Prot Institutions: A Shaky Proposition for

Minority Students
Another important trend centers on the number of low-income students
attending for-prot institutions (IHEP, 2011). Research by the Institute for
FIGURE 1.5
National Six-Year Graduation Rates of Public, Private Not-for-Prot, and Private For-Prot
Four-Year Institutions by Race and Ethnicity in 2009

Higher Education Policy has shown that low-income and ethnically and
racially diverse students are increasingly pursuing studies at for-prot institu-
tions, shifting from public four-year institutions (IHEP, 2011). Students at
for-prot institutions have the lowest six-year bachelors completion rates
among four-year institutions, at around 22 percent (Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
A recent study calculated graduation rates at around 19 percent for African
Americans and 25 percent for Latinos (Lynch, Engle, & Cruz, 2010).5
Among White students, the graduation rate is 33 percent (see Figure 1.5).
These abysmal graduation rates, combined with increasing enrollments
and the fact that students attending these institutions are often from low-
income backgrounds, suggests a challenging reality for students at for-prot
institutions (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice,
2011). Students at for-prot institutions represent 46 percent of all student
loan dollars in default (Flannery, 2011). Indeed, the median federal student
loan debt carried by students earning associate degrees at for-prot institu-
tions was $14,000, whereas the majority of students at community colleges
do not borrow at all (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of
Justice, 2011). This disparity raises questions about the costs and benets
associated with vulnerable student communities turning to for-prot institu-
tions. All too often the author has heard stories, frequently from low-income
women of color, who enrolled in these institutions, found too little adminis-
trative and advising support, and ended up with no degree, expensive loans,
and few job prospects. This reality has led critics to question the benets of
these degree programs (Carey, 2010; Kutz, 2010). The U.S. Department of
Education has recently created a new accountability process requiring these
institutions to meet several benchmarks in order to access federal aid, includ-
ing graduating at least 35 percent of their students (U.S. Department of
Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011).
Gender Trends
Female students currently out-perform male students at every educational
level, and in every racial and ethnic category, from elementary through grad-
uate school (Mather & Adams, 2007). The gap is most pronounced at the
postsecondary level. Of the more than 20 million total projected students in
college in 2010, women make up approximately 57 percent (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). In the
United States, more bachelors degrees have been awarded to women than
to men since the early 1980s (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In 2006,
54 W H Y I S DI VE RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL EN N I U M ?
among 25- to 34-year-olds, around 36 percent of males and 43 percent of

females completed higher education degrees (Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
Between 1999 and 2009, the number of male full-time postbaccalaure-
ate students increased by 36 percent, compared with an impressive 63 per-
cent increase for females. The pattern of gender differences are generally
even more acute in the African American community, where women hold
a large lead over their male counterparts in almost every area of educational
attainment (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). In 2008, 71 percent of the total Afri-
can American enrollment was female (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Today,
African American women earn about two-thirds of all African American
bachelors degrees, 72 percent of all masters degrees, and 66 percent of all
doctorates. Signicantly higher percentages of African American women
than men are represented in professional programs, including law, medi-
cine, and dentistry.
However, even with these gains, women overall remain underrepre-
sented in the science and engineering disciplines, earning only 17 percent of
all bachelors degrees in engineering-related elds and 18 percent in com-
puter and information sciences (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Ingrained stereo-
types about women in quantitative disciplines certainly contributes to this
disparity, just as stereotypes about women as leaders contribute to their
absence in positions of senior leadership across many industries and sectors.
Thus, strategic diversity leaders must work along two tracts simultaneously,
paying close attention to the basic graduation challenges that many male
students face while being attentive to the particular ways that women suffer
unfair and biased treatment in their pursuit of higher learning.
Educational Inequity, Attainment, and the Global Economy

Without a more diverse student body making timely progress toward gradu-
ation, the United States will not meet its national goals on educational
attainment (Nichols, 2011). Indeed, the global educational attainment gap
can be traced to our inability to adequately educate individuals from eco-
nomically vulnerable families (Nichols, 2011). To this point, over the past
three decades degree attainment among young adults in the 1824 age range
has steadily increased for students at the top half of the income distribution,
while remaining stagnant for students in the lower income range. Figure 1.6
shows the dramatic increase in bachelors degree attainment since 1977 by
students in the top income percentiles (45 percent), compared with the sig-
nicantly lower degree completion rates (17.2 percent) among low-income
D IV E R SI TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y 55
FIGURE 1.6
Change in Estimated Bachelors Degree Attainment Rate by Age 24 by Family
Income Quartile From 19771979 to 20072009
Source: Mortenson (2010) as referenced in Nichols (2011).
families. Students in the lowest quartiles face the toughest hurdle, at 7.3 and
2 percent, respectively (Mortenson, 2010).
These graphs can sometimes render impersonal a stark moral issue,
namely that educational inequality remains a question of race, ethnicity, and
gender. Demographically, low-income students are more likely than their
higher-income peers to be African American, Hispanic, and female, and to
be the rst in their families to go to college (IHEP, 2011). Due largely to a
lack of nancial resources, these students are more likely than their White
peers to delay entry into postsecondary education, begin their degrees at
two-year institutions, live at home with parents, commute to campus, and
take classes part-time while working full-time (Berkner, He, & Cataldi,
2002). All these factors dramatically affect a students ability to complete his
or her degree.
The Center for Benet-Cost Studies of Education found that in more
than half of all states, public funding in highly concentrated minority school
districts is substantially less than in low-concentration minority districts
(Education Trust, 2006). More specically, they found that across the uni-
versal K12 student population, the educational investment in African Amer-
ican students is $20,000 less than that of White students, representing an
average shortfall of $900$1,200 per year (Beleld & Levin, 2007).6 Ironi-
cally, as staggering a number as this is, it is less than the amount of additional
spending that would be needed to achieve equality of educational outcomes
56 W H Y I S DI V E RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?
among children living in under-resourced communities (Beleld & Levin,

2007). Clearly, the modest investment needed to raise minority-student
achievement would pay steep dividends to society.
The Alliance for Excellent Education calculated that raising the educa-
tion levels of African American, Latino, and Native American students to
that of their White peers would contribute over $310 billion annually to
the American economy and help to eliminate both poverty and workforce
shortages (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).7 Another study con-
cluded that the average high school dropout costs the national economy
approximately $240,000 over the individuals lifetime in terms of lower tax
contributions, higher reliance on social services like Medicaid and Medicare,
and higher criminal and incarceration rates (Beleld & Levin, 2007).
Salary Disparities
Although higher levels of education do lead to signicantly higher wages,
there is still a disparity in earnings between Whites and minorities. U.S.
Census Bureau data shows that in 2008, full-time African American workers
with a four-year college degree had average annual earnings of $46,527,
almost a quarter below the average earnings of fully employed White workers
with a similar degree (Figure 1.7). Among students with a graduate degree,
full-time African American workers had annual average earnings of $66,198,
roughly 78 percent of the annual average earned by similarly educated White
workers.
In short, although a college education will increase ones income at all
levels of education, it fails to close the earnings gap between majority and
minority workers. It is critical, therefore, that academic institutions do more
to address policies that affect workers before and after they graduate, so
that once in the workforce they can enjoy the fruits of their academic and
professional training equally.
Pressure Four: The Educational and Business Case

for Diversity
In light of demographic trends and the emerging global economy, the ability
of academic institutions to supply sufcient numbers of trained graduates
will increasingly depend on their ability to effectively educate ethnically and
racially diverse students. The economic necessity for embracing diversity is
greater than merely providing a more diverse pool of workforce candidates.
FIGURE 1.7
Mean Salaries of Workers 18 Years and Older by Educational Attainment, Race, and Ethnicity in 2008
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008).

58 W H Y IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP OR TA N T I N TH E N EW MI L L E N N I U M ?
There is mounting evidence that all students, no matter what their back-
ground, are more qualied and effective workers when they have learned how
to thrive in a diverse learning environment. Indeed, a growing body of research
suggests that a diverse learning environment promotes creativity and innova-
tion, improved problem solving and decision-making, organizational exibil-
ity, and tolerance for ambiguity (Hurtado & Dey, 1997, p. 408).
Academic leaders must therefore transform our approach to preparing
students for leadership in the twenty-rst century. Students no longer enter
the workforce, work a single job for thirty years, and then retire. Todays
students have to prepare for a dynamic and changing economy. As illustrated
by Figure 1.8, this means having the ability to (a) think critically and solve
problems, (b) communicate effectively, (c) work in teams, (d) possess cul-
tural competence to thrive in a diverse workplace, and (e) master new tech-
nologies. Colleges and universities are uniquely situated to foster these
essential skills in both young people and adult learners (Carnevale & Fry,
2000; Hart, 2006).
In the new economy, even service-sector jobs will require more workers
with these competencies (Carnevale & Fry, 2000). Tomorrows workers will
need to learn and adapt continually to new situations. These high-level
generalists will operate like free agents, moving among jobs and even across
elds while continually upgrading their skills. Auctioning their talents to the
highest bidder, they will develop strategic partnerships to deliver a high-
quality product or service quickly and efciently (Carnevale & Fry, 2000;
Pink 2002). In this world, problem-solving skills and creativity are essential
to meeting employer and consumer demand. A high school diploma and
strong work ethic is no longer a passport to the American dream.
Research now demonstrates persuasively what many have long sus-
pected: students are more creative and effective when they are educated in a
diverse learning environment. Among other cognitive skills, they tend to
develop more sophisticated critical thinking and affective abilities (Gurin,
Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). They show signs of participating more
actively in their communities and demonstrating greater empathy. These
qualities are essential to success in the global economy, and American busi-
nesses know it. Filing an amicus brieng during the U.S. Supreme Court
afrmative action case involving the University of Michigan in 2003, a group
of Fortune 500 companies noted:
The students of today are this countrys corporate and community leaders
of the next half century. For these students to realize their potential as
D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y 59
FIGURE 1.8
The Five Essential Leadership Skills of the New Economy
leaders, it is essential that they be educated in an environment where they

are exposed to diverse ideas, perspectives, and interactions. Todays global
marketplace and the increasing diversity in the American population
demand the cross-cultural experience and understanding gained from such
an education. Diversity in higher education is therefore a compelling gov-
ernment interest not only because of its positive effects on the educational
environment itself but also because of the crucial role diversity in higher
education plays in preparing students to be the community leaders this
country needs in business, law, and all other pursuits that affect the public
interest. (University of Michigan Fortune 500 Amicus Brief, 1999)
60 W H Y IS DI V E R S I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?
Organizations of all kinds value candidates who can work effectively in

diverse groups (Cox, 2001; Hart, 2006; Loden, 1996; R. Thomas, 1991).
Todays economy is built around diverse teams collaborating across ethnic,
racial, gender, and geographic borders to build integrated solutions to com-
plex problems (Paige, 2007; Pink, 2005). A study by Peter D. Hart actually
found that leaders in corporate America would like to see academia place
greater emphasis on preparing students for a diverse work environment.
These leaders specically endorsed values like promoting teamwork, leading
in global contexts, practicing intercultural competence, interacting with
empathy, and seeing the world from multiple perspectives (Hart, 2006).
Employers also recognize that individuals educated in diverse learning
environments are better able to envision and market products and services
that appeal to a variety of consumers. In addition to ethnic and racial diver-
sity, gender and sexuality have had a profound effect on corporate America.
The entertainment and media sectors have caught on. The most popular
television shows of the last decade, from Will & Grace to Modern Family,
have either centered on gay characters or featured them prominently.
Responding to what Gluckman and Reed (1997) have termed the gay market-
ing moment, marketers are now actively cultivating an LGBT consumer cul-
ture, as evidenced by consulting companies like SellingGay.com and Wilde
Marketing.
The Need to Produce Diverse and Culturally Competent Graduates

Thus, the ground beneath academia has shifted dramatically. No longer bas-
tions of White male power, colleges and universities are challenged with the
task not only of educating a more diverse student body, but also of ensuring
that all college graduates are culturally competent. The rst challenge is
particularly daunting because so many minority students face economic and
social pressures that act as obstacles to getting a college degree. Meanwhile,
their largely middle class White peers, although fascinated by minority cul-
ture, still often grow up in segregated communities and K12 schools (Mas-
sey & Denton, 1993). In an illuminating case study, researchers determined
that, among incoming freshman students at the University of Michigan, 92
percent of White students grew up in nearly all-White neighborhoods, and
83 percent attended nearly all-White high schools (Figure 1.9) (Matlock,
Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2002). A study at the University of Connecticut
made similar ndings. Given that most major American cities are highly
segregated, one could expect to nd these results at many secondary learning
institutions across the country (Massey & Denton, 1993).
FIGURE 1.9
University of Michigan First-Year Students Who Grew Up in an All-White or
Majority-White Neighborhood and High School Before College
Source: Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin (2010).

62 W H Y I S DI VE RS IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI L L EN N I U M ?
In a world where the Internet, hip-hop culture, and the media con-
stantly present students with images of diversity without context, and where
these same students have little or no primary experience with individuals
from different ethnic and racial backgrounds prior to college, it is vital that
academic institutions engage diversity issues in their curricular and cocur-
ricular activities. Despite the strong diversity programs at a number of
the institutions listed in Table 1.3, racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-
immigrant theme parties are still all too common on college campuses. Table
1.3 provides a sample of institutions that have experienced these incidents
and an overview of their key dynamics.
At these events, students often dress as caricatures of the urban poor,
immigrants, or members of the LGBT community. It is disheartening how
often the party organizers are later found to be student leaders. That other-
wise model student leaders not only condone but also participate in events
that offend their classmates suggests, more than anything, a profound igno-
rance of the ways that stereotypes and demeaning parodies inict pain.
When pressed, many students talk of just joking around, failing to see
how their actions fundamentally undermine the idea of the college campus
as a safe and inclusive community. This failure not only threatens the ability
of historically underrepresented and marginalized groups to thrive academi-
cally; it indicates that some students will leave higher education unprepared
to work in a diverse marketplace (Cox, 1991; Loden, 1996; R. Thomas, 1991).
The demands of a changing economy suggest that colleges and universities
must undergo important cultural changes if they are to become responsive
to the needs of students, employers, and the public.
Pressure Five: Political and Legal Dynamics

A fth pressure point elevating diversity as a strategic priority is our con-
stantly shifting legal and political landscape. Table 1.4 illustrates the complex
political and legal dynamics on a broad range of issues, including race, eth-
nicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and nationality. Hence,
when developing a winning diversity strategy, the goal is not simply to
reduce risk, but to maximize the strategies that will allow your institution to
be as successful as possible with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion
principles (Alger, 2009; Coleman & Palmer, 2004; Oreld, Marin, Flores, &
Garces, 2007).
Federal and state law is always pressuring institutional leaders to be cre-
ative and exible in their approach to building programs that can make a
D IV E R S I TY IN TH E N E W EC O N O M Y 63
TAB LE 1. 3
A Sample of Colleges and Universities Where Themed Parties Have
Perpetuated Stereotypes That Insult and Degrade Minorities
Sample of Institutions Category Description Themes Symbols
Auburn University Urban culture Parties presenting Pimps Up, Hoes 40-ounce bottles of beer
Baylor University stereotypical Down Afro wigs
Clemson University images of hip-hop Bandannas
Colorado State University culture, urban life, Players Ball College/professional
Georgia State University and the athletic apparel
Johns Hopkins University entertainment Ghetto Fabulous Compton, CA
Lehigh University industry Cookouts/barbeques
Macalester College Whos Your Daddy Head scarves
Massachusetts Institute of Parties LGBT-themed drag
Technology wear
New York University Low-income housing
Oklahoma State projects
UniversityStillwater Oversized faux jewelry
Pennsylvania State Pimp culture
University Simulated pregnancy
Santa Clara University Thug/gangster images
San Diego State University Guns and knives
Stetson University Drug paraphernalia/drug
Syracuse University trade
Tarleton State University
Texas A & M University Historical racism Parties presenting Black-face Afro wigs
Trinity College toward African historic images of Black-face
University of Arizona Americans Jim Crow Black History Confederate ag/KKK
University of segregation, the Month Fried chicken
CaliforniaBerkeley antebellum South, Mammy stereotypes
University of and caricatures of Martin Luther Lynching themes
CaliforniaSan Diego African American King, Jr. Day Watermelon
University of Chicago organizations, Black Greek
University of Colorado communities, and organizations
University of culture Civil rights movement
ConnecticutLaw Black Power movement
School Antebellum South
University of Delaware
University of Immigration and Parties presenting Pin the Tail on the Hunting/persecuting
IllinoisChicago new minority images focused Immigrant immigrant
University of communities mainly on new communities
IllinoisUrbana- minority Fresh off the Boat Immigration law
Champaign immigrant Spanish language
University of Maryland populations from South of the Mexican culture, food,
University of Memphis Mexico, Asia, and Border and traditions
University of Mississippi developing nations Asian culture and food
University of Tennessee Illegal immigrants
University of Texas Austin Migrant workers
University of Virginia Simulated pregnancy
University of
WisconsinWhitewater Poverty stereotypes Parties presenting White Trash Wife-beater T-shirts
University of stereotypical Parties Lawn chairs
WisconsinMadison images of low- Trucker hats
Vanderbilt University income rural Trailer parks
Whitman College White culture. Public assistance checks
William Jewell College Food stamps
Simulated pregnancy
64 W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N E W MI L L E N N I UM ?
TAB LE 1. 4
Sample of Diversity Policies and Legal Guidance Frameworks
Key Legal Policy Statutes, Rulings,
Affected Capabilities for and Legislation Protecting the
Diversity Group Sample Diversity Issues Educational Institutions Diversity Dimension
Race and Increasing and retaining the Admissions Title VII Equal Protection Clause of the
Ethnicity number of ethnically and Scholarships 1964 Civil Rights Act
racially diverse students, Student outreach Sections 101 and 102 of the 1991 Civil
faculty, and staff Faculty and staff Rights Act
diversity 2003 University of Michigan Supreme
Eliminating racial Recruitment initiatives Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz
discrimination and barriers to Diversity ofces and v. Bollinger, and 2012 Fisher v. University
participation units of Texas
Gender Increasing the number of Faculty recruitment Title VII Equal Protection Clause of the
women on the faculty and in initiatives 1964 Civil Rights Act
senior leadership roles Parity in athletics Title IX of the 1972 Education
Employee Amendments Act
Eliminating barriers to full benetsfamily leave Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
participation in intercollegiate Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
athletics Equal Pay Act of 1963
Eliminating sexual harassment

and other forms of
discrimination
LGBT Eliminating discrimination Partner benets Title VII Equal Protection Clause of the
against members of the LGBT 1964 Civil Rights Act
community U.S. Executive Order 13087 of 1998
State legislation regarding spousal benets
Creating avenues for greater
participation in academic
community
Proactive solutions on quality

of life issues, including
domestic partner benets
Nationality Student, faculty, and staff visa
Admissions Immigration Reform and Control Act
compliance Financial aid (IRCA) of 1986
Faculty and staff hiring Patriot Act of 2001
Study abroad and international Visiting scholar Student and Exchange Visitor Information
travel initiatives Services (SEVIS) Program
Study abroad efforts
Enrolling and supporting International research
undocumented students projects
Hiring international staff

D IV ER S I T Y IN TH E N EW E C ON O M Y 65
Disability Eliminating barriers to full Providing reasonable Title VII Equal Protection Clause of the
participation in university accommodations 1964 Civil Rights Act
community, including both Title I and V of the 1990 Americans with
physical and social Universal access to Disabilities Act
impediments physical buildings and Sections 501 and 505 of the 1973
services Rehabilitation Act
Eliminating hiring Sections 101 and 102 of the 1991 Civil
discrimination Rights Act
The Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
Age Eliminating barriers to full Position termination Age Discrimination in Employment Act
participation (ADEA) of 1967
Hiring decisions
Eliminating hiring
discrimination
LGBT, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor (n.d.); U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.); U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (2011); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (n.d.).
difference on issues of diversity. Whenever relevant legislation or court rul-

ings are enacted, campuses must respond accordingly. Indeed, Supreme
Court rulings have forced colleges and universities to reexamine their mis-
sions, policies, and organizational structures to ensure compliance with the
latest laws and regulations. At the same time, we cannot let the specter of
legal challenge or lack of clarity associated with the legal landscape stunt our
ability to move forward with new diversity efforts that maximize our poten-
tial to make our institutions inclusive and excellent for all.
The Supreme Court and Race-Conscious Policy
Although controversy surrounds many aspects of diversity in America, the
most misunderstood and challenged issue has historically centered on race-
conscious policies in admissions, hiring, and nancial aid (Oreld et al.,
2007). The Supreme Court rst moved to set limits on race-conscious poli-
cies in college and university admissions with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke (1978). In the Bakke case, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that Allan Bakke, a 38-year-old White engineer, had been dis-
criminated against by the admissions policies at the University of California
at Daviss Medical School, which set aside 16 of 100 places in the entering
class for minority and disadvantaged students. The Supreme Court ruled
that this set-aside, or quota system, was unconstitutional.
Since then, legal challenges have gradually chipped away even more at
the use of race in admissions. In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v.
66 W H Y IS D I V E R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T I N TH E N EW MI L L E N N I U M ?
Bollinger cases, plaintiffs challenged the University of Michigans law school

and undergraduate admissions policies, respectively. Although the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of Michigans law school policies, arguing that race
could be considered among many factors in admissions decisions, it decided
in Gratz v. Bollinger that the Universitys undergraduate admissions point
system was unconstitutional. As a result, academic institutions were allowed
to consider race as a plus factor in assessing candidates, but not to assign
points as a means of race-conscious policy. In the eyes of many, the Courts
decisions left academic institutions in a confusing bind, giving them a man-
date to promote diversity as a valuable educational goal, yet denying them
quantitative tools to make their diversity policies work.
BOX 1.5
Strategic Guidance for Leaders in the Wake of Legal
Challenges to Diversity and Race Conscious Policy
No matter what the future holds, the current context only underscores that a college
or universitys legal counsel has become an increasingly important ally. Strategic
diversity leaders must therefore be proactive and coordinated in their efforts to
access a wide array of expertise to accomplish their diversity goals. The following
constitute best practice recommendations:
Create a strong diversity rationale statement explaining diversitys importance

to the educational mission of the institution. This statement should be thor-
oughly vetted and then embraced by every relevant stakeholder group on cam-
pus, laying the moral and legal foundation for concrete policies and programs.
Know the relevant literature in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion man-
agement. The most proactive campuses rely on evidence-based practices to
drive their efforts, constantly looking to raise their institutional diversity
agenda to the next level.
Develop strategic planning scenarios that explore race-neutral means of
achieving a diverse educational environment, establishing a record of docu-
mentation that uses the best possible social science to determine whether a
particular strategy will work. If, in fact, the Supreme Court is set to end
afrmative action, colleges and universities must be prepared to develop and
ramp up effective race-neutral diversity initiatives.
Periodically review what you are doingand ensure that these reviews are
scheduled, formal, and transparent. One of the best ways to protect your
(continues)
(continued)
campus is to implement open and transparent procedures, particularly in
terms of admissions, hiring, and nancial aid decisionsareas that histori-
cally have been challenged most often by conservative organizations.
Seek outside legal advice from lawyers specializing in these issues who do
not provide general counsel to your institution. Engage these scholars in
response to present challenges and when contemplating new strategies or
policies. Although general counsel is an important ally and the most important
legal counsel for securing your institutions diversity interests, the voice of
other legal and policy experts may result in a clarication of perspective that
is only possible when not obfuscated by the institutional and broader political
implications of engaging these issues at a particular institution.
Consult with and attend conferences, symposia, and training sessions hosted
by national policy organizations. Credible organizations like the College Board,
the American Association of University Professors, the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and others
can offer strategic guidance on how to navigate these issues.
The unfortunate upshot of this legal climate is that colleges and universi-
ties regularly cave to pressure from antiafrmative action groups, choosing
to end or change their programs rather than risk lawsuits challenging their
efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of minority students
(Oreld et al., 2007). To truly move their diversity agendas forward, institu-
tional leaders and their respective legal counsels must do more than simply
defend against litigation (see Box 1.5 for several recommended actions for
strategic diversity leaders). This means understanding not just legal opportu-
nities but novel possibilities that push the institutional agenda in new and
perhaps unexpected ways. This authors experience suggests that many insti-
tutions are doing far less than they could from the perspective of strategically
engaging novel policy initiatives. Indeed, a number of schools no longer
host minority student outreach and recruitment events, and have virtually
eliminated their faculty diversity hiring initiatives. When asked why, they
often give the same response: We are afraid of being sued. Figure 1.10
provides a visual representation of the gradual eroding of race-conscious
policies in higher education.
Beginning with the Bakke decision, the Supreme Court has lessened
the direct power of race-conscious admissions policies, pressuring the higher
education community away from a discussion of racial equity, although per-
haps also, especially with the Grutter decision, introducing the educational
68 W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN NI U M ?
FIGURE 1.10
Supreme Court Decisions and the Limitation of
Race-Conscious Policy Power in Admissions
benets of diversity idea as the compelling rationale for using race in college
and university admissions (Oreld et al., 2007). This perspective was pre-
sented by the critical majority opinion written by Sandra Day OConnor,
which conrmed the educational benets of diversity and the right of admis-
sions ofces to use race in their decisions, but only as a plus factor among
many considerations, not as part of either a points or quota system.
In the two separate Michigan rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court con-
rmed that, although quota systems and the mechanical assignment of
points on the basis of race were unconstitutional, race and ethnicity could
be considered as a plus factor in admissions policies. These rulings provided
a broad constitutional justication for promoting a diverse student body,
but offered little specic guidance, leaving it to individual institutions to
dene policies consistent with the rulings. Moreover, these decisions also
suggested a wide range of implications for other race-conscious institutional
policies in the areas of nancial aid, student programming, precollege initia-

tives, and faculty and staff recruitment (Oreld et al., 2007).
Two nal aspects of the Grutter decision are worth noting. First, Justice
OConnor held that before using race as a factor in individualized admissions
decisions, a postsecondary institution must conduct a serious, good-faith
review of workable race-neutral alternatives to achieve the diversity that it
seeks. Otherwise, its policies could be deemed unlawful (Coleman, Palmer, &
Winnick, 2008). In other words, an institution should turn to race-conscious
policies only after deeming unworkable a race-neutral alternative, either
because it has been judged ineffective or would require the institution to
sacrice another component of its educational mission. Second, Justice
OConnor surmised that the Grutter decision upholding afrmative action
would last 25 years. And yet, only nine years later, afrmative action policies
are again under attack; the Court is expected to rule in fall of 2012 on another
challenge to afrmative action when it hears Fisher v. The University of Texas
at Austin.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Like schools in many states, the University of Texas at Austin restructured
its admissions policies in the wake of the Grutter decision, consciously bring-
ing their policies in line with the University of Michigans law school poli-
cies. What is different is that race-conscious policy had been eliminated in
Texas as a result of the Hopwood v. Texas decision of 1996, which made
illegal any intentional use of racial classications in admissions decisions. In
response to the Grutter decision abrogating Hopwood, higher education lead-
ers in Texas created a hybrid policy for admission that is unique to Texas
and is at once both race conscious and reliant on a facially neutral8 admis-
sions process, the Texas Top Ten Percent (TTP) Law (Coleman & Lipper,
2011).
In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a White high school senior, applied to and was
rejected by the University of Texas at Austin. Because she did not qualify for
admission under Texass TTP Law, which guarantees spots to the top 10
percent of all graduating students in Texas, her application was considered
as part of a secondary admissions process used to select the remaining 19
percent of the entering class (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). This
group of students was evaluated through a holistic review process dened by
their academic and personal achievement indices, which include standard-
ized test scores, class rank, and personal achievements.
70 W H Y I S DI VE RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL EN N I U M ?
The personal achievement index is based on two essays and a personal

achievement score. As part of the personal achievement score, the University
of Texas considers leadership qualities, awards and service, and other factors
(Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011). Among these other factors is race,
which the admissions ofce categorizes as a special circumstance that exists
alongside other factors like socioeconomic status, community service, and
family circumstances. In her lawsuit, Fishers lawyers argue that the TTP
Law already provides a viable means of boosting minority enrollment at the
University without the need to resort to race-conscious admissions policies
that they claim unfairly affected Abigail Fisher (Coleman & Lipper, 2011;
Pacelli, 2011).
Texas ofcials successfully argued before both a federal district court and
the Fifth Circuit, rst noting that using race as an additional factor was
necessary to make sure that individual classrooms contained a critical mass
of minority students. Furthermore, the policies defenders maintain that a
race-conscious component allowed them to create more effectively diverse
learning environments in specic academic disciplines where diversity has
been slow to emerge (Coleman & Lipper, 2011). This point suggests a
renement of the critical mass thesis supported by Grutter, demonstrating
that the absence of a race-conscious plan can result in learning environments
where minority students are represented in such low numbers that they feel
too isolated to participate meaningfully in the academic community. Clearly,
this rationale weighed heavily in the University of Texass decision to com-
plement the TTP policy with a race-conscious policy modeled on the Uni-
versity of Michigans law school.
Undermining the Grutter Decision: Fisher v. University
of Texas
In Fisher v. University of Texas (2011), the Fifth Circuit upheld the Universi-
tys hybrid approach, nding its holistic review process to be consistent with
Grutter (Coleman & Lipper, 2011). Nevertheless, as Coleman and Lipper
(2011) note, Judge Emilio Garza did take issue with the constitutionality of
Grutter itself. In an extensive special concurrence, Judge Garza provided a
detailed examination of the underlying Grutter decision, exploring Justice
Anthony Kennedys dissent and writing an argument asking for constitu-
tional review of Grutter. More specically, he argued that Sandra Day
OConners majority decision failed to pass strict scrutiny, which is the
Courts strictest standard of judicial review and used to weigh the govern-
ments interest in cases when a constitutional right or principle is at stake.
According to Garza:
D I V E R S I TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y 71
Whenever a serious piece of judicial writing strays from fundamental prin-

ciples of constitutional law, there is usually a portion of such writing where
those principles are articulated, but not followed. So it goes in Grutter,
where a majority of the Court acknowledged strict scrutiny as the appro-
priate level of review for race-based preferences in university admissions,
but applied a level of scrutiny markedly less demanding. To be specic,
race now matters in university admissions, where, if strict judicial scrutiny
were properly applied, it should not. Today, we follow Grutters lead in
nding that the University of Texass race-conscious admissions program
satises the Courts unique application of strict scrutiny in the university
admissions context. I concur in the majority opinion, because, despite my
belief that Grutter represents a digression in the course of constitutional
law, todays opinion is a faithful, if unfortunate, application of that mis-
step. The Supreme Court has chosen this erroneous path and only the
Court can rectify the error. In the meantime, I write separately to under-
score this detour from constitutional rst principles. (Fisher v. University
of Texas, 631 F.3d at 24766 [Garza, J., concurring specially], 2011)
Judge Garza questioned the veracity of considering race and ethnicity in

making competitive admissions decisions, as well as the argument that gov-
ernments have a compelling interest in promoting diversity. He specically
challenged the narrow tailoring component of Grutter, noting that it set a
peculiarly low bar for universities to show serious good-faith consideration of
race-neutral alternatives and made impossible a courts review of the narrow
tailoring requirement by rewarding admissions programs that remain
opaque (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2011, as cited by Coleman & Lipper,
2011, p. 6). Garza further argued that because the University of Texas at
Austin was capable of enrolling 96 percent of African American and Latino
applicants through race-neutral means (TTP), the admissions ofces race-
conscious admissions efforts were unnecessary to accomplishing the Univer-
sitys overall diversity goals (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2011, as cited by
Coleman & Lipper, 2011, p. 6). In February of 2012, the Supreme Court
decided to take up the case.
Building on Garzas logic and Kennedys dissent in Grutter (Grutter v.
Bollinger, 2003), the appeal to the Supreme Court maintained that the Texas
plan correctly applied the Grutter version of strict scrutiny, but that this is
not strict scrutiny asserting that the Grutter court was wrong in its Sandra
Day OConnor majority holding (Coleman & Lipper, 2011; Pacelli, 2011).
The Grutter decision unlawfully loosened its own strict scrutiny standard to
allow a race-conscious admissions program that should only exist in the most
narrow of circumstances.
72 W HY IS DI VE R S IT Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N EW MI L L EN NI U M ?
Because the Supreme Courts newest member, Elena Kagan, served as

solicitor general in the Obama administration, she has recused herself from
the Fisher case. If recent decisions are any indication, the courts conservative
majority may rule in favor of Abigail Fisher and further curtail race-
conscious policies. After just two years on the Court, Chief Justice John
Roberts wrote the majority decision in Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), which prohibited school dis-
tricts from assigning students to public schools solely in order to promote
racial integration and declined to acknowledge that racial balancing is a com-
pelling state interest. The decision ended the voluntary desegregation pro-
grams of many school districts (McNeal, 2009). In his decision, Chief Justice
Roberts cited the Courts landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), but argued, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is
to stop discriminating on the basis of race (Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007, 551 U.S. at 748). However nave
and misguided the Chief Justices assumptions about stopping racial discrim-
ination, his attitude enjoys strong support among conservative members of
the Court.
Should the Supreme Court move to strike down the race-conscious
admissions policies at the University of Texas at Austin, most legal and aca-
demic scholars agree that the decision will reduce the numbers of African
American and Latino students at selective private and public institutions at
both the undergraduate and graduate level, while boosting the number of
Whites and Asian American students (Liptak, 2012). Much depends on the
Courts swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented independently
on the Grutter decision and sided with the majority in overturning the inte-
gration policies in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School
District No. 1. It is, however, hard not to see the very decision to take on the
Fisher case as a reection of the conservative rights discomfort with diversity
efforts generally, and race-conscious admissions policies in particular.
The Conservative Rights Attack on Diversity

The Fisher case has been spearheaded by a conservative legal organization,
the Project on Fair Representation, and is just the latest in a series of coordi-
nated attacks against diversity as both a cultural value and a policy goal
(Chemerinsky, 2010; Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos, 2003; Oreld et al., 2007).
Well-funded organizations like the Center for Individual Rights and the
Center for Equal Opportunity are seeking to dismantle the legacy of the
civil rights era. Having co-opted the language, and even some of the tools,
of the civil rights movement, they nance litigation, ballot initiatives, politi-
cal lobbying, and elections (Chemerinsky, 2010; Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos,
2003). Much of their attack is framed around what they call reverse dis-
crimination and unwarranted preferences (Clegg, 2009; Cokorinos,
2003; Oreld et al., 2007).
With support from former University of California Regent (19932005)
Ward Connerly and others, opponents of afrmative action have proposed
ballot initiatives in states like Colorado, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, and
Nebraska (Table 1.5). Connerly is founder of the American Civil Rights Insti-
tute, which claims as its mission to educate Americans about the harms of
race preferences. A primary tactic of these organizations is to write deceptive
ballot initiatives designed to roll back the rights and protections of minority
individuals. These ballots attack not just afrmative action and minority
scholarships, but also other civil rights policies that provide opportunities
for women and minority-owned businesses.
Thankfully, organizations like the NAACP Legal and Educational
Defense Fund and the Coalition to Defend Afrmative Action, Integration,
Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary
(BAMN), have worked to resist these challenges, both through the courts
and at the grassroots level. Indeed, BAMN recently succeeded in overturning
Michigan Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment passed in 2006 that
would have ended afrmative action in public hiring, contracting, and
admissions decisions. In July 2011, in a 21 decision, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated the right of public agencies to use
race and ethnicity as part of their administrative decision-making processes.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has since appealed the ruling and
requested an en blanc hearing by the entire court of the Sixth Circuit. Until
the Sixth Court issues a ruling, Proposal 2 will remain in effect (State of
Michigan Attorney General, 2011). Table 1.5 summarizes antiafrmative
action measures in a number of different states.
Responding to a Shifting Policy Environment

As the legal environment changes, colleges and universities must respond.
The opposition to afrmative action detailed in Table 1.5 is part of a well-
funded attack on both educational policies and our fundamental diversity
values. By merely threatening legal action, conservative organizations have
often scared many institutions into weakening their diversity programs. This
74 W H Y IS DI V E RS I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN T H E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?
TAB LE 1. 5
Ballot and Executive Initiatives Eliminating Afrmative Action in Select States
Year State Initiative Action Description
1996 California California Ballot initiative Passed in 1996 (54 to 46 percent), it effectively
Proposition ended the practice of afrmative action in the state
209 of California, prohibiting the state and local
governments, districts, public universities, colleges,
schools, and others from using race, ethnicity, sex,
color, or national origin in any hiring, contracting,
or admissions decisions. In a 61 ruling, Coral
Construction v. San Francisco, S152934, the
California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition
209 in August 2010.
1998 Washington Washington Ballot initiative Modeled after California Proposition 209 and
State Initiative passed in 1998 (58 to 42 percent), it effectively
200 ended the use of afrmative action in Washington
state. Upheld in 2007 by U.S. Supreme Court ruling
People v. Seattle.
1999 Florida Governors Executive Signed by the governor in November 1999 and
Executive decision approved by Board of Regents in February 2000,
Order this executive order eliminated the use of race and
ethnicity in college admissions for the state
university system.
2006 Michigan Michigan Ballot initiative Passed in 2006, this ballot initiative effectively
Proposal 2 nullied the U.S. Supreme Courts decision banning
race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin from being
considered in public university admissions, and in
public employment or contracting.
In 2011, a three-judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that
Proposal 2 was unconstitutional, arguing that it
deprived members of racial minority groups in
Michigan of their 14th Amendment rights by
embedding the issue of afrmative action in the state
constitution, where it was prohibitively difcult to
challenge legally.1 That decision was appealed and
upheld to the full court of the Sixth Circuit in
November 2012.
2008 Nebraska Nebraska Civil Ballot In 2008, Nebraska effectively nullied the U.S.
Rights initiatives Supreme Courts decision by passing a state
Initiative 2 constitutional amendment that banned race, gender,
(NCRI) ethnicity, or national origin from being considered
Initiative 424 in public contracting, public employment, and
public education.
2010 Arizona Proposition Ballot initiative Placed on the ballot for the 2010 midterm election,
107 this proposition to eliminate afrmative action
passed by a margin of 6040 percent.
Source: American Civil Rights Institute (n.d.).

1. See Brown (2011).
2. Part of Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, an effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly and the
American Civil Rights Institute to end afrmative action in ve states. In three states (Arizona, Missouri, and
Oklahoma), the petition failed to receive sufcient signatures to make the ballot. The ballot was defeated in Colorado
but passed in Nebraska.
D I V E R SI TY IN T H E N E W E C O N O M Y 75
trend has led one emeritus president of a leading institution to conclude,

We have given our entire diversity operation over to the lawyersand they
just dont want to push the agenda anymore for fear of a new lawsuit.
And yet, although the Supreme Court may revise Grutter, diversity lead-
ers must nd the courage to forge forward in this challenging context, pro-
moting policies that are proactive, aggressive, and pass legal muster. In the
words of another university president:
What is the worst thing thats going to happen? We have to spend a couple
of dollars defending what we know is right! My philosophy is we do our
research, nd out what we think is within the law, and move forward.
Until someone tells me I cannot do something, this is exactly what I am
going to do! Otherwise you get nothing accomplished.
Responding to this onslaught of challenges, the Obama administration has

also weighed in. In December 2011, the Administration issued its Guidance
on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity in Postsecondary Educa-
tion (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2011).
These guidelines uphold the 2003 Supreme Court decisions, but move
beyond these decisions to detail a number of race-neutral techniques that
will help institutions to achieve their educational diversity goals. The guide-
lines were hailed by diversity advocates clearly responding to the spirit of
their message, namely that colleges and universities can work proactively to
promote diversity, consistent with the 2003 Supreme Court rulings without
undo worry that they will be investigated by the Ofce of Civil Rights. In
addition, colleges and universities should be looking for ways to expand
and develop their race-neutral techniques for achieving diversity in higher
education.
Summary
Like corporations, government agencies, and nonprot organizations, aca-
demic institutions exist within a complex and shifting social context. In the
new economy, attitudes toward education are changing as discerning stu-
dents often think of themselves more as consumers of a higher education
product than as fortunate apprentices. The form of education is also shifting
as nontraditional learning programs like online colleges enter the market-
place. Even as they navigate the perfect storm of a changing diversity
landscape, colleges and universities must respond to these new challenges
76 W H Y IS DI V E R S I T Y I MP O R TA N T IN TH E N E W MI LL E N N I UM ?
(Alfred, 2005; Peterson & Dill, 1997). Thankfully, it is as much a time of

opportunity as anxiety. The changing demographics of the American popu-
lation have been and will be increasingly reected in our classrooms, as the
presence of women and historically underrepresented groups pursue higher
learning. Yet discrimination and injustice continue to persist, and we will
continue to struggle with transforming our institutions in ways that nurture
diversity. As the nancial, cultural, and social interconnections of our global
economy strengthen and increase, academic leaders must become more pro-
active on issues of diversity.
In this brave new world, it is critical for individuals to attend college
and even to pursue professional and graduate training. These achievements
result in higher personal income, a more capable workforce, fewer demands
on the public safety net, higher levels of community engagement, and better
outcomes regarding health care and personal nance (Carnevale & Fry,
2000). At a time when higher education is increasingly important, some
people are being systematically left behind, particularly when viewed
through the lens of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability status, and
economic background.
We now stand at the dawn of a new age: the age of diversity. Many of
us know that this age has already arrived and that American colleges and
universities are simply the advance guard for changes taking place across all
sectors of society. This moment requires institutional leaders to act differ-
ently to meet the challenges and opportunities of diversity, because, ulti-
mately, diversity is a matter of environmental and social sustainability. The
time is over for traditional campus diversity policies that exist in a vacuum
or are activated only in reaction to some campus crisis. The all-to-common
approach to college and university diversity efforts is no longer sufcient,
and if the economic recession means an absence of nancial resources, then
academic leaders will have to think creatively about how to leverage available
resources. Without a new approach to diversity leadership, higher education
will nd it hard to navigate this perfect storm. The challenge for academic
leaders will be to nd a new way forward without losing the gains of existing
processes, resources, and structures. In this context, diversity should not be
viewed as a mere end product, but as the key ingredient in our effort to
create a brighter, more productive and more inclusive future.
Notes
1. The Great Recession commonly refers to the time period between 2007 and 2009,
when the labor force lost around 8.8 million jobs, while the unemployment rate climbed from
4.4 to 10.1 percent. In addition, long-term unemployment increased sharply, so that by the
summer of 2012 people out of work for more than six months constituted more than 40
D I V E R S I T Y IN T H E N E W E C O N OM Y 77
percent of the unemployed. The Great Recession has reshaped the foundations of the Ameri-
can economy dramatically, necessitating even more postsecondary education and skills rele-
vant to success in the global knowledge economy. See Grusky, Western, and Wimers The
Great Recession (2011).
2. Recognizing that being of Hispanic or Latino origin is a matter of ethnicity, not race,
the 2010 decennial census asked two separate questions regarding race and ethnicity. The rst
sought to determine ethnicity, asking whether the respondent was Hispanic or Latino or
Not Hispanic or Latino. The second asked the respondent to identify his or her race.
Starting in 2000, respondents could self-identify with some other race. Reecting Americas
increasingly multiracial society, around a third of respondents in the 2010 census identied
themselves as some other race. For more information see Humes, Jones, and Ramirezs
Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 Census Briefs (2011).
3. The term new minorities refers generally to groups other than non-Hispanic Whites,
Blacks, and American Indians. These groups include Asian, Asian Indian, and Pacic
Islander.
4. See Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview by The National Conference of
State Legislatures (2011).
5. For more information on the problems associated with for-prot institutions, please
see Lynch, Engle, and Cruzs (2010) Education Trust special research report Subprime Oppor-
tunity: The Unfullled Promise of For-Prot Colleges and Universities. For information on
the controversy surrounding for-prot schools, minority students, and graduation rates, see
Kirkhams (2011) For-Prot Colleges Draw Minorities, Stir Murky Debate on Student
Success.
6. According to Beleld and Levin (2007), the calculation is based on $1,000 per K12
year plus the cost of 0.8 years of schooling at $8,500 per year.
7. The Alliance for Excellent Educations calculation used gures from Kelly (2005)
showing the net percentage increase in the proportion of the population reaching each level
of educational attainment by 2020, assuming that minority graduation rates were equal with
those for White students compared with a scenario in which educational attainment rates by
ethnicity remained at current levels. Using census population projections and earnings esti-
mates based on levels of educational attainment, the Alliance determined the difference in
potential gains in earnings. Increased earnings were calculated using 2004 Census gures,
which found that a worker who did not complete high school will earn annually $9,114 less
than a high school graduate; $14,062 less than someone with some college; $15,953 less than
someone with an associates degree; $23,238 less than a college graduate; and $55,953 less than
someone with a graduate or professional degree.
8. Facially neutral policies are among the most confusing in higher education and include
policies like the Texas TTP Law, which does not take race into account as an individual factor
in decision-making processes. Although the overall intention of the policy may be to achieve
race-conscious educational goals, the policy itself, with respect to both operations and intent,
is neutral and does not confer material benets to the exclusion of nontargeted students
(Coleman et al., 2008). For example, in a competitive admissions decision, geographic, eco-
nomic, or even a students school could be the critical factor that allows for diverse educa-
tional goals to be pursued. Facially neutral policies are subject to strict scrutiny and qualify
legally as race conscious only if they are motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose and
result in a racially discriminatory effect. For more information, please see Race-Neutral Policies
in Higher Education: From Theory to Action, by Coleman and colleagues (2008).
PA R T T W O
W H AT I S D I V E R S I T Y ?
2
TOWARD A TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY DEFINITION
OF DIVERSITY
The greatest challenge is trying to respond to the diverse expectations,

the ambiguous denitions, and the widespread hopes of people who
dene diversity in so many different ways and with so many ideas about
what the chief diversity ofcer is supposed to do. That is one of the
things that I dealt with early on. Many people would say that women are
the key group. Others would say that the LGBT community ought to be
a part of the denition. And it would just go on and on. So that is why it
is important for the leadership of the institution to be clear about how [it
is] dening diversity and who is part of the institutional denition.
Vice President for Diversity at a large research university
in the Midwest
W
hat is meant by the term diversity, particularly in a twenty-rst
century context? Although diversity has become one of the great
buzzwords in academia, it is rarely dened. Diversity crops up in
discussions ranging from student nancial aid and curriculum reform to
budget priorities and faculty recruitment. For this reason, dening diversity
is one of the rst challenges for any institution. This chapter presents a
denition for what the author terms the diversity idea. It is tting to pair
diversity and idea because both are uid and shift over time. For nearly ve
decades, the diversity idea has evolved as new communities have grown in
number and voice, policy environments have changed, and language has
shifted. As a consequence, this chapter covers a great deal of conceptual,
theoretical, historical, and policy terrain. Consequently, this chapter takes
an integrated approach, combining references to current scholarship with
81
82 W H AT I S D I V E R SI TY ?
personal insights and primary research gleaned from working directly on

these issues.
Of course, some communities may feel that their experiences are not
discussed adequately, and for that, the author offers a heartfelt apology.
Unfortunately, the very act of dening diversity necessarily limits ones abil-
ity to capture all the ways that diversity nds expression in colleges and
universities. This difculty, however, should not stand in the way of formu-
lating a working denition, because our ultimate aim should not be merely
to provide a conceptual framework for understanding diversity, but to carry
out the even weightier task of actually moving forward with a diversity
agenda. Thus, this chapter provides a foundation for understanding diversity
in four interconnected contexts: (a) as an evolving concept, (b) in relation-
ship to intergroup identity, (c) as an expression of ideology, and (d) as a
product of institutional policy.
This chapter begins with an overview of the social and historical forces
that helped shape the diversity idea before turning to examine the diversity
idea in the context of group and intergroup identity and campus climate.
The discussion then moves to the ideological dimensions of diversity, explor-
ing seven general perspectives that shape how individuals both support and
resist the diversity idea. The last section explores the policy dimension, pre-
senting how different institutions have dened diversity and how national
higher education organizations have offered to assist with this process. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the disconnect between the theory
and practice of the diversity idea, providing several recommendations to
help leaders avoid this pitfall and foreshadowing the treatment of diversity
organizational models in Chapter 3.
The Diversity Idea: Concept, Identity, Ideology, and

Institutional Policy
One of the challenges in moving toward a denition of the diversity idea is
that, in Raechele Popes words, Individuals may use the same words but
have very different ideas about what is to be accomplished and how (1993,
p. 201). Although the term diversity idea has unquestionably entered the
general lexicon, it can invoke a range of possible meanings depending on
audience and context. Ask 10 people to dene diversity and you will get 10
different denitions. Common keywords might include difference, multicul-
turalism, identity, race, ethnicity, and gender. These keywords point toward a
T OWA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y 83
deeper and more complex concept that must be approached from several
different angles. Thus, it might be more productive to begin with a series of
open questions.
What are the differences between an equity agenda, a multicultural
agenda, and a diversity agenda? What is the most appropriate terminology
for race and ethnicity? Who should be included in the denition of diversity?
Is sexuality a part of the denition? Should majority White society be
included, and if so, how? What about issues of social class? If diversity is
primarily about access to higher education and opportunity for the most
vulnerable, should these concerns play a role in dening diversity? Is the
continued focus on race problematic? Is it necessary? How do we create a
future where differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disabil-
ity status, and age are all embraced in a denition of diversity that does not
wash away the unique social and historical issues associated with each?
The Diversity Idea Framework

Although no denitive denition of diversity exists, strategic diversity leaders
need a pragmatic foundation. Figure 2.1 presents a conceptual framework to
begin answering the broad question, What is diversity? This framework
focuses on group identity and membership, ideological perspective, and
institutional policy, the four related ways that diversity functions as a
dynamic idea in the academy.
This framework is designed to help campus leaders develop the type of
cultural intelligence needed to become strategic diversity leaders. In contrast
to earlier concepts, like ones intelligence quotient and emotional intelli-
gence (D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003), cultural intelligence measures the
interpersonal abilities needed to interact with individuals from different cul-
tures. Cultural intelligence cannot be acquired through the rote memoriza-
tion of a particular groups characteristics or tendencies. Instead, cultural
intelligence emerges over time and involves observing, reecting on, and
interacting with individuals who are culturally different from oneself
(D. C. Thomas & Inkson, 2003). Whether writing a diversity plan, leading a
campus budget committee, or giving a speech on the future of an institution,
academic leaders gain cultural intelligence by repeatedly facing and helping
to resolve challenges across cultures.
In higher education, every student should possess at least some level of
cultural intelligence by graduation. At the same time, the strategic diversity
leadership philosophy requires an evolving ability in this area for faculty,
84 W HAT I S D IV ER S I TY ?
FIGURE 2.1
A Conceptual Model of the Diversity Idea
staff, and administrators. The cultural foundation of strategic diversity lead-

ership must therefore draw its roots from an exploration of the general
concept of diversity and its reality as an elusive and broad idea that can
be understood from four different perspectives. Table 2.1 elaborates these
perspectives.
Diversity as an Evolving Concept

Colleges and universities exist in a broader social context that inuences how
individuals, leaders, and institutions understand diversity and implement
T O WAR D A TW E N T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 85
TAB LE 2. 1
The Diversity Idea: Concept, Identity, Ideology, and Institutional Policy
The Diversity
Idea Level Denition Implications for Strategic Diversity Leaders
Conceptual Historical- Diversity is an evolving Strategic diversity leaders must understand and use
Perspective Theoretical concept that features diversity concepts in a more precise manner. They
continually shifting language must be attentive to history, policy, and other
to describe groups and terms dynamics that shape the diversity idea. They must
like multiculturalism, diversity, recognize that mistakes are inevitable when using
equity, access, and inclusion, language in the evolving diversity idea and learn
which all have unique from them by asking questions and putting into
meanings that are often practice what is learned. This will require leaders
conated into a supra diversity to use language with an eye toward exibility.
concept that is amorphous and
difcult to understand.
Group Identity Social- Diversity is understood from Strategic diversity leaders must recognize that
Perspective Psychological the perspective of group identity is a function of both internal denitions
Process of membership as each person has and external attributions. They must understand
Group multiple identities that the multidimensional nature of identity and group
Membership partially dene their membership that has primary, secondary, and
experience, worldview, and the historical dimensions. They must appreciate that
ways in which others respond diverse identities matter and shape the campus
to them. Identity can be climate of inclusion and exclusion for every
understood as having primary, person, particularly those in culturally diverse
secondary, and historical- groups.
structural dimensions.
Ideological Individual Diversity is understood from Whether serving as chief diversity ofcer, senior
Perspective Mental Model the perspective of different administrator, faculty, diversity committee
ideologies that govern the way member, or in some other role, individuals must
people think about, discuss, have an understanding of the diversity ideologies
and engage with the issue of that they will encounter. Understanding these
diversity. These ideologies are different ideologies is key to nding common
the equity, economic, ground, working through differences, and
racialized, centric, reverse understanding the sources of diversity-themed
discrimination, universal, and conict.
colorblind perspectives.
Institutional Organizational Diversity is crystallized in In crafting an institutional denition of diversity,
Perspective Denition formal institutional denitions leaders should (a) include both primary and
and statements of policy secondary dimensions of diversity, (b) emphasize a
expressing what the institution shared identity as members of the campus
values and believes regarding community, and (c) embrace rather than shy away
the diversity idea. from the complexity of making diversity more
fundamental to learning and institutional
excellence, whether the issues are historical or
emerging. This denition might also include a
statement about diversitys educational benets
and the need to continue advancing the historic
agenda of access and equity, while at the same time
embracing and valuing the unique needs and
experiences of diverse groups.
diversity policies. Over our countrys history, legal and legislative interpreta-
tions have evolved, demographics have changed, new theories have emerged,
and social mores have shifted. These changes have helped shape the deni-
tion of diversity as an evolving concept that is, by its very nature, socially
and politically contested.
The Decit and Assimilation Theses of Genetic and
Cultural Inferiority
In his history of science in the twentieth century, The Mismeasure of Man
(1981), Stephen Jay Gould explores how early conceptions of diversity
implied ideas of deviance, decit, and inferiority. In the 1930s, scientists used
spurious mental measurements as a means of reinforcing the dominant social
order. Drawing on the perceived legitimacy of the intelligence test to do
everything from screen prospective soldiers to segregate and control immi-
grant populations, social scientists used science to buttress discriminatory
policies, especially along racial, ethnic, and gender lines.
Even decades later, a general conception persisted that poor and minor-
ity individuals lacked the inherent mental and cultural capacities necessary
to achieve success. Called the decit model, this characterization argued for
social and cultural assimilation over the recognition and celebration of differ-
ence (Birman, 1994). Even today, in ways subtle and overt, cultural standards
tend to reect the values, identity, and mores of the dominant culture. This
tendency one might term the assimilation thesis of intergroup dynamics.
Assimilation is dened as a pressure to conform or to be like everyone
else and is one acculturating option that can be used to resolve cultural
differences and adaptation between groups, particularly when a subordinate
group comes into contact with a dominant group (Birman, 1994). This
thread still exists in todays diversity debates, as some tout the majority group
as the normative ideal and posit a mythic colorblind society where minor-
ity groups are somehow magically assimilated into majority society. Thank-
fully, a new generation of social scientists has challenged the nature over
nurture myth, showing the overwhelming role that the social, political, and
economic practices of the majority group play in actually making a seamless
integration impossible. These dynamics, not genetic factors, play the key
role in determining individual success (Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994).
The Afrmative Identity Thesis
The social movements of the past 50 years have allowed formerly silenced
communities to offer their own perspectives on issues of diversity and iden-
tity. From the Black Power movement to Chicano, feminist, American
T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R SI TY 87
Indian, social class, and gay rights groups, diverse communities have radi-
cally shifted and expanded the idea of diversity in America. This afrmative
identity thesis can be characterized by principles of self-acceptance, identity
afrmation, and community empowerment.
This vision of diversity offers a counternarrative to the decit and assim-
ilation models, embracing a positive and afrming perspective on diversity
and difference. In this model, diverse communities not only have a basic
right to exist, but enjoy agency in articulating and dening their own experi-
ences. This situation extends directly to todays college campuses, as diverse
student organizations, cultural centers, and new academic disciplines ex-
plore, both within and outside the curriculum, a dynamic conversation on
diversity. Their conversations have demonstrated that advancing the diver-
sity idea is not a culturally neutral process. Students, faculty, and staff do
not live, study, and work on campus by checking their identities at the
door. Most of them nd a distinct benet from maintaining a connection
or allegiance to their culture of origin even as they participate in majority
culture (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Consequently, the concept of diversity in
the new millennium is more complex than ever before. It extends beyond a
binary discussion of Black and White, minority and nonminority, or male
and female. Now more broadly conceived along lines of diversity and inclu-
sion, participation in organizational life must encompass overlapping themes
of identity, cultural afrmation, and ideology.
BOX 2.1
Applying the Decit Model and the Afrmative Identity Model
to the Retention of Ethnically and Racially Diverse Students
The concept of integration has long been central to diversity discussions in higher
education. Indeed, integration has become the default measure as higher education
seeks to explain institutional and affective outcomes regarding academic perfor-
mance, values, lifestyle preferences, and career goals among students. Educational
theorists often dene integration as the extent to which an individuals behavior and
subjective perceptions of the campus environment are characterized by the accep-
tance of group norms, attitudes, and relationships in that environment. At the core
of this discussion is the belief that successful students must acculturate into the
cultural environments of college campuses.
(continues)
88 W H AT I S D IV E R S I T Y ?
(continued)
Vincent Tinto, one of the leading theorists in this area, argued that this accultura-
tion is achieved as students disassociate themselves from past cultural communities
and become socially integrated into the collegiate environment. Scholars working in
the eld of K12 education also posit that academic achievement is higher when the
school culture is compatible with a students home culture.
Working from the decit thesis discussed earlier, a number of impact and reten-
tion models suggest that students of color must assimilate into their colleges cul-
tural environment to achieve success. This concept of cultural acculturation has far-
reaching implications for students whose cultural backgrounds depart from those of
the institutions they attend. Criticisms of social integration models argue that the
concept of acculturation is guided by the assumption that the cultural differences of
diverse groups should be diminished and that to be successful minority and other
diverse students must adopt the values of the dominant college environment.
The suggestion that students must repress or downplay their cultural identity to
achieve academically is neither intellectually sound nor consistent with diverse stu-
dent experiences in college. Consistent with early research by Peterson and col-
leagues (1978), colleges have continually responded to growing minority enrollment
by expanding multicultural ofces, centers, and residence halls. These efforts reect
an awareness that students perform better, and enjoy their college experience more,
if they can engage with others in environments that respect and even reect their
home culture. Students have also proved remarkably adept at establishing their own
resources and organizations.
The afrmative identity approach recognizes the dynamic ways that diverse indi-
viduals and communities establish normative contexts on campus. This process sug-
gests that the concept of multiple memberships may be more useful than
integration because it recognizes the diverse reality of the collegiate environment.
Hurtado and Carter (1997) noted this development in their social integration research
and suggested that students of color may achieve academic success by operating in
multiple worlds, that of their own cultural group and that of others (p. 327). Any
visit to a college campus will illustrate how diverse groups operate in similar ways,
building community in their student organizations, cultural centers, fraternities and
sororities, and other spaces that allow their identities to be preserved, strengthened,
dened, and authenticated as women, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) community, working class students, and others.
Sources: Attinasi, 1989; Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Murguia,
Padilla, & Pavel, 1991; Peterson et al., 1978; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993; Weidman, 1989.
Confusing Diversity Terminology

Navigating the diversity idea is further complicated by confusing terminol-
ogy. It is important to be sensitive to these terms and their shades of meaning
when working in a diverse institution or interacting with people of different

cultures. Different people use different words or names to signify member-
ship in a particular cultural group or to dene diversity on a broader level.
Because these terms can be culturally specic, diversity leaders should not
assume they know them. Asking members of the group their preferred term
is an essential rst step.
At the same time, one must recognize that words and terms change over
time, complicating our effort to be inclusive. The rich history of words like
Colored, Negroid, Negro, Black, Afro-American, and African American is only
one example. Moreover, contemporary terms can shift quickly. Again, the
LGBT community offers an instructive lesson. Having appropriated gay and
queer from heteronormative culture, the LGBT community in recent years
adapted the Q in queer to also invoke questioning. In what many dene
broadly as the Latino community, there are also differences based on politi-
cal, economic, and national origin factors. The term Chicano usually refers
to Mexican ancestry, although not all Mexican Americans self-identify with
the term. People from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America
make further distinctions based on national origin. The term Hispanic is
falling out of favor with some groups because of its implied reference to
Spanish and Portuguese conquest. Finally, where you are in the United
States matters. People in Texas and the Southeast prefer Hispanic and Chi-
cano, whereas those in New York frequently use Latino. And within the
disability community, differences exist between the use of terms like deaf or
blind and hard-of-hearing or visually impaired, which offer more nuanced
descriptions of an individuals hearing and visual capacity.
Strategic diversity leaders must be ready to work with individuals and
among communities where once-stable terms and categories are undergoing
considerable scrutiny. What matters is that these leaders work to address the
profound and continuing challenges that lie beneath these terms, including
equality, inclusion, and fairness.
Equity, Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Inclusion

Four fundamental terms that academic leaders must understand are diversity,
equity, inclusion, and multiculturalism. Through the years, different terms
have ebbed and owed, conating into a supra-diversity idea that is often
amorphous, difcult to understand, and, in the minds of many, means much
less than it did when each of these terms crystallized on the national land-
scape during the socially transformative decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and
1970s. Box 2.2 provides a brief explanation of these concepts. Too often these
terms are used interchangeably, so it is important to clarify some of the ways
they depart from each other, even as, added together, they help us arrive at
a more nuanced appreciation of the diversity idea. Referencing these shifts
in language, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA)1 stated:
The concept of diversity is not new. Every few years, another word is
adopted that encompasses the ideas, values, and implications around differ-
ence and identity. Examples of this trend include non-interchangeable ter-
minology such as pluralism, inclusion, multiculturalism, intercultural
communication, cross-cultural competency, diversity, and social justice.
While the vocabulary may change, the concepts behind the words re-
main the same. . . . Given the importance of these notions, NASPA
encourages campuses to employ the terminology that best ts their specic
institution.2
BOX. 2.2
Diversity Terms
Diversity
Diversity refers to all of the ways in which people differ, including primary character-
istics, such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, mental and physical abilities, and sexual
orientation; and secondary characteristics, such as education, income, religion, work
experience, language skills, geographic location, and family status. Put simply, diver-
sity refers to all of the characteristics that make individuals different from each other,
and in its most basic form refers to heterogeneity.
Equity
Historically, equity refers to the process of creating equivalent outcomes for mem-
bers of historically underrepresented and oppressed individuals and groups. Equity
is about ending systematic discrimination against people based on their identity or
background.
Inclusion
Inclusion exists when traditionally marginalized individuals and groups feel a sense
of belonging and are empowered to participate in majority culture as full and valued
members of the community, shaping and redening that culture in different ways.
(continues)
T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 91
(continued)
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism acknowledges and promotes the acceptance and understanding of
different cultures living together within a community. As such, multiculturalism pro-
motes the peaceful coexistence of diverse races, ethnicities, and other cultural
groups in a given social environment.
Looking closely at these terms, one notices that they all embrace a prin-
ciple of inclusion. That shared trait should help serve as an antidote to the
common misconception that diversity refers exclusively or reductively to
difference. Through the years, diversity has evolved from its close association
with decit and assimilation to an afrmative identity connotation that
champions the importance of maintaining ones cultural identity even as one
participates fully in mainstream society. Hence the end-goal of diversity is a
nuanced position of cultural respect and identity afrmation. The develop-
ment of this critical consciousness is essential to the work of strategic diver-
sity leaders. Such a task requires leaders to balance diversity as a concept of
acknowledgement and valuing difference, while also working to engage these
issues in ways that promote understanding, inclusion, and equity.
Diversity Within Group Identity

The second means of exploring the diversity idea takes its cue from the
concept of groups and group identity. In an encouraging sign, contemporary
discussions of the diversity idea have widened to include members of the
LGBT community, individuals with disabilities, economically vulnerable
communities, veterans, nontraditional students, international students, and
undocumented students, among others. Although the histories of each group
are different, strategic diversity leaders will encounter the same core concerns
of gaining support, power, and inuence for the issues that they nd vital.
In examining the issue of group identity, this discussion centers on three
themes. First, it provides a conceptual platform for understanding group
membership as an internal and external process of identity formation. Sec-
ond, it denes primary, secondary, and social-historical dimensions that
inform how leaders can prioritize the needs of different communities. Third,
it outlines how diverse identities shape the ways that individuals experience
inclusion and exclusion in the academic community. The aim is to provide
92 W H AT I S D IV E R S I TY ?
a platform for helping diverse communities achieve a sense of belonging and

community in environments that are only now adjusting to their physical
presence.
Group Membership
It is common in workshops and trainings to facilitate understanding by cre-
ating lists of the cultural values that pertain to different minority groups.
Unfortunately, this approach can risk perpetuating stereotypes or passing
over the complex social-historical processes related to identity development.
The social identity theory (SIT) developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner
in 1979 offers a compelling alternative.3 SIT explains an individuals identity
formation as it pertains to intergroup behavior and more eloquently captures
a human reality in which identity is uid, multidimensional, contextual,
and socially constructed. In particular, SIT helps elucidate how individuals
position themselves within a complex network of in-groups and out-groups.
Indeed, the theory assumes that all individuals possess multiple social identi-
ties (Tajfel, 1978; J. Turner, 1981). Among other aspects, gender, family mem-
bership, professional status, spousal relationships, and ethnicity represent
facets of individual identity that are further inected by personal values,
social allegiances, and situational context (Ethier & Deaux, 1994). As such,
people have a broad array of identities that collectively dene who they are,
what they value, and what groups they claim as their own.
In her exploration of the dimensions of diversity, Marilyn Loden
(1996) suggests that social identities among minorities can be demarcated in
terms of primary (biological) and secondary (experiential) dimensions. Her
distinction helps us to appreciate the differences between the biological and
experiential aspects of identity formation. Furthermore, her elaboration of
the experiential dimension allows us to access the profound social-historical
dimension of identity formation among minorities. Table 2.2 provides a syn-
opsis of primary, secondary, and social-historical dimensions of diversity
identity.
Primary Dimensions of Diversity Identity

According to Loden, age, race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, and sexual
orientation act as primary dimensions in identity formation. These di-
mensions of identity are often, although not always, the most visible. For
example, race, gender, and disability status are highly visible primary charac-
teristics. Less visible is sexual orientation. But what this framework assumes
T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E NT U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 93
TAB LE 2. 2
Dimensions of Identity Formation
Primary Dimensions Secondary Dimensions Social-Historical Dimension
Age Communication style Understanding the profound

Race Education ways that social-historical forces
Ethnicity Family status have shaped individual identity
Gender First language and group formation, with a
Disability status Learning style particular focus on issues of
Sexual orientation Geographic location power, inequity, and their
Military experience inuence on individuals and
Nationality institutions
Organizational role and level
Religion
Economic background
Work experience
Work style
Source: Adapted from Loden, 1996.
is that these categories are vital to assumptions that majority society makes
about the presumed abilities of members of diverse groups and whether to
accept individuals as full participants in society. In other words, these are
the markers for determining in-group and out-group. Even though individu-
als have some degree of agency in determining the expression or visibility
of these primary dimensions, it is principally majority culture that assigns
values and makes judgments. For strategic diversity leaders, it is important
to be aware of the movement between how individuals conceive of them-
selves and how they are dened by majority society. This is especially true in
public forums and other settings where individuals might not know one
another.
The author encountered this challenge directly one evening while giving
a lecture on diversity, student engagement, and high-impact learning. Dur-
ing the question and answer period, a student stood up to express offense
at the use of Sir and Maam and Mr. and Ms. during the lecture.
The student self-identied as a freak who did not ascribe to any one
gender but who lived life dynamically as a human being. At the same
time, members of the audiencethe author includedmust inevitably have
been making assumptions about this individuals gender based on biological
features, style of dress, manner of walking and speaking, and so on. This
94 W HAT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?
categorization, and its potentially conicted interaction with the individuals

sense of identity may have profound consequences for how the individual is
treated by the group. The individual may be embraced as student, colleague,
and friend. The student may be rejected, ostracized, and silenced. And
regardless of the groups reaction, the individual may feel displaced on the
simple grounds that the individuals sense of identity has not been under-
stood or acknowledged by the group.
Secondary Dimensions of Diversity Identity
Secondary dimensions of diversity are dened through experiences, not biol-
ogy. They include, but are not limited to, communication style, education,
nationality, family status, socioeconomic background, and military experi-
ence. These identities play an essential role in shaping ones life course and
are championed by many interested in expanding the diversity discussion
beyond primary dimensions. Secondary dimensions help account for human
agency and choice over time (Loden, 1996). Accordingly, their inuence is
more variable than that of primary characteristics, although they are often
critically important for determining ones success in higher education and
life beyond college. Although fairly new to discussions of the diversity idea,
secondary dimensions have been relevant to institutional practices for dec-
ades. One clear example is the GI Bill, which has provided support services
and access to higher education for veterans since the 1940s.
Another reason for the emergence of secondary dimensions in diversity
policy reects the recent shift of the courts toward the educational benets
of the diversity rationale. This discussion has moved from a focus on group
conditions and equity toward a need to consider multiple dimensions of
diversity as a part of a holistic admissions process. Admissions departments
are increasingly sensitive to a more nuanced understanding of diversity as a
combination of primary and secondary dimensions. Secondary dimensions
give admissions ofcers the exibility to consider a complex set of variables
in selecting candidates for admission. Among these secondary dimensions,
socioeconomic background is perhaps the paramount factor, because it has
such clear consequences for questions of nancial aid and in many ways
academic preparedness, as many students from economically vulnerable
backgrounds also come from educationally underserved communities. Stra-
tegic diversity leaders need to clarify their understanding of socioeconomic
and secondary principles as they deal with emerging challenges of a more
socially and economically varied student body.
T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y 95
Diversity Within Primary and Secondary Dimensions

In considering primary and secondary dimensions of diversity, one must
acknowledge that diversity does not mean sameness. Although all people
and groups deserve fair and equal treatment, we must simultaneously
acknowledge the inequity that can occur within primary and secondary
dimensions. Even within a minority group there can be marginalized sub-
groups. As such, strategic diversity leaders must recognize rather than deny
the differences that exist among groups. For example, there are a myriad of
subgroups and classications within broad diversity categories like African
American, Asian American, Latino, LGBT, and Native American. Although
all members of a broader group may share common cultural values, distinct
subgroups can diverge in terms of their values, norms, and practices. Box 2.3
elaborates several specic subgroups within these broader categories.
BOX 2.3
Examples of Subgroup Diversity Identication
The terms African American and Black can be used to encompass recent Afri-
can immigrants as well as the descendants of Africans, both in the United
States and in the U.S. Caribbean territories (Barnes & Bennett, 2002).
The term Asian American refers to Americans who trace their origins to any of
the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asian, or Indian subcontinents,
including people with ancestral ties to India, China, the Philippines, Korea,
Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Indonesia
(Takaki, 1989).
At least 14 distinct groups make up the Hispanic and Latino American popula-
tion, whose members trace their lineage to one of three continents: North
America (Mexico and the Caribbean), Europe (Spain), and South America, as
well as to the isthmus of Central America (Mottel & Patten, 2012).
The federal government recognizes 565 Native American tribes (Department
of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2010).
The term LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) com-
bines numerous different sexuality-based identity groups into an aggregate
group that denes sexuality in ways that depart from what many have consid-
ered to be long-held heteronormative notions of gender and sexual identity
(National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, 2012).
96 W H AT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?
Using as our example the LGBT community, we nd subgroups that

include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and questioning people. More-
over, even within these subgroups, there are individuals who do not self-
identify with any categories of sexual or gender identity, thus rendering the
entire category of sexual orientation problematic (Kimmel & Plante,
2004). Thanks to advances in medicine, ones biological identity is a exible
category. In rare cases, people are born intersex. The choices they face, and
are confronted by, when dening their gender, complicates the diversity
discussion even further, as it suggests the remarkable uidity of ones identity
with respect to issues of gender and sexuality.
Social-Historical Dimensions
Although Lodens two-dimensional theory helps sharpen our ability to dis-
cuss diversity, one might consider amending it to incorporate the social-
historical dimension, which is a vital component of identity formation. Fig-
ure 2.2 positions the social-historical dimension of diversity on the outermost
ring of Lodens original framework, thereby extending the discussion of
identity to include a component that acknowledges the profound implica-
tions of social and historical dynamics on the formation of identity, and
the interaction of diverse individuals and groups within a broader majority
culture.
It is important to posit a social-historical dimension if for no other
reason than to acknowledge a persistent legacy of inequality that is deeply
embedded in the fabric of American society, a point addressed in Chapter
1 of this book. Being able to account for this dynamic is fundamental when
considering issues of education, admission and graduation rates, faculty
recruitment and retention, as well as other issues. Social advantages are
bound up in complex histories, interdependent systems, and relationships,
as each identity group is nested in a particular institutional, sociological,
and historical set of relationships and power dynamics. Thus, strategic
diversity leaders must be aware of differences between groups in the same
identity category and across primary, secondary, and social-historical
dimensions. Chapter 6 explores these concerns again in the context of
scorecards, accountability, and improving campus climate and graduation
rates.
Privilege and Group Status

A dimension of diversity often overlooked is how certain groups are posi-
tively judged based on their membership in higher-status groups. Men
T O WAR D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D E F IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y 97
FIGURE 2.2
Multiple Dimensional Model of Diversity
Source: Loden, 1996.
generally enjoy more automatic privilege than women, Whites more auto-
matic privilege than people of color, and heterosexuals more automatic privi-
lege than members of the LGBT community. Those who enjoy privileged
status are often unaware of their privilege and the ways that the primary
dimension inuences opportunities and enhances status. Some individuals
are slow to acknowledge this reality as it conicts with their belief that our
society is a meritocracy in which everyone starts on an equal footing. This lack

of awareness can be a signicant barrier to advancing an institutions diversity
goals. Although blatant forms of discrimination have declined over time, vari-
ous forms of bias continue to adversely affect the success of diverse groups,
particularly historically underrepresented minorities (e.g., African Americans,
Latinos, and Native Americans). This bias often operates just beneath the
surface, inuencing the ways that people think and behave, creating moments
when members of the empowered majority take microaggressive actions
toward individuals in the minority (Sue, 2010). See Box 2.4 for an overview of
microaggressive relationships in the context of primary and secondary dimen-
sions of diversity.
BOX 2.4
Microaggressive Moments and the Difference Between
Primary and Secondary Diversity Dimensions
Microaggressive moments can take place at any time. For example, imagine the only
Latino member of an English Department directly disagreeing with a policy decision
and being labeled angry, defensive, and aggressive. In a different scenario, his or
her White male colleague exhibits the exact same behavior but is labeled articulate
and passionate. Or imagine a situation in which the college bookstore has a theft
deterrent policy requiring all students to leave their bags at the front of the store
before shopping. Problems emerge when it becomes evident that the policy is only
enforced when African American or Latino students are in the store. When
approached, the store manager tries to evade the issue by offering that the store
really only targets certain kinds of school bags, distinguishing for example between
the small fashion bags carried by some women, and the larger backpacks that could
be used to store stolen items.
In these microaggressive instances, bias is expressed subtly and indirectly, as
people justify or rationalize their actions in ways that, on the surface at least, do not
appear attributable to race, gender, or ethnicity (Sue, 2010). In the instance of the
upset faculty members, a double standard is applied on the basis of ethnicity. In the
instance of the bookstore, the manager engages in racial proling but has a conve-
nient excuse. In both instances, persons of color are subjected to differing expecta-
tions and rules that take their cue from deep-seated stereotypes about minority
behavior. If the institutions senior leaders are not careful, the Latino faculty member
and any students of color proled in the bookstore will feel insulted and unwelcome.
(continues)
T O WAR D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D E F IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y 99
(continued)
Creating an inclusive campus environment that values diversity involves ap-
preciating the ways that core dimensions like gender and race are embedded in
hierarchies of privilege and exclusion. For many, these hierarchies are often inti-
mately associated with aspects of primary and secondary dimensions that exert an
unconscious inuence on majority culture. For example, unconscious bias may come
into play when faculty are unable to see the possibilities of an emerging scholar of
color simply because he or she attended a historically Black college and is pursuing
research centered on questions relevant to his or her background and culture. This
individual may be a rst-rate scholar with tremendous potential; nevertheless, his or
her abilities may not enjoy the same privileged status as those of White male faculty
members pursuing traditional research questions and operating within a predomi-
nantly White institutional setting.
Context and Identity

In embracing the broad principles of diversity, strategic diversity leaders
must develop a deep understanding of the always shifting and evolving
social-historical dimension of diverse identity. In a discussion about African
American women, noted scholar Patricia Hill Collins (2000) gives one such
example that shows the diversity of minority identities and how they are
activated by different social contexts:
Because oppression is constantly changing, different aspects of an individ-
ual U.S. Black womans self-denitions intermingle and become more
salient. Her gender may be more prominent when she becomes a mother,
her race when she searches for housing, her social class when she applies
for credit, her sexual orientation when she is walking with her lover, and
her citizenship status when she applies for a job. (pp. 274275)
We see here that identity varies by situation, so it is helpful to think of

individuals carrying a portfolio of identity options that reect not only their
values and choices, but the values, choices, and assumptions of their sur-
rounding environment (Nagel, 1994). A person of Indian Asian descent may
be Punjabi when speaking to a group of Gudrati peers at home in Ohio,
Indian American when speaking to a group of Chinese Americans, and Asian
American when lling out the demographic information of his or her college
application. These types of layering processes are common to many individu-
als as they learn to navigate the different contexts of their lives.
Too often conversations of diversity and identity focus on historically
excluded groups, failing to bring majority individuals into a discussion of
how their identities also take shape as a result of their environment and
experiences. Imagine a White student who grew up in an all-White neigh-
borhood, attended all-White schools, worshipped at an all-White church,
and had few meaningful interactions with anyone who was ethnically or
racially different. Chances are, Whiteness would not have been salient to
his or her life experience. But the moment he or she walks into the Latino
Cultural Center to interview members of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chi-
cano de Aztlan (MEChA)4 executive board following a racial incident on
campus, this persons racial identity would operate in powerful ways, partic-
ularly if the other students were speaking in Spanish and he or she did not
understand the language.
As this example suggests, social context is key to any discussion of diver-
sity and identity, as the environment and the persons with whom we interact
make a particular group membership salient. When a given environment
activates the psychological boundaries of a particular identity, what exists
within those boundariesthe material of identityare the shared interests,
values, behaviors, challenges, and lived experiences cutting across a particular
group, no matter how it is dened (Cornell, 1996). Whether the boundary
surrounds a particular racial or gendered identity, or a language-based or a
professional role, what exists within this boundary is the material that estab-
lishes a sense of collective sameness, even though every persons experiences
are unique (Cornell, 1996). This is not to say that all groups are monolithic.
Rather, a great diversity exists within groups. Nevertheless, this perspective
does imply that common experiences may cut across individual members
and dene the shared interests of a particular group and how they respond
to their environment.
It is within this context that strategic diversity leaders must recognize
that colleges and universities were not originally created to accommodate,
much less nurture, diverse groups. In fact, just the opposite is true. Outside
of a handful of schools with unique historical missions, most places of higher
learning were created to support the experiences, and solidify the power, of
a dominant White male society.5 Many of these institutions still bear the
traces, if not the deep tracks, of exclusionary dynamics. Acknowledging this
legacy, William Tierney (1991) argues that educational organizations exist as
a complex web of dominant and subordinate cultures in which diverse
groups struggle to legitimize their identities in a culture that often resists
their presence. All too often, members of the campus community experience
overt hate crimes, antagonism, and subtle assaults on their identities, as an
exclusive campus climate can send the clear message that culturally diverse
T O WA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T IO N O F D I V E R S I T Y 101
students, faculty, and staff are not welcomed (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hur-
tado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998; Rankin, 2003).
The Relevance of Identity

Understanding identity is essential to addressing the health of the campus
community. Identity plays an important role in determining where people
socialize, how they work, whom they approach as mentors, and in an overar-
ching way, whether they experience college as a place of inclusion or exclu-
sion (Hurtado et al. 1998). The interplay of identity and the campus
environment can help determine why, in Beverly Daniel Tatums (1997)
famous phrase, all the black kids sit together at the cafeteria. For many
members of a campus community, cultural identities become salient the
moment that they set foot on campus. Tatum argues that for African Ameri-
can students, campus life is fraught with overt and covert forms of racial
insensitivity or hostility:
White students and faculty frequently underestimate the power and pres-
ence of the overt and covert manifestations of racism on campus, and stu-
dents of color often come to predominantly White campuses expecting
more civility than they nd. Whether it is the loneliness of being routinely
overlooked as a lab partner in science courses, the irritation of being con-
tinually asked by curious classmates about Black hairstyles, the discomfort
of being singled out by a professor to give the Black perspective in class
discussion, the pain of racist grafti scrawled on dormitory room doors,
the insult of racist jokes circulated through campus e-mail, or the injury
inicted by racial epithets hurled from a passing car, Black students on
predominantly White college campuses must cope with ongoing affronts to
their racial identity. The desire to retreat to a safe space is understandable.
Sometimes that may mean leaving the campus altogether. (Tatum, 1997,
p. 79)
Some of the most damaging and consistent affronts can be found in

classrooms, particularly on matters of race and ethnicity (Feagin & Sikes,
1994; Hurtado et al., 1998). Despite the fact that most Whites openly espouse
support for general principles of diversity, many simultaneously at least tac-
itly endorse the idea that students of color are afrmative action admits
(Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Efforts to increase the presence of
historically underrepresented groups are often interpreted by majority stu-
dents as an example of reverse racism (Feagin & Sikes, 1994). Too often,
minority students nd themselves compelled to defend their presence at a
school even as they must defend the merits of their identity as members of a
particular racial or ethnic group. In Living With Racism: The Black Middle-
Class Experience, Joe Feagin and Melvin Sikes highlight this point:
A black undergraduate in my department is doing some research on black

and white achievement in college. One of her advisors was once the head
of a rather prestigious organization in my eld, not to mention chair of
the department. Apparently, she assumed that this one undergraduate
somehow spoke for all black people. Moreover, this professor would ask
her things like, I do not know what you people want. First you want to
be called Negro, and then you want to be called Black. Now you want to
be called African American. What do you people want anyway? In addi-
tion, why dont black people show up in class more? Why is it that I
cant get enough blacks to sit in on my classes? (Feagin & Sikes, 1994,
pp. 9495)
This exchange typies how racially insensitive expressions foster a cli-

mate of exclusion. Ironically, the underlying notion is at odds with the ten-
dency of members of White majority culture to stress the need for minority
students to assimilate as a means to achieve academic success. In this context,
minority students may nd themselves committing cultural suicide to con-
form to an environment that does not even desire their presence (Williams,
2002).
Beyond Race and Ethnicity

Unfortunately, similar dynamics of identity and exclusion often occur with
other cultural groups. How many times are LGBT individuals subject to
verbal and physical threats? How many hate messages are scrawled on their
organizations ofce doors? In her national study of the campus environment
for LGBT faculty, staff, and students, Sue Rankin discovered multiple sce-
narios like these (Rankin, 2003). Moreover, what kind of society awaits them
once they have left college? A 1999 study by the National Coalition of Anti-
Violence Projects estimated that by 2002, 29 members of the LGBT commu-
nity would die as a result of antigay violence in the years following the brutal
lynching of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Ott & Aoki,
2002; C. Patton, 2002).
Although examples of extreme violence on college and university cam-
puses are thankfully rare, many members of the LGBT community report
how they have been harassed and discriminated against, whether as students,
faculty, staff, or administrators (Rankin, 2003). It is for this reason that
T OWA R D A T W EN TY - F I R ST CE N T U R Y D EF IN I T I O N O F D IV E R S I T Y 103
college and university leaders must ensure that their campuses create cultur-
ally relevant and responsive services for victims of violence and discrimina-
tion by fostering better outreach, prevention, leadership development, and
direct services for LGBT members. Moreover, colleges and universities
should forge a national commitment to better serve these individuals, whose
victimization has largely gone unseen, unreported, and unaddressed (Ciar-
lante & Fountain, 2010).
For individuals with disabilities, bias can take not only social and cul-
tural forms, but actual physical exclusion. Despite the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act, students can nd themselves physically barred from access to
learning, social, and cultural environments. One large urban institution in
the Midwest hosted a campus visit by a group of three outside consultants
and conducted a climate survey with specic questions on the provision of
disability services. The report highlighted the following:
For several generations students with disabilities were encouraged to attend
more accessible campuses downstate. In addition, our current environment
includes architectural and communication barriers due to the age of our
infrastructure and location within an urban environment. This includes
inadequate accessible information technology and accessible buildings and
facilities. There is also insufcient accessible student housing to meet the
needs of students with disabilities as well as lack of door-to-door accessible
transportation to enable students to take advantage of the various services
on campus. Other challenges include providing sufcient accommodation
in the classroom and repairs of assistive technology equipment used by
students as well as sufcient resources for text conversion for blind
students.
Strategic diversity leaders must be attentive to instances of discrimina-

tion beyond relatively straightforward situations in which one individual
intentionally or unintentionally targets another on the basis of his or her
identity. Inequality, marginalization, and disparity do not require preju-
diced, biased, or hostile people. Even within the physical and social struc-
tures, inequity can be perpetuated in ways that escape detection, particularly
when the disability is invisible and has to do with learning challenges and
mental health issues that most are not aware even exist in many of our
students on campus.
Summary of the Group Identity Perspective
To summarize, individual identity is formed through the complex interplay
of how you dene yourself and how the world denes you. For this reason
alone, we must attend to identity as a socially constructed concept. Strategic

diversity leaders must value the unique and complex realities of diverse
groups, while simultaneously prioritizing concrete solutions to pressing
social and historical challenges. With an ever-expanding number of commu-
nities to engage, strategic diversity leaders must have a clear idea of diver-
sity that is anchored in history, psychology, and the dialogic dynamic
between and among students, faculty, staff, and people outside the cam-
pus community.
Understanding the Ideologies of Diversity

Beyond understanding diversity in the context of conceptual and group
identity frameworks, academic leaders must appreciate the ideological
dimension that individuals hold about the diversity idea. Over the past 50
years, liberals and conservatives have debated the notion of equality and, by
extension, the meaning of diversity. The current debate over diversity has
been locked in a stalemate because proponents and opponents of diversity
have embraced such extreme, diametrically opposed arguments. Thus, they
fail to see that the truth often lies somewhere in between.
The authors work with dozens of institutions has led to the identica-
tion of seven primary ideological categories, or diversity perspectives:
equity, economic, racialized, centric, reverse discrimination, universal, and color-
blind perspectives of diversity. Represented in Figure 2.3, these ideologies
shape the way people think about and engage with issues of diversity, includ-
ing hotly contested issues like undocumented residents, afrmative action,
the infusion of diversity into the curriculum, economic afrmative action,
and access to higher education. Table 2.3 in turn uses these ideological frames
as a means to address several questions and capture how they are commonly
voiced. First, do you support diversity? Second, how do you dene diversity?
And third, what does a particular perspective imply for an institutions diver-
sity agenda? Although these perspectives are linked, each represents a major
theme that, when taken collectively, help explain what leaders may encoun-
ter when they begin their efforts to dene, discuss, and build diversity
capacity.
The Equity Perspective

For many, the idea of equity is central to their conception of diversity,
informed in part thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Consti-
tution, which was passed in response to the unequal treatment of ethnic and
T O WAR D A TW E N T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 105
FIGURE 2.3
Common Diversity Ideologies in the Academy
racial minorities and women. Principles of fair treatment and restitution for
past injustice are central to the equity perspective, which denes diversity
work as an ongoing means of advancing a more equal American society.
Here, the focus has become one of achieving quantitative improvements in
the political, economic, educational, and social opportunities of historically
excluded groups.
Those who hold this perspective tend to focus on power imbalances and
discrimination, concentrating their energy on the needs and imperatives of
historically underrepresented minorities and women. It acknowledges that
TAB LE 2. 3
Common Diversity Ideologies
Support
Ideology Diversity Denition of Diversity Program Orientation Potential Voice
Equity Yes Diversity is dened in This perspective focuses on I am not concerned about a
Perspective terms of the numerical the access and success of broad denition of
representation of historically diversity; I am focused on
historically underrepresented groups. achieving parity in the
underrepresented groups. representation of
historically
underrepresented groups,
compared with their
majority peers. I am
concerned with issues of
equity.
Economic Yes Diversity is dened in This perspective focuses on My greatest concern is
Perspective terms of economic developing higher helping those students who
background and class. education scholarship are from challenged
Other issues of difference programs and access economic backgrounds.
are relevant only as they initiatives that place a This is where we need to
intersect with issues of premium on economic make a difference,
socioeconomic diversity background as the primary regardless of other factors
and access to higher dimension of relevance. determining a students
education. identity.
Racialized Yes Diversity is generally This perspective focuses on For me, diversity means
Perspective dened in terms of race and developing programs, working on issues of race
ethnicity, and more broadly courses of study, and and helping people of color
in terms of the unjust initiatives to build and get ahead. I do not have any
treatment of historically maintain capacity centered problems with other
underrepresented groups. It around issues of race and groups, but our focus needs
is common for one to ethnicity. to be on the issues of
dene diversity as the needs African Americans and
and issues of African addressing the pernicious
Americans as part of a continuing implications of
Black-and-White binary race and racism in this
discussion of diversity, as country.
the discussion becomes
even more tapered than
historical
underrepresentation.
Centric Yes Diversity is dened from This perspective focuses on For me, diversity means
Perspective the unique perspective of a developing programs, working on sexuality and
particular historically courses of study, and issues of gender identity. I
marginalized group. These initiatives to build and do not have any problems
perspectives are similar to maintain capacity centered with other diverse groups;
the racialized perspective around issues of sexual in fact, I think their issues
but not as common in the orientation, gender, are important. But we have
general lexicon of diversity. disability, nationality and to put other issues on the
Here, diversity encompasses other dimensions of table. When will it be our
the needs and issues of diversity. turn to be recognized and
women, members of the engaged as full partners in
LGBT or disability the colleges diversity
community, or other efforts?
identity groups.
Universal Yes Diversity is dened From this perspective, There are so many ways
Perspective broadly, and every diverse diversity resources should that we are diverse. From
group is valued and be divided equally among my perspective, I do not
supported equally, with no the various groups and think we need to focus on
attention to historical every group should enjoy one identity over another.
differences in experiences matching support. Each identity is important,
and contemporary and all should receive equal
situations. attention, resources, and
energy.
Reverse No Diversity is dened This perspective focuses on I believe in diversity and
Discrimination broadly, with special eliminating preferences in think that as individuals we
Perspective attention given to ways that all competitive selection are all diverse. My problem
a focus on race can promote situations, but is often is with granting preferences
reverse discrimination. associated with a general because of ones skin color.
support for diversity as an We need to stop thinking
abstract concept, although that way and get rid of
not on facilitating group afrmative action programs
identity or policy that do nothing but dumb
development. down our institutions and
provide special treatment
for minorities.
Colorblind No Diversity is not This perspective argues for The reason this campus is
Perspective acknowledged as an idea of true integration and is so disunited is because we
any importance or opposed to any programs, have so many cultural
continuing signicance. policies, or initiatives that centers, ethnic-themed
support the continuing residence halls, and
presence of difference, minority student
particularly associated with organizations. If our
racial and ethnic identity. campus were not so
Balkanized, students would
interact and connect with
one another in important
and positive ways.
these groups have faced systemic barriers to equal participation in society.

Common to this perspective, proponents talk of leveling the playing eld
and reducing barriers. Fundamental to this discussion is a focus on achiev-
ing outcomes to redress the pernicious effect of continuing legacies of racism,
sexism, discrimination, and exclusion. As such, the pursuit of the diversity
idea is embodied through the achievement of greater equity by achieving
social justice and eliminating gaps in K12 education, higher education,
employment, compensation, and other areas of society.
Although the legislative and judicial decisions of the 1970s led to the
development of afrmative action policies that benetted both women and
minorities, there has been a challenge in integrating the efforts around these
two broad categories. Several scholars have noted that the historical discon-
nect between the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s
can be felt even today (Breines, 2006). One criticism of the feminist
108 W H AT I S D I V E R S I T Y ?
movement is that its focus on educated, middle-class White women ne-

glected the dual burden of women of color (Breines, 2006). Consequently,
women of color have been forced to follow a separate, and steeper, path.
Some have combined their efforts with those of the traditional civil rights
movement, arguing that race and ethnicity are the dominant factors prevent-
ing them from achieving equity. Others have developed a hybrid approach,
combining elements of both the feminist and civil rights movements. Not
nding a place with White women or men of color, these women prefer a
path that illustrates the duality of their experience as a group marginalized
because of both race and gender (Breines, 2006).
One criticism of the equality perspective is that it too often ignores
similar dynamics that exist across subgroups. Proponents of this view often
believe that treating all elements of diversity equally risks masking the history
of discrimination suffered by ethnic and racially diverse groups in particular.
Strategic diversity leaders should recognize this point when it is voiced, while
at the same time honoring the equity challenges of groups that may be
similarly anchored in a history of inequity. Take for example the issue facing
members of the LGBT community and the denial of domestic partner bene-
ts, an issue that is clearly rooted in ideas of fairness, equal protection, and
support for those who have been on the margins. The key is to acknowledge
that, although exclusion and its legacy are not the same for members of the
LGBT community, women, and minorities, each groups experiences is nested
in a complex macro- and microlevel historical and political context that
makes it relevant to engaging issues of difference in the twenty-rst century.
The Economic Perspective

Imagine a female student who gains admission to the school of her choice.
She will be the rst person in her family to go to college. For years her
parents have been saving for this day, yet with the economic downturn they
suddenly nd that the familys educational nest egg has broken. Families
who are paying for college tuition out of their salaries or personal savings
face a stark choice between meeting basic needs and pursuing a higher educa-
tion degree. This harsh reality motivates proponents of the economic per-
spective. They argue for reorienting the diversity idea along economic lines,
particularly for students (Kahlenberg, 2003, 2004). Thus, the chief factor
that would determine access to scholarships and nancial aid would be a
students nancial situation, a kind of economic afrmative action.
The emergence of this perspective is driven in part by the fact that more
students than ever are borrowing larger amounts to pay for college. About
two-thirds of recent graduates carry student loans, and the average debt has
increased by more than 50 percent over the past decade after accounting for
ination (Baum & Steele, 2010). At the same time, the cost of higher educa-
tion has risen faster than many families can sustain. Although access for the
most economically vulnerable students is a decades-old issue, it is becoming
increasingly pressing in light of the Great Recession. Thus, proponents of
the economic perspective maintain that issues of diversity are relevant only
insofar as they converge with economic considerations.
Proponents of the economic diversity perspective make a powerful argu-
ment for addressing the underrepresentation of poor and working-class stu-
dents, particularly at elite institutions. For example, Richard Kahlenberg, a
senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a leading proponent of eco-
nomic afrmative action, believes that economic background is the most
critical diversity dimension. In his article, Toward Afrmative Action for
Economic Diversity, Kahlenberg (2004) makes a strong case for increasing
the number of the most vulnerable economic communities in academia.
Using data from 146 four-year colleges representing the most selective 10
percent as dened by Barrons Proles of American Colleges, Kahlenbergs
research found that students in the bottom economic quartile constitute just
3 percent of the student body at these institutions. The most economically
vulnerable students are 25 times less likely to be found on elite college and
university campuses than economically advantaged students, with the high-
est economic quartile taking up 74 percent of the available slots.
Kahlenberg argues that selective institutions do not give enough consid-
eration to economic background in either admissions decisions or nancial
aid awards. Proponents of the economic diversity perspective argue that
using nancial status in admissions decisions is a preferable alternative to
other factors on the grounds that 75 percent of the racial and ethnic diversity
of our campuses could be achieved by using economic afrmative action.
Kahlenberg notes:
Class-based afrmative action would produce three-fourths as much racial

diversity as using race at the most selective 146 colleges and universities.
While university admissions based on grades and test scores would yield
student bodies that have a four-percent combined black and Latino admis-
sions, class-based preferences would boost that to ten percent black and
Latino, somewhat short of the current 12 percent representation. Socioeco-
nomic factors not included in the Century Foundation studysuch as
wealthcould boost racial diversity even further, as black income is 60
110 W H AT I S D I V E R S I TY ?
percent of white income, but black net worth is just ve percent of white
net worth.6
Of course it is also possible to imagine a hybrid approach that would

recognize both economic status and race and ethnic factors. In this way,
diversity efforts could acknowledge the economic hardships applicants face,
bringing these issues to bear in a way that traditional race- and ethnicity-
based afrmative action does not (Kahlenberg, 2003, 2004).
Kahlenbergs argument is not without its detractors, who point out that
the continuing legacy of racial discrimination creates a different context for
members of minority groups, who, even after they have received an educa-
tion, may still nd themselves in an inequitable position. They add that even
though more minorities are obtaining college degrees, their total assets, rates
of home ownership, and overall nancial situation still does not begin to
approach that of White majority society (M. Oliver & Shapiro, 2001). They
further note that focusing solely on economics would lead to less racial and
ethnic diversity because high school completion rates differ between minor-
ity and majority groups. However, as noted earlier, there is a tendency for
those who disagree to talk past each other. Going all the way back to the
1960s and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s work on the Poor Peoples Cam-
paign, civil rights activists have focused on the shared interests and potential
for coalition building among diverse communities of the economically disad-
vantaged (McKnight, 1998). There may yet be a way to thread the needle
between these different interests that share a similar goal: a more just, equita-
ble society.
The Racialized Perspective

Whereas the economic perspective focuses on issues of poverty and economic
justice, the racialized perspective is rooted in issues of race and racism in the
context of the judicial system. Legal cases, particularly at the Supreme Court
level, have situated race and ethnicity at the center of how institutional lead-
ers dene diversity (Baez, 2004; M. Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005; P.
Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; P. Gurin, Lehman, & Lewis, 2004;
Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005). In addition to dealing a powerful blow
to segregation, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision congured
diversity issues within a context of racialized policies, initiatives, and strate-
gies to change what were, at the time, often exclusively White institutions.
The racialized perspective is thus rmly rooted in programs, policies, and
initiatives designed to benet the needs of racially and ethnically diverse
T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F I R S T CE N T UR Y D EF IN IT IO N O F D I V E R S I TY 111
minorities. It includes not only afrmative action programs but even more
radical solutions such as fundamental restitution, including direct repara-
tions to historically marginalized minority populations. As such, diversity
exists as an idea anchored in an historic and contemporary discussion of
ethnicity and race, racism, power, and privilege (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Omi
and Winant (1989) dened racialization as a process of extending racial
meanings to relationships, social practices, or groups. Although sexism,
homophobia, and the identity issues of other oppressed groups may be
acknowledged, they are not of central concern to proponents of this perspec-
tive. Even when acknowledging the presence and implications of other
groups in the diversity discussion, proponents of the racialization perspective
place a premium on issues of race and ethnicity.
The racialized perspective looks for practices of exclusion that operate
not only at the surface of our institutions, but at levels of institutional culture
that are deeply embeddedconsciously or unconsciouslyin the values,
beliefs, assumptions, behaviors, and systems that motivate people and insti-
tutions. The great strength of the racialized perspective is in accounting for
recent shifts in the social-historical dimension that have forced racism and
other forms of bias underground. Where prejudice and discrimination were
once explicitly embedded in laws, policies, and organizational systems, recent
decades have seen these exclusionary practices shift to a more covert setting.
Exclusionary policies now operate as subtle rather than overt barriers to
access. Accordingly, seemingly neutral policies that evaluate qualities like
merit, academic potential, and achievement can have detrimental effects,
undermining diversity policies by failing to account for subtle and ongoing
forms of discrimination (Bonilla-Silva, 1997; Bonilla-Silva, 2006).
The drawback of the racialized perspective is that it is strongly coded for
race and ethnicity. At some campuses, its focus can narrow even further,
focusing entirely on the relative circumstances of Black and White students.
Here, the nearly singular focus is on the history, experiences, and realities of
African Americans. As Hurtado, and colleagues (1998) have noted, every
institution is nested in a particular macro- and microlevel sociological con-
text, and appreciating how these differing contexts affect different groups is
essential to establishing sound diversity policies. For example, in the Mid-
west, where the Latino population is just emerging, some institutions have
demonstrated a very limited experience with racial diversity outside of the
Black and White binary. Hence, the issues of other historically marginalized
groups, like Latinos, Southeast Asians, and Arab Americans, are not always
fully included in high-level discussions of diversity. Moreover, just because
one is of African American or Mexican descent does not automatically place

one at a disadvantage. Critics of the racialized perspective argue that people
should not be judged as disadvantaged and automatically deserving of spe-
cial treatment simply because of their color, race, national origin, or gender.
Arguing that many Whites are in difcult circumstances, critics of the racial-
ized perspective wonder why economically disadvantaged Whites are not
prioritized more in discussions of access and inclusion across campus.
When the racialized perspective is translated into new diversity programs
and interventions, it is often subject to legal challenge and therefore should
be pursued with clarity regarding the legal and policy guidance that exists in
this area. Under federal nondiscrimination laws, educational scholarships,
admissions programs, and practices that are race conscious in any way call
for the most rigorous standard of judicial review, also known as strict scrutiny.
To satisfy this standard, these programs must serve a compelling state in-
terest and be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. As we move
deeper into a discussion of organizational diversity models in the next chap-
ter, it will be vital to outline the legal and policy parameters associated with
using race and ethnicity in higher education.
Centric Perspective
Themes like context, viewpoint, and empowerment underscore the centric
perspective, as the goal is to dene diversity from the unique vantage of a
particular cultural group. In many ways, this perspective is similar to the racial-
ized perspective in that it contextualizes the diversity idea from the vantage
of a particular groups unique interests and needs. Whereas the racialized
perspective unapologetically focuses on the diversity idea from the perspec-
tive of race and ethnicity, the centric perspective uses a similar platform to
focus on the unique identities, issues, and redistributive needs from the
unique vantage of other social identity groups. Some of the most common
include gender, sexual orientation, religion, and disability perspectives.
The ultimate goal of the centric perspective is to create a theory of
empowerment that speaks to the unique educational and cultural needs of
their group. It is not uncommon for individuals advocating from this per-
spective to desire the exact same diversity services that others have, as possess-
ing these same services reify and symbolize a commitment to their groups
unique issues and needs as a community. As the diversity paradigm contin-
ues to evolve and mature, this perspective presents new possibilities, such as
the opportunity for ofces of admissions to recruit at LGBT-themed high
T O WAR D A T W E N TY - F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT I O N O F D IV ER S I T Y 113
school recruitment events, develop LGBT or disability studies departments,

establish prayer and reection rooms on campus, or even unisex bathrooms,
a potential benet for individuals who are transgender.
Like each of the perspectives offered in this discussion, it is important to
recognize the inherent legitimacy of the centric perspective. This legitimacy
emerges out of various marginalized groups deep sense of pain and longing
to have their identities validated by society and their institutions leadership.
Strategic diversity leaders must appreciate the growing power of the centric
perspective and recognize that this worldview is vital to the process of posi-
tive change as our campuses are full of social groups that must be acknowl-
edged as legitimate and full participants in our campus experiences.
The Universal Perspective

Characterized by an overarching hopefulness and navete, the universal per-
spective implies that we have already overcome the difcult issues of racism,
sexism, and homophobia. But whereas other perspectives respect that the
unique historical experiences of diverse groups necessitates an ongoing
engagement with the diversity idea, or that we should proactively dismantle
policies designed to benet diversity, the universal perspective implies that
all groups are the same. Thus, this perspective tends toward a principle of
cultural homogeneity on the grounds that we live in a postracial, postgender,
postidentity world, where all identities must be valued and viewed with
respect and equivalence. In some ways, this perspective recalls the classic
ideas of the melting pot, as it presumes that differences among individuals
can be harmoniously blended into one cohesive societyoften ignoring the
critical role of social policy, and permanence and importance of identity
for members of historically marginalized and excluded groups. A common
statement might go something like this: If we just embrace the realities of
diversity, it will be true. We have to stop harping on these old discussions of
the problem and look at who we are. We are all diverseand its a good
thing.
Proponents of a universal diversity perspective argue that differences
in personality, ability, work styles, and ideology are dimensions of human
experience that deserve greater emphasis and indeed equal importance with
primary dimensions of diversity like race, ethnicity, and gender. They con-
tend that by expanding the denition, we are more likely to gain the support
of individuals who may feel marginalized by narrower conceptions of diver-
sity. They argue that the emphasis should be on improving the environment
for everyone, not just individuals from traditionally marginalized groups,

and that we are all diverse and consequently, the most critical issue is sup-
porting the ties that unite us as a community, rather than focusing on
differences. Hence this perspective is characterized by a principled support
of the diversity idea more than a material support of programs, initiatives,
and capacities that might be required to achieve the goals of the diversity
idea. If any issue rises to prominence more than another, it is related to
class and income, particularly as we nd ourselves in the midst of economic
recession.
The strength of this perspective is that its broad parameters capture
qualities that are truly reective of the aspirations of the diversity ideal.
However, it could also be accused of navete and eliminating the unique
histories, perspectives, circumstances, and needs of various cultural groups.
Implicit is the expectation that ethnic minorities and other diverse groups
should shed their specic cultural values and practices and simply embrace
the principle of our universal humanity and sameness, and that individuals
who work to assimilate will be accepted by the majority as simply as one
discards one pair of clothes for another. In so many ways, this perspective
ignores a fundamental lesson that we discussed earlier in this chapter, namely
that shedding the fundamental characteristics of ones identity is not simply
a function of what the individual does, but how the environment perceives
and responds to them. As a result, it ignores the sociohistorical realities that
continue to reify diverse identities daily.
Reverse Discrimination Perspective

It is a sad irony that the sentiments that inspired the civil rights movement
40 years ago have been co-opted by those who oppose the diversity idea
today. It was, indeed, from a sense of moral fairness that legislation and
policies sought to redress long-standing discrimination. Consciously evoking
the language and symbolic resonance of terms like equality, fairness, and
moral responsibility, proponents of this perspective are seeking to dismantle
diversity efforts, arguing that White majority individuals are now experienc-
ing reverse discrimination. Organizations like the Center for Individual
Rights and the Center for Equal Opportunity embody the reverse discrimi-
nation perspective (Barry, 1997).
Although proponents of reverse discrimination may openly support the
general principle of diversity, they do not support structured interventions
designed to promote diverse values. Thus, they feel that higher education
institutions should not develop proactive policies like race-conscious admis-

sions programs because success or failure is wholly determined by individual
effort, and racial identity should play no role in competitive decisions. The
reverse discrimination perspective is different from the universal perspective
in that the reverse discrimination perspective proactively advocates for dis-
mantling social policies and programs designed to achieve diversity. In fact,
this is the central value of the reverse discrimination perspective. Therefore,
this perspective focuses on eliminating preferences in all competitive selec-
tion situations, while sometimes espousing general support toward diversity
as an abstract concept rather than a focus of policy development.
Rhetorically adopting the moral high ground in the name of individual
rights and a colorblind society, they are seeking at every level to under-
mine and dismantle policies designed to support minority individuals and
groups (Barry, 1997). This conundrum of support for diversity and criticism
of social policies designed to accomplish this goal further complicates the
diversity discussion as proponents of this perspective adopt the classic lan-
guage of the civil rights movement, using terms like protection, individual
rights, and nondiscrimination, to sow confusion among members of the
media and the public.
Finally, this perspective relies heavily on examples of individual achieve-
ment as prima facie evidence that race, ethnicity, and gender do not play
an important role in determining individual outcomes. Proponents of this
perspective point to the success of President and First Lady Barack and
Michelle Obama as proof that the United States has overcome its past and
that ones gender, ethnic and racial background, national origin, or eco-
nomic status are no longer relevant. In making this point, they shift the
argument away from the continuing legacy of exclusion that exists in this
country, arguing that todays lack of success is simply the national conse-
quence of a lack of commitment to doing what was necessary to succeed in
society (Bobo, Kluegel, & Smith, 1997).
The Colorblind Perspective

Although similar to the reverse discrimination perspective, proponents of the
colorblind perspective take the most extreme view, arguing that diversity
leads to campus Balkanization (Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar, & Sears, 2008).
Hence, institutional support of diversity perpetuates division and only rein-
forces social boundaries that society should actively work to dismantle.
Although similar to the universal perspective and its goal of moving beyond
116 W H AT I S D IV E R SI TY ?
a focus on past historical inequities, the colorblind perspective does not view
diversity as a positive dynamic, like the universal perspective. On the con-
trary, proponents of this perspective argue that diversity is the enemy of the
integrationist ideal and interrupts the establishment of community. If we
recall that diversity is about acknowledging the qualities that differentiate us,
the colorblind perspective situates the conversation squarely on the overarch-
ing principle of assimilating into the mainstream.
Several conservative scholars have argued against making the academic
canon more culturally diverse on the grounds that any changes would under-
mine the philosophical foundations of American society (Schlesigner, 1998;
Wood, 2004). Colorblind proponents implicitly endorse the idea that the
expression of subgroup identity threatens social unity and cohesion. These
individuals believe that the most important contribution that one can make
toward creating a more inclusive culture is to be colorblind. It is as if
somehow by ignoring an individuals primary dimensions, these identity
markers will cease to exist. Proponents assert that, with regard to stafng, a
persons contributions should be evaluated solely on how well he or she can
do the job.
But although a colorblind society can at times sound positive and com-
passionate, it is a practical impossibility. With the colorblind approach, the
different needs, assets, and perspectives of minority people are disregarded:
they go unseen. Sociologist Troy Duster (2008) revealed the inherent biases
of the colorblind perspective by asking, Why is it that when we see eight
white students having lunch together in the commons, we just see students
having lunch? But when we see eight African American students having
lunch together, we call it a Balkanized racial enclave? (p. 1). The answer to
Dusters question hinges on both numbers and social context. On most U.S.
campuses, a majority culture of heterosexual White males dominates. Thus,
their experience is viewed as normative compared with minority individuals
and groups. These minority populations exist in much smaller numbers, and
against this majority background, their mere appearancetheir styles, dress,
and how they spend time togetherstands out. The only possible outcome
for a colorblind society is one where sameness reigns, where integration pro-
motes the annihilation of difference, and where culturally distinct values,
practices, and programs are oppressed under the false aegis of promoting
social harmony.
As explored earlier in this chapter, the history of inclusion or exclusion
is vital to understanding how the boundaries of individual and group iden-
tity are demarcated. Many historically disadvantaged groups have never even
been in a position to dene the boundaries of their identity, much less

exclude others. Rather, organizations like the National Black MBA Associa-
tion, the Society of Hispanic Engineers, and the NAACP dene their mis-
sion as afrming the identities of their group constituencies, not excluding
others. Hence, these groups hold as their highest value the right of their
constituents to have a voice in a world that often ignores their interests.
These groups actively work to dismantle systems of exclusion and privilege
that continue to impede their members success. By comparison, throughout
history whiteness has often been the standard-bearer for politics of exclusion.
In our embrace of the diversity idea, valuing diversity means supporting and
helping difference to ourish in ways that benet the entire community,
including the majority culture. In short, the assumption that diversity can
only be achieved by making differences invisible and normalizing sameness
is antithetical to what it means to embrace diversity in our institutions.
Summary of the Ideological Perspective

This discussion is intended to help strategic diversity leaders understand the
numerous ideological perspectives that they will encounter in their real-
world efforts to advance diversity at their institutions. Strategic diversity
leaders must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of each of these
ideologies to address the varied cultural conicts they will inevitably encoun-
ter. A key strategy for overcoming conict between groups is to operate from
a perspective of reciprocal empowerment, continually searching for ways to
help vulnerable individuals and groups, while at the same time respecting
the unique needs, histories, and cultures of everyone. The savviest strategic
diversity leaders begin by acknowledging the energy that is obviously power-
ing the ideological clash. Whatever the ideological origins of this conict,
acknowledging and giving space to different points of view is essential. Next,
leaders must afrm an individuals right to express his or her ideology, so
long as those expressions are respectful of others.
At the same time, strategic diversity leaders must be ready to push back
against arguments that undermine our shared diversity values. Moreover,
they must be ready to acknowledge that not every conversation on diversity
can include every important topic. At times, it may be appropriate to have a
general discussion of diversity issues broadly dened, whereas at other times
it may be important to drill deep into a particular diversity context, issue, or
challenge. Strategic diversity leaders must point out that there are inherent
limits to any conversation on diversity. The key is to engage substantively
on diversity issues in ways that are nuanced and focused. Finally, on occasion
the leader must be able to suggest continuing the dialogue at a later date in
a way that does not create the impression of shutting down the dialogue.
The key is to conrm ones commitment to improving the communitys
ability to discuss the issues in ways that are respectful.
The Institutional Denition of Diversity

Given the nearly endless permutations of the diversity idea, how do institu-
tions arrive at an inclusive yet manageable denition? This question moti-
vates the fourth and nal aspect of discussion. Turning now to matters of
institutional denition and formal policy, these concerns set the stage for the
next chapters. These chapters in turn address how organizational capacity
can be designed to accomplish the campus diversity agenda and bring the
diversity idea to life.
National Guidance on College and University Diversity

Denitions
In recent years, the higher education policy community has weighed in heav-
ily, offering guidance intended to create a more coherent conversation and
ensure better coordination of the diversity agendas of institutions that may
differ in size, control, complexity, and location. This perspective is helpful
to our discussion, as these umbrella organizations articulate diversity in ways
that are both current and consistent. Particularly, the Making Excellence
Inclusive initiative by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U) and the Now Is the Time report by the National Association of
State University and Land Grant Institutions, now known as the Association
of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) and the Association of Amer-
ican Universities (AAU) offer positive guidance that has helped shape the ways
that many institutions dene diversity on their campuses. Table 2.4 summa-
rizes these two initiatives.
Although the terminology is different, a number of the ideas at the core
of both denitions are similar. Namely, diversity must be dened broadly,
inclusive of both primary and secondary dimensions, and must contain an
active component that focuses on change. Moreover, it should embrace both
contemporary and historical issues of diversity. These denitions acknowl-
edge the ways that increasingly diverse student and faculty populations have
brought new visions and voices into the academy, creating new disciplines
TAB LE 2. 4
Denitions of Diversity Offered by Higher Education Policy Organizations
Association Initiative Denition
AAC&U Making Individual differences (e.g., personality, learning

Excellence styles, and life experiences) and group and social
Inclusive differences (e.g., race and ethnicity, class, gender,
sexual orientation, country of origin, and ability, as
well as cultural, political, religious, or other
afliations) can be engaged in the service of learning.
Inclusion, concomitant with diversity, is dened as the

active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with
diversityin people, the curriculum, the
cocurriculum, and communities (intellectual, social,
cultural, and geographical) with which individuals
might connectin ways that increase ones
awareness, knowledge, cognitive sophistication and
empathic understanding of the complex ways that
individuals interact within systems and institutions.
APLU and AAU Now Is the Time Diversity can be broadly dened to include all aspects
of human difference, including but not limited to
race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion,
disability, socioeconomic status, and veteran status.
However, without diminishing the importance of
these aspects of diversity, for the purposes of our
work, we have dened diversity to mean achieving
equal access and meaningful academic and
intellectual inclusion in curriculum, research, service,
and holistic integration into the academic culture of
higher education for underrepresented Black (African
American), Latino (Hispanic), Native American, and
Asian American students.
Sources: Clayton-Pedersen, O-Neill, & McTighe Musil, 2007; NASULGC/AASCU Diversity Task
Force, 2005.
and elds of study, student organizations, ofces, traditions, and other con-
tributions that enrich the tapestry of campus culture.
Both the AAC&U and APLU argue that an institutional commitment
to diversity must involve more than the presence of diverse individuals. Insti-
tutions of higher education must actively integrate diversity into the fabric
of their academic, cultural, and social life in ways that are substantive and
meaningful. Indeed, the APLU denes diversity in ways that prioritize issues
of access and equity for historically underrepresented minority groups. This
distinction is consistent with an understanding of the social-historical
dimension of diversity and the need for campus leaders to acknowledge this
dimensions continuing implications for their institutions. By comparison,
the AAC&U denition places a premium on diversity as critical to activating
a high-impact learning environment for all students.
The Access and Diversity Collaborative

Indeed one of the most powerful platforms for helping college and university
leaders develop denitions and policies around issues of diversity is the
Access and Diversity Collaborative of the College Board Advocacy & Policy
Center.7 Similar to previous examples, the Collaborative was established in
the wake of the 2003 University of Michigan Supreme Court cases to provide
strategic guidance in the area of diversity-related policies and programs for
colleges, universities, and state systems of higher education.
The Collaborative includes representatives from sponsoring College
Board member institutions and other higher education organizations, as well
as individuals with a detailed understanding of the legal issues involved in
the twenty-rst century discussion of diversity and access to higher educa-
tion. The Collaborative is composed of 34 institutions of higher education,
3 foundations, and 10 additional organizations; they lend their expertise to
advance access and diversity goals in higher education. Their work speci-
cally focuses on issues of access and diversity, and have sponsored more than
30 national seminars attended by more than 1,500 representatives from nearly
400 institutions and organizations. The Collaborative is especially adept at
providing policy briefs that address key strategic planning and policy devel-
opment issues.
Given the contentious legal and political dynamics discussed in Chapter
1, the Collaborative is a critical element of the strategic diversity leadership
movement for leaders engaging these issues on their campus. The Collabora-
tive features a number of strategy briefs as well as a dynamic website that
T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV E R S I TY 121
provides helpful and timely guidance regarding ongoing litigation, new pol-
icy decisions, and best practices for dening diversity and building relevant
policy goals and practices to support its pursuit as an educational priority.
Developing an Institutional Denition of Diversity
The policy organizations highlighted here offer guidance consistent with
emerging local and national conversations about what diversity means in
the new millennium. Despite the guidance that may come from national
associations, campus leaders still face a challenge in dening diversity.
Indeed, in our survey, 63 percent of chief diversity ofcers indicated that
their efforts were at times hindered by an inability to develop an effective and
widely accepted denition of diversity. One associate vice president stated:
When we began working on our campus diversity plan, we had to begin
with a campus-wide denition of diversity. I can recall our sitting around
the room and everyone being in a totally different place. Some wanted to
toss aside issues of access for historically underrepresented groups, because
in their words, the conversation had to move beyond race. Others were
pushing for a return to the most aggressive forms of afrmative action. Still
others were pushing the importance of acknowledging issues of class and
sexuality. I knew we [had to] nd consensus on a denition of diversity so
that we could move forward and talk about actually making change hap-
pen. It probably took our committee a semester to get that denition in a
draft form and it was not until one year later that it was adopted by the
Board of Trustees.
A quick review of campus diversity denitions reveals how many institu-

tions dene diversity in broad and complex ways that include groups that
go far beyond the legally protected categories that have anchored campus
conversations over the years. The authors survey of chief diversity ofcers
revealed that more than 90 percent reported that their institutions had a
broad denition of diversity that included more than race and ethnicity.
Indeed, a number of institutions have developed considerable capacity to
advance issues of diversity in terms of disability and LGBT status, religion,
geographic and economic factors, and national origin. Table 2.5 includes
excerpts from a sample of institutions reecting denitions of diversity con-
sistent with the ideas advanced in this chapter.
A Detailed Process of Denition
Some institutions are very intentional about using a detailed process to
dene what diversity means to them. For example, at a large public university
122 W H AT I S D IV E R S I T Y ?
TAB LE 2. 5
Sample of Institutional Denitions of Diversity
Institution Denition of Diversity
Institution 1 We recognize that diversity is a concept that is ever evolving. When we

developed the Diversity Action Plan in 2002, we dened diversity as the
presence and participation of people who differ by age, color, ethnicity,
gender, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic
background, and disability status. In addition, we include in our denition
the thoughts, perspectives, attitudes, and experiences that lie outside
traditional notions of diversity.
Institution 2 The University denes diversity in a broad context to include the

representation, integration, and interaction of different races, ethnicities,
cultures, national origins, abilities, religions, orientations, intellectual
positions, and perspectives.
Institution 3 Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad

spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely
important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals
and groups free from prejudice and by fostering a climate where equity
and mutual respect are intrinsic, we will create a success-oriented,
cooperative, and caring community that draws intellectual strength and
produces innovative solutions from the synergy of its people.
Institution 4 The commitment to valuing diverse participation requires that members
of the campus community also acknowledge responsibility for prevention
of prejudice, hostility, and barriers to opportunity based upon, but not
limited to, age, race, ethnicity, sex, class, gender, disability, sexual
orientation, culture, ideology, politics, religion, citizenship, marital status,
job classication, income, socioeconomic, geographic and regional
difference.
Institution 5 Diversity is an institutional philosophy that redenes academic excellence

in terms of inclusive institutional culture, academic, and extracurricular
programs that prepare students for active global citizenship, and faculty,
staff, and student composition that reects society, harnesses diverse
human talents, and celebrates human differences.
T O WAR D A TW EN T Y - F IR S T CE N T U R Y D EF I N IT IO N O F D IV E R SI TY 123
in the Southwest, the campus diversity planning team talked with numerous
campus stakeholders over a half-year period in an effort to formulate their
denition of diversity. As part of their discovery process, they conducted
site visits and interviews with every school, college, and division. Their nal
report states:
There was no across-the-board denition of diversity. As a term, diversity
is highly contextual. Some units argued that any richness of experience
should count as diversity, while other units argued that the emphasis
should be on historically underrepresented minority groups that have not
had access to certain types of opportunities. Discussions thereby ranged
from those who wanted to include any diversity of thought to those who
wanted diversity to be tied to issues of social justice. Many recommend a
rethinking and public discussion of both the meaning of diversity and its
value to the institution. The institution should reformulate a core meaning
of diversity and work on maintaining a dual focus on the practical and the
ideal.
Their ndings are not uncommon and the conclusions offered here ring
true to the authors interviews with chief diversity ofcers. Whether one is
talking about developing strategic partnerships with sovereign Native Ameri-
can communities or creating more need-based nancial aid to drive eco-
nomic diversity on campus, the conversation must begin with the denition
of diversity. As this process suggests, the more inclusive this process can be,
the better it taps into the collegial nature of the academy and the premium
placed on shared decision making. Chapter 5 addresses the importance of
collective processes in the context of symbolic and collegial leadership.
BOX 2.5
Recommendations for Developing an
Institutional Denition of Diversity
A review of national guidance and conversations with the nations leading diversity
experts has led to these recommendations for dening diversity:
1. Use a collective process that encourages feedback and opportunities for hear-
ing from and vetting multiple perspectives.
2. Include both primary and secondary dimensions of diversity, emphasizing a
collective purpose as members of the campus community.
(continues)
(continued)
3. Embrace rather than shy away from the complexity of diversity, making it a
vital ingredient of learning, mission fulllment, and institutional excellence.
4. Include a statement about diversitys educational benets and the need to
continue advancing the historic agenda of access and equity, while at the
same time embracing and valuing the unique needs and experiences of diverse
groups broadly dened.
5. Draft, draft, and redraftuntil you get to a denitional statement that feels like
it reects the language, values, and needs of your institution.
While your denition is being drafted it is vital to get input from faculty, staff, and
students, and then submit the denition to the formal mechanisms of governance at
your institution. Failing to get support during the development and adoption process
can do grave harm by marginalizing the denition as the work of a few campus
voices, rather than something that was shaped by the perspectives of many. Further-
more, submitting the denition to the formal governance procedures helps hardwire
it to the mission, plans, priorities, and processes of the institution.
Institutional Denitions and Diversity Strategy

The Supreme Court has held that the use of race and ethnicity in policy
decisions is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny (Alger, 2009; Coleman,
Palmer, Richards, & Holland & Knight LLP, 2005). It is up to the institu-
tion to prove that policies supporting a diverse student body serve a compel-
ling educational interest, are narrowly tailored, and are used because race-
neutral means would not achieve adequate outcomes. Although the Su-
preme Court has yet to rule on issues pertaining to nancial aid or employ-
ment policies, many believe that the Supreme Courts perspective on the
need for strict scrutiny holds for all matters of selection. Indeed, one of the
key unanswered questions after the Michigan ruling was the role of diversity
in hiring and employment policies as institutions seek to achieve the benets
of diversity (Alger, 2009) and with the Fisher v. University of Texas race-
conscious admissions case set for review in the fall of 2012, the policy context
of dening diversity may again evolve.
With so many unanswered questions, college and university leaders must
be careful when facilitating the diversity denition process. One way to miti-
gate risk is to implement denitions that are consistent with the social scien-
tic arguments about the educational benets of diversity and the legal
policy guidance in this area (Alger, 2009; Coleman et al., 2005). Hence,
T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T C E N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 125
institutional leaders should carefully draw out the intellectual and adminis-
trative connections between their institutions denition of diversity and any
race-sensitive diversity processes they are seeking to implement (Alger, 2009;
Coleman et al., 2005). Doing so will tend to promote an approach toward
the diversity idea that is holistic and entertains a broad range of diversity
characteristics. In the eyes of the court, a formal institutional denition of
diversity establishes the broader context within which more specic policies
take shape, including strategic goals, policy and program initiatives, admis-
sions, and nancial aid and hiring processes.
Activating the Diversity Idea

Unfortunately, a prevailing disparity exists between rhetoric and action, as
institutions continue to emphasize a very narrow denition of diversity in
their policies. In his eldwork, the author often found broad denitions of
diversity, only to learn that actual policies were implemented within very
narrow parameters, initiatives were disconnected, and resources did not fol-
low the vision. In one powerful example, the associate provost for diversity
and equity at a midsize liberal arts institution related a conversation with
her provost supervisor regarding the relationship between resources and the
campus denition of diversity. In that conversation, she and the provost
agreed that the chief diversity ofcer should involve herself in a broad array
of campus diversity issues, among them race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orien-
tation, disability status, economic background, and nationality. Yet when the
discussion turned to empowering her with the resources needed to activate
her efforts, the provost took a narrow view of diversity as an expression of
race and ethnicity. The chief diversity ofcer described her disappointment:
I was totally stunned. After months of hearing him afrm my broad take
on diversity and my trying to get lots of people involved in the issues across
campus, I learned that it was all a bunch of rhetoric. He had no intention
of bridging the issues and moving the diversity discussion forward in more
modern terms. I felt disillusioned and really defeated because I knew I was
doing my job, but he was on a totally different page in trying to move
forward on these issues.
In a world of shrinking budgets, leaders must grapple with the realities

of diversity beyond simply broadening its denition. When merely symbolic
changes are made to a diversity denition, historic groups lose valuable
resources and newer diversity communities have to ght an uphill battle to
126 W H AT I S D IV ER S I TY ?
ensure that their issues are addressed. To move campus diversity efforts to the
next level, senior leaders must develop a more sophisticated understanding of
the denition of diversity, the historical and contemporary realities of differ-
ent groups, and the relationship between the ideas and models that have
emerged to accomplish campus diversity goals. Hence, institutions should
continue working to create capacity in the form of cultural centers for
emerging minority groups. As campuses continue to evolve, these areas will
be more important than ever and require institutions to establish new
resources, even as they seek to meet the needs of traditionally underrepre-
sented minority populations.
Summary of the Institutional Perspective

Colleges and universities develop a denition of diversity as a means of creat-
ing a strategic foundation for diversity strategies, particularly as they relate
to competitive selection processes, nancial aid and employment. National
policy organizations like the APLU and AAC&U have offered national
policy guidance that is helpful for dening institutional diversity. Box 2.5
presents several recommendations for dening diversity that address the
importance of fostering a broad institutional denition that can capture a
contemporary aspect of diversity, namely its educational benets for all stu-
dents and the institution as a whole.
Summary
This chapter provides a road map for understanding the diversity idea in
higher education, outlining the major theories that undergird the complex
and always contested diversity concept. It also introduces concepts of pri-
mary, secondary, and social-historical identity dimensions, adding further
texture and sophistication to the diversity idea in colleges and universities.
Central to this discussion is an understanding of how different ideological
perspectives frame the discussion and connect different social and political
constituencies. If we do not understand how people are thinking about this
work on a day-to-day basis, how can we connect and engage them in a
conversation of diversity planning and implementation?
Campus leaders must have a well-honed understanding of diversity that
is attentive to historical and contemporary diversity discussions and that
addresses the unique needs and issues of different minority groups. Campus
leaders can neither gloss over the historic issues of access and equity nor
T O WAR D A TW E N TY -F IR S T CE N T U R Y D E F IN IT IO N O F D IV ER S I TY 127
ignore the emerging priorities of groups that in some ways are new to an
established conversation about campus diversity. What is important is
that leaders understand that expanding the diversity denition means
expanding resources and deepening the potential effect of campus policies
and programs.
At a minimum, establishing a clear denition of diversity creates a start-
ing point for developing a shared understanding. For institutions looking to
initiate, reinvigorate, or evolve their campus diversity agendas, an integrated
and holistic approach that moves across disciplines, departments, and
schools is optimal. The next chapter elaborates the diversity idea in higher
education by fundamentally connecting it to the notion of organizational
capacity. Colleges and universities have capacity that exists in their formal
ability to advance campus diversity goals, whether dened as providing
access to diverse groups or preparing all students for leadership in a diverse
world. Chapter 3 provides a multidimensional framework that captures the
complexity of an organizational environment, including centers for the study
of race, ethnicity, and gender; multicultural centers; womens studies depart-
ments; disability ofces; afrmative action plans; general education diversity
requirements; and study abroad and service learning ofces. Our next step is
to address the connection between diverse identities and the varied organiza-
tional capacities that exist on campus, establishing an important context for
our discussion of the who, what, and how of chief diversity ofcers and
strategic diversity leaders in higher education.
Notes
1. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) is now
known as the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education reecting an expanded
global agenda. For more information see www.naspa.org.
2. Downloaded on June 5, 2010, from www.naspa.org/about/diversity.cfm.
3. The SIT presents a broader and in some ways more exible conception of identity
than do the stage models of identity and acculturation familiar to most of us. Stage and
similar identity development theories explain the specic identity development progressions
of a particular demographic group, including terms like race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
These theories provide insight into the evolving sense of self that an individual may experi-
ence over his or her lifetime. For a discussion of these theories, see Bilodeau & Renns
Analysis of LGBT Identity Development Models and Implications for Practice (2005),
Crosss The Negro-to-Black Conversion Experience: Toward a Psychology of Black Libera-
tion (1971), Helmss Toward a Theoretical Explanation of the Effects of Race on Counsel-
ing (1984), Kims dissertation The Process of Asian American Identity Development (1981), and
Sue and Sues Counseling the Culturally Different (1990).
4. MEChA is a national student organization that promotes Chicano culture and history
in higher education. MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination. For more
information, please visit www.nationalmecha.org/.
5. Some notable exceptions include minority-serving and special interest institutions like
Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Gallaudet University, with its focus on the deaf
and the hearing-impaired; and tribal institutions. These schools were founded to serve unique
populations before many mainstream institutions were forced to open their doors to more
diverse populations of students.
6. Downloaded on October 17, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/
a-third-path-on-afrmative-action/30606.
7. For more information on the Collaborative see http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/
admission-completion/access-diversity-collaborative. This information was cited on June 19,
2012.
3
HIGHER EDUCATION
ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY
MODELS
Ive got to approach my work as a diversity leader much the same way
that I approached my research as an experimental psychologist. That
is, try to approach the work from a sort of theoretical framework. A frame-
work that helps you to understand what you believe about diversity, how
it works, why we need it, how it should drive the efforts of our institutions,
inform our presidents, and frame the work of chief diversity ofcers spe-
cically. So let me start with my philosophy for how I dene diversity
strategically in higher education.
Vice Provost for Diversity at a large research university
in the South
D
uring the past several decades, the diversity paradigm within higher
education has expanded from a singular focus on increasing the
compositional diversity of students, faculty, and staff to a broader
focus seeking to capitalize on the educational benets of diversity for all
students (e.g., Baez, 2004; P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hur-
tado, 2007; Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Milem, Chang, & Antonio,
2005; Umbach & Kuh, 2006). As discussed in the last chapter, the twenty-
rst century has brought with it changes to the diversity paradigm, pairing
traditional ideas about access, equity, multiculturalism, and afrmative
action with newer concepts like globalization and internationalization.
This chapter does not seek to provide an exhaustive account of diversity
denitions, frameworks, rationales, or conceptualizations. Instead it aims to
explore, from an organizational capacity perspective, the new opportunities
129
that exist, highlighting potentially innovative ways of formulating and lead-

ing campus diversity efforts. This chapter begins with a brief overview of
diversity efforts before presenting a detailed analysis of three dominant orga-
nizational diversity models on college and university campuses: the Afrma-
tive Action and Equity Model; the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity
Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. Although alterna-
tive frameworks certainly exist, these models offer a way of thinking about
the disparate diversity ofces, units, initiatives, and policies that exist in the
academy. Only by understanding these core concepts can institutional lead-
ers begin to see how all of the pieces of the campus diversity puzzle poten-
tially t together as part of an integrated and more cohesive whole.
Dedicated Diversity Capacity in Higher Education

Over the years, academic institutions have invested billions of dollars devel-
oping campus diversity programs and ofces, committees, academic depart-
ments, scholarship programs, outreach efforts, general education diversity
requirements, diverse student organizations, and research centers. These
campus diversity efforts are dened as dedicated capabilities because these
areas generally pursue diversity-related efforts as their top institutional prior-
ity. It is not uncommon, particularly at large research institutions, to nd
hundreds of campus diversity ofces (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
[LGBT] ofces, Americans with Disabilities Act coordinators, multicultural
centers, womens centers, diversity and equity ofces, international affairs
ofces, Latino studies, etc.), policies (sexual harassment policy, diversity
awareness policy, domestic partner benets policy, etc.), and initiatives (stra-
tegic faculty hiring initiative, difcult dialogues project, etc.). Indeed, the
presence of so many diversity capabilities is part of what distinguishes the
diversity work of academic institutions from the corporate sector, where
staffs and resources are not as expansive.
Despite at times long-standing and robust investments in diversity, insti-
tutional efforts are often stymied by disconnected and disjoined ofces and
programs. Afrmative action ofces have historically been located in admin-
istrative affairs where they report to the president or a senior human
resources ofcer. Meanwhile, multicultural centers are usually housed in stu-
dent affairs, where they report to the dean of students or a chief student
affairs ofcer. And nally, ethnic and international studies programs are
H IG HE R E DU CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S 131
directed by ofces of academic affairs, academic deans, and the faculty.

Obviously, from one vantage point these congurations can make perfect
sense; after all, there is no easy way to integrate so many different ofces
seamlessly. Yet if we can give this loosely connected organizational structure
a stronger conceptual tethering, we see capacities despite different adminis-
trative locations have the potential to link together in new and powerful
ways, particularly at those institutions that desire to create a more rigorous,
disciplined, and cohesive campus diversity agenda.
An Organizational Denition of the Diversity Idea in

Higher Education
Chapter 2 addressed diversity at the individual and ideological level, provid-
ing insights into the mental models that many individuals maintain with
respect to diversity and how leaders must build on these perspectives in
developing an institutional denition of diversity. This chapter turns to an
organizational capabilities perspective of what the diversity idea means on
college and university campuses. Figure 3.1 provides a venn diagram depict-
ing three ontologically distinct but interconnected models of organizational
diversity and change: the Afrmative Action and Equity Model; the Multi-
cultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diversity, and
Research Model. The term ontology is used to imply a formal description of
the history, concepts, and relationships that give form and shape to organiza-
tional diversity models in higher education (Gruber, 1993). This description
of the ontology of the diversity paradigm focuses on the following questions:
What organizational models exist within the present higher education diver-
sity paradigm? What goals and dynamics differentiate diversity models?
What core organizational technology is applied to accomplish the goals of
each model? What limitations are associated with various models in terms of
promoting organizational change on college and university campuses?
Few campus leaders will have direct expertise on every dimension of
campus diversity that gives shape to the three models outlined here. Too
many diversity leaders talk about their campus programs as the 50 different
diversity things that we do. The framework offered in this chapter should
serve as a tool to help campus leaders understand how, for example, the work
of the ethnic studies department extends the work of the general education
diversity requirement, or how the work of the study abroad ofce relates to
the intergroup dialogue program, and how service learning efforts connect
to student leadership and civic engagement.
FIGURE 3.1
Three Primary Models of Diversity in Higher Education
Why We Need an Organizational Diversity Models

Framework
One of the most consistent challenges at many institutions is a deep resis-
tance to thinking about campus diversity efforts as part of a core institutional
diversity agenda that must become both stronger and more interconnected.
It is not uncommon to visit an institution deep in their efforts to create a
new chief diversity ofcer (CDO) position, or develop a more powerful
campus diversity plan, that simultaneously expresses no desire to think dif-
ferently about how they might deploy their diversity resources. In too many
instances, they may want a new leadership role, or a more integrated change
H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZAT I O N AL DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S 133
effort, but have no desire to reframe their current infrastructure or strategic

framework to become more cohesive. Because this gap in understanding is
one of the most difcult hurdles that institutional leaders must overcome in
order to develop a more powerful and cohesive diversity agenda on campus,
The Chief Diversity Ofcer explores organizational restructuring and the
potential for developing an integrating executive-level diversity ofcer role
in detail.
We need to stop thinking of our diversity efforts as disparate and distinct
capacities sprinkled across campus and begin thinking of them as a con-
nected network of capabilities that, if deployed in a more cohesive manner,
could lead to even greater levels of diversity-related change on campus.
Whether by integrating them into the same organizational structure, align-
ing them on a committee or task force, listing them in a common brochure,
or coordinating distinctive communities of practice that focus on specic
issues, we cannot think about these resources in isolation. We must think of
them as interconnected elements whose relationships need clarifying and
strengthening. In the absence of an understanding of various models of orga-
nizational diversity, campus leaders discouragingly often begin their work
from scratch. This tripartite conceptualization helps campus leaders develop
the CDOs role and the overall diversity program. One of the authors goals
in writing this book is to provide diversity leaders with a framework to help
them understand both traditional and potentially new models of organiza-
tional diversity.
Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education

Some of the rst campus diversity ofces and policies date back to the 1960s,
when the rst large group of African Americans enrolled at nearly all-White
colleges and universities. Beginning with early diversity ofces, like the Black
Student Affairs and Black Studies Departments (Peterson et al., 1978), insti-
tutions have developed new organizational capabilities to achieve diversity
goals and priorities, among them:
Increasing access and equity for historically underrepresented and

federally protected groups
Creating an inclusive campus climate for the entire institutional
community
Engaging in research and scholarship to understand the experiences
of women, minorities, and other diverse groups
134 W HAT I S D IV ER S I T Y ?
Infusing diversity into the curriculum and cocurriculum of every stu-

dent to ensure that they each experience the educational benets of
diversity
Today, however, the diversity conversation is more complex than ever

before. This is particularly true in terms of access issues for historically
underrepresented minorities as the dynamics of diversity are much more
amorphous and difcult to discern in the current context. Campus leader-
ship is central to shaping a diversity plan that focuses on establishing di-
versity capacity throughout the institution. Building from a discussion of
identity and the need for institutions to develop a broad and inclusive de-
nition of diversity, this chapter articulates a theory of how the diversity idea
has evolved into distinct models designed to increase, support, and enhance
diversity.
Models of Organizational Diversity

Based on interviews with CDOs, a thorough review of the literature, and
site visits over the past several years, the author has uncovered three primary
models of organizational diversity: the Afrmative Action and Equity Model;
the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model; and the Learning, Diver-
sity, and Research Model. Each of these models reects a set of values used
throughout this chapter to analyze the organizational reality of the programs
that adhere to these models (Ellstrom, 1983).
These organizational models help clarify the types of units, initiatives,
policies, and programs that institutions have established in their efforts to
build institutional diversity capacity. Thus, this effort builds on prior work
by Marilyn Loden (1996) and David Thomas And Robin Ely (1996) to dene
diversity models in the corporate sector. The major characteristics of the
three models include individual identity, organizational technology, origi-
nating forces, and expected outcomes. At root, each models goal is to
accomplish some aspect of the diversity idea, whether through the actions of
a minority affairs ofce, the implementation of an afrmative action investi-
gation, or the establishment of an intergroup relations program. Thus, each
model is grounded in a broad set of policies, programs, initiatives, and struc-
turesreferred to here as organizational technologieseven though each aims
to achieve a set of diversity objectives that are consistent with that models
specic guiding tenets. Box 3.1 describes a fourth model, the Economic
Access Model, which is not covered in detail in this text because it emerged
only recently.
H IG H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S 135
BOX 3.1
An Emerging Diversity Model in Higher Education
The Economic Access Model
An emerging diversity model in higher education is the Economic Access Model.
Flowing out of the economic perspective discussed in the previous chapter, a number
of colleges have developed nancial aid policies that limit or eliminate student loans
from nancial aid packages, reducing costs for students and families.
The goal of this emerging model is to bring more economic diversity to student
demographic ranks. Although many terms exist for these programsdo no harm
programs, access programs, Robin Hood programsthey are commonly
known as higher education promise programs. The key idea is that the institution
makes a promise to protect middle- and low-income families, expanding the institu-
tions ability to increase the socioeconomic diversity of its student body (Williams,
Kolb, & Waldo, 2009).
Over the last decade, institutions as diverse as Harvard University, Michigan State
University, Miami University, Cornell University, North Carolina State University, the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Princeton University have developed
Promise Programs. A quick scan of the higher education landscape reveals that
institutions of varying size, selectivity, and geography are beginning to endorse
Promise Programs (Williams et al., 2009).
Although not featured in this discussion as a primary model of organizational
diversity in the same way as the other three, the Economic Access Model is growing
in stature in higher education, as many are calling for varying forms of class-based
afrmative action to diversify colleges and universities in terms of race, ethnicity,
and economic background. It is uncertain what implication these programs will have
on racial and ethnic diversity or even economic diversity. Little research has been
done on these programs, which have only emerged over the last ve to seven years.
However, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Fisher v. University of Texas,
the Economic Access Model may quickly come to the forefront as a means of
addressing diversity efforts in higher educationcreating new scholarship efforts,
retention initiatives, and outreach efforts that look to a number of economic, geo-
graphic, and precollege proxies, to assist the most selective colleges and universities
to retain their diverse populations.
The Afrmative Action and Equity Model

Launching Point and Denition
The Afrmative Action and Equity Model has grown out of the equal
employment opportunity (EEO) and afrmative action court rulings and
laws that emerged from the 1950s through the 1970s (Fischer & Massey,
2007; Loden, 1996; Tierney, 1997; R. Thomas, 1991). Although this model
has continued to evolve to embrace the importance of the educational bene-
ts of diversity, its basic historical premise has been that colleges and univer-
sities have a moral obligation to generate opportunities for traditionally
disadvantaged groups and to ameliorate the lingering effects of past discrimi-
nation. Although this rationale has evolved in response to recent court rul-
ings about afrmative action and the emerging awareness that diversity on
campus provides educational benets to all students (P. Gurin, Lehman, &
Lewis, 2004; Milem et al., 2005), this model is rooted in concepts of social
justice and restitution. As such, the primary goal of programs that adhere to
this model is to eliminate overt exclusionary barriers to higher education
and to increase the numbers of minorities, women, and other historically
disadvantaged groups enrolled or working on campus (Tierney, 1997; Wash-
ington & Harvey, 1989). Table 3.1 elaborates the intrinsic characteristics of
the Afrmative Action and Equity Model.
Programs falling within the Afrmative Action and Equity Model are
designed to create change by promoting and protecting the rights of minor-
ity groups, advancing their representation within the community. By strate-
gically drawing on identity-conscious policies and practices as part of a
holistic process, the Afrmative Action and Equity Model works to ensure a
level playing eld and remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination.
Although African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian and
Pacic Islanders were the original recipients of these programs, policy
changes and legal rulings have expanded the federally protected umbrella to
include individuals with disabilities and women (Loden, 1996; R. Thomas,
1991; Tierney, 1997; Washington & Harvey, 1989).
Over time, other federally protected groups have been included in this
models protective umbrella. These groups include men and women on the
basis of sex; any group that shares a common race, religion, color, or national
origin; people older than 40; and the disabled. Every U.S. citizen is a mem-
ber of some protected class, and is entitled to the benets of EEO law.
However, EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treat-
ment of women and minority group members. One group that has been the
beneciary of targeted equal opportunity legislation, but is not a protected
group in the same way, are veterans of military service. Dating from the GI
Bill through recent discussions about how to support current veterans who
served in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, this groups interests have been
H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S IT Y M O D EL S 137
TAB LE 3. 1
The Afrmative Action and Equity Model
Dimension Afrmative Action and Equity
Historical Launching Point 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s
Denition Focused institutional effort designed to enhance the

demographic diversity of the institutions faculty,
staff and students, and to eliminate discriminatory
practices
Drivers of Change Civil rights movementshifting laws, policy, social

movements
Dynamics of Primary Social justice (historical rationale)

Change Diversity Educational benets of diversity (contemporary
Rationale rationale)
Goals of Change Increased compositional diversity

Reduced incidents of racism, sexism, and
intolerance
Target of Efforts Federally protected groups of students, faculty, and

staff
Character Elimination of exclusionary barriers, remediation,

casting a broad search net, process improvement,
diversity as a plus factor among many used in
competitive decisions
Degree of First Order

Change
Strategy of Organizational Afrmative action ofces, plans, and policy

Change Technology statements; race-sensitive admissions and nancial aid
programs; and equal opportunity programs like
Upward Bound, Talent Search, etc.
considered and they have received some benets based on their identity as
veterans (Cook & Kim, 2009).
Technologies of Change
The primary organizational technologies of the Afrmative Action and
Equity Model are afrmative action ofces and plans, policy statements of
nondiscrimination, targeted recruitment initiatives and hiring programs,

outreach initiatives like federally funded TRIO programs, and race-
conscious admissions and nancial aid programs. We would expect most
campus diversity leaders to encounter at least a few diversity programs on
their campuses that fall within this model. Indeed, the authors research on
CDOs revealed that nearly half (48 percent) reported directly supervising
an afrmative action or compliance unit, and nearly one-third (28 percent)
reported supervising an undergraduate student retention program designed
to expand access to the institution.
In terms of employment, the model depends on analysis of the work-
force to determine if any occupational areas do not reect the overall popula-
tion (Washington & Harvey, 1989). If any such areas are found, afrmative
action programs call on managers and workforce planners to identify what
barriers, if any, have contributed to the apparent imbalance and to create
strategies to eliminate them. In terms of college admissions, this model uses
race, ethnicity, and gender as one factor among many within a holistic review
and selection process. This area of the model is the most publicly visible and,
therefore, perhaps the most controversial, as addressed in the last chapter
(Oreld, 2001).
This model is laudable in terms of increasing the numbers of women
and ethnically and racially diverse students enrolled in higher education.
Indeed, it has been instrumental in increasing the numbers of women in
academia (Tierney, 1997). The model has been less successful, however, in
increasing the numbers of historically underrepresented populations in the
faculty, or minorities and women in the executive ranks of institutional lead-
ership (Harvey & Anderson, 2005; King & Gomez, 2008). It has also been
limited in that afrmative action is often viewed as a something that the
institution must do to comply with the law, rather than as something that is
inherently good and will help drive institutional success. As a result, many
afrmative action initiatives and ofces often exist at the margins of institu-
tional life and are isolated from central conversations of institutional per-
formance, excellence, and long-term viability.
The Afrmative Action and Equity Model also focuses on the reduction
of overt forms of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace
through targeted interventions, trainings, and investigations (see Table 3.1).
Diversity training programs often emerge in response to claims of discrimi-
nation or harassment, or in accordance with a state law requiring diversity
programs (Washington & Harvey, 1989). A signicant proportion of CDOs
in the study (39 percent) reported supervising such training units. The
H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S IT Y M O D EL S 139
assumption here is that employees who feel mistreated by the organizations

employment practices will be less inclined or able to contribute fully toward
the organizations goals. Thus, to create a truly inclusive work environment,
organizations must rst design and implement employment practices to
ensure diverse representation throughout the organization and a welcoming
and inclusive work environment. Although an important corrective mecha-
nism, these efforts sometimes fail to connect diversity with the functional
roles that faculty, staff, and administrators play on campus or issues of teach-
ing, learning, research, and leadership. These reactive efforts rarely address
the assumption that diversity is unrelated, or even antithetical, to academic
excellence. Nor do they delve into the innovative ways that diversity research
can expand and advance academic scholarship.
Limitations of the Afrmative Action and Equity Model

The Afrmative Action and Equity Model is centrally concerned with
increasing the representation of diverse minorities at an institution. It does
little, however, to guarantee that they participate or engage in the campus
environment. Largely a policy tool, the model focuses little on making the
environment more inclusive and receptive for members of historically
excluded groups. Nor does it eliminate the subtle ways that the institutional
culture may prevent minority populations from ourishing once overt barri-
ers have been removed. The majority of the bias that we see in todays
institutions is not overt but typically unconscious and unintentional (R.
Thomas, 1991). Often those who exhibit this type of bias may consciously
endorse principles of diversity and equality. They do not necessarily think,
for example, that participating in an entirely White, male campus hiring
committee in search of a new president presents an intrinsic problem. They
simply never consider the importance of adding diverse voices to the group,
or asking questions about diversity, equity, and inclusion during the process.
Although demographically shifting the compositional breakdown of the
institution is essential, it is only one piece of changing the institutional cul-
ture. Indeed, several studies have concluded that institutions need to inter-
rupt business-as-usual if they are ever going to truly evolve (Smith, Turner,
Osei-Ko, & Richards, 2004). This means not only taking actions that will
diversify the institution, but also taking actions that will increase the success
of diverse groups once they get on campus. Programs falling within the
purview of the Afrmative Action and Equity Model are not designed to
transform the deep-seated institutional bias that often prohibits cultivation
of an inclusive climate for all. Thus, these programs are only part of the
change journey and must be combined with other tools if we are to shift the
culture at its deepest levels. Reactive policies that force people to receive
remedial training are not enough; we need programs that engage proactively,
from sexual harassment sensitivity trainings to the development of diversity
afnity organizations, extracurricular programs, and leadership development
programs for students, faculty, and staff. We discuss these activities in the
context of the other models available to academic institutions.
The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model

Launching Point and Denition
The origins of the Afrmative Action and Equity Model are embedded in
legal decisions and subsequent legislation that focused on breaking down
barriers to full participation in American society. By comparison, the Multi-
cultural and Inclusion Diversity Model stems from the cultural transforma-
tions of the 1960s and 1970s, from Black Power to the Chicano, Native
American, and feminist movements (Asante, 1991; Banks, 1979, 2006; Hale,
2004; Ogbar, 2005; Peterson et al., 1978; Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005; Wil-
son, 2005). These campaigns focused on attaining specic political goals
while also focusing on embracing identity-specic values, traditions, cul-
tures, and behavior (Ogbar, 2005). Although the efforts of these groups have
sometimes lacked coordination and cohesion, nevertheless, they form the
hub of a common set of capacities focused on achieving change by fostering
a multicultural and inclusive campus environment. These disparate move-
ments power the evolution of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity
Model in higher education.
Philosophy and Rationale

First, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model is motivated by a
commitment to capitalize on the richness of different cultures and a desire to
help those cultures thrive in the context of a broad institutional environment
that may, in an active or passive way, resist their presence. Second, the model
focuses on accepting cultural differences and exposing people to diversity in
a way that establishes mutual understanding (Loden, 1996). The third prior-
ity of the model is to advance scholarship and research that enhances our
understanding of previously marginalized minority groups and individuals.
H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI ON AL DI VE RS IT Y M O D E L S 141
In contrast to the Afrmative Action and Equity Models narrow focus on

increasing representation, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model
addresses cultural differences once representation has been achieved. That is,
how do we create dedicated diversity ofces, units, programs, initiatives, and
afnity organizations that will foster the type of cultural bridge to help
diverse students feel included and empowered? Although not all diverse stu-
dents may take advantage of these resources, these programs can still serve as
a primary conduit for establishing a positive and supportive campus environ-
ment. Simply put, the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model was
designed to involve and engage individuals in substantive ways that validate
their identities, creating space for them within the traditional campus
experience.
The Reality of Multiple Memberships

The expression of cultural identity is at the core of the Multicultural and
Inclusion Diversity Model. This perspective is probably best captured by the
title of Beverly Tatums book, Why Are All of the Black Kids Sitting Together
in the Cafeteria? (1997). Sitting at that table with ones peers may be the
only time that many African American students nd a space where they are
culturally afrmed and feel a sense of belonging. The same often holds true
for other diversity populations on campus. This model emphasizes the dis-
tinctiveness of different groups and the importance of creating culturally
aligned services, programs, initiatives, and ofces designed to nurture the
success of diverse communities (Fleming, 1984; Gurin, P. & Epps, 1975;
Peterson et al., 1978). The model champions the coexistence of many distinct
cultures within a given context, while acknowledging the permanence and
immutability of diverse cultural identities. This explicit recognition actively
attends to the role of cultural identity as an important factor that shapes the
experiences of diverse groups in a majority educational and employment
culture. The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model (see Table 3.2)
celebrates the concept of multiple memberships, arguing that assimilation
is not a prerequisite for personal success or even necessarily a goal. To the
contrary, diverse communities experience the campus in unique sociological
contexts that are often dened through the prism of cultural identity.
Some of higher educations most inuential theories of student experi-
ence argue that persistence is based on the degree to which students engage
on campus and integrate into the various academic and social systems of the
university environment (Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). Others have offered similar
TAB LE 3. 2
The Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model
Dimension Multicultural
Launching Point 1960s and 1970s
Denition Institutional efforts designed to nurture,

promote, and understand the culture of
ethnic and racially diverse minorities,
women, members of the LGBT
community, and other traditionally
disadvantaged groups
Drivers of Change Nationalist movements and campus

protests that raise awareness and support
Dynamics of Primary Diversity Social justice rationale

Change Rationale Educational benets of diversity rationale
Goals of Change Supporting diverse constituents

Improving campus climate
Fostering intergroup understanding
Scholarly engagement with issues of
diversity
Target of Efforts Diverse minority groups, oppressed social

identity groups, and women
Primarily students, with faculty and staff
serving as a secondary target
Character Providing diversity services, fostering

community and tolerance on campus, and
conducting research and teaching courses
in the areas of diversity
Degree of Change First Order
Strategy of Change Organizational Multicultural affairs units, cultural centers,

Technology gender-neutral bathrooms, lactation
centers, ethnic and gender studies institutes
and programs, international area studies
programs
H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S 143
theories of social attachment in the form of ideas like engagement and

involvement (Astin, 1993; Harper & Quales, 2009; Kuh, 2008). Generally,
these theories offer that experiences with faculty, peers, and staff both inside
and outside of class establish a degree of academic and social integration
that is reected by a students adherence to academic intellectual values
and his or her willingness to remain at the institution. Hence, academic and
social integration are identied as the essential components of the persistence
process for all students.
A number of researchers have challenged early conceptions of integra-
tion and the experience of students of color (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson,
1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992; Williams, 2002). One of the
strongest objections was raised in response to the suggestion that students of
color must diminish or lessen their ethnic or racial identities to achieve suc-
cess and integrate into the value systems of predominantly White institutions
(Braxton et al., 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992).
At the heart of these critiques was the need to fully address important
issues like diverse student subcommunities and multiple identities and mem-
berships in the discussion of the integration process (Hurtado & Carter,
1997; Williams, 2002). By not validating a range of integrating options, one
may ignore the social science literature, which explains how individuals ow
between majority and minority contexts without compromising their cul-
tural identities (Harper & Quales, 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The right
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model initiatives can help diverse
communities embrace a multicultural experience, allowing them to engage
with both mainstream and culturally specic domains of the campus envi-
ronment. Although members of diverse cultural groups must have the ability
to interact across different social and cultural contexts, assimilation is not
the only path to academic or professional success.
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model programs are designed to
provide a safe haven for diverse groups, allowing their identities to serve as a
potential cultural resource. Members of diverse groups can live within their
own specic identity-themed group and in the broader culture of the institu-
tion (Harper & Quales, 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; L. Patton, 2010).
Indeed, this model helps diverse communities develop extended kinship net-
works and familial relationships on campus among peers, mentors, and col-
leagues. These spaces become powerful sites of resistance whenever these
communities need to ght back or contend with racism, homophobia, and
questions of identity. For students, these are also places where they learn
leadership skills and academic success strategies and become mentors. Cul-
tural centers, multicultural affairs ofces, and student organizations offer
an oasis in an institutional setting that may not otherwise validate their
backgrounds and experiences. For them, Multicultural and Inclusion Diver-
sity Model programs offer spaces of institutional memory and self-
determination. Cognitive and affective resources are shared in ways that
center on the particular cultural identity of those individuals as they resist
the potentially damaging effects of institutional climates that may be indif-
ferent, or even hostile, in their accommodation to diverse individuals and
groups.
Technologies of Change
Surprisingly, there is still relatively little in-depth social science research on
campus Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model capabilities (L. Patton,
2010; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). Nevertheless, many institutions
have invested in capabilities in a number of different ways. Some common
organizational technologies include cultural centers, minority affairs ofces,
Muslim prayer and reection spaces, lactation centers, ethnic-specic stu-
dent organizations, womens centers, and other diversity structures (Hale,
2004; L. Patton, 2010; Trevino, 1992; Williams, 2002). Often using a con-
uence of social, cultural, and academic initiatives, these supportive spaces
allow diverse groups to become engaged and integrated.
Although some have argued that multicultural and inclusion capabilities
foster campus Balkanization (Sidanius et al., 2008), others have found that
these spaces are the key for many diverse groups to achieve integration into
the broader academic and social systems of the campus community (Hur-
tado & Carter, 1997). These capabilities present alternative pathways for
members of the campus community to establish their identity and nd suc-
cess on campus, whether as a student member of a gay pride organization, a
faculty member who is an active participant in the association of Black Fac-
ulty and Staff, or a member of the disability community who takes advantage
of special institutional and physical resources. One of the newest multicul-
tural and inclusion capabilities to emerge on campuses are lactation spaces.
These spaces offer quiet, discrete areas where mothers attending school or
work can nurse their infants. Additional features of these spaces include
access to electrical outlets, refrigerators, microwaves, warming plates, rocking
chairs, blankets, lockable doors, opaque windows, privacy curtains, and
working restrooms. Some institutions are even moving forward with more
H IG HE R E D U CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N AL DI V E R S I T Y M O D EL S 145
intentional activities to redene these spaces by creating bulletin boards for

users to post pictures of their children, tips for child rearing, and other
resources that support the inclusion of mothers on campus.
Over the years, institutions have created capacity to support not only
domestic students, but also international students. Many international stu-
dents come to an institution for lengthy periods, particularly if they continue
for advanced degrees. Historically, the growth of the international student
and faculty population has expanded the focus of internationalization efforts,
expanding them beyond area studies. Concerns now comprise issues of inclu-
sion and even the development of International Area Studies. Other Multi-
cultural and Inclusion Diversity Model internationalization resources
include international student centers, English as a second language support
systems, and mentoring programs. In a post-9/11 world, it is also common
to nd visa and Student Exchange and Visitor Information System compli-
ance units integrated with other institutional resources dedicated to ensuring
the legal status of international students and faculty.
Another technology of this model centers on campus programs and ini-
tiatives that acknowledge and celebrate differences. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
holiday celebrations, Native American pow-wows, ethnic-specic theme
months, and gay pride week events are just some examples. Students often
play a key role in dening these offerings and it is not uncommon for diverse
student organizations to host their own events, like step shows, concerts, and
cultural events. The goal here is not only to provide cultural activities for
relevant groups, but also to create opportunities for White students, faculty,
staff, and others to gain valuable exposure to cultural differences, and thereby
hopefully become more accepting of these differences. Finally, the most
advanced institutions offer programs and initiatives that complement the
educational principles of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, to be
examined shortly. These activities take the form of intergroup dialogue and
cross-cultural communication efforts designed to benet all students on
campus.
Refuting the Campus Balkanization Theory
Some criticize the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model on the
grounds that they Balkanize the campus community or ghettoize diver-
sity. In some instances even supporters of diversity end up promoting this
argument, implying that the presence of ethnic enclaves hinder a vital goal
of the civil rights movement: integration. This is particularly true for indi-
viduals who ascribe to a colorblind perspective seeking to deny any recogni-
tion of cultural difference. Often forgotten in this perspective is the fact that
diverse groups have always created unique spaces to reinforce their identities
both within and outside the academy.
Troy Duster (1993) points out that the Hillel and Newman campus orga-
nizations started nearly a century ago and continue to play a prominent
role for Jewish and Catholic students, respectively. More importantly, the
Balkanization thesis assumes that a strong cultural identity leads to conict
with mainstream cultural environments, an argument refuted by sociological
research on identity and acculturation. Studies have demonstrated convinc-
ingly that individuals can self-identify strongly with one minority subgroup
and yet have no negative predilections toward the broader community
(Berry, 1994; Cross, 1971). To this end, a number of studies argue that the
establishment and maintenance of an ethnic identity, or salience, does not
necessarily imply that a student of color will have problems interacting in a
predominantly White cultural environment (Cross, 1971; Duster, 1993; Sell-
ers, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Tatum, 1997). In fact, there is research sug-
gesting that a strong identication with ones own cultural experiences may
enhance ones ability to interact in dominant cultural environments (Sellers
et al., 1998; Tatum, 1997).
The reality is that however much time students of color spend interact-
ing with students of similar backgrounds, their campus experience is inevita-
bly diverse. Ethnic and racially diverse students cannot take a class, join a
study group, have a meal, or visit the library without experiencing diversity.
The same is not necessarily true of their White peers, who can, if they
choose, spend their entire academic careers without interacting with minor-
ity students, especially if the academic institution does not work to make
such interactions possible and productive.
Diverse Groups Versus Federally Protected Groups

It is important to note that the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model
draws a distinction between diverse groups and federally protected
groups, as dened by federal afrmative action programs. Whereas the fed-
eral afrmative action programs narrowly dene diversity in terms of ethnic
and racial minorities, women, veterans, and the disabled, they ignore a num-
ber of diverse groups that are vital to any campus discussion of diversity
and fall under the broader umbrella of the Multicultural and Inclusion
Diversity Model. In this model, diverse groups emerge in response to the
evolving voice of the community, including students, faculty, staff, and those
in broader society. In recent decades, the denition of what diversity means
H IG HE R E DU CAT I O N O R GA N I Z AT I O N A L DI VE RS I T Y M O D E L S 147
has expanded to include the LGBT community, international students,

commuter students, class-based groups, and various religious constituencies,
among others.
Despite the expansion of diversity on campus, the recognition and sup-
port of certain social identity groups does not necessarily lead to the develop-
ment of sufcient institutional capacities. Even if institutions have invested
in Rainbow Centers, Asian Cultural Centers, and International Affairs
Centers, these efforts do not guarantee that all groups will nd a formally
sanctioned ofce or center on campus. For example, an institution may not
desire to provide an ofce or center to focus on the needs of members of the
LGBT community, which happens occasionally at faith-based colleges or at
institutions located in more conservative regions of the country. At the same
time, this community may have active LGBT student organizations, faculty
and staff afnity networks, and campus leaders. So although the institution
may withhold or even deny resources, the LGBT voice and presence in the
campus community may nonetheless be strong. Indeed, the absence of an
institutional response can sometimes inspire campus communities to create
a grassroots effort to support their issues and concerns, a process that has
long been important to establishing dedicated diversity capacity in higher
education.
The author has found that, as with any schema, some programs and
initiatives are difcult to categorize in one model, such as African American
studies, womens studies, and even international area studies like Latin and
Caribbean studies. Although these units conduct research into experiences,
challenges, and identities of various racial, ethnic, nationality, gender, and
other social identity groups, they also may play an important role as aca-
demic, cultural, and social programs for members of their constituencies and
for others (Asante, 1991; Ibarra, 2001; Peterson et al., 1978; Wilson, 2005).
Because of the hybrid nature of their mission, these units exist in the syner-
gies between the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model and the
Learning, Diversity, and Research Model.
Limitations of the Multicultural and Inclusion
Diversity Model
The primary limitation of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model
is that a number of its key capabilities can take place outside of the most
essential conversations about retention, leadership development, and other
activities dedicated to achieving positive institutional outcomes. This mod-
els capabilities must become more fundamentally connected with the aca-
demic systems of the institution. This is particularly true as budget cuts
across the country are forcing diversity units to justify programs that may in
some cases target a small percentage of the population. If these programs are
not understood and validated by the broader community, they face extinc-
tion. Although a great deal of academic research clearly illustrates the value
of diverse cultural spaces, the units that bring these capabilities to life must
do more to suggest their importance, using a combination of qualitative
and quantitative data. These units should also highlight the educational and
leadership benets of diversity programs, complementing the social justice
rationale that has long been the foundation of multicultural ofces and cen-
ters. Diversity units can help bring the broader campus community to an
appreciation of the educational benets of diversity. To accomplish this feat,
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model units must assume a new lead-
ership role. Rather than resisting these challenges, multicultural affairs
ofces, cultural centers, and others must examine whom they serve and how
they serve at the forefront of their institutions leadership development
efforts.
The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model

Although its initial emergence in the 1960s and 1970s was eventually subordi-
nated to more immediate social justice concerns, the Learning, Diversity,
and Research Model (see Table 3.3) emerged in the late 1990s and today is at
the forefront of efforts by higher learning institutions to broaden their diver-
sity efforts to all areas of university life. This model recognizes, at long last,
the educational and social benets of a diverse student body, as well as the
scholarly opportunities for advancing research around issues of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. More than any other, this model is rmly anchored
in the intellectual core of the academy.
As discussed in the previous chapter, diversity is rapidly becoming the
key concept in a broad range of sectors, including business, health care and
government (Soni, 2000). Some have criticized this shift, arguing that it is
watering down the traditional focus on issues of access and equity. Change,
however, is inevitable and recent developments in the diversity discussion
point to the role of shifting demographics, globalization, and the powerful
need for individuals to live and work in teams. These forces have rendered
diversity important for educational reasons independent of moral and social
justice concerns (Baez, 2004; M. Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005; Gurin
H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA N I ZATI O N AL DI VE R S IT Y M O D E L S 149
TAB LE 3. 3
The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model
Dimension Learning and Diversity
Launching Point Late 1990s
Denition Focused agenda centered on integrating

diversity into the curriculum and
promoting research on diversity issues
Drivers of Change Changing demographics, globalization,

workforce needs, persistent inequalities,
legal and political dynamics
Dynamics of Change Primary Diversity Educational value

Rationale
Goals of Change Intergroup relation skills

Cognitive complexity
Scholarly understanding of diversity
Target of Efforts All students irrespective of background
Character Diversity as an important resource for

student learning
Degree of Change First and Second Orders
Strategy of Change Organizational Centralized diversity requirements;

Technology diversity elective courses; and diversity
programs like intergroup relation
ofces, dialogue programs,
livinglearning communities, and study
abroad programs; also, service learning
efforts, ethnic studies, gender studies,
international affairs ofces, etc.
et al., 2002; Gurin et al., 2004; Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005). At the
same time, persistent inequalities necessitate that we produce engaged citi-
zens capable of communicating and collaborating across cultural lines. Con-
sequently, we will need to open new research fronts to tackle twenty-rst
century diversity topics like maximizing the success of all learners, multicul-
tural marketing, immigration reform, global markets, competitive strategies,
and environmentalism.
150 W H AT I S D IV ER S I TY ?
As afrmative action has come under re in the courts, institutions have

increasingly shifted from the language of access and equity to the importance
of a diverse student body as essential to creating a learning environment that
will benet all students (Chang et al., 2005; Gurin et al., 2004; Oreld, 2001;
Tierney, 1997). The Learning, Diversity, and Research Model, therefore, is
grounded in theories of cognitive and social psychology. Proponents argue
that higher education offers an ideal environment for encouraging students
to look at the world from multiple perspectives and develop skills that are
essential to success in the twenty-rst century. This evolution of the diversity
discussion reclaims an old rationale for supporting diversity work in higher
education, namely, the educational diversity value, or educational bene-
ts rationale, as it is commonly known.
Beginning with the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of afrmative
action programs through what is widely known as the diversity rationale.
Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell struck down the use of quotas
but stated that institutions could consider race as one of many factors in
college and university admissions decisions. Powell argued that the creation
of a diverse student body promotes an atmosphere conducive to speculation,
experimentation, and creativity (Chang et al., 2005). The Bakke ruling estab-
lished the precedent for the 2003 University of Michigan Supreme Court
decisions, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, which conrmed the
core assumptions of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. The
diversity idea thus becomes central to an institutions mission to develop an
educated and informed citizenry (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Chang et al., 2005;
Gurin et al., 2002, 2004; Milem et al., 2005). As previously noted from this
vantage point diversity is no longer simply an end in itself, but a means to
fundamentally recongure the mission of higher education.
At its heart, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model explicitly links
diversity efforts with the academic programs of the institution. It thereby
moves the diversity debate from the margins to the center of the academy
in terms of teaching and learning. The diversity idea becomes essential for
providing a high-quality learning experience (Gurin et al., 2002, 2004; Hur-
tado, 2007). The presence of diversity establishes a powerful learning context
that allows students to achieve what the Association of American Colleges
and Universities (AAC&U) refers to as essential learning outcomes. These
outcomes include integrative learning, inquiry learning, global learn-
ing, and civic learning. These educational practices seek to foster diverse
H IG H E R E DU C ATI O N O R GA NI Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S 151
and multiple perspectives, the exploration and acceptance of diverse social

identities, and an active engagement with the challenges and opportunities
of difference (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Milem et al., 2005).
In an integrative learning experience, learners draw on diverse view-
points to understand issues contextually, connecting the knowledge and
skills they gain from one context and applying them to another. In inquiry
learning, learners engage actively with both the content material and the
process of learning, thereby assuming responsibility for their own progress.
Global learning helps establish skills that allow students to look beyond
specics and toward the broader context, or how seemingly discrete issues
play out in ways that are both local and global in their implications. Table
3.4 summarizes these essential learning outcomes.
Organizational Technologies
The technologies of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model are pri-
marily dened by efforts to advance student learning both inside and outside
the classroom. These technologies also focus on advancing the scholarly
agenda around issues of diversity. Some examples include diversity-focused
general education requirements, courses, service learning efforts, study
abroad programs, living learning communities, initiatives focused on inter-
group relations, diversity-themed research centers, and ethnic and gender
studies departments (Humphreys, 1997, 2000; Laird et al., 2005).
One of the most important diversity technologies is the presence of
general education diversity requirements. In a national study, Humphreys
(1997) found that numerous institutions have diversity requirements,
although they often lacked clearly dened learning goals. All too often,
courses are identied to satisfy the campus diversity requirement with little
thought of how the course will provide the type of learning context that
leverages what we know about intergroup learning and achieving the out-
comes we value. Although a step in the right direction, these requirements
often fail to create the types of intentional moments necessary to leverage
the educational benets of diversity. Simply putting diverse students in a
classroom studying a diverse subject like Caribbean literature is not
enough. The best technologies of this model will help students to think
seriously about the global community, and challenge them to explore how
they see themselves contributing to this world.
Too often students from different groups are strangers on campus, with
very little exposure to diversity. Learning and diversity capabilities help stu-
dents move beyond being intimidated by the prospect of discussing difcult
152 W H AT I S D I V E R S I TY ?
TAB LE 3. 4
The Association of American Colleges and Universities Essential Learning Outcomes
Potential Leverage
Dimension Description Developmental Goals for Students Points
Integrative Integrative learning is a Ask pertinent, insightful questions about Campus cultural
Learning process in which complex issues as they uncover relations and events
learners draw on patterns. Collaborative projects
diverse viewpoints, Recognize conicting points of view and move Common book
understand issues beyond the conicts to a shared appreciation. programs
contextually, connect Synthesize from different ways of knowing, Community
knowledge and skills bodies of knowledge, and tools for learning. involvement
from multiple sources Tolerate ambiguity and paradox. Creative projects
and experiences, and Reect constructively on their experiences and Diversity research
adapt learning from knowledge. centers and institutes
one situation to Employ condently a range of intellectual tools. Ethnic studies courses
another. Tackle and solve practical problems and work Experiential learning
through difcult situations. First-year experience
Connect learning in classroom to workplace and courses
community. Gender studies courses
Apply theories to practice in the real world. Independent studies
Balance diverse perspectives in decision making. and student research
Interdisciplinary
Inquiry Inquiry learning is a Seek their own theories, answers, or solutions. instruction
Learning process in which Conduct investigations, building methodological International studies
learners engage actively skills in systematic ways. courses
with both the material Gather knowledge as it is needed to pursue lines Internships
studies and the process of questioning typical of experienced practitioners. Living learning
of learning, thereby Ask questions and investigate issues in ways communities
assuming responsibility characteristic of disciplines, thereby learning to Exchange programs
for their own progress. think like experts in that eld. Multicultural student
Go beyond facile answers to engage with centers
complex situations. Problem-based
Readily identify ambiguous and unanswered learning
questions. Queer studies courses
Understand the differences among, and employ Senior capstones or
appropriately, the critical methods of analysis, culminating intergroup
synthesis and comparison. dialogue programs
Service learning
Global Global learning is Gain knowledge about the worlds cultural Student leadership
Learning about establishing the diversity and interconnectedness. development programs
habits of mind and Consider issues and actions from the perspectives Student organizations
skills that allow of many cultures and discover their extended Study abroad programs
students to look implications.
beyond the obvious to Prepare for personal, professional, and civic
the broader context of activity in a world of instant communications,
issues, appreciating multinational business opportunities,
how learning activities interdependent economies, codependent
play out in ways that environments, and diverse cultures.
are both local and Understand the scientic, historical,
global in their geographical, cultural, political, economic, and
implications. religious aspects of issues.
Recognize the similarities and differences among
cultures and the identities they engender.
H IG H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I Z ATI O N AL D I VE R S IT Y M O D EL S 153
Link cultural literacy with language learning and

actively pursue foreign language competency so as
to communicate effectively across cultures.
Understand the worlds different political
systems.
Develop a sophisticated worldview that looks
beyond national borders.
Translate knowledge of the world into ethical,
reective practices that are sensitive to the
consequences of actions in an increasingly diverse
globally community.
Recognize the effect of global issues on individual
lives and of individual and collective action on the
larger world.
Civic Learning Civic learning derives Gain comparative knowledge about diverse
from the notion that individuals and groups who have shaped the
higher education has a United States and the larger world.
responsibility to Acquire the skills to facilitate the collective work
educate students in of diverse groups to promote democratic practices
ways that promote a and institutions.
functioning, inclusive, Develop the values, discipline, and commitment
and diverse democracy. to pursue responsible public action.
Understand and be able to balance the rights and
interests of diverse individuals with the collective
needs of the larger society.
Have the capacity to analyze relationships,
structures of inequality, and social systems that
govern individual and communal life.
Cultivate commitment to the democratic
aspirations of equality, opportunity, inclusion, and
justice.
Promote racial and cultural understanding, and
compassion for others.
Engage individually and in collaboration with
others to build and sustain democratic
institutions.
Source: Adapted from Leskes & Miller, 2006.
topics with members of other groups. Many students have no experience

talking with members of minority populations, especially about challenging
diversity issues. Others may have had a wide range of contacts with diverse
cultures but very few substantive discussions about issues that frequently
divide their groups. Consequently, learning and diversity programs should
help students learn how to talk to one another in a variety of learning
contexts.
As theorized by Gordon Allport (1954), highly effective learning and
diversity activities promote equality in status among intergroup participants,
common goals, and an intimacy of interaction around challenging issues.

Hence, Learning, Diversity, and Research Model initiatives must have a cer-
tain context that will allow students to understand their own identities and
those of others, and to develop new perspectives as they engage in dialogue.
When designed well, living learning programs, service learning initiatives,
and study abroad efforts have the ability to help achieve the goals of the
model if they are consistent with the models commitment to exploring
constructively issues of identity and difference.
Linking the Multicultural Studies and International

Conversations
Many institutions have adopted general education diversity requirements
that ensure that students will have at least a minimum exposure to courses
that focus on ethnic and cultural difference within either a domestic or
international context. However, these requirements are often taught by fac-
ulty from different disciplines and departments who do not interact ade-
quately with each other. As a result, the domestic and international diversity
discussion on campus is often disconnected. The Learning, Diversity, and
Research Model can potentially integrate aspects of domestic and interna-
tional diversity education in higher learning. Traditionally, multicultural
education has focused on diversity issues in the domestic sphere. Meanwhile,
area and international studies have focused on traditions and cultures outside
of the United States. These efforts t under the internationalization head-
ing because it captures the process of integrating an international, intercul-
tural, or global dimension into the purpose, function, or delivery of post-
secondary education (Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007).
At this point in American higher education, nearly everyone talks about
the importance and centrality of preparing students to live and work in a
diverse and global society. The connection between multicultural learning
and its international context is an important development in the emerging
strategic diversity leadership movement, and a priority of organizations like
the American Council of Education (ACE) and the AAC&U, among others
(Leskes & Miller, 2006; Olson et al., 2007). These institutions are beginning
to see the possibilities for synergy and mutual reinforcement between tradi-
tional multicultural activities and programs and exciting developments in
international and global studies. Table 3.5 summarizes the education ratio-
nale for integrating domestic and international diversity education put for-
ward by the ACE.
H I G H E R E DU CATI O N O R GA N I ZATI ON AL DI VE RS IT Y M O D E L S 155
TAB LE 3. 5
American Council of Education Rationale for Integrating
Domestic and International Diversity Education
One of the tasks undertaken by the Ford Foundations At Home in the
World initiative in 2007 was to develop a rationale that might help engage
faculty and staff in a dialogue about the interplay between multiculturalism
and internationalization in education. The initiative issued the following
conclusion:
Working at the intersection of multiculturalism and internationalization pro-
vides creative opportunities for faculty, staff, and administrators to:
Help students understand multiculturalism and social justice in a global
context
Develop intercultural skills
Broaden attitudes to appreciate the complexity of the world
Examine values, attitudes, and responsibilities for local/global citizen-
ships
Disrupt silence and make visible issues not explicit in networks of
relationships
See how power and privilege are shifting in the local/global context
Experience conicts and develop skills to work together
Prepare students to cooperate and compete in a multicultural and global
workplace
Source: Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007.
To fully prepare our students and conduct the most robust research in
the areas of diversity, educators will have to use both an international and
domestic diversity lens. Only by looking at these issues from multiple per-
spectives can scholars apply analytical frameworks sophisticated enough to
dissect global trends that may have local implications and develop the types
of curricular efforts that will prepare students for a globally interdependent
society.
These efforts have become increasingly urgent in the wake of 9/11 and a
rising suspicion of immigrant populations. In response to this national trag-
edy, and funded with government support, institutions and policy centers
alike began establishing Middle Eastern studies programs that not only
focused on the positive and rich history of Middle Eastern culture, but also
on critical domestic topics like national security, immigration policy, and
the global war on terrorism (Lockman, 2009). At the center of much of this
discussion is the need for sophisticated and nuanced research that can
address a range of complex and sensitive issues without perpetuating stereo-

types of an already threatened minority population in the United States.
One CDO at a large research university in the Midwest explained:
Since 9/11, diversity has been a matter of strategic concern to the FBI, CIA
and National Department of Homeland Security. After 9/11 these entities
were scrambling to enhance their diversity effort because they lacked peo-
ple who even spoke Arabic, let alone knew much about the cultural or
religious traditions of the Middle East. With respect to understanding
these issues on the ground and knowing who our friends and enemies were,
national security staff were starting from scratch. So immediately academic
institutions faced the issue of developing sensitive programs and policies
to help security leaders understand issues of critical importance to the
nation and the world.
That so many of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were able to obtain visas
legally has sparked renewed interest in immigration policies. This security
issue, combined with long-standing tensions between conservatives and pro-
gressives over immigration issues generally, has led to a stalemate with regard
to immigration reform. Immigration issues have been heavily debated in
recent years by lawmakers, the media, and the public. Although their views
have been partially informed by academic research, much of the discussion
has taken place in an atmosphere of ignorance and bias, driven by ideological
extremists. As has already been illustrated, this contentious debate has
already had profound implications for admissions and employment policies
at colleges and universities. The United States may well be at a crisis point
with respect to immigration (Montesino & Sherr, 2008). If academia is
going to play a constructive role in nding a solution, institutions will have
to nd a way to raise the general prole of the diversity idea.
These concerns, along with addressing ethnic and racial health dispari-
ties, preparing culturally competent professionals, and managing diversity,
rest at the center of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model. The grow-
ing domestic and global context for these discussions necessitates a more
aggressive approach in terms of supporting scholars and students interested
in these areas of inquiry. The world we live in is growing ever more complex,
and as it becomes more connected, it shrinks in size. The analytical tools
that we use to understand this world and build workable solutions must be
equally complex.
Limitations of the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model
Particularly as it relates to students, the Learning, Diversity, and Research
Model is powered by a focus on working with students at the core of their
assumptions about the world. One concern with this model is that it may
distract institutions from traditional commitments to addressing historical
disparities and the ongoing policies that perpetuate these inequalities. In
this instance, the model provides the appearance of commitment without
addressing the difcult, historic work anchored in the Afrmative Action
and Equity or Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Models. As one Dean of
Multicultural Affairs at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest explained:
I think the educational benets rationale is great. However, this focus on

global, international concerns is like the big, new, sexy idea on campus,
raising questions of how or even whether we will also address issues of
access and equity. We still face major challenges with issues like racism,
homophobia and sexual harassment. So while I applaud the educational
and research efforts that we want to encourage among our students, I think
we all still have a great deal of foundational work to do.
Summary
Each of the three models described in this chapter lays out the different
aspects of institutional capacities found in academic institutions. Although
the models share core similarities, they are distinct enough that no one
model can achieve all the outcomes demanded by todays diversity chal-
lenges. Table 3.6 provides a structured paradigm illustrating their respective
qualities and points of contact.
With the current attention focused on the educational benets of the
diversity rationale, it is tempting to view the Learning, Diversity, and
Research Model in a manner that is distinct from the other organizational
models. Although the other models focus on the seemingly traditional
objectives of the diversity agenda, one might rightly ask whether a model
that works well for all students could be co-opted by conservatives bent on
attacking diversity change movements in higher education. As this discussion
has made clear, however, the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model does
not preclude institutional commitments to create and promote a more
diverse academic community that is fully engaged with the values of access,
multiculturalism, and inclusion. Indeed, embracing the Learning, Diversity,
and Research Model at the expense of these efforts would actually reduce the
models ability to accomplish the academic and research goals at its core.
Rather than viewing these models separately, strategic diversity leaders
should work to integrate these frameworks in ways that complement each
I$8 WHAT IS DIVERSITY?
TABLE 3.6
Organizational Diversity Models in Higher Education
Affirmative Action and Multicultural and Learning, Diversity, and
Model Equity Model Inclusion Model Research Model
Launching Point 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 1960s and 1970s Late 1990s and 2000s
Definition Focused efforts designed Institutional efforts Focused agenda centered
to enhance the designed to nurture, on integrating diversity
compositional diversity promote, and into the curriculum of
of an institution's understand the culture of the institution and
faculty, staff, and racially and ethnically conducting research
students, and to diverse minorities, around issues of diversity
eliminate discriminatory women, members of the
practices LGBT community, and
other minority groups
Drivers of Change Civil rights movement, Broader social justice Diversity movement,
shifting laws, policy, movements, campus changing demographics,
social movements social protests, shifting workforce needs,
legal policy persistent inequalities,
legal and political
dynamics, global
economy
Dynamics of Primary Diversity Social justice Social justice and Educational value
Change Rationale educational value
Goals of Change Increasing Supporting diverse Intergroup relation
compositional diversity constituents skills
Reducing incidents of Improving campus Cognitive complexity
racism, sexism, and climate Scholarly
intolerance Fostering intergroup understanding of
understanding diversity
Scholarly engagement
with issues of diversity
Target of Efforts Federally protected Diverse minority groups, Both majority and
groups of students, historically oppressed minority students,
faculty, and staff minorities, and women; faculty, and staff
primarily students, with
faculty serving as a
secondary target
Character Elimination of Providing diversity Diversity as a vital
exclusionary barriers, services, fostering component of student
remediation, process community and learning and faculty
improvement, diversity tolerance on campus, research
as a positive factor and conducting research
among others used in and teaching courses in
competitive decisions the areas of diversity
Degree of Change First Order First Order First Order and Second
Orders
Strategy of Organizational Affirmative action Multicultural affairs Centralized diversity
Change Technology offices, plans and policy units, cultural centers requirements, diversity
statements; race-sensitive and ethnic and gender programs like intergroup
admissions and financial studies institutes and relations offices; study
aid programs; equal programs abroad and service
opportunity programs learning initiatives
like Upward Bound,
Talent Search, etc.
other and achieve the institutions diversity goals. For example, the presence
of ethnically and racially diverse groups, also known as structural diversity
(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998), which is a goal of the
Afrmative Action and Equity Model, necessitates cultural, academic, and
social support capabilities fundamental to the Multicultural and Inclusion
Diversity Model.
To simply bring ethnically and racially diverse students to campus with-
out providing the relevant diversity units, student organizations, advising, or
other relevant resources does these students a disservice, denying them the
specic cultural vehicles shown to help them become integrated with the
broader campus community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Moreover, the pres-
ence of a diverse and engaged student body helps establish the educational
context needed to activate the technologies of the Learning, Diversity, and
Research Model. Diverse ideas and identities within the curricular and
cocurricular experience are essential to activating the Learning, Diversity,
and Research Model, and the potential of these experiences is facilitated by
the presence of minority students, faculty, and staff (Chang et al., 2005;
Gurin et al., 2002; Umbach & Kuh, 2006). Finally recognizing the complex-
ity that these interlocking requirements present, institutions have begun
developing a host of diversity policies, practices, ofces, and units to accom-
plish an expanding set of goals and objectives. This expansion is one of the
reasons that CDOs are emerging, as presidents and other senior leaders look
to maximize resources and coordinate initiatives through the work of the
CDO, a subject dealt with in the companion volume to this book, The Chief
Diversity Ofcer: Strategy, Structure, and Change Management.
PA R T T H R E E
W H AT I S S T R AT E G I C
DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP?
4
WHY DIVERSITY EFFORTS FAIL
Despite the general perception of being hotbeds of liberalism, universi-

ties are among the most tradition-bound, conservative institutions in
society. From one perspective, this resistance to change is strength,
enabling higher education to sustain enduring values and avoid fad-
dish approaches that could compromise core missions. But from
another perspectiveon issues where change is clearly needed
higher educations reluctance to adjust and adapt becomes an enor-
mous impediment to progress.
Chancellor of a large state system of higher education
in the Northeast
H
ow many times has your institution developed a high-prole cam-
pus diversity plan after a crisis moment and seen that plan zzle
and die within a few short years? Are your diversity policies de-
signed to strengthen core competencies or simply make your campus look
good for prospective student visits? How closely connected are your diversity
efforts to the mission, guiding principles, and central programs of the institu-
tion? Is your diversity strategy anchored in a well-developed strategic ratio-
nale, or is it merely responding to judicial or legislative directives? If you
spend more time putting out diversity crisis res than building a robust,
sustained diversity agenda, chances are your institution is more like the chee-
tah than the wolf in its approach to diversity.
Cheetahs are among the worlds great sprinters, capable of reaching a
top speed in excess of 70 miles per hour. Living relatively solitary lives, they
generally hunt alone or in pairs. Weighing on average only 100 pounds, they
can take down prey only slightly larger than themselves. The foundation of
their approach is simple, as they prefer speed and individual prowess to
163
164 W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P ?
strategy and collective effort. They lay motionless waiting for prey to cross
their path before hurtling forward in a brief but powerful display of power
and speed. In a matter of minutes the chase is over and after feasting they
return to the shade, settling themselves before the next time to hunt.
Unfortunately, although this approach may work in the wild, too often
institutions take the cheetah approach to their diversity efforts. Rather than
work collectively and proactively to design and implement an effective diver-
sity strategy, colleges and universities sit in the relative shade of their indiffer-
ence to diversity issues until jolted into action by a sudden crisis. Whether it
is an unpleasant incident or the passage of hostile legislation in the state
legislature, academic institutions often nd themselves reacting to events
rather than leading them. In this regard, to say they appear like cheetahs
may be too generous. They appear rather like the gazelle or antelope, caught
in the claws of political and social forces that are outside the ivy walls and
often explicitly hostile to the goals and aspirations of the diversity idea.
The Wolf and the Power of the Pack

By comparison, most wolves live in packs that may include as many as 30
members. Whereas the cheetah can only sprint for around 600 meters, the
wolf can move relentlessly for days on end across nearly any terrain.
Although the cheetah and wolf are about the same size, the wolf, by working
collectively in a tightly orchestrated team, can take down much larger prey.
The wolf rarely hunts alone and is famous for trailing behind a large herd
for days, weakening them slowly, before executing an end-game strategy.
The approach of the wolf is not about immediate gratication but long-term
success, pursuing carefully planned tactics that ultimately lead to victory for
the entire pack.
In developing strategic diversity initiatives, institutions of higher educa-
tion need to become more wolf-like. Yes, when diversity crises occur, these
institutions need to act quickly and decisively. However, overall, most success-
ful programs take time, thoughtful consideration, and coordinated effort to
design and implement. Moreover, to create a truly diverse and inclusive aca-
demic community, our actions must reect a larger purpose. Like the wolf
pack, members of an institution must understand their roles and work collec-
tively toward clearly dened and mutually agreed outcomes. The story of the
cheetah and the wolf provides a guiding metaphor for the discussion of the
many diversity programs surveyed in this chapter (see Table 4.1). The meta-
phor is also relevant to the treatment of strategic diversity leadership in
Chapter 5.
W HY DI V E RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L 165
TAB LE 4. 1
Dimension Cheetah Wolf
Launching Point Responds to a crisis Creates and implements proactive diversity

moment, including strategy, thereby anticipating challenges while
campus event or judicial taking advantage of new opportunities.
ruling that undermines
community or existing
policies.
Implementation Acts alone, relying on Acts collectively, leveraging a number of

Approach disconnected and different initiatives and activities so as to
isolated initiatives achieve clearly articulated outcomes.
Diversity Possesses few if any Possesses a clear diversity infrastructure that

Infrastructure permanent or dedicated includes diversity committees, accountability
campus resources. structures, incentives, dedicated diversity
professionals, chief diversity ofcers, and
senior leadership, among others.
Organizational Relies on a casual and Engages in big-picture thinking grounded in

Learning ad-hoc process that an evaluation of programs and efforts,
ignores best practices leveraging institutional and national best-
and the management practices and guidance from the literature base
processes that facilitate to bring about goals.
effective leadership.
Time Span of Acts in a burst of energy Acts in a consistent, long-term way to achieve
Change followed by a gradual results that are then assessed and used to
reduction of focus and further improve organizational culture,
attention. promoting deep secondary organizational
change.
To be sure, our progress is challenged by persistent and continuing ineq-

uities in American society generally and in academia in particular. Neverthe-
less, campus leaders have a duty to own up to their responsibility over those
areas for which they do exert control. With the effort to address the long-
standing unequal treatment of minority communities through proactive pro-
grams and policies comes controversy. On many campuses, the very idea of
diversity has emerged against a backdrop of protest and conict. Special
interests will always seek to undermine and misconstrue these efforts.
Finally, there remains a persistent lack of awareness among students, faculty,
and staff about why diversity is critical in the new millennium. Our success
in advancing a powerful campus diversity agenda ultimately stems from our
ability to move the culture of our institution along a continuum that ows
from the tactical to the transformative.
This chapter builds from the metaphor of the cheetah and the wolf to
outline some of the critical reasons why diversity planning and implementa-
tion efforts often fail. It begins with an outline of the Diversity Crisis
Model of Planning in higher education before delving into some of the key
dynamics that dene the culture of the academy. The chapter then examines
several principles for understanding organizational change, offering an exam-
ination of an organizational diversity development process that can help to
navigate the perfect storm discussed in Chapter 1. By setting a context for
understanding the challenges inherent in the diversity planning and imple-
mentation process, we can lay the groundwork for understanding strategic
diversity leadership, diversity scorecards and accountability, and the role of
chief diversity ofcers (CDOs), a topic tackled in the last section of this
book.
The Diversity Crisis Model

As outlined in Figure 4.1, too many diversity-planning efforts are reactive,
isolated, simplistic and driven by crises, or cheetah moments. On any
number of campuses, the crisis follows a similar pattern: an unpleasant event
occurs, which leads to a largely symbolic response, a half-hearted institu-
tional mobilization, and then a gradual weakening of institutional efforts
over time. The result is a missed opportunity for creating a meaningful diver-
sity activation plan. The problem is not a lack of will by students, faculty,
or staff. Rather, the challenge centers on moving from endless debates and
discussions to action. The challenge is not to simply talk about problems
but to develop solutions that directly address diversity challenges and then
to marshal the collective will to bring these plans to life. Indeed, when cam-
pus diversity plans do not include well-conceived activation strategies, they
can do more harm than good, creating a false sense of hope that is not
backed by a material commitment to advancing diversity issues on campus.
Phases of Diversity Crises and Institutional Response
Phase 1: Diversity Crisis
Although the 10 steps of crisis and response presented in Table 4.2 have been
around as long as our efforts to diversify American higher education, several
FIGURE 4.1
Diversity Crisis and Institutional Response Model
168 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?
TAB LE 4. 2
The Diversity Crisis Model
Phase Dimension Description
Phase 1 Diversity Crisis A campus incident occurs, disrupting the campus
environment and creating instability and anxiety.
Typical events include a racially, ethnically, or
sexually motivated verbal or physical assault on
campus; an insensitive or embarrassing statement
made by someone in a position of authority; or
an incident that occurs in the outer community
but provokes a campus response.
Phase 2 Internal and External The incident galvanizes an internal and external
Stakeholder Response stakeholder response among different members of
the campus community, either collaborating or
acting in isolation. Campus responders include
students, faculty, and staff. Off-campus
responders include parents, alumni, government
ofcials, agency regulators, and the media,
among others.
Phase 3 Protests and Demands The incident can inspire a range of responses,
from campus protests to petition and media
campaigns. In addition to demands for
immediate action, responders often call for senior
administrative leaders to make substantive,
institutional changes. This phase may feature
high-level participation by government
stakeholders and the media, escalating the call for
change.
Phase 4 Declaration of Support In response to these demands, the president,
provost, or some other senior academic leader
makes a symbolic statement regarding the
institutions support for diversity. This
communication often takes the form of a letter, a
press release, or a presentation given to the entire
campus community.
Phase 5 Commissioning of a Senior leadership subsequently commissions a
Planning Group planning group or task force to reexamine issues
of diversity, inclusion, and climate on campus
and develop a new plan or framework for action.
Phase 6 Deliberation and This review leads to deliberation and discussion
Discussion regarding campus diversity issues. Data is
analyzed, campus forums are conducted, and peer
institutions benchmarked to develop a set of
institutional diversity recommendations.
W H Y DI VE RS I T Y E FF OR T S FA I L 169
Phase 7 The Campus Diversity The campus diversity plan often includes
Plan recommendations to (a) improve the campus
climate for all members of the community; (b)
increase the demographic diversity of the student,
faculty, and staff ranks; (c) establish a senior or
chief diversity ofcer role to guide the
institutional change effort and hold people
accountable; and (d) implement diversity training
and education programs for students, faculty, and
staff, among other recommendations.
Phase 8 Acceptance of the Plan After the plan is written, the process follows a
similar pattern for many institutions. The
diversity committee makes a presentation to the
president, board, faculty senate, or some other
governing body. The president, or in some
instances the provost, then makes a broad public
statement about the importance of diversity that
appears in splashy columns in various media
outlets and perhaps even promotional paid media
efforts funded by the institution.
Phase 9 Delay in Implementation Following the unveiling of the plan there is often
a delay, and the lack of clarity regarding next
steps leads to a breakdown in implementation.
Questions linger regarding who will lead
implementation, how it will be nanced, how
responsibility will be shared, and how
accountability and results will be measured.
Phase 10 Supercial Supercial implementation rolls out in hopes
Implementation that the symbolic energy of the plan will result in
meaningful change on campus. The plan lacks
accountability, resources, a focus on capacity-
building and buy-in from the broader campus
community.
nationally publicized incidents have occurred in recent years that highlight

those steps. Examples include insensitive remarks by senior leaders, racially
themed campus parties, and incidents of harassment or violence on campus.
Regardless of their launching point, a diversity crisis often creates a sense of
urgency among members of the campus community, although motivations
can differ strikingly. Whereas many may feel genuine concern and outrage,
others may be more concerned about damage to the institutions brand or
potential lawsuits. Whether and how an institution responds will decide
whether the initial incident becomes a lasting wound or a chance to create a
reinvigorated and more meaningful campus diversity change agenda.
170 W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?
Phases 2 and 3: Response and Demand

Diversity crisis moments can be impossible for senior leaders to ignore and
often activate the crisis model response. In other words, they make the chee-
tah run. In these phases, the internal and external stakeholders mobilize,
looking to address the incident and its underlying causes by creating pressure
for an institutional response. In nearly every situation that the author has
encountered, these stakeholders follow the same strategy of confronting the
administration at the highest levels, presenting them with a list of demands,
or more broadly requesting the campus administration to develop a plan of
action. Senior ofcials can respond in a number of ways, from sitting down
with protest leaders in a genuine effort to nd common ground, to ignoring
the responders in hopes they will go away.
To gain bargaining power, change leaders may foster confrontation and
heighten tension in a number of different ways. This pressure can take the
form of a formal vote of no condence, a demonstration by vocal student
leaders, a press release or high-prole interview with traditional forms of
mediaor, in the twenty-rst century, a digital attack on the campuss
brand and institutional reputation. The goal of each activity is to share infor-
mation, mobilize political energy, and create pressure to respond and engage
in a diversity-themed change process. It is for these reasons that campus
leaders must have a strategy, infrastructure, and communication plan that is
proactive, well articulated, and in place prior to the diversity crisis. Box 4.1
provides a high-prole example of a diversity crisis and response at Harvard
University.1
BOX 4.1
Diversity Planning in Response to a Crisis:
The Example of Harvard University
In 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,

Harvard Universitys then-President Lawrence Summers speculated that the under-
representation of female math and science faculty members might have a genetic
basis or stem from their unwillingness to work in such time-demanding elds. These
statements, combined with his controversial record of addressing diversity issues
generally, set off a classic series of events conforming to the diversity crisis model.
First, student and faculty protests disrupted business as usual on campus and
(continues)
helped generate a wave of negative media attention, which in turn provoked concern
among university board members, alumni, and donors. The overwhelmingly critical
response led Summers, normally headstrong and arrogant in his reaction to criticism
of any kind, to back away from his statements and reafrm his support for women
at Harvard.
Within three months of Mr. Summers comments, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and
Sciences passed a vote of lack of condence in his leadership by a margin of
218185, with 18 abstentions. Although the vote was unprecedented, only the seven-
member Harvard Corporation, the universitys governing board, has the ability to
remove the president. Claiming that the Arts and Sciences faculty represented only a
small portion of the total academic community, Summers refused to resign, although
he did appoint two task forces to examine gender equity and achievement issues:
the Task Force on Women Faculty and the Task Force on Women in Science and
Engineering. The rst examined the overall climate for female faculty at Harvard and
the second considered gender issues in the context of the science and engineering
elds (Fish, 2005; Fogg, 2005a, 2005b; Kerber, 2005; Strober, 2005). The commit-
tees produced diversity reports outlining several recommendations.
After the no condence votes, a prolonged contest between Summers and his
detractors ensued. Over the next year, Harvard University suffered nancially in deals
approved by Summers and witnessed the resignation of the one African American
member of the Harvard Corporation in response to both Summerss remarks and a
salary increase he received. In June 2006, Summers announced his resignation. He
continued with a joint appointment as a professor in the Kennedy School of Govern-
ment and the Business School.
The repercussions of the Summers crisis continue to work themselves out. Nev-
ertheless, the Harvard example is a good illustration of how the diversity conversa-
tion often takes place in the heated context of a sudden disruption, in this instance
responding to the insensitive remarks of a senior ofcial. Because of Harvard Univer-
sitys prominence, the media restorm was national in scope. In the eyes of many
diversity leaders, whatever side you may have taken in the controversy, it was clear
that both Mr. Summers and senior administrative ofcials found themselves reacting
to, rather than acting on, calls for a serious engagement on diversity issues. That
said, the task forces appointed by Summers led to the creation of a senior post, a
tenured faculty appointee at the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and
Diversity, and the Ofce of Faculty Development and Diversity. Ultimately, this early
diversity leadership infrastructure led to the appointment of the rst CDO at Harvard;
she also holds the title of special assistant to the president.
Whether Harvard University was totally successful in achieving its goals remains
to be seen. Nevertheless, the Harvard example is a good illustration of how the
(continues)
(continued)
diversity planning process often begins in reaction to a disruption of the institutions
cultural equilibrium. The disruption can take numerous forms, including changes in
the legal environment, as was the case with the University of Michigan Supreme
Court decisions, or new leadership touting diversity as an institutional priority, as
was the case when President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University announced a
$15 million plan to increase the number of minority faculty on campus (Smallwood,
2005).
Phase 4: Declaration of Support

In Phase 4, the senior leadership offers a statement conrming the institu-
tions commitment to a diverse community and a promise to take meaning-
ful steps to address the incident. The statement is issued across a number of
platforms, including both traditional media and new online social platforms
like blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. Box 4.2 provides a discussion of emerging
social media strategies that are vital to an institutions overall diversity com-
munication efforts.
BOX 4.2
Online Social Communication Procedures
Vital to Campus Diversity Efforts
Digital and social media have transformed communication in the twenty-rst century.
The speed, ubiquity, and immediacy of the Internet cannot be ignored, particularly
during a campus diversity crisis incident. These mediums have the power to create
their own headlines, grabbing control of the story from both the institution and tradi-
tional media sources. The result can be a disaster for messaging efforts by the
institution and a prolonged process of reconciliation by the campus community. As
calamitous as a diversity crisis can be, further distortions in the online world can
create an almost insurmountably negative impression of the institution, affecting
current and potential students, faculty, and staff. At its worst, online media can undo
the efforts of a strong and capable diversity ofce and undermine the core vision and
operations of a college or university. It is vital that strategic diversity leaders and
school administrators prepare themselves by creating strong online procedures for
responding quickly to whatever happens in the online media universe.
The need for a powerful digital strategy is particularly true in higher education
(continues)
W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF O R T S FA I L 173
where students are usually technologically savvier than most campus ofcials. Cam-
pus leaders can no longer wait for the stone tablets of traditional media as a means
to inform the campus community and the broader society. When your brand and
reputation are under attack, you must be able to respond instantaneously. Your insti-
tution must develop a digital response system that is proactive and ready to act even
before a situation occurs.
Some recommended action steps are as follows:
1. Create a digital response team with clear protocols and timelines for commu-
nicating in an ofcial capacity to all traditional and online media. This team
should include individuals trained in online media strategies. Establish clear
directives, not only for responding to crisis incidents, but for communicating
proactively the institutions diversity vision and policies. These teams should
be coordinated not only by dedicated diversity ofce staff, but by communica-
tion specialists from other departments and divisions. During moments of
crisis, a primary role of this group is to understand the issue at hand and
develop a series of statements that express the institutions perspective.
2. Colleges and universities need to integrate more effectively their diversity
agenda with the overall mission and values of the institution. The senior lead-
erships commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion should be reected
not just in the media and online communication strategies of the institutions
diversity division, but in a variety of community, staff, and administrative
contexts.
3. Build an online bank of trust with your most vital audiences around diversity
issues before a negative incident affects their rst impressions. By developing
an online community that includes both on- and off-campus stakeholders, you
have at hand an audience you can access directly via the Internet when issues
arise, or simply to update a new diversity initiative or success on campus.
Some priority channels of digital communication include e-mail lists, a Face-
book fan page, YouTube and iTunes channels, and a Twitter feed. These medi-
ums provide real-time messaging opportunities.
4. Develop an internal communication system for senior leaders to be able to
share positive ideas about issues of diversity. The goal is to generate content
that attracts ongoing interest outside of diversity crisis moments. It helps
here to establish a system that includes inuential students, faculty, staff, and
community leaders who have credibility around campus diversity issues and
are active in the digital world. Although recruiting diversity ambassadors is
always a delicate task, individuals who are not necessarily acting in an ofcial
staff capacity are often the most authentic. Given the right information and
(continues)
174 W HAT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?
(continued)
tools, these individuals may tell the diversity story in ways that the central
administration cannot.
5. Launch specic campaigns to take the pulse of students, faculty, staff, and
community members. Examples include online surveys and listening tours.
Members of the central campus leadership should be listening to what these
individuals are saying, particularly if they are active in the blogosphere. Web-
sites of student activists and organizations often provide an early warning sign
of emerging crises.
6. It is up to the senior and strategic diversity leaders to constantly educate the
community so that potentially any member can, when pressed, act as a posi-
tive and credible diversity ambassador. The challenge in todays digital world
is not simply what the university president says, but what a student or staff
member posts to his or her blog. Although it is a tall order to educate every
member of the campus community, the more proactive the institution, the less
chance there will be of an unexpected and unwelcome remark or incident.
Like any high-ranking elected ofcial, a college or university president

is an important symbol. Diversity crises are a critical test of leadership for
any president or senior ofcial as he or she must strike a balance between two
often impossibly difcult and contradictory expectations: being a symbol of
stability and continuity while setting in motion meaningful planning activi-
ties that can foster real change. The best presidents are able to strike a chord
of authenticity, illustrating empathy for the diversity issue at hand and its
implication for the affected community, afrming the institutional commit-
ment to diversity, and setting in motion actions that can ultimately lead to
a new course of diversity change. Unfortunately, diversity crisis moments are
too often the only time that college and university leaders will put the time
and energy into developing a campus-wide diversity plan, leading to plans
that often are not backed by a meaningful commitment to change.
Phases 5, 6, and 7: Planning Committees, Deliberation, and Campus
Diversity Plans
In Phase 5 of the model, the president or provost often appoints a campus
diversity planning group, ultimately tasking it to write a new campus diver-
sity plan or revise an existing one. These committees are generally large
and include a number of diverse stakeholders, including campus diversity
champions, faculty, students, and staff. What is striking about the discus-
sions that take place in Phase 6 is how disorganized they are and how far-
reaching the debates in their meetings usually become. Individuals use the
W H Y D I VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL 175
forum to air larger concerns about racism, sexism, and social inequality.
Although unquestionably important, these themes should only be explored
in the context of addressing the development of a concrete and workable
plan. Without a clear and directed focus, the discussion can end up swim-
ming in issues beyond the planning committee and institutions reach. As
one faculty member at a large institution in the Midwest explained:
These meetings feel insane at times. We spend hours arguing about the
ideas in our diversity plan and then make some type of decision because it
seems right. No one sticks to the point and we always end up talking
about issues that then never get resolved. We never get down to why we
cannot diversify our faculty. Or why we never seem to put teeth into our
diversity requirements and inspire White students to get it on issues of
diversity. The conversation just happens in a circular way and then a deci-
sion kind of happens and we go back to our separate worlds hoping some-
thing will be different.
These working groups generally take between four and six months to
develop a campus diversity plan, Phase 7 of the model. Although their size,
complexity, and lack of detailed knowledge about strategic planning, change
management, and state-of-the-art diversity efforts can prove limiting, these
committees play an important role in addressing the diversity crisis and
offering a symbol of hope and possibility around issues of diversity. In addi-
tion, they also play a critical role in creating a shared denition of diversity,
a rationale statement explaining why diversity is important, and even several
major recommendations. Frequent suggestions include improving the cam-
pus climate for diverse students, faculty, and staff; increasing the demo-
graphic diversity of students, faculty, and staff; and developing diversity
training and education platforms for the entire campus community. It is
worth noting that the development of the committee and the role that they
play as a symbol of hope and possibility is intrinsically good. In fact, manag-
ing the symbols of commitment and shared purpose are critical in the acad-
emy and an important component of strategic diversity leadership, a point
explored further in Chapter 5.
Phases 8, 9, and 10: Acceptance of the Plan, Delays, and

Implementation
Phase 8 involves senior leaders authoring and issuing a high-prole statement
of appreciation for the work of the committee and, in some instances, prom-
ises to implement its recommendations. How these plans are accepted is also
176 W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?
a part of the symbolic management of the diversity response, as the presi-

dent, provost, or even the board may be involved in accepting the plan as
the new vision for campus diversity. It is often here that the wheels come off
the train. Up to this point in the process, many institutions do a good job
of both responding to the diversity crisis and developing a solid foundation
for a diversity change strategy. But too often, long delays follow the plans
acceptance and little clarity is achieved for how the plan will actually be
implemented. That the plan may have been prompted by a diversity crisis is
really of little consequence if the institution is meaningfully committed to
moving forward with a well-resourced and focused diversity plan. The prob-
lem is that the great thought and care that went into developing the plan is
often not mirrored in the activation strategies necessary to carrying forward
a far-reaching and transformative change project over time.
Unfortunately, these plans often fail to grapple with the process of
implementation and change management. Incredibly thorough statements
of change often ring hollow when stacked against the material commitment
required to bring them to fruition. Only rarely do these plans offer clear
processes for activating change. Senior leaders are often not truly on board;
as a result, they fail to develop internal procedures that will hold leaders
accountable or link efforts to broader campus systems like administration,
nances, and strategic planning. Often these plans call for the appointment
of a CDO who will have primary responsibility for ensuring diversity prog-
ress, which usually requires signicant administrative restructuring. Another
weakness of these plans is that they generally lack incentives and resources
to encourage the broader campus communitys involvement. As a result,
implementation becomes the business of the campus diversity committee,
the CDO, and a few other committed individuals, rather than a shared
responsibility of the entire campus community.
More than any other factor, the leaderships commitment to deep and
meaningful change will determine whether the institution builds capacity
for the long-term. Although a majority of diversity reports do a commend-
able job of documenting the problem and presenting solid recommenda-
tions, they rarely provide an adequate inventory of existing diversity
capabilities, fully describe the implementation process, or lay out a detailed
budget. Consequently, many diversity plans end up being shelved because
institutions fail to follow through on the real work of implementing their
recommendations. Indeed, in a monograph on organizational change and
diversity for the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Wil-
liams, Berger, and McClendon (2005) summarized several reasons that diver-
sity plans often fail:
W HY D I V E R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL 177
Failure to conceptualize diversity work in terms of changing the orga-

nization and enhancing institutional culture
Resistance to the logic that diversity is fundamental to excellence
Low levels of meaningful and consistent support from senior
leadership
Failure to allocate sufcient resources to the process of change
Lack of a comprehensive and widely accepted framework to dene
diversity and track progress
Lack of accountability systems and the means of engaging individuals
in the change process at all levels
Lack of leadership and infrastructure to guide and facilitate the
change journey and direct campus diversity efforts at all levels of the
institution
Moreover, Iverson (2007) points out that these plans often convey a
whitewashed version of institutional reality that does not amplify the voice
of the most dissident members of the campus diversity community. To move
the agenda in a way that is truly meaningful, realistic, and potentially trans-
formative, the campus diversity planning processes must elevate the voice of
these individuals and others. In too many instances, the cycle repeats itself.
Eventually, there will be another incident, a new round of frustration, fol-
lowed by hollow promises and an inadequate follow-through. It is relatively
easy to develop a campus diversity plan with no accountability or incentives
to promote its implementation, or hire a low-ranking CDO who has no
material resources or ability to broadly inuence diversity issues on campus.
It is much harder to change the curriculum or admissions policies of the
institution, invest seriously in new retention programs and scholarships,
appoint a CDO who leads a portfolio of critical campus ofces and units, or
require faculty members to engage with issues of diversity in their teaching
and mentoring.
The Messy Nature of Change in Higher Education

Although this chapter began with a discussion of how diversity crises are
often the catalyst for diversity planning efforts, change is still difcult
because of the essentially conservative culture of the academy. Moreover,
change in the academy is a messy, imperfect process. When attempting to
implement a campus diversity plan or strategy, the rubber hits the road as
the change agenda confronts what Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) describe
178 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
as the organized anarchies of the academy. Irrational systems, nebulous

and multiple goals, complex and differentiated campus functions, and
loosely coupled systems of organization and governance are just some of the
dynamics that make organizational change so formidable in colleges and
universities (Birnbaum, 1988; Cohen et al., 1972; Peterson & Mets, 1987;
Weick, 1979). Indeed, the organizational culture of colleges and universities
is markedly different from corporations, hospitals, and other more vertically
structured institutions (Birnbaum, 1988). As a result, change is difcult in
higher education, and, if judged by past performance, diversity-themed
change is the most challenging of all. Too often, a diversity change effort
is confounded by parochialism, campus politics, and a lack of signicant
cooperation. It is for this reason that leadership must develop a clear imple-
mentation approach as part of the diversity plan, whether it emerges out of
a diversity crisis or not.
Top-down approaches that are not complemented by inclusive, collegial
efforts are sure to meet strong resistance. More importantly, a top-down
approach violates the unique quality of academic institutions in which col-
laboration and consensus are central to the social and institutional fabric. An
overbearing president or board of trustees, like a coercive legal ruling or
legislative mandate, run counter to the culture of participation and open
discourse that should exist at the heart of an academic institution. In those
rare instances in which colleges or universities have tried to implement a
diversity policy by at, the policy usually exists only as long as those who
created it are around to enforce it.
We often harvest the fruits of our labor only after a signicant amount
of time has passed. During a site visit, one president asked, How long
before we know if this is going to work or not? The answer was simple:
We dont. Leaders have to be willing to take an educated leap of faith to
make change happen, investing in initiatives that may not yield immediate
results but that over time prove critical. For instance, take an institutions
decision to send a group of campus leaders to a summer diversity leadership
institute focused on researching and assessing campus diversity efforts. This
institute might not pay direct dividends for several years. In tight budget
years, when resources are scarce, institutions may nd themselves question-
ing what they view as an uncertain return on their investment. But imagine
that the institution takes a gamble and sends the team to the summer insti-
tute. Following the experience, members of the team return home and
launch a series of program evaluations and research efforts that did not exist
before. The projects result in highly credible research exploring the chal-
lenges minority students face navigating the gateway courses in several prom-
ising elds and majors. These studies spark a series of forums involving
students and faculty members in key courses for which problems were identi-
ed. Campus retention and academic achievement programs begin to revise
the way they work and advise students. The institutional research ofce
begins issuing annual reports about campus diversity. New teaching peda-
gogy emerges in response to these conversations, and course completion
numbers begin to rise. Over the course of two or three years the initial
investment may lead to ripple effects that, slowly but surely, create positive
change on campus.
Garbage Can Decision Making

Because there is so much ambiguity about the denition, application, and
distribution of resources, discussions of diversity priorities are rarely straight-
forward. As a result, the garbage can model metaphor of organizational
decision making is particularly helpful to informing our understanding of
diversity decision making (Cohen et al., 1972). According to the garbage can
theory, an organization is a collection of choices looking for problems,
issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be
aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and
decision makers looking for work (Cohen et al., 1972, p. 2). In a garbage
can scenario, problems, solutions, methods, and participants are all mixed
together indiscriminately. The solution to a particular organizational chal-
lenge often ends up being whatever is on top of the heap, usually when a
particular course of action is politically expedient and answers the current
crisis.
Because resources are limited, diversity is often undervalued, priorities
are politicized, and decision makers often engage in diversity planning and
supportive activities only when the problem of diversity must be addressed
as a result of outside or unexpected inuences. The challenges of diversity,
the views of campus diversity champions, and the need to act are always
present. But absent an activation of these dynamics by some form of diversity
spark, many campus leaders will not pluck the diversity problem-planning
solution out of the garbage can as an area of priority for moving forward. It is
for this reason that so many campus diversity plans often emerge as the
highest priority only in the face of crises, rather than because of persistent
inequities, a lack of diverse faculty, problems with the campus climate, and
other rational arguments for change. In garbage can environments like the
academy, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities ow
into and out of the can. Solutions are activated when a particular course of
action is convenient, politically expedient, and provides resolution to a cur-
rently existing issue or problem. The crisis creates a political context needing
a solution, the campus diversity plan, which will result in an outcome, calm-
ing the campus community.
Whether driven by crisis or not, diversity-themed problems are often
addressed by uninformed or politically expedient solutions rather than by
analysis, evidence, and proven best practices. Take for example the decision
to reorganize campus diversity programs and eliminate a well-positioned
CDO position after the retirement of a long-standing ofcer. Although this
ofcer may have been very successful, the decision to reorganize is made
without any clear rationale other than that the new president wants to create
a diversity infrastructure that mirrors the one he or she experienced at a
previous institution. Prior to the retirement of the diversity ofcer, the presi-
dent did not have enough political capital to eliminate the CDO role and as
a result, the reorganization of the diversity program was only plucked out of
the can once the retirement made such a move possible. When garbage can
decisions happen, the underlying motives are often revealed. In this case, the
CDOs retirement allows the president to reorganize the campus in accordance
with the presidents past institutional experiences. It also provides a conven-
ient means to cut the administrative budget, withholding thousands of dol-
lars that had been authorized under a previous diversity plan. Finally, the
decision allows this particular institutions administrative infrastructure to
look more traditional and satisfy the interests of colleagues who desire con-
trol over the units and resources formerly assigned to the CDO. The reorga-
nization allows the president to meet his or her objectives without ever
having to discuss the cost and benets associated with the changes, or any
other justications for the decision.
Types of Institutional Change

One way that strategic diversity leaders can overcome the inherent anarchy
of the academy is to operate with a clear understanding, not only of the most
ambitious long-range goals, but of more immediate and pressing objectives.
People often possess uninformed notions of change and think that every new
diversity plan or initiative will result in transformation. Understanding and

tempering this perspective is key, even as strategic diversity leaders work
toward more transformative diversity possibilities. In one striking example,
a CDO at a Midwest institution rolled out a new partnership with a depart-
ment of intercollegiate athletics focused on African American athletes.
Although the project was innovative, had lots of support, and was evidence-
based, it was not a transformative project. It was a building block project
that over time could perhaps have led to signicant changes in graduation
rates and in preparing the athletes for life after college. Nevertheless, mem-
bers of the audience had clear preconceived ideas that the project should be
transformative, making statements like, I dont see how this project is going
to transform how athletes interact on campus, and I just dont see how
the experience of being an athlete is going to be radically different, even if
this is an important project. Inherent in these statements is one of the
challenges that diversity leaders face as they attempt to engage in change
work: a lack of appreciation for the challenge of creating change. Figure 4.2
plots a range of possible changes in terms of their pervasiveness and depth.
Although the long-term goal may be institutional transformation, strate-
gic diversity leaders, diversity planning committees, and others must have a
clear understanding of the different types of change initiatives that are possi-
ble, the central issue addressed by Eckel, Green, Hill, and Mallons (1999)
typology of institutional change. In their denition, two basic elements of
changedepth and pervasivenesscan be combined in different ways to
FIGURE 4.2
Typology of Institutional Change Outcomes
Source: Adapted from Eckel, Green, Hill, & Mallon, 1999.

182 W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE R S H I P?
describe varying magnitudes of change (Eckel et al., 1999, p. 13). Figure 4.2
plots change along these two dimensions, ranging from low to high. The
framework demonstrates that institutional change efforts fall into one of
four different categories: (a) minor adjustment, (b) far-reaching change, (c)
isolated change, and (d) transformative change (Eckel et al., 1999). As the
descriptions of each category demonstrate, campus leaders can map their
change initiatives by locating each activity along two axes, one reecting how
pervasive they are and the other reecting their depth. This graph helps us
categorize and prioritize different strategies based on the challenges and
rewards of implementing them.
Minor Adjustments
Located in the top left quadrant, minor adjustments are neither pervasive
nor deep, as the change is minor across both of these dimensions. Eckel
and associates (1999) suggest that this type of change is best thought of as
tinkering. The fundamental institutional characteristics remain un-
changed and the adjustments are narrow in reach and scope. An example
might include using multicultural examples in an introductory calculus
course. In this case, the change is isolated to one department, involving only
the faculty who teach this course and the students who take it. The change
is isolated and relatively easy to implement, and its consequences are usually
minimal.
Far-Reaching Change
The top right quadrant is far-reaching change, which may have broad impli-
cations but does not drill deep. An example might be the development of a
common set of campus climate research questions gathered from every mem-
ber of the campus community. This initiative involves every department but
not at a great level of depth, simply offering a data collection activity and
nothing more. There is no public report issued and no coordinated research
effort to learn why some units on campus are more inclusive and hospitable
than others through not only shared questions, but a campus-wide research
effort leveraging the same methodology. There is no guidance on improving
diversity training in light of the results. Hence, although this initiative is
broad in its reach, it does not permeate and transform the institutional struc-
ture or core.
Isolated Change
The lower left quadrant is isolated change, which has depth but lacks
breadth. For example, the math department decides to assume a leading
role on diversity issues. This produces changes in everything from recruiting
diverse student majors, revising the curriculum, and adopting new pedagogi-
cal techniques. The department then incorporates multicultural examples in
all of its courses and promotes the unique contributions of different cultures
to the development of math. A group of faculty members develops a strategic
alliance with the chief diversity ofce and writes a number of National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF) grants designed to increase the number of minority
math graduates. Finally, the department redesigns its postdoctoral program
to encourage the most outstanding minority students to attend its graduate
program. Over time, the department recruits from its own program to pro-
mote a more diverse teaching faculty. The changes are inspiring and pro-
found, but they are limited almost entirely to the individual effort of a
particular department and do not extend to other departments or the institu-
tion as a whole.
Transformational Change
In the lower right quadrant is transformational change, which occurs when
change is both pervasive and deep. Two leading voices in higher education
research, Eckel and Kezar (2003), dene transformational change as altering
the culture of the institution by changing select assumptions and institu-
tional behaviors, processes, and outcomes. Transformational change is deep
and pervasive, affecting the whole institution over time. Although transfor-
mational change is the holy grail of what many in the diversity community
seek, very few instances have been recorded in the history of higher educa-
tion (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Even fewer case studies of diversity-themed
transformational change have been written to date, with some of the best
work, by Peterson, et al. (1978), having taken place more than 30 years ago.
Thus, the kinds of detailed analyses that might make this kind of change
more accessible, and hence replicable, are missing.
To achieve transformational change, an institution puts multiple efforts
in place to become a national leader on diversity. This might include a
requirement that every campus department undergo a common faculty
diversication training experience. Department chairs might receive addi-
tional training on how to create an inclusive and supportive environment
184 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
for every member of their faculty. A central fund might be generated to

provide support for department chairs and deans to pursue minority faculty
and women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) elds
that goes beyond the normal search processes. Every search committee might
have to prove that it is casting a broad net in its searches, maximizing the
chances for achieving greater diversity. Finally, every new diverse faculty
member might receive a mentor and have the option of participating in a
yearlong leadership development series that includes access to special work-
shops designed to increase his or her productivity. This type of effort would
touch a broad swath of the institution in deep and meaningful ways. Box 4.3
provides a description of a compelling set of gender-based transformational
change efforts being pursued by the NSF.
BOX 4.3
The National Science Foundation Advancement of Women in
Academic Science and Engineering Careers Institutional
Transformation Program
Over the next several years, one of the places that may prove ripe for understanding
the process of achieving transformational diversity change is in the work funded
by the NSF Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers
(ADVANCE) program. The primary goal of the ADVANCE program is to develop sys-
temic approaches to increasing the representation and advancement of women in
STEM careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science
and engineering workforce. The program emphasizes creative strategies and
approaches, including a specic category referred to as Institutional Transformation,
which are awards that support comprehensive programs for institution-wide change.
Institutional Transformation projects include a research component designed to
study the effectiveness of the proposed innovations to contribute to the knowledge
base informing academic institutional transformation. With transformation awards at
Brown University, the University of Arizona, the University of Wisconsin, and several
others, this ve-year project should reveal a number of lessons regarding the diver-
sity transformation process.
Some of the ADVANCE strategies include (a) search committee training pro-
grams, (b) campus climate survey projects, (c) developing New Women in Science
and Engineering research centers, (d) equity workshops, (e) targeted mentoring ini-
tiatives, (f) department-level diversity committees, (g) family-friendly policies, and
(h) policies designed to enhance the climate of inclusion for women.
(continues)
(continued)
Given that this ve-year effort is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in sup-
port, with more than 30 institutions receiving awards, this project is ripe for provid-
ing a number of lessons regarding the institutional diversity transformation process.
Diversity champions should watch the maturation of this effort to learn about the
successful techniques that were used at the institutions funded by the NSF.
Source: National Science Foundation (2008).
Strategy as the Key Building Block of Institutional

Transformation
Critical to developing a transformative diversity change agenda is an under-
standing of the difference between a strategy and the tactics that support
it. Strategy centers on knowing where you want to go and focusing your
organizational energy to accomplish a particular set of goals to advance the
institutions diversity agenda. CDOs, diversity requirements, diversity sym-
posia, targeted recruitment efforts, urban marketing efforts, domestic partner
benet programs, ethnic and gender studies departments, LGBT safe zone
initiatives, women in science and engineering efforts, and study abroad pro-
grams are all examples of the tactical building blocks of strategy. Frankly,
too many of our diversity efforts take place in the tactical realm, lacking an
overarching strategic plan. Although important in themselves, these initia-
tives, if not integrated in an overarching strategy, will exist in disconnected
silos, a set of free-oating and truncated possibilities. This is not to say that
every diversity effort must live under the same organizational structure. To
the contrary, one of the strengths of higher education is the creativity and
entrepreneurial possibility that exists because of its decentralization. What it
does suggest is a need to understand how all of the pieces of the diversity
puzzle t together and how organizational restructuring and creative partner-
ships can foster a whole that is greater than its parts.
To accomplish our objectives in a world of limited resources and
expanding needs, we simply must coordinate our efforts through a shared
vision. Efforts that are linked collaboratively can obtain greater resources
and achieve greater recognition than efforts that are not coordinated. The
distinction between strategy and tactics is key, because for too long institu-
tions have developed discrete diversity tactics without thinking through how
these tactics come together to support an institutions overall diversity objec-
tives. Strategy is about developing a sustained vision for structural and cul-
tural change that connects the dots between tactical elements like programs,
policies, and resources. One reason for outlining the different types of orga-
nizational diversity dimensions that exist in higher education is to equip
campus leaders with the appropriate conceptual frameworks for understand-
ing where campus diversity capabilities can be found and how they comple-
ment each other. Box 4.4 provides an example of a campus-wide diversity
strategy that fosters democratic outcomes for all students.
BOX 4.4
A Democratic Outcomes Strategy
One example that comes to mind is the goal of ensuring that all students have a
baseline diversity competence that allows them to view the world from multiple
perspectives and take the position of others when interacting in diverse groups and
teams. To reach this goal of establishing what P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin
(2002) refer to as democratic outcomes, an institution must develop and align capac-
ity to build a clear and cohesive agenda to accomplish this goal.
This might mean developing a new general education diversity requirement
anchored to a clear set of student learning outcomes that every student must fulll;
establishing a new summer diversity leadership institute for the campuss most high-
prole student leaders; building a course credit intergroup dialogue program collabo-
ratively between the various departments and the campus multicultural center; and
relentlessly marketing the program to students, ensuring that a large number
participate.
The strategy might also include establishing a diversity-themed common book
reading project that all incoming students would read before enrolling as rst-year
and transfer students. Another goal might be to ensure that more than 75 percent of
all students have a global experience before graduating, and to make securing
resources to meet this goal a major part of the institutions next capital campaign
fund-raising effort.
Taken collectively and assessed over time, these tactical moves are an example
of how an institution might ensure a high level of democratic outcomes among their
students. Strategy, in its most traditional sense, is dened as the ability to create
linear alignment between goals, structures, and models of organizational behavior
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). And although this is not the only way to develop strategy, it
is where every leader should begin in his or her efforts to provide strategic diversity
leadership on campus.
Transformational Change Must Shift the Institutional

Culture
Change that makes diversity a matter of excellence is neither a simple adjust-
ment nor an isolated event: it must be transformative. To truly achieve trans-
formative change we must address the institutional structure and culture.
Culture is the most challenging organizational attribute and is perhaps best
understood as a piece of fruit with a soft outer membrane and tough inner
core. As described by Edgar Schein (1985), cultures have multiple overlap-
ping layers. On its outermost, supercial level, culture is easy to see, manipu-
late, and change. Supercial changes to a campus culture might include
inserting minority student pictures into brochures and websites, relocating
the multicultural center to the heart of campus, or developing a new mural
that depicts diverse traditions in a student union heritage room. Although
supercial cultural changes can be complicated by campus politics and com-
peting interests over resources, this level of change is typically easy to accom-
plish. Figure 4.3 shows how various cultural spheres can overlap.
The second level, composed of traditions, myths, and symbols, is less
tangible and represents patterns of thought and action that are more unique
to a specic campus. Examples include graduation ceremonies and well-
known campus stories and events. Here the cultural change effort may center
on creating LGBT graduation or orientation events as part of a strategy to
include and celebrate this group on campus. Another example is to infuse
diversity into academic life by featuring a minority author in a common
book reading program that involves the entire freshman class and their
professors.
The third level is composed of routine, everyday behavioral patterns
and organizational processes that are even harder to change. Some examples
include how faculty search committees often exclude ethnically and racially
diverse job candidates in their standard recruitment policies. Rather than
casting a broad net and proactively seeking out diverse faculty candidates,
many search committees still only make recruitment calls to trusted col-
leagues whom they have worked with for years. Or they fail to post their
jobs in a publication like Diverse Issues in Higher Education or attend meet-
ings like the National Society of Black Physicists Annual Conference.
Because they are unable to change their normal patterns and behaviors, many
hiring and human resource personnel are unable to diversify their applicant
pool, and thus by extension the diversity of the faculty.
FIGURE 4.3
Multiple Models of Organizational Culture
Source: Adapted from Schein, 1985.
This level and the fourth level of institutional culture, espoused values
and beliefs, most closely reect the deeply embedded values and beliefs of an
organizations culture. It is at this level that diversity efforts are most com-
monly resisted because they challenge not just the institutional culture of
colleges and universities, but also the pervasive cultural assumptions held by
larger society. These broader assumptions include measuring student
potential through standardized test scores alone, making tenure decisions
on a cryptic and arcane set of expectations, or maintaining exclusionary
campus traditions for their own sake. For many people, even those with good
intentions, promoting diversity is unconsciously associated with lowering
standards or meeting quotas. The cultural values gap between the current
crop of institutional leaders and todays generation of students is especially
wide. More often than not, it is the senior administration and staff who hold
stubbornly to a set of symbols, myths, traditions, and behaviors that do not
afrm diversity. It is for this reason that creating transformational change is
so difcult.
To promote transformational change, the institutional culture must shift
at several levels. The task is to identify ways to create a powerful vision and
then implement concrete programs and policies that will lead to transforma-
tional change. Otto Scharmer, a founding codirector of the Society for Orga-
nizational Learning, argues that the key condition for transforming an
organizations culture is to nd the strategic leverage point. Drawing on his
fathers work as a farmer, Scharmer (2007) notes that each culture has two
worlds, the visible realm above the surface and the invisible realm below
(p. 7). The leverage point is at the interface between the two worlds, where
they meet, connect, and intertwine (p. 7). Thus, to create and sustain inclu-
sive learning environments, institutions must seek those places where the
visible elements, such as symbols and myths, intersect with the invisible
elements, such as administrative structures and unconscious priorities.
Hence, a campus-wide diversity plan is insufcient to transform the culture,
unless the plan is supported by an implementation strategy that is com-
plex, evolving, and at once both centralized and diffused. Box 4.5 addresses
the issue of leadership development as a platform for diversity-themed
transformation.
BOX 4.5
Building Human Capacity to Lead Diversity Efforts
One of the most powerful levers for creating change can be found in an institutions
human resources, namely its faculty and administrative leaders. From this vantage
point, institutional leaders have three options for developing a team of strategic
diversity leaders:
1. Remove people from ofce who no longer meet the expectations of an institu-
tions emerging diversity agenda.
(continues)
(continued)
2. Cultivate new understanding, attitudes, and skills among current administra-
tors, faculty, and staff.
3. Bolster the efforts of those already involved in campus diversity efforts by
enhancing their visibility and ability to work.
Although in some cases changing an institutions leadership culture requires

making personnel decisions, in most cases institutional leaders should focus on
enhancing the efforts of existing staff. This means developing human performance
enhancement strategies designed to educate faculty, staff, and students regarding
the denitions, framework, skills, and abilities required to help foster a more diverse
and inclusive campus culture. The use of the term educate is meant to emphasize
that leadership development is best accomplished through a conuence of learning
pedagogies and not simply diversity training workshops.
Traditional diversity training programs aligned with the Afrmative Action and
Equity Model may not necessarily expose participants to opportunities for transfor-
mational change. Granted, these workshops are important because they provide an
opportunity to help all students feel welcome on campus. Done right, they help foster
a more inclusive campus culture in which all students, regardless of background, are
prepared to succeed in a diverse, multicultural, global society. However, transforma-
tional change requires more than basic diversity training around interpersonal
dynamics, sexual harassment, and the benets of diversity. It requires creative lead-
ers facilitating new skills, abilities, and understanding in faculty, staff, and adminis-
trators. One example of this strategy hails from the University of Connecticut, where
a 90-minute lunch session called Conversations on Diversity created a forum for
the president, provost, deans, and vice presidents to engage in working meetings
around diversity topics like minority faculty recruitment and retention strategies, and
the promotion of women and minorities in the STEM disciplines. These meetings
took place several times a year and feature prominent scholars and researchers
addressing issues of diversity from both a scholarly and concrete perspective, not
only describing the challenges but also prescribing solutions.
To truly transform institutional culture, campus leaders must help colleagues
develop new ways of thinking. In transformational change, the entire community
undergoes a fundamental shift in attitudes and understanding. This is the goal of the
Conversations on Diversity program at the University of Connecticut. In the
absence of new mental models to interpret current diversity priorities and contexts,
campus leaders will continue to rely on awed, incomplete, or otherwise unproduc-
tive strategies built from their past experiences.
The Difculty of Transformational Change

Transformational change efforts by diversity ofcers and committees are
effective only insofar as they can be implemented. For a change to be trans-
formative, it has to be shared and executed at multiple points within the
institution, moving organically in such a way that it touches everyone.
Resources must be committed over time and senior leadership must be
involved in a substantial way. For change to be transformative, not only
structures but core assumptions must evolve. Too often campus diversity
plans are one dimensional, resulting in minor tactical adjustments. Either
campus leaders do not understand the process of institutional transforma-
tion, or are afraid of the backlash that comes from trying to challenge the
way things have always been done. For example, Virginia Tech2 and the
University of Oregon3 experienced this challenge directly when courageous
leaders at those institutions began connecting the diversity conversation to
the performance management systems of their institutions in a substantive
way. In both instances, the conversation began regarding the development of
best-practice diversity accountability systems. The systems involved assessing
facultys individual contributions to the campuses diversity agenda as part
of their annual review (Virginia Tech), and evidence of culturally competent
skills (University of Oregon). In both instances, these more aggressive
accountability techniques were met with staunch resistance from a small,
vocal group of diversity opponents locally and, in Virginia Techs case,
nationally.
Diversity champions need to appreciate that the most ambitious diver-
sity efforts, while often offering the best means of moving the diversity
agenda forward, inevitably rock the boat. Indeed, often a clear sign that an
institution is doing something meaningful occurs when diversity opponents
and their sponsoring organizations emerge to ght it. The challenge stems
not just from the well-nanced efforts of conservative opponents, but more
diffuse resistance from within the ranks of general diversity supporters. These
individuals may support the idea of diversity, but lose conviction once faced
with concrete plans that require them to change their assumptions and tradi-
tional procedures. One assistant vice president at a midsized university in
the Southwest had this to say about a nominally supportive colleague in her
ofce:
Everything was great until we started talking about real accountability and
requiring someone to do something; then the conversation changed. My
liberal faculty colleagues left me standing at the altar as I was the only one
lobbying for something aggressive and intentional. No one had the stom-
ach to stand up and ght for something that would really put some skin
192 W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P ?
in the game around requiring new behaviors and expecting people to actu-
ally do something different as part of their performance review. We can
talk all we want about accountability, but until we change the parameters
of what we expect, nothing will happen.
Change requires courage, a fresh take on where the institution is at this

present moment and where it needs to go in the future. It also requires
sustained effort to achieve the goals and objectives that have been estab-
lished. It is always a challenge to introduce something different into familiar
contexts.
Dynamic Diversity DNA

The author developed the term Dynamic Diversity DNA to help strategic
diversity leaders locate their institutions along a continuum of diversity-
themed planning and implementation. Taken together, the strategic diversity
idea, diversity infrastructure, senior leadership support, planning systems,
change activation techniques, and nancial resources constitute an institu-
tions Dynamic Diversity DNA. Just as a double-helix strand of DNA is
held together by bonds between base pairs of nucleotides whose sequence
spells out the exact instructions required to create a unique organism, the
Dynamic Diversity DNA of an institution has six base pairs of institutional
diversity nucleotides. Figure 4.4 show how these building blocks combine
and recombine to determine the form an organization takes, and whether it
can achieve its diversity goals.
The Dynamic Diversity DNA image helps us appreciate the unique ways
that an institution will shift and recongure in response to its compositional
building blocks. No building block stands alone; they are all interdependent.
Therefore, steps taken to modify any or all of the building blocks must be
coherent, coordinated, and clear. Changing any one element in isolation is
likely to affect the other ve in unintended ways and may set the organiza-
tion back rather than move it forward. Indeed, this is often the case when a
new leader comes on board and has a radically different idea of how the
strategic diversity plan should be framed and implemented. In some
instances, this may lead to a strengthening of the various aspects of the
Dynamic Diversity DNA. In other instances, it may lead to weakening,
especially if the new leadership simply does not view diversity as a priority.
Does the new leadership have a vision for how to accomplish its diversity
goals and are they based on a combination of well-researched evidence,
FIGURE 4.4
Dynamic Diversity DNA
194 W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?
TAB LE 4. 3
Dimensions of Dynamic Diversity DNA
Dimension Denition
Strategic Diversity The way diversity is dened and how the institution engages
Idea diversity as a matter of strategic priority
Diversity Presence of dedicated institutional diversity ofces, initiatives,

Infrastructure and committees, particularly at senior levels of leadership and
governance
Senior Leadership Presidential and provost-level support that includes the

Support commitment of academic deans, senior administrative leaders,
and faculty governance systems
Strategic Planning Presence of logistical and staff resources to guide the campus
Systems community in an inclusive stakeholder process that produces a
strategic diversity plan
Change Activation Presence of incentive, accountability, and reporting systems to

Techniques drive, reward, and encourage change, along with effective systems
for assessing and, when necessary, revising the plan and
redirecting resources and activities
Resources Presence of staff, nancial, and other resources to implement

strategic diversity plan
national best practices, and the specic needs of the particular institution?
Or is the new leadership guided by a combination of ignorance, instincts,
and whim?
The only imperative is that the six building blocks of Diversity DNA
work together rather than at cross-purposes to move the campus diversity
agenda forward. Given the imperatives for diversity, institutional leaders
need to give serious consideration to recombining their Diversity DNA.
Achieving organizational alignment can differ depending on the institution.
There is no universal prescription or right answer.
Stages of Institutional Diversity Movement

These building blocks are organized in a stage model of growth and develop-
ment that hinges on two related dimensions of intentionality and resource
allocation. As these two dimensions increase, institutions often become more

focused and ultimately successful in pursuing their campus diversity agendas.
As reected by the straight line in the model, movement from lower to
higher stages involves increasing complexity, sophistication, and comprehen-
siveness in the diversity planning and implementation process, as institutions
go from launching the discussion on campus to moving through ever more
progressive stages of diversity planning, resource allocation, and capacity
building. The model describes increasingly complex ways that institutions
evolve their diversity efforts in a particular direction. Without an intentional
allocation of resources and a strategic commitment to using best practices,
creating economies of scale, linking conversations, and clarifying focus, insti-
tutions are left with a diversity implementation process of doing something
for a limited period and then wondering why they were not more successful.
Even then, without constant evaluation and revision, institutions can build
an ambitious strategic diversity agenda that works for a limited period and
then sputters, leaving the leaders to wonder why they were not as successful
as they had hoped. Figure 4.5 shows how success hinges on the two twin
factors of the allocation of resources and the intentionality of efforts. It also
illustrates how as the institutions Diversity DNA shifts, the institution will
nd itself in a different space along the dimensions of intentionality and
resource allocationhence the double-helix aspects of the model in Figure
4.4 have been incorporated into Figure 4.5.
The Dynamic Diversity DNA stage model has a different focus from
diversity stage models developed by Chesler (1994) and Jackson and Holvino
(1988), which focus on general cultural dynamics of institutions as they move
from homogenous to multicultural communities. Rather than a general ori-
entation toward organizational culture, the Dynamic Diversity DNA model
focuses on whether institutions are intentional in building diversity-themed
capacity from a formal structural perspective. Such structural change in-
cludes establishing dedicated ofces, unit, plans, budgets, and initiatives to
achieve an institutions stated diversity goals (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Wil-
liams et al., 2005). It is not a commentary on an organizations culture, or
its movement from being a space of exclusion to one of inclusion, although
it stands to reason that if an institution is moving more intentionally and
allocating greater resources, the institutional culture should become more
diverse and inclusive in response to those efforts.
As several scholars have noted, institutions are always on a continuum
with regard to issues of capacity development and cultural change (Chesler,
1994; Jackson & Holvino, 1988; Katz & Miller, 1997). When working with
196 W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?
FIGURE 4.5
Dynamic Diversity DNA Stage Model
colleges and universities, it may help to use the six building blocks of the
Dynamic Diversity DNA to identify where an institution is in terms of its
capacity to implement the diversity idea. This analysis, in turn, can be used
by diversity leaders to plot the institutions movement along four principal
stages of institutional development. They include (a) start up, (b) transi-
tional, (c) mature implementation, and (d) inclusive excellence. Stage 4 is
achieved only rarely, but represents the ideal that every institution should
seek. The model also identies some of the key themes that are relevant to
organizational evolution both within and between stages of development.
For example, themes like Generating Energy and Crystallizing the
Agenda are placed in the model to imply that strategic diversity leaders
need to focus on these issues to advance their efforts from the start-up to the
transitional stage of development. Table 4.4 presents each of the stages, plot-
ted against the major Diversity DNA building blocks and key themes of
organizational development. Their placement at a particular location on the
diversity stage continuum are not meant to imply that they hold no relevance
for other stages, but that these are the dominant themes associated with
successful diversity movement at a particular moment in an institutions
progress.
Reading the diversity stage model gives a diagnostic insight into the
diversity readiness of an institution. The analysis provides heuristic clues as
to where the institution is and whether the institutions denitions, goals,
planning systems, and infrastructure are internally coherent. Campus leaders
and other diversity champions should have a clear understanding of their
institutions location if they are going to overcome the inherent challenges
of the institutional culture of higher education. As the DNA threads
depicted in Figure 4.5 suggests, institutions cycle up and down the various
stages of the model depending on a variety of contingencies, from leadership
changes to budget cuts, and from changing denitions of diversity to judicial
rulings that change admissions policies, just to name two. As an institutions
Diversity DNA shifts, so does its stage of diversity capacity, moving from
less intentional and resource-intensive efforts to more intensive and resource-
laden efforts through the years and various shifts in leadership, structure,
and other organizational dynamics.
Stage 1: Start Up
Many institutions are just beginning to launch their discussions of campus
diversity. For these institutions, simply trying to foster a collegial and pro-
ductive conversation poses a signicant hurdle. Unfortunately, in most
instances it takes a crisis event to activate the discussion. At these institu-
tions, no senior leaders are involved, and this lack of initiative reverberates
throughout the broader campus community. It is not uncommon for many
leaders to operate from the colorblind diversity perspective explored in
Chapter 2. For many, diversity is either not on the radar or is considered a
distraction from advancing the goals of academic excellence. At these institu-
tions it is safe to say that diversity is not dened as an institutional priority.
Minimal diversity infrastructure exists at many levels of institutional life.
There are few if any staff or personnel focused explicitly on diversity con-
cerns, much less developing and implementing an ambitious strategic diver-
sity plan. If capacity does exist, it is generally limited to a student cultural
TAB LE 4. 4
Diversity Stage Model Overview
Dimension Start Up Transitional Mature Implementation Inclusive Excellence
The Diversity Diversity is neither Diversity is Diversity is an idea that has Diversity is dened broadly
Idea dened nor a beginning to been dened in broad and and exists at the highest
priority. emerge as a point inclusive terms and is a level of institutional
of conversation, priority on campus across a importance as foundational
but is narrowly range of different diversity to mission fulllment and
dened and still dimensions. institutional excellence. It
not a high priority. has become a widely
embraced cultural value
that manifests itself in
myriad ways.
Diversity The campus has A handful of Several diversity units and A chief diversity ofcer role
Infrastructure few if any campus diversity initiatives exist across the may exist, although how it
dedicated ofces, initiatives, Afrmative Action and is dened and positioned is
infrastructure and systems may Equity, Multicultural and variable. Diversity may be
resources focused exist, but are Inclusion Diversity, and part of the general
on issues of limited and Learning, Diversity, and education curriculum, and
diversity. marginalized. Research Models. faculty may engage in
Some typical robust diversity-themed
infrastructures research. A chief diversity
include ofcer role exists to support
underfunded the vision of the president
cultural centers and provides broad
and afrmative collaborative leadership to
action ofcers, but the campus diversity
little else. Diversity agenda. A campus-wide
issues are not governance committee
formally part of the exists to guide and develop
general education campus diversity efforts. A
curriculum, host of afrmative action
although they may and equity, multicultural
exist in isolated and inclusion diversity, and
courses on campus. learning, diversity, and
research efforts are
coordinated as diversity
capacity is substantively
integrated into the
curriculum and
cocurriculum.
Senior Diversity is not on Senior leadership is Senior leaders generally Senior leadership is a vocal
Leadership the radar of senior beginning to have a strong awareness of and material advocate for
Support leaders, and they engage; however, diversity issues, particularly campus diversity priorities,
put minimal if any they have a limited traditional issues of access broadly dened. They lead
energy into knowledge and are and equity for historically the discussion, empower
accomplishing slow to provide underrepresented minorities others, direct resources, and
campus diversity resources beyond and women. They use their generally move the
goals and priorities. symbolic support. authority to provide campuss strategic diversity
attention and resources, agenda as part of their
although their efforts may efforts to ensure academic
be uneven across all excellence, drive fund-
dimensions of their raising, build alumni
institutions diversity relations, and develop
agenda. Leadership drift strategic partnerships.
may set in as transitions
occur.
Planning No diversity plans A major goal is to The campus may have A comprehensive system of
Systems exist in any way. develop a campus developed a series of diversity-planning systems
diversity plan, but diversity plans through the exists as an embedded
it may have yet to years that have been component of the academic
materialize outside implemented to varying and strategic plans, as well
of an effort to levels of success. This may as in centralized and
integrate diversity include centralized, decentralized diversity plans
symbolically into decentralized, and that focus specically on
the campus integrated diversity plans. issues of diversity, equity,
academic or and inclusion. These plans
strategic plan. are linked to one another as
diversity is dened
consistent with institutional
excellence, and the focus is
on effect and organizational
change.
Change No accountability No accountability Diversity accountability Leaders have created
Activation or incentive or incentive systems exist in modest accountability systems that
Techniques systems exist to systems exist to ways at the level of counting value diversity and hold
activate change on activate change on and measurement, perhaps leaders accountable for their
campus because campus. The in the form of a biannual actions to advance the
diversity is not a majority of efforts diversity report. Some campuss diversity
priority focus on institutions may have priorities, in addition to
institutionally. relationship incentive programs to annual reports and efforts to
building and good encourage diversity measure what is taking
will. involvement, but they often place on campus. Tenure
come and go, depending on and promotion decisions
campus budget priorities may include a component
and senior leadership. focused on diversity, as well
as performance reviews and
budget allocation. Financial
and other incentives
encourage and reward
engagement through
diversity challenge grants.
Resources Diversity resources Diversity resource Diversity resource Diversity funding is
are nearly allocations are allocations are high generous institutionally and
nonexistent. limited. institutionally, but leaders resources are maximized
face the challenge of fully. Not only are diversity
maximizing the return on efforts protected in good
investments. Diversity nancial times and bad, but
budgets may not be totally diversity is a priority goal of
embedded into the base campus fund-raising,
budgets of schools, extramural activities, and
departments, and divisions, other aspects of institutional
existing in dedicated life.
accounts that may come
and go with institutional
budget priorities.
center or multicultural affairs ofce with little budget or full-time staff. No

senior-level CDOs or campus diversity committees exist to provide broader
leadership, strategic thinking, or advice. No diversity accountability or
incentive systems exist to drive change. Indeed, little emphasis is placed on
creating a more inclusive and diverse campus community.
The single greatest diversity resource on campus may be that there are
volunteer diversity champions working to generate momentum on campus,
hosting discussions among themselves in an effort to raise awareness and
understanding. The major challenge they face is how to generate positive
energy and make diversity concerns an institutional priority. The central goal
is to prepare their campus for a broader conversation about why diversity is
important, what other institutions are doing, and why the college or univer-
sity might create a rationale for change. At this stage, simply dening a
campus diversity committee might constitute success. It is typical for campus
diversity champions to hope that national speakers and consultants can be
brought to campus to help frame the diversity discussion. The more that
this conversation can dispel stereotypes and misperceptions, the more it will
create a sense of urgency and relevancy as to why diversity matters today.
Stage 2: Transitional
Stage 2 is transitional in nature as the diversity discussion begins to emerge
as a point of conversation among senior leadership. As yet, however, no
cohesive institutional framework or agenda has emerged. To the extent that
diversity is discussed by senior leadership, it is limited to body-count diver-
sity or increasing the number of minorities on campus as opposed to achiev-
ing equitable outcomes in terms of graduation rates and promotion to
tenure, or viewing diversity as a fundamental ingredient to improving stu-
dent learning and leadership development. At this phase of development,
leadership is slow to provide nancial support to build diversity capacity. If
capacity does exist, it is buried deep in the formal institutional infrastructure,
although more capacity may exist than at the initial start-up stage of develop-
ment. In some instances, the campus may have an underfunded student
affairs or diversity ofce and an afrmative action ofcer who may report to
the president or provost, but has little ability to inuence diversity outside
of equal employment opportunity and other workplace issues.
Diversity may be mentioned in the campus strategic or academic plan,
but its inclusion is more symbolic than material. Although many campus
diversity champions are calling for a dedicated campus diversity plan and a
high-ranking CDO, these goals remain beyond the reach of institutions at
this stage of development. A diversity committee may exist but is struggling
to gain a clear sense of its mission and how to help the campus community
move forward. Financial resources are allocated to diversity efforts at a
slightly higher level than the opening stage of development, but are limited
W H Y DI VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL 201
to programs like student scholarships. Resources are particularly limited in

terms of their focus on Learning, Diversity, and Research Model capabilities.
There is no diversity distribution requirement or efforts to encourage
involvement in high-impact learning experiences like study abroad, commu-
nity service learning, or intergroup relations. Nor is there any real commit-
ment to developing ethnic studies, womens studies, and other academic
areas that will create classroom opportunities to educate students about our
increasingly diverse, global world. Unsurprisingly, no accountability or
incentive systems exist to activate the campus diversity agenda, as no regular
diversity reports are generated at even the most basic levels.
Institutions at this stage should be focused on building a more struc-
tured campus diversity agenda and looking for ways to enhance their current
diversity efforts. Although they have yet to adequately allocate resources to
fund their campus diversity efforts, the goal is to move in this direction. The
greatest challenge at this stage is creating a material commitment to diversity
that will lead to new nancial investments and the serious development of a
campus diversity plan and implementation effort. Similar to start-up phase
institutions, these campuses often look to national thought leaders to provide
senior leadership with new ways of framing campus diversity efforts. Absent
a diversity crisis moment that may generate new calls for change on campus,
one of the best strategies that these institutions can pursue is to develop a
campus grant from a private or public foundation that can bring new
resources and an ability to launch new diversity efforts.
Stage 3: Mature Implementation

In Stage 3, a mature implementation is in place as diversity has been dened
in broad and inclusive terms and has emerged as a clear priority on campus,
although it may be subject to budget cuts in difcult economic times. At
this stage, numerous diversity initiatives exist and the campus probably has
developed a denition of diversity and a number of statements about its
importance. Senior leaders generally have a strong awareness of diversity
issues, particularly traditional issues of access and equity for historically
underrepresented minorities and women. However, they still do not dene
their work as inspiring institutional change and transformation, but rather
in more incremental terms often associated with a new project here, a new
diversity plan there. They use their authority to provide attention and
resources, although their efforts may be uneven. Part of their frustration is
that diversity efforts never seem to go to the next level as accountability is
often limited to diversity reports that do a solid job of reporting ndings,

but do not take the next step of holding leaders responsible for accomplish-
ing diversity priorities.
Institutions may spend a lot of time in the mature implementation
phase. Indeed, many institutions may reach a level of mature implementa-
tion and never leave this stage of development, cycling within it for many
years, at times with a coherent diversity strategy and at other times not.
The Afrmative Action and Equity, Multicultural and Inclusion Diver-
sity, and the Learning, Diversity, and Research Models are all in play as the
diversity idea is dened in a way that is substantive and broad, if not con-
nected and strategic. Institutions at this stage may have numerous diversity
ofces, programs, centers, institutes, committees, and task forces. These
investments are making a difference on campus, providing services, offering
courses, and promoting research that is critical to accomplishing the institu-
tions strategic diversity goals. The campus may have a CDO role in place,
although it is variable, whether the role is optimally positioned for success
in terms of the ofcers formal authority and portfolio of responsibilities.
Diversity resource allocations are high institutionally, but leaders face the
challenge of maximizing their return on investment. Diversity budgets may
not be totally embedded in the base budgets of schools, departments, and
divisions, existing in dedicated accounts that may come and go with institu-
tional budget priorities, loss of campus grants, and changes in the economy.
Most institutions in this phase have developed multiple diversity plans.
Indeed the complexity of early success and then building diversity infrastruc-
ture for many years can overwhelm some campuses as they stumble forward
without clear focus, despite having implemented a series of campus diversity
plans. At this stage, it is common to nd what Clayton-Pedersen, Parker,
Smith, Moreno, and Teraguchi (2007) refer to as projectitis, as institutions
experience difculty achieving coordination, a more strategic focus and elim-
inating low-performing efforts. As a result, committed advocates have grown
frustrated with incomplete implementation, lack of overall success, and mis-
directed efforts across campus. Although this frustration is legitimate, it may
at times be overly critical, as these individuals often ignore many diversity
successes that exist alongside continuing challenges, preferring to focus on
how the glass of change is half-empty, rather than half-full.
Institutions at this phase must look to reinvigorate their campus efforts
and build rigorous accountability systems that move beyond periodic diver-
sity reports. They should also strengthen challenge grants and other incentive
programs as the campus-wide diversity agenda remains largely a matter for
W H Y DI VE R S IT Y E FF O R TS FA IL 203
campus diversity champions, CDOs, and others who are personally and pro-
fessionally committed to these issues. It is not a priority for the average
faculty, staff, and campus leader because they are not held accountable or
given incentives to become involved. It is also important for leaders at this
level to engage in rigorous assessments of their campus diversity efforts by
looking for ways to innovate, terminate, reorganize, and develop more col-
laborative diversity efforts that amount to more than the sum of their parts.
For those institutions with many race-conscious admissions, nancial aid,
and other efforts, it is critical that they ensure that these programs are consis-
tent with legal guidance governing the development of programs that may be
held to the legal standards of strict scrutiny (Coleman, Palmer, Winnick, &
Holland & Knight LLP, 2007).
Stage 4: Inclusive Excellence

Some institutions do achieve a lasting and successful strategic diversity
agenda with a clear investment of resources and a high degree of coordina-
tion in their efforts, moving toward inclusive excellence. This is the last
stage of the diversity evolutionary process. At the Inclusive Excellence stage,
diversity is dened broadly and exists at the highest level of institutional
importance as foundational to mission fulllment and academic excellence.
It has become a cultural value that manifests itself in myriad ways, including
being protected during difcult economic times and leadership transitions.
The focus is on strategic diversity thinking, planning, and implementation
of organizational systems and policies designed so that the institution funda-
mentally changes not only programs and policies, but how the campus com-
munity understands the challenges and opportunities of diversity.
At this stage, diversity is operational across three connected diversity
models: Afrmative Action and Equity; Multicultural and Inclusion; and
Learning, Diversity, and Research. As such, diversity is driven by social
imperatives, educational imperatives, and imperatives to enhance organiza-
tional performance. A CDO exists to provide broad integrative leadership
for the agenda. A campus-wide diversity governance committee exists to
guide and develop the plan. Beyond dedicated diversity roles, the broader
campus community and leadership play an active role in diversity efforts.
Diversity matters are substantively integrated into the curriculum and cocur-
riculum. Powerful communities of practice exist.
Senior leadership is a vocal advocate for campus diversity issues and is
actively engaged in implementation activities. The president and provost are
proponents of the agenda, helping to lead the discussion while simultane-

ously empowering the CDO and others to revise and improve processes.
Finally, these processes are fully integrated, making diversity synonymous
with institutional excellence. Each of the three diversity systems is activated
as leaders have created systems to hold leaders accountable for diversity
efforts. Tenure and promotion decisions may include a component focused
on diversity, community-based research, and service to diverse communities,
as well as performance reviews and budget allocation. Financial and other
incentives encourage and reward engagement with issues through diversity
challenge grants. Diversity funding is integrated and focused, as both tar-
geted resources exist alongside efforts to incorporate diversity into general
budget priorities and funding systems. Fund-raising, extramural activities,
and other streams include a focus on diversity.
Summary
My experience with the diversity change journey suggests that leading a long-
term campus diversity effort is like leading a jazz band. Inevitably, the jour-
ney will require careful listening and collaboration, creative bursts of energy,
and the need to harmonize different instruments. At times the audience is
largely an observer, and at times, through call and response, the audience
acts as a full participant. At times the pace will be fast and furious, as when
a crisis incident provokes an institutions cheetah response. At other times,
change will involve the gradual implementation of a new policy or program.
In still other moments, those on the journey will have to retrace their steps
after getting lost or to nd a new direction. No matter the tempo, strategic
diversity leaders never lose sight of where the change effort is going, even as
they look for creative ways to increase or slow the tempo as needed.
Indeed, helping the campus to engage the process of change is the key
idea that rests at the heart of the diversity effort. The enormity of our chal-
lenge necessitates that we move beyond rhetoric and engage in a disciplined
process of strategic diversity thinking that creates a space for new possibilities
and actions. Although some institutions may want little more than simplistic
myths and symbols, diversity champions and others must be ready to seize
any opening as an opportunity to create real and lasting change. Diversity
champions must pressure senior leaders to keep the institutional diversity
agenda alive, while fostering a space that allows for new initiatives and coali-
tions to emerge. At the end of the day, the focus must always remain on the
W HY DI VE RS I T Y E FF OR T S FA I L 205
institution taking positive steps forward, even if those steps are at times
incremental and slow. This is true for all members of the campus commu-
nity, from the president to an untenured assistant professor, from the provost
to a repairman in the maintenance department, from the board of the trust-
ees to the freshman arriving for her rst day of orientation.
Notes
1. The identication of the Harvard University case study is offered as an example of
how a diversity crisis often leads to campus mobilization and planning activities. Although a
full-blown case study of the Harvard University planning and implementation process is
beyond the scope of this book, this example illustrates many of the key characteristics of
diversity crisis and planning. As with many institutions, the implementation component
continues to evolve and can only be fully understood through an in-depth case study of
process, organizational dynamics, and institutional outcomes.
2. For an overview of the claims issued by the Foundation of Individual Rights in Educa-
tion please visit http://there.org/case/778.
3. Trower and Smith (2006).
5
THE ARTFUL SCIENCE OF
STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP
Most of the time, institutional leaders are thinking about what to do,
rather than how to do it. Strategy and process are afterthoughts, and too
often are simply ignored. How often do we hear about a well-conceived
campus initiative that failed because of a process that did not take into
account a particular group, or because it ignored the widespread fear
that the change engendered? At the end of the day, the personal, politi-
cal, and cultural aspects of changethe processwill make or break a
change initiative.
Eckel, Green, Hill, and Mallon (1999)
W
hen faced with the complexity of leading a diversity change pro-
cess, even committed senior leaders often nd themselves con-
fused, frustrated, and looking for someone simply to give me
the best practices and tell me what to do. This perspective has played itself
out in a number of visits to colleges and universities, Fortune 500 companies,
and major foundations. Many institutions are either unable or unaware of
how to initiate and implement an effective process on their own and end up
seeking a cookie-cutter template to meet their diversity challenge. For exam-
ple, during one visit to a college in the Southwest, the chair of the campus
diversity committee told the author, Look, I just want to know what I can
do to move this thing forward. I dont want to get into the consciousness
raising mumbo about diversity and institutional change. Just tell me what to
do and lets get it done.
Leaving aside the narrow perspective that this comment reveals, consider
for the moment just how important the process is to the nished product.
Without engaging in some consciousness raising, and appreciating how insti-
tutional change takes place, any diversity plan we seek to implement will
never rise above the level of window dressing. Indeed, a diversity plan done
206
T HE AR T F U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P 207
poorly may prove worse than no diversity plan at all. So although one may
wish for easy solutions, diversity-themed change is about more than imitat-
ing what seems to be working at other institutions, even though benchmark-
ing and environmental scans are important.
This discussion of strategic diversity leadership begins with the assump-
tion that effecting pervasive change around issues of diversity is both an art
and a science. Consequently, campus diversity champions must be sophisti-
cated in their approach and willing to work against the time-honored tradi-
tions and time-bound bureaucracies that render academic institutions so
resistant to change. Absent either powerful external forces (e.g., Hurricane
Katrina, the Great Recession, Californias Proposition 209) or powerful
internal motivators (e.g., a diversity crisis, a visionary leader, an activist stu-
dent body), diversity change efforts are often frozen by the resistant nature
of the academy.
Developing a Strategic Diversity Leadership Toolkit

To successfully lead on-campus diversity efforts requires a sophisticated yet
accessible toolkit that can help steer campus leaders through the diversity
change process. After all, the waters are treacherous and require a leadership
compass that can help to navigate options, cutting against the grain of tradi-
tion, artfully navigating issues both anticipated and unanticipated, and
applying the best diversity science possible. With more than 20 years in
education and extensive experience as a chief diversity ofcer, Dr. Justine
McKenny observed the following about the type of leadership that is
required to lead diversity change efforts in the academy:
You have to be able to see all of the angles: the politics, how the money
moves and who reports to whom. To be successful, you have to work on
the sly. You have to nd ways to clarify the issues without drowning in the
politics. This means that you need to work [the diversity agenda] a bit
differently from how you would work less political issues. Because diversity
is always political, you have to be strategic as you maneuver in and out
of the conversation, balancing the needs of your constituents, peers, and
superiors. If you want to be effective, you cannot simply be the good sol-
dier marching the proposal into the presidents ofce. You may get it
accepted, but you will never get it implemented. Success comes from work-
ing your agenda, building coalitions, pushing the message and working the
visible and invisible parts of the campus.
208 W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P ?
The compass image offered in Figure 5.1 stresses the need for diversity cham-
pions to understand organizational dynamics from several different perspec-
tives. By looking at diversity challenges from a number of different locations,
or coordinates, diversity leaders can anticipate challenges in creating change
activities, whether they are anchored in a new diversity plan, the symbols
associated with the title of a new diversity ofce, or the work of other leaders
FIGURE 5.1
Strategic Diversity Leadership Compass
T H E A R TF U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S I T Y L E A DE R S H I P 209
who must engage with diversity, ranging from the president to the chair of
the faculty senate, or even a student leader or corporate partner.
Having a multidimensional philosophy toward change is a fundamental
theme in the organizational literature, a key aspect of becoming a strategic
diversity leader and vital to navigating the turbulent cultural, political, and
administrative contexts of colleges and universities (Berger & Milem, 2000;
Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Morgan, 1986; Williams, Berger, &
McClendon, 2005). Successful diversity leadership is based on the assump-
tion that the most accomplished leaders determine the direction of their
leadership by examining the world from multiple frames of reference. As
such, strategic diversity leaders push the boundaries of understanding and
action by operating from an organizational learning perspective that rests at
the core of their practice as they ask different questions of themselves and
those around them. Who has authority over this decision? What is the real
reason this plan failed? Where are the resources required to lead change?
Who are the players? Is the chancellor or president committed? What are
the politics? Who are my key stakeholders? Do I need to get buy-in from
shared governance? Are my stakeholders supportive of my leadership? How
does the plan align with the budget? And what kind of message will this
decision send?
This chapter focuses on the ve key frames of strategic diversity leader-
ship depicted in Figure 5.1: (a) organizational learning, (b) structural leader-
ship, (c) political leadership, (d) symbolic leadership, and (e) collegial
leadership (Table 5.1). To describe fully their inherent qualities, each quality
is treated separately. The most sophisticated diversity leader, however, will
of course artfully apply particular combinations organically and uidly as
called for by the situation, or, in the terms of the guiding compass metaphor
offered here, as called for by their location in the diversity change journey
(Birnbaum, 1988). The key is for strategic diversity leaders to master each of
these perspectives and use them when exploring the opportunities and chal-
lenges of leading diversity-themed change.
Organizational Learning Frame

To break the cycle of awed diversity implementation efforts, strategic diver-
sity leaders must look for ways to change the governing organizational logic
of their institutions (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Paul, 2003). This means having
a philosophy of diversity leadership that focuses on learning from both past
210 W H AT I S S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P ?
TAB LE 5 .1
Dimensions of Strategic Diversity Leadership
Leadership Frame Description Importance Strategic Themes
Organizational Applying single-, double-, and Essential to breaking awed Single-loop learning
Learning triple-loop learning to build diversity implementation Double-loop learning
new organizational strategies efforts that lead to suboptimal Triple-loop learning
and tactical actions to advance achievement of institutional
institutional diversity goals outcomesand stand in the
way of institutional
transformation
Structural Leveraging formal Essential for delivering tangible Senior-level support
Leadership organizational structures, results on issues of diversity Organizational realignment
leadership roles, resources, and that move out of the abstract Fiscal strategies
policies to advance campus and philosophical and into the Mission
diversity goals meaningful and concrete by Accountability processes
allocating human and nancial Policy changes
resources and changing
institutional policies
Political Negotiating campus power Essential for understanding Political mapping of interests
Leadership dynamics, decision-making why campus diversity plans and Cultivating key relationships
processes, competing priorities, efforts are often enacted when Exchanging resources
and the importance of building political contexts change and Awareness of changes
relational and political capital power dynamics
to advance campus diversity recongureand navigating
efforts the turbulence that comes with
attempting to move the campus
diversity agenda
Symbolic Creating a social contract Essential for situating the Campus messaging
Leadership regarding diversitys campus community within a Shared denitions
importance through a system of common umbrella of shared High-prole events
shared values, symbols, rituals, meaning, purpose, and Diversity branding strategies
and meanings to advance the direction. Sensitive to the
campus diversity agenda shared social contract between
the various stakeholders on
campus and able to engage
them on the importance of
diversity to the institutions
moral and educational mission
Collegial Focusing on collective Essential for achieving deep and Town hall meetings
Leadership planning, decision making, and transformative change by Communication
implementation activities to engaging multiple stakeholders, Social networking techniques
advance campus diversity expanding consensus and Committees
efforts building strong coalitions. Learning forums
Sensitive to divergent opinions, Incentive programs
the democratic process, and
shared decision making
Sources: Adapted from Bess & Dee, 2008; Chaffee, 1985; Kezar, 2001.
T H E AR TF U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P 211
successes and failures, asking hard questions, and moving beyond previous
approaches that may have yielded inadequate outcomes. Indeed, the ability
to frame diversity challenges and submit them to rigorous evaluation is one
of the core skills of strategic diversity leaders, and is the focus of diversity
accountability and measuring performance issues in Chapter 6.
Figure 5.2 presents a visual representation of the deeper processes
involved in organizational learning. The work by Argyris and Schon (1974)
and Senge (2006) offers a strong starting point for developing an organiza-
tional learning model for strategic diversity leaders. In this gure, the process
of organizational learning goes through three stages, moving left to right
from the establishment of a governing organizational diversity logic, to diver-
sity strategy and tactics, and nally to diversity outcomes. The following
three learning loops help explain how strategic diversity leaders must engage
in several successive and overlapping learning processes if they intend to
achieve pervasive change in their institutions.
Single-Loop Learning
As the model depicts, single-loop learning is highly tactical and is situated
largely on making minor xes and adjustments. Leaders engaging the single
loop are centrally concerned with the question, What are we going to do
FIGURE 5.2
Triple Loop Model of Organizational Learning
212 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
now? Although this question is critical to organizational action, it may lead

to change that only happens at the tactical or supercial level of institutional
culture. Thus, single-loop learning strategies often ignore deeper issues that
may rest at the core of whether diversity goals are achieved. Too often, cam-
pus diversity leaders are locked in the projectitis referenced in Chapter 4.
Projectitis consists of engaging in project after project without either stop-
ping to take into account a changed environmental context or burrowing
deeply into a guiding institutional logic that is hindering the overall accom-
plishment of the institutions strategic diversity goals (Clayton-Pedersen et
al., 2007). For example, it is like focusing on creating a strategic diversity
hiring pool without considering how to address fundamental issues about
how the search and screen process is conducted. This conversation needs to
consider how the committee recruits and evaluates talent, and how depart-
ments ultimately nurture and support diverse faculty. Single-loop learning
means having a discussion about closing the achievement gap between ethni-
cally and racially diverse students without addressing how we address curric-
ular, nancial aid, and student life dynamics that are essential to achieving
the goals driving the conversation in the rst place.
Double-Loop Learning
Sometimes, to get new outcomes a strategic diversity leader will have to
rethink the base logic guiding his or her strategy and tactics. In double-loop
learning, the entities (individuals, groups, or organizations) question the val-
ues, assumptions, and policies that have produced an unsatisfactory or
incomplete outcome. The central question for strategic diversity leaders
operating with a double-loop learning mindset is, Why did it happen, given
the outcomes that we achieved? Finding answers to this question and mar-
shaling the courage to act is the difference between diversity efforts that are
meaningful and those that are woefully disappointing. Once the data is clear
and the plan developed, leadership must commit to acting in innovative
ways. For example, if the issue is minority student retention and academic
achievement, one underlying question rests on whether poor pedagogical
practices in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) gateway
courses have contributed to a disproportionately high failure rate for histori-
cally underrepresented students. These negative achievement levels inevita-
bly result in lower graduation rates and a host of other decient outcomes,
even when standardized test scores and other measures are controlled for in
evaluations of student achievement. Only through double-loop leadership
can we break the diversity crisis model and other awed theories of action
that continue to limit our work. Even if we are limited in our ability to
T H E AR TF U L S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A D E R S H I P 213
change the dominant organizational logic in a way that is pervasive, strategic

diversity leaders must drive for clarity, using their insights to frame the
agenda in new and substantive ways.
Triple-Loop Learning
Triple-loop learning happens at three levels and involves not only thinking
tactically (single loop), and in the context of guiding the organizational logic
(double loop), but also in terms of the big-picture strategic context of the
institution (see Figure 5.2). For example, when considering the K16 educa-
tional system, we need to consider actively the environment and the institu-
tions strategic reality, which will guide how we shape a new organizational
logic to drive action. When triple-loop learning occurs, deeper and more
meaningful diversity efforts become possible.
Perhaps one of the clearest needs for triple-loop learning occurs after
dramatic shifts in the policy environment. Here, the focus is on translating
an awareness of those shifts into a new understanding of what should be
done to achieve the institutions diversity goals. For example, a new govern-
ing logic and strategy emerged in Texas after the Fifth Circuit court struck
down the states afrmative action policies in its 1996 Hopwood v. Texas
ruling. As interpreted by the Texas Attorney General, the ruling was broad
enough to extend beyond admissions to a range of other policies, including
nancial aid, scholarships, fellowships, and recruitment and retention.
Knowing that the ruling would have had devastating effects on the states
still segregated and economically vulnerable minority population, the Texas
state educational system helped lobby for the passage of House Bill 588, the
Top Ten Percent law, which guarantees admission for the top ten percent
of all graduating Texas seniors to state public schools (Finnell, 1998).
While some questioned the effectiveness of the Top Ten Percent law,
it provides a clear example of triple-loop learning, because university leaders
were able to respond to a big-picture challenge presented by a shift in policy
with an approach that took strategic advantage of the states long-standing
inability to integrate fully its K12 schools (Harris & Tienda, 2012). By
thinking creatively, and acting decisively, the Texas public university system
was able to preserve its commitment to diversity, albeit in an altered form,
by capitalizing on geographic diversitycreating space for the top 10 percent
of every graduating class in the state. Undoubtedly, the policy environment
may have to shift again in response to the Supreme Courts ruling on Fisher
v. University of Texas. Still, it is encouraging to see that educational and
policy leaders in Texas have already been able to respond creatively and in
some ways effectively to a negative judicial ruling. The passage of the Top
Ten Percent law demonstrates the importance of leaders having a clear
understanding of the big-picture environmental forces that always play a role
in how diversity is enacted, particularly at public institutions. Box 5.1
explores the inherent challenges posed by geographic location to the triple-
loop learning approach.
BOX 5.1
The Triple-Loop Learning Approach and an Institutions
Geographic Location
Across America, colleges and universities can be found in every community, from
rural towns to sprawling metropolises. An institutions strategic diversity leaders
must reckon with the effects of such varied geographic locations. Whether the focus
is on increasing the representation and inclusion of diverse groups on campus or
ensuring that students have experiences with diversity in the curriculum and cocurri-
culum, the institutional environment can both constrain and enable diversity possibil-
ities. It is for this reason that a triple-loop learning perspective is essential as
institutional leaders seek to understand their environmental context.
Often one hears the following refrain from college ofcials in rural areas and
small towns: We cant recruit diverse faculty and staff to come work at our institu-
tion because we are located in a rural community. No one will come here. The
sticking point in an urban area can shift dramatically: This city is so expensive, no
one wants to come here. The cost of living is too high. Our response to both per-
spectives is to acknowledge that the challenge is real, and then lead a proactive
discussion about how to overcome the obstacles presented by geographic location
or cost of living.
Concerns about geographic location and cost of living are both essentially quality
of life issues representing variables that cannot be changed. Although an institutions
environment might be constraining, several initiatives can help mitigate these chal-
lenges. Too often, strategic thinking is constrained by a lack of creativity. Perhaps
the solution for overcoming the isolation of a rural institution is to focus on regional
attractions. The University of Connecticut has built momentum in this regard.
Although Storrs, Connecticut, is a small rural community, New Haven, Hartford, Bos-
ton, and Providence are all within an 80-mile radius and New York City is less than a
two-hour train ride away. In addition, New England is probably one of the most
densely populated university communities in the country, offering numerous oppor-
tunities for partnerships to emerge across campuses, something that has led to the
emergence of so many cross-organizational diversity afnity networks.
(continues)
T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I VE R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P 215
(continued)
College and university leaders have to understand their geographic context and
build programs to exploit what advantages may exist. Too often academic institutions
operate behind their ivy walls, ignoring rich learning and working resources that
could take students off campus and into situations in which they not only learn but
contribute to their local communities. Collaborative efforts that align students with
service-learning and internship opportunities pay dividends to the student, the insti-
tution, the community, and the economy. At the University of Wisconsin, for exam-
ple, academic leaders have partnered with corporate, faith-based, government, and
other stakeholders to develop a citywide diversity leadership group in Madison. One
of the rst activities of the group was the publication of a diversity-themed magazine
featuring cultural offerings in Madison. The goal was to create a resource that major
organizations could use to market Madison to diverse constituencies. Unless diver-
sity leaders and community leaders work together, what incentive will students have
to become more involved in their host communities? Out of this simple concept,
Spectrum Magazine was born, a valuable resource that has helped Madison show-
case its commitment to diversity and position Madison as an attractive destination
for prospective and current residents.
Strategic diversity leaders who deploy triple-loop learning are able to

engage organizational challenges at multiple levels. It is not just a matter of
looking at different options tactically, but evaluating all of the variables
related to choosing a particular course of action. For example, when consid-
ering admissions policies, it means asking several interrelated questions at
once, and then seeking an answer that integrates effectively several possible
answers. How do the state demographics, high school performance, and the
state budget inform whether we should develop an admissions plan modeled
on the Top Ten Percent law in Texas? How does the demographic context
of your state compare with Texas or Florida, which both have percentage
plans? Does your state have enough racial diversity throughout the state to
accommodate a percent plan? What inuence would an enhanced race and
ethnicity focused precollege outreach program have? Considering demo-
graphic, economic, and regional variables, how does an economic diversity
model stack up against other options?
With each of these scenarios, leaders must dig deep into the data; organi-
zational learning offers a lens for understanding what the environmental and
structural challenges are and how best to address them. It is not always the
case that change agents will be able to shift immediately the governing logic
of their institutions. Very often diversity champions have to begin their work
216 W HAT I S S TR AT E G I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?
at the grassroots level, looking for ways to create traction at the most practi-
cal and immediate level. Still, even if the initial path is faint, nding and
developing pockets of excellence can point the way toward transformational
possibilities. Your institution may not be ready for a campus-wide conversa-
tion of curriculum reform that would embrace more powerful diversity-
themed educational strategies, but an individual department may be poised
to engage in this conversation. Your institution may not be ready to imple-
ment a bold hiring and retention program, but individual academic and staff
departments may be open to conversations on current hiring challenges. It
is vital to begin the discussion not where you are, but where your potential
collaborator or ally is. Beginning the discussion at a place that is primed for
some level of subsequent action sets the stage for meaningful change.
The Structural Leadership Frame: Building Capacity to

Drive Change
Strategic diversity leaders must build structures that can help drive change.
This means engaging in the process of organizational change at the level
of formal structures and policies that can act as conduits to educational
transformation. To achieve inclusive excellence, it is vital that strategic diver-
sity leaders initiate activities that are consistent with established procedures
for implementing change, namely by working through the formal structure,
policies, and roles of the institution. If transformation is to be successful,
senior administrators must be willing to reengineer existing institutional
processes, infrastructures, hierarchies, and resource allocations to drive the
campus diversity agenda. It is worth noting that organizations exist primarily
to accomplish clearly articulated and rational goals and objectives (Berger &
Milem, 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal 2003). These goals, in turn,
are best characterized as hierarchical, complex, systematic, specialized, and
controlled by adherence to rules. In higher education, some quite powerful
administrative functions are centrally controlled through formal chains of
command that are complemented by governance and other lateral coordinat-
ing mechanisms. Working through the chain of command and governing
guidelines, diversity leaders can initiate new institutional outcomes as a result
of strategy, structure, and resource alignment. The most effective strategic
diversity leaders understand that success is contingent on commitment from
top leaders who can establish an infrastructure for success, then mobilize and
reorganize limited nancial resources and balance the institutions diversity
agenda against the reality and social context of the institution.
T H E A R T F U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P 217
The Importance of Top-Level Support

Top-level support and long-term commitment are critical to making di-
versity a matter of academic excellence. Senior leadership can contribute to
the process by creating a broad institutional vision, redirecting resources to
implement that vision, and requiring plan development and accountability
from individuals at multiple levels. Only the president, provost, and other
senior leaders can focus attention and prioritize diversity in a manner suf-
cient enough for institutional changes to be deep, pervasive, and ultimately
transformative (Cox, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Loden, 1996; D. A. Thomas,
2004; Williams, 2008).
Regarding the role of the university president, one former president of a
large research university in the Midwest told us, You have to carry the ag
on these issues and get out in front of the institution. You cannot lead these
efforts from the rear, and you cannot assign them over to anyone else.
Thus, regardless of the presence of a high-ranking chief diversity ofcer,
nal responsibility for guiding change rests squarely with senior institutional
leadership. If the president, provost, deans, vice presidents and other key
leaders are not guiding the journey, the implementation is destined to
achieve less-than-optimal results. Indeed the active involvement of senior
leadership is one of the key tenets that distinguish transformative change
from more incremental efforts activated solely through the campus diversity
ofce.
Indeed, a lack of senior leadership commitment is one of the primary
limitations that many have identied as a major stumbling block for institu-
tions attempting to implement a campus-wide diversity change effort (Kezar,
2007). In particular, senior leaders can help frame the big-picture strategic
dynamics of the institution, explaining the diversity effort in the context of
the perfect storm explored in Chapter 1: shifting demographics, the emer-
gence of the global knowledge economy, persistent societal inequities, and
the educational benets of diversity for all students. Given the room for
misunderstanding and suspicion, senior leaders need to dene early the terms
of the discussion and then manage expectations.
But leading means more than talking a good game. Senior leaders are
also critical to establishing a diversity infrastructure that is able to support
and guide change. As discussed in the following subsection, senior leaders
serve as the key players in creating chief diversity ofcer divisions, establish-
ing guiding diversity steering committees, appointing faculty champions
who can provide leadership in the diversity change process, and making the
type of tough budgetary decisions that are required when making diversity a
priority. Measuring, recognizing, and rewarding the systems that implement
the strategic diversity agenda all fall under the purview of senior leaders.
Among other specic details, they have the capacity to redirect efforts on the
strategic diversity plan, can include diversity as a part of the annual merit
review process, require that dean activity reports address diversity concerns,
and establish other techniques of accountability.
Finally, senior leaders must personally embody the values of diversity in
their decision-making, individual behavior, and interactions with others. Put
simply, senior leadership must model the change behavior as an important
way of getting others involved. The president cannot call for a more inclusive
work environment and yet alienate colleagues and subordinates. Senior lead-
ers must participate in the diversity symposia and training workshops and
demonstrate daily what they learn from their readings, research, and experi-
ences. One of the best examples that weve encountered occurred at a faith-
based university in the Midwest, where the president and the entire leader-
ship team attend annually the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity
in American Higher Education (NCORE) as a way of staying abreast of key
diversity discussions in higher education and to help inform their strategic
diversity planning. Box 5.2 provides an overview of presidential diversity
leadership recommendations.
BOX. 5.2
Presidential Diversity Leadership in Higher Education
Although their powers are limited by several factors, presidents have the ability to
create a strategic context for diversity efforts to emerge and ourish that no other
leadership role can match. More specically, they can leverage resources, create
priority for campus diversity efforts, and capitalize on emergent opportunities to
advance the institutions diversity agenda. In a study of 30 college presidents, Adri-
anna Kezar and Peter Eckel (2005) found that the most successful presidents use a
number of structural, collegial, political, and organizational learning strategies to
accomplish their goals.
These strategies include creating commitment and framing diversity in support
of the institutional mission, developing a shared agenda, creating campus dialogues
that involve others in the planning and operationalization of campus diversity efforts,
and including support for diverse students in their strategic master plan. Presidents
(continues)
T H E A R T F U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC D I V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P 219
(continued)
resoundingly agreed that hiring faculty of color was the most important strategy for
ensuring the success of students of color, because faculty provide role models,
change the curriculum in important ways, and provide the necessary resources for
empowering students to achieve academically and become more proactively engaged
on campus.
Presidents in this study also mentioned the importance of holding people
accountable for results and moving from commitment and rhetoric to action, such
as building a diversity plan or tying performance appraisals to diversity objectives.
In addition, presidents in this study championed the use of data as a way to neutralize
any divisive politics that emerge along the way.
They argued that other goals, such as transforming the curriculum, raising exter-
nal diversity funds, and establishing powerful external networks are secondary strat-
egies that must be put into place after the initial groundwork has been established.
Moreover, presidents in this study argued that diversity strategy is a process in
which leaders repeatedly revisit key action steps along the way, reinforcing many of
the concepts introduced in the last chapter regarding diversity stage models. Chapter
6 returns us to a focused discussion of senior leadership commitment, exploring
ways to build diversity accountability systems into an institutional change agenda.
Strategic Planning for Diversity

Successful diversity leaders understand that diversity planning must be
aligned with the big-picture vision and goals of the institution. An effective
place to begin this process is by writing diversity into the formal mission
statement of the institution, as well as at the department, college, and divi-
sional level. Given the prominence of the institutions mission statement,
referencing diversity reects a highly visual commitment to diversity values.
These statements should provide a clear denition of diversity and its impli-
cations for fullling the educational aspirations of the institution. By making
the mission prioritize diversity, institutional leaders create a more lasting
symbolic context for investing energy, resources, and time into specic diver-
sity activities. It also creates a powerful institutional foundation for building
admissions, hiring, and scholarship programs that require institutions to sat-
isfy several exacting standards that illustrate how pursuing diversity goals and
priorities is part of the educational mission of the institution (Coleman,
Palmer, Winnick, & Holland & Knight LLP, 2007).
A primary technique for implementing diversity as a major priority is
through a strategic diversity plan authorized at the highest levels of the insti-
tution. Although no panacea, a campus-wide diversity plan should capture
both the broad diversity vision and the specic programs and policies
designed to help the institution reach its goals, an issue explored in Chapter 7.
To implement these plans throughout the academic environment, academic
deans, vice presidents, and department chairs must own the process in
their specic domains. Doing so allows campus stakeholders to dene the
diversity challenge and steps for change from their unique perspective. For
example, how is diversity appreciated differently in the schools of nursing,
business, engineering, or the college of liberal arts? Take for example medical
education. Charging the school of medicine and public health to develop a
diversity plan centered in their reality allows them to create an operational
denition of diversity that may take into account ethnic and racial health
disparities, the need to educate a culturally competent work force, or even
the need to improve gender equity in the health professions. Helping specic
entities to move from an abstract to a concrete understanding of diversity
has important consequences for developing diversity strategies that are
anchored in the specic teaching, research, and professional standards of
specic disciplines and academic departments.
Finally, diversity accountability techniques should be integrated
throughout an institutions various organizational planning systems. Estab-
lishing accountability processes is essential to strategic diversity leadership
and is the focus of Chapter 6. One of the most powerful ways of ensuring
accountability at multiple levels of the institution is to connect campus
diversity efforts to budget allocations, performance reviews, bonuses, and
merit promotionsthe nancial systems at the heart of the college or uni-
versity (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Although annual diversity reports are
part of the accountability continuum, the most rigorous forms of institu-
tional accountability hold people responsible for making progress. Unless it
is tied to the nancial infrastructure, true organizational accountability is
impossible to achieve, not only for diversity but any other institutional goal.
The challenge is that such an aggressive strategy will no doubt meet resis-
tance in higher education, in which performance review and accountability
systems are notoriously weak, outside of the tenure and promotion process
for faculty. To implement diversity accountability in its most robust form
will require a senior leadership team deeply resolved to achieve its institu-
tional goals and willing to experience the discomfort that the most powerful
accountability systems can foster.
Diversity Ofces, Units, and Roles
Often an institutions rst steps include developing campus diversity ofces,
units, and staff resources. These units can take a myriad of forms, from
global experience programs to ethnic studies, from health disparity research
T HE AR T F U L SC IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 221
centers to afrmative action ofces, and from LGBT support services to

service-learning mentorship programs. The immediate challenge presented
by such a diverse array of services is how to ensure not only that they are
effective, but also that they are integrated with other institutional resources
in ways that are meaningful and lasting. One approach to accomplishing
these goals is to develop a chief diversity ofcer role that supports, evaluates,
and strengthens these infrastructurestopics that are explored in the com-
panion volume to this book. That said, creating a high-ranking role that has
no staff, direct reporting units, or material resources contradicts the very
premise of the structural frame of leadership. Furthermore, to help effect
transformational change, this infrastructure must be broadly empowered
within the administrative hierarchy, have a host of leadership partners, and
build on a foundation of resources, thus sending a formal and symbolic
message that these efforts are a strategic priority. Otherwise, the chief diver-
sity ofcer role may amount to little more than an unfunded mandate.
Box 5.3 describes a powerful example of the role of the chief diversity ofcer
in the strategic diversity plan at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley.
BOX 5.3
The University of CaliforniaBerkeley Haas Initiative
for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
The University of CaliforniaBerkeley is pursuing a powerful example of strategic

diversity leadership. Following an 18-month planning process funded by a nearly $1
million planning grant from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, the university
developed a 10-year strategic plan for diversity. To help drive the plans implementa-
tion, the foundation provided a $16 million gift to support the UC Berkeley Initiative
for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Under the leadership of Gibor Basri, Vice Chan-
cellor for Equity and Inclusion, the 10-year initiative involves students, faculty, and
staff across all disciplines in a variety of diversity-related teaching, research, and
public service programs. Highlights of the initiative include the following:
Five new faculty chairs in diversity-related research join the Robert D. Haas
Chancellors Chair in Equity and Inclusion,1 established at UC Berkeley in 2008
by the Levi Strauss Foundation.
A $1.5 million endowed Haas Scholarship Challenge has been created, which
establishes a matching fund for community college transfer students who
demonstrate a commitment to public service.
(continues)
Over 30 new or revised American Cultures courses have been implemented,

which have been required of all UC Berkeley undergraduates since 1991. The
new courses require community and public service of all students.
An expanded mentoring and career development program for faculty members
has been implemented.
New staff have been hired and tools created dedicated to gathering data that
will allow the campus to analyze the effectiveness of its efforts toward equity
and inclusion.
Competitive grants have been made available to students, faculty, or staff
across divisions for innovative projects that drive the implementation of the
10-year diversity plan.
Resources and classes are available for students and employees on bridging
cultural, physical, and social differences.
The initiative is compelling for a number of reasons. First, the Haas gift makes a
powerful material statement that diversity is a matter of institutional excellence and
must be advanced as a major priority for teaching, learning, research, and service.
Over time, leaders at UC Berkeley hope to use new and matching grants to double
the original gift to more than $30 million. Second, the initiative applies a twenty-rst
century denition of diversity, engaging on issues of race, ethnicity, sexual orienta-
tion, gender, economic background, and nationality. By broadening their scope, cam-
pus leaders have captured the complexity of diversity in the new millennium and
embraced as their guiding principle the assumption that campuses must become
more ambitious and proactive in their diversity efforts. Particularly on LGBT issues,
the Haas Gift has made a powerful statement. One of ve new chairs is dedicated to
equity rights affecting the LGBT community, one of the rst endowed chairs on this
subject in the United States. Following the original gift, additional contributions will
result in a new endowed chair in Disability Studies and Religious Diversity.
Framed within the context of the State of California and the needs of a diverse
and globally interconnected world, the project makes the argument that issues of
diversity are central to the current and future viability of UC Berkeley specically, and
to the United States as a whole. At the May 2011 NCORE meeting, Vice Chancellor
Basri told attendees, People are forever thinking, Do we have to trade excellence
for diversity? Of course it is a false tradeoff. Diversity promotes excellence. Thus,
the initiative is attuned to recent developments in the global economy, namely the
Great Recession and the need for academic institutions to situate strategic initiatives
on diversity within the context of the broader university community and, by exten-
sion, the outside world. Too often, campus diversity efforts take place separately
from broader campus development activities. Particularly at public institutions, diver-
sity efforts focus narrowly on merit and need-based scholarships, failing to account
(continues)
T HE AR T F U L S C IE N C E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P 223
(continued)
for the now global economic circumstances that dene the nancial situation for
students, whether entering the university or leaving it.
While maintaining traditional efforts to promote diversity, UC Berkeley is explor-
ing new diversity initiatives that are the lifeblood of colleges and universities, namely
the curriculum and research agenda of an increasingly diverse faculty. Traditionally,
area studies such as gender, ethnic, and queer studies are at times marginalized at
academic institutions, which are inherently biased in favor of traditional academic
disciplines. The Haas fund helps to shift the discussion by providing funding for new
endowed faculty chairs, research grants, and student scholarships. A major goal of
the grant is to provide more curricular opportunities for students to study diversity
issues in the classroom. The presence of new classes about culture and difference,
combined with a focus on sparking community engagement and public service, pro-
vides a bridge between the traditionally cloistered setting of an academic institution
and the world around it. By engaging in the real world through public-service and
community learning opportunities, Berkeley students will have a better chance of
developing the types of intercultural competencies that they will need to be leaders
in a globally connected world.
Finally, the initiative is on the cutting edge of strategic diversity leadership
because it recognizes that true institutional transformation must involve everyones
participation. Specically, the presence of competitive research grants will allow all
members of the university community to compete for new funding support. Rather
than lock all of the funds into distinct projects, the initiative calls for a series of grants
to encourage researchers to open new projects around diversity. In this regard, and
on all its efforts, UC Berkeley is sharing information about its initiatives, explicitly
offering itself as a model to other campuses. Proving that a proactive effort vastly
outperforms knee-jerk reactions, the UC Berkeley model conrms the superiority of
the wolf pack to the cheetah.
Source: Rodriguez, 2010.
Financial Support for Diversity

In an interview for this project, Frank Hale, Jr., Vice Provost Emeritus at
The Ohio State University stated, Commitment without currency is coun-
terfeitand dont you let anyone tell you different.2 From a strategic diver-
sity leadership perspective, this point is critical, as a serious commitment to
diversity inevitably requires committing nancial resources. Unfortunately,
diversity work is often low on the radar as an institutional priority. Some
senior administrators even view it as a distraction from an academic institu-
tions primary commitment to achieving academic excellence. As a result,
especially during lean budget years, campus diversity programs are often
woefully underfunded. As one chief diversity ofcer noted, You know as
soon as you hear the words budget and cut that your ofce may be on the
chopping block.
In challenging economic times, campus leaders face difcult choices
when trying to ensure the long-term scal stability of their institutions. For
most, success hinges on developing four types of strategies: (a) being respon-
sible stewards of public and private funds; (b) maximizing external revenue
sources of all kinds; (c) leveraging relationships with alumni, foundations,
and corporations for small and large gifts; and (d) creatively developing
tuition strategies to support institutional priorities.
The most successful diversity efforts develop creative nancial solutions
that provide the type of exibility they need. Public institutions are at partic-
ular risk because many of their budgets rely on state and federal dollars. A
change in the political winds, or the economy, can lead to precipitous drops
in funding. It is therefore essential that all academic leaders, but perhaps
especially public institutional leaders, understand the broad array of funding
sources that exist outside public allocations or endowments. Box 5.4 explores
several of the nancial strategies that an institution might employ to support
diversity initiatives.
BOX 5.4
Potential Financial Approaches to Drive
the Institutional Diversity Agenda
The Great Recession has created a tremendous need for creative strategies to raise
new resources to support college and university diversity efforts. Indeed the authors
national survey of colleges and university diversity ofcers found that 67 percent felt
their diversity efforts were challenged for nancial reasons prior to the Great Reces-
sion, suggesting that leaders would even more dramatically identify this challenge
today. It is for this reason that colleges and universities should look to develop new
strategies that will allow them to generate new resources to support their institutional
diversity priorities. Some key strategies include the following:
Develop a targeted diversity fund-raising campaign directed toward compa-

nies, small donors, large donors, and foundations. This effort should be
branded; have a clear, aggressive numerical goal; and be grounded in cultural
(continues)
T HE AR TF U L SC IE N C E O F S TR AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 225
insights learned from potential supporters. The campaign might focus on cul-
tivating small donors, taking best advantage of new online fund-raising tools,
and should provide a clear explanation of how resources will be allocated to
benet the campus diversity agenda.
Develop an alumni fund-raising strategy that specically targets minority
alumni who beneted from the programs and policies they are now being
asked to support. A key component of this approach would be to begin culti-
vating minority alumni as soon as they graduate, focusing on small contribu-
tions and frequent gifting. The key is to enlist alumni donors early and
integrate fund-raising goals with broader efforts to keep alumni involved in
diversity programs and institutions well after they have graduated, supple-
menting their contributions with volunteer efforts as mentors, guest visitors,
and so on.
Establish a philanthropic afnity group of major donors who have an
expressed interest in issues of diversity. From among the general list of
donors, develop a core cadre of major donors who can act as an advisory or
steering committee to help guide other aspects of the fund-raising strategy.
For example, this group could develop its own corporate fund-raising cam-
paign, reaching out to potential businesses that recognize the importance of
diversity in a global economy. This group could also dene and establish its
own specic diversity constituency. For example, in 1988 the University of
Wisconsin established the Womens Philanthropy Council, which has since
become a national model. Its mission is to inspire, encourage and advocate
for women to publicly give major gifts to the University area of their own
choosing, in their own name. Finally, the group might also have the auton-
omy to choose its own organizational structure, operating centrally or in a
loose afliation that spans geographic regions and corporate sectors.
Reallocate resources campus-wide to create a centralized funding source
to drive new diversity initiatives. This was the strategy put into place at the
University of Michigan in the early 1990s, when every unit institution sus-
tained a 1-percent budget reduction that was then used to create a centralized
funding source to drive the campuss new diversity strategy. Although this
may be the only instance yet of this tactic, it has been used to drive other new
institutional priorities and could be used to advance diversity efforts.
Hold institutional diversity programs harmless from campus budget cuts.
An important strategy for institutions highly committed to diversity is to pre-
serve campus diversity efforts from budget cuts because of their status as a
strategic priority.
Audit all campus diversity spending to ensure that current spending aligns
with the institutions diversity priorities. Contract a third-party auditor with
impeccable credentials to conduct a detailed review of all diversity-related
(continues)
revenues and expenditures. The audit should not only investigate the nancial
books, but also examine the budget in the context of the institutions strategic
diversity plan and other core guiding principles. How do current expenditures
match up with the stated priorities of the institution? How might budget priori-
ties be recongured to achieve stronger outcomes? What does the institu-
tions diversity budget reveal about potential or latent opportunities for fund-
raising? And how can the institution build greater accountability into the sys-
tem in order to drive more effective change?
Develop a tuition differential project that would charge a higher tuition
for students from more economically advantaged backgrounds. Here, the
institution creates a new funding source to provide innovative support for
campus priorities, of which diversity might be one. Although not always used
to support diversity, and implemented with much controversy to be sure, this
type of tactic has been put into place at numerous institutions, including the
University of WisconsinMadison, Miami University, Cornell University, Michi-
gan State University, the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill, the Univer-
sity of Michigan, and others. The key is to ensure that campus diversity goals
are included as part of these efforts, such as creating new diversity-themed
scholarships and initiatives.
Hire a dedicated development ofcer and grant writer who focuses solely
on securing public and private funds dedicated to issues of diversity. All
too often institutions miss grant opportunities because individual faculty
members and departments either do not know about upcoming grants, or
assume that others are applying. This ofcer might also play a key role in
cultivating high-capacity donors who may be interested in providing principal
gifts around issues of diversity, creating prospective alumni lists, cultivating
relationships and presenting information about campus diversity initiatives.
Creating a dedicated staff position that focuses entirely on diversity-related
fund-raising offers a powerful tool for nding new resources to benet
diversity.
Divert resources from revenue-generating sports merchandising and
related deals to partially support campus diversity efforts. In other words,
nd a way of leveraging the talents of protable football and basketball teams
to help drive the campus diversity agenda. Many institutions generate revenue
from ticket sales, bowl games and tournaments, licensing agreements, and
other opportunities. Committed leaders could devote a portion of these
resources to benetting diversity, a tting goal given that student athletes are
among the most diverse student communities on campus.
Each of these tactics is subject to different levels of risk. Institutional leaders must
weigh them against their commitment to accomplishing real diversity results, the
(continues)
T H E AR TF UL S C IE NC E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 227
(continued)
political dynamics associated with a particularly controversial strategy (like a tuition
differential project), and other strategies that may meet resistance. Although each
situation will require careful consideration, only by applying nancial strategies to
help drive new diversity outcomes will institutions be able to develop new revenue
streams, particularly in difcult economic times.
Grant Writing
Both public and private sector grants are critical to advancing an institutions
diversity strategy. In particular, several federal agencies, including the
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the
Department of Agriculture, offer attractive grant opportunities to help sup-
port diversity efforts. Several of them are dedicated to increasing diversity in
STEM elds, including the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation
program, the Alliances for Graduate Educational Preparation program, and
the Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers
program. Although these programs are making positive headway, the Great
Recession combined with political gridlock in Washington presents a grow-
ing threat to their viability. Like the Department of Educations TRIO Pro-
gram, these federal efforts are confronting multiple challenges from the Tea
Party wing of the Republican Party, which is trying to reduce their alloca-
tions signicantly, if not eliminate them altogether.
Challenges also confront private foundations like the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, the Irvine Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Lilly Founda-
tion, and others that have sponsored high-prole campus diversity efforts
over the years. With many seeing their stock portfolios shrink drastically in
20082009, some smaller foundations have canceled giving altogether. And
because many foundation grants require the college or university to nd
matching funds, when state or federal sources disappear, so do foundation
grants. Finally, foundations frequently look at one-time grants as opportuni-
ties to initiate, or seed a new initiative, relying on the institution to raise
additional funding support once a program is up and running. Few issues
are more troubling for university grant writers than to launch a promising
program only to see it die on the vine when the institution is unable to
nd additional support. Campuses therefore need to understand this harsh
new reality and adjust accordingly. For the foreseeable future, strategic diver-
sity leaders will need to look increasingly outside traditional funding sources
to promote their policies and programs.
Private Fund-Raising
Traditionally, strategic diversity leaders have been more adept at grant writ-
ing and accessing public dollars than at fund-raising from private sources.
Especially among alumni students, strategic diversity leaders could do more
to cultivate small- and medium-level individual donors. However, strategic
diversity leaders are not entirely to blame. Part of the problem stems from
the simple fact that a greater proportion of minority students come from
economically disadvantaged families than do majority White students. But
part of the challenge is also cultural, and here strategic diversity leaders, by
adapting their practices, could have greater success. As has been pointed out
to the author several times, not all members of minority groups are respon-
sive to the usual fund-raising appeal, especially the impersonal, mass market
pitch that typies most rst interactions between an institution and potential
donor. Especially for students who have not found their college experience
completely unproblematic to start with, a clumsy, impersonal appeal may
strike exactly the wrong note and doom any possibility of future giving.
At the same time, many minority graduates feel a strong sense of afnity
for their alma maters and, given the right kind of appeal, would contribute
regularly as alumni donors. But because minority students may not necessar-
ily view their college experience through the same lens as their White peers,
strategic diversity leaders should pursue fund-raising efforts in ways that are
sensitive to minority experiences and cultural values. One alumnus offered
the following:
Im not giving to the big blue and white [the colleges colors]. I love this
institution, but Im not giving to fund the next building for the Business
School, or something else. There are plenty of people to support those
projects. I want to support diversity. I want to help students who came
from an experience similar to my own to get through this place, and go on
to become positive role models and leaders. That means supporting initia-
tives for black folks and folks from urban backgrounds.
In this regard, strategic diversity leaders have something to learn from

marketing rms, which have become highly attuned to multicultural market-
ing strategies and now develop specic, tailored messages for specic con-
sumer populations. Just as marketing rms are targeting specic racial,
ethnic, gender, and sexuality subgroups (among others), strategic diversity
leaders need to consider individual student populations. Moreover, as evi-
denced by the previous passage, diversity fundraisers need to be able to show
T HE AR T F U L S C IE NC E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P 229
in very concrete ways how a contribution will promote the values and con-
cerns held by donors interested in issues of diversity. The more specic a
diversity leader can be about how the donation will contribute to promoting
diversity on campus, the more success he or she will have in raising money.
Tuition and Student Fees

Institutional leaders should also consider how tuition and student fees are
applied to support the campuss diversity agenda. Too often, we pressure
campus diversity ofces to expand the scope of their work without expand-
ing their funding support. A classic example is asking a campus multicultural
affairs ofce to take on a broader mission, working with minority and major-
ity students alike, without asking how their budget needs will be met. To
serve a broader student population invariably requires a larger share of stu-
dent fees.
Although access for low- and middle-income students is a decades-old
issue, its importance is becoming increasingly elevated because of the current
economic situation and the precipitous rise in education costs in recent years.
Families who have saved for their childrens education may suddenly nd
that their investment portfolios have shrunk or disappeared. Families who
are paying for college tuition out of current earnings are losing jobs and
being forced to tighten their belts to meet their basic needs, let alone pay for
higher education. And for our most vulnerable families, the prospect of pay-
ing for college seems completely unattainable, particularly at private, highly
selective institutions.
Creative leaders will need to turn the tuition levers of their institutions
if they are to drive excellence in all that they do. Faced with a lack of exible
funds to build new excellence initiatives and provide nancial aid to low-
and middle-income families, many institutions have turned to tuition differ-
ential projects. As discussed briey in the context of the Economic Access
Diversity Model in Chapter 3, these efforts charge different levels of tuition
for those able to pay in an effort to create nancial aid for the economically
disadvantaged.
Selectivity and the Admissions Process

Another powerful institutional dynamic that must be considered when
developing diversity strategy from a formal structural perspective is the mis-
sion and selectivity of the institution. Although Harvard University in Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, and Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio,
may share an equal commitment to academic excellence and diversity, the

differences in their strategic diversity plans will, necessarily, be a partial
reection of differences in their selectivity. Harvard University is one of the
nations most selective institutions; Sinclair Community College is an excel-
lent open-enrollment institution. The differences in their selection and
enrollment systems have important consequences for how each institution
pursues its strategic diversity plan.
Open-enrollment community colleges and less selective institutions are
poised to play a special role preparing low-income and minority students
for productive roles in American society. Diversity is the lifeblood of these
institutions, whether dened in classic terms like race and ethnicity, or in
more recent contexts, including learning styles, educational aspirations, and
life circumstances. As our nations population becomes more diverse, these
institutions are especially well positioned to capitalize on the benets of
educating a growing population of historically underrepresented and minor-
ity student populations. Therefore, these institutions must receive more
funding and public support because of the critical role that they play in
answering President Barack Obamas national call to make the United States
the worlds leading producer of college graduates by the year 2020.
Meanwhile, more selective institutions can play a helping role by using
their resources to create dynamic partnerships and bridges between them-
selves and community and two-year colleges. By expanding the pipeline and
increasing the avenues for historically underrepresented and minority stu-
dent populations, more selective schools can give diversity a central role in
creating a more competitive, better educated work force. Indeed an ethic of
inclusion and emergent possibility sits at the center of our ability to use racial
and ethnic diversity as part of a holistic, competitive, and multidimensional
admissions process. Only by thinking more creatively and broadly about
educational potential will selective institutions access the untapped potential
of minority students. Only a few institutions may capture the top minority
high school graduates. The overwhelming majority of schools, whatever their
admissions criteria or nancial standing, must do more to enroll, retain, and
graduate students who have great potential, but who may not have received
a tier-one education because they come from low- and middle-income
backgrounds.
As discussed in Chapter 7, a typical higher education diversity plan must
at times depart from the principles that anchor the formal structural
approach to organizational change. To substantiate strategic diversity initia-
tives as a core value of the institution, leaders should consider, whenever
possible, initiating activities consistent with established procedures for how

change is achieved, namely through the formal structure, rules, and roles of
the institution. Nevertheless, success is often determined by how well leaders
are able to navigate the campuss politics, work through resistance, and estab-
lish coalitions. The following sections examine these challenges in detail.
The Political Leadership Frame: Strategic Diversity

Leadership Is a Contact Sport
Political dynamics play a more signicant role in organizational life than
many of us would ever admit (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Although leaders at
all levels recognize that politics are all around us, we often view playing
politics negatively. Yet the reality is that unless you play, you will not win,
especially in the context of advancing a strategic diversity agenda. Like box-
ing and mixed martial arts, promoting diversity is a contact sport. Just build-
ing the case involves difcult work as stakeholders negotiate the grounding
assumptions that will guide the effort (Buchanan & Badham, 2008). Col-
leges and universities are political arenas full of diverging interests. Interests
collide, in the form of competing agendas, differing value systems, and com-
peting priorities. As a result, diversity champions should expect the process
to be messy, nonlinear, and contested by people who view the world differ-
ently or are simply invested in moving their agenda forward, even at the
expense of yours. The most accomplished strategic diversity leaders operate
from the fundamental assumption that politics are not inherently bad. Poli-
tics are simply the natural consequence of organizational life (Bolman &
Deal, 2003).
Strategic diversity leaders must engage with these politics if they are
going to be successful. Sitting on the sidelines is unrealistic in the face of self-
interested and complex resistance or even counterimplementation measures
promoted by political opponents of diversity (Buchanan & Badham, 2008).
The strategic diversity leader who is not willing to deal with these threats
will likely be outmaneuvered by savvier stakeholders. As a vice president for
diversity at a small liberal arts college in the Southeast told us:
In trying to create change in my institution, understanding the political
issues and being able to work through them is critical, because the politics
largely dene what you can actually get done. When I rst arrived on
campus, we started with a very rational diversity plan. You know, step a,
b, c, and then d. And after about 12 months of frustration, we just threw
it all out the window. Not because the plan was unsound, but because of
the campus politics. They were eating us alive. We had to develop an

entirely new process that really focused on bringing people together, build-
ing consensus, and engaging them in the conversation before doing the
plan. It was nave to assume that we could do it any other way given what
I know now. I have done this work in corporate America and as a consul-
tant. I have never found any place more political than higher education.
The politics are unavoidable.
The following discussion highlights the importance of an institutions

political dynamics before discussing some of the key instances when campus
politics are most problematic. There are several tools to help strategic diver-
sity leaders shepherd the diversity agenda through an institutional maze that
can thwart the efforts of even the most capable diversity champions.
Institutional Memory and the Historical Legacy of Inclusion

and Exclusion
One of the rst tasks for any strategic diversity leader attempting to advance
a change agenda is to understand his or her institutions sociopolitical history
of exclusion and inclusion (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,
1998). Without the recognition and respect for the experiences of women,
minorities, and members of the LGBT community, the campus agenda is
often derailed by long-standing dynamics and legacies. Although diversity
crisis incidents from years before may have disappeared into the review mir-
ror, especially in the minds of new administrators and students, they have a
way of lingering in the memories of campus members. The high-prole
dismissal of a minority administrator or demonstrations by a White suprem-
acist organization near campus can leave deep scars in the institutional mem-
ory of a college or university. Strategic diversity leaders need to research
their institutions history and learn where the lingering tensions reside. Some
guiding research questions include the following: Is there a history of inci-
dents of discrimination, sexual harassment, or hate crimes against minorities
or women? How has the institution responded and was the response ade-
quate? Have members of the campus community ever protested and why?
What are the institutional politics that surround our current diversity poli-
cies, from student scholarships to campus resources and services? What led
to the development of the chief diversity ofcer position? Who is the most
vocal opponent of diversity on campus? Does one ethnic studies department
enjoy privileges (like joint faculty appointments) that another does not?
What is the morale like among female and minority students, faculty, and
staff ? Finding answers to these questions will help a strategic diversity leader
understand the campus climate and the institutions memory (Hurtado et
al., 1998).
At many institutions, campus diversity initiatives have emerged out of
an often painful and emotional journey of protest, unrest, and struggle. For
some diversity champions, any discussion about evolving campus diversity
efforts to encompass a more inclusive denition of diversityone that
extends beyond historically marginalized populationsis often viewed with
distrust, a point that was crystallized in the racialized diversity perspective
noted in Chapter 2. It is not that these individuals are uncommitted to
maximizing the educational opportunities for all diverse communities;
rather, shifts in the past have at times eroded an institutions commitment
to redressing the historical unequal treatment of people of color. Although
senior leaders may view a decision to merge the LGBT Resource Center and
the Multicultural Resource Center as a minor issue, students who use these
spaces daily may see the change as a violation of their cultural identities
and an act that undermines their sense of social belonging. This is particu-
larly true on campuses where centers serve as a refuge for students and their
primary means of creating a safe community within the larger campus
environment.
When exploring these issues, campus leaders must carefully weigh the
costs and benets of such organizational shifts. If change is necessary, leaders
must demonstrate empathy and care. This is particularly critical when
attempting to change long-standing organizational structures that are sym-
bolically important to various members of the campus community. Box 5.5
presents a case study of a highly charged diversity reorganization project.
BOX 5.5
Revising Minority Outreach Capacity at Big Green U
In the 1970s, a large research university in the Northeast developed a minority schol-
arship and outreach program as part of the vice chancellor for minority affairs portfo-
lio. Located in the Ofce of Minority Affairs, the program basically operated an
isolated minority outreach and recruitment effort with almost no involvement from
the admissions ofce and nancial aid. Although similar admissions criteria and
processes were used to admit students, avoiding the dynamics of an illegal admis-
sions process, the campus-wide admissions ofce recruited from none of the diverse
(continues)
high schools across the state. These schools were nearly exclusively the priority of
the minority affairs ofce, thus creating a segregated outreach effort through which
only minority affairs interfaced with the minority communities.
The chancellor desired to change the infrastructure, but knew that any changes
had to be handled with great care. The ofce and the resources associated with the
Ofce of Minority Affairs had emerged in response to a difcult history of campus
unrest. The ofce had existed for nearly 30 years and the African American alumni
and staff were understandably wary of any changes that could be perceived as a loss
of commitment to increasing racial and ethnic diversity. Meanwhile, some felt that
the ofce did not adequately graduate enough minority students to justify the alloca-
tion of additional resources dedicated to its intensive precollege programs. Still oth-
ers felt that the ofce should be redesigned with core admissions and nancial
processes located in those units. With a new chancellor, new leadership in admis-
sions, and the retirement of the vice chancellor for minority affairs, the question on
everyones mind was how to restructure and integrate the two admissions ofces in
a way that actually increased the universitys commitment to diversity rather than
scaling it back. After consulting on the initiative, the author recommended the
following:
1. Appoint an interim vice chancellor who is highly credible on issues of diver-

sity, equity, and inclusion. Charge the vice chancellor with leading a campus-
wide process investigating diversity in the overall admissions process, not
just admissions policies at the Ofce of Minority Affairs.
2. Appoint a high-prole campus review team that might include faculty, admin-
istrators, students, and alumni with a range of different perspectives. Include
at least several members who have extensive personal or professional experi-
ence with diversity issues, or who understand the institutional culture and
history that led to current policies and structures.
3. Conduct a broad investigation into the infrastructure and policies at peer
institutions to see what is working, and not working, at similar universities.
4. Develop a set of quantitative indicators to measure the programs success or
failure over time. Complement this analysis with qualitative insights from
stakeholders intimately involved with processes of both ofces.
5. Invite an outside group of chief diversity ofcers and diversity experts from
other institutions to provide input and ongoing feedback on the development
and implementation of any new policy or programs.
6. Engage stakeholders representing the entire campus community for their
ideas and recommendations.
7. Create a campus website dedicated to the effort and post meeting notes,
reports, and insights that emerge during the process.
(continues)
T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P 235
(continued)
8. Draft a comprehensive report that summarizes the effort and provides
detailed recommendations for restructuring policies and programs.
9. Hold a public meeting to discuss the contents of the report, hosted by the
chancellor, provost, and the interim vice chancellor.
10. Before implementing any changes, the chancellor should issue a letter to the
campus community and any relevant stakeholders explaining the changes
and their rationale.
These 10 recommendations provide a means of engaging diverse stakeholders

on a range of challenging questions while respecting the history of diversity on cam-
pus. The goal is to maximize the potential for developing a tier-one model for improv-
ing an institutions policies and infrastructure, while balancing the need to create
broad engagement, symbolism regarding the importance of history and tradition,
and looking forward to new formal structures and processes. Senior leaders should
be willing and able to build support for their initiatives by working from the ground
up, nding allies and supportive networks of campus stakeholders who can simulta-
neously embrace new possibilities without abandoning historic responsibilities.
The key is to recruit and empower as many change leaders as possible, from
senior faculty and administrators to the chairs of key departments, student leaders,
committed staff, and motivated community members. These individuals are essential
not only to launching a change project, but also to maintaining it over time. The
argument for change should be made in ways that are cognitive, affective, and behav-
ioral. It is not enough to simply explain the change. Diversity champions need to
engage in a sense-making process that allows them not only to understand the
change goals, but become leading advocates for the goals. Kezar and Eckel (2002)
have identied institutional sense-making as critical to allowing people to craft,
understand, and accept new change. Absent the sense-making process, change
efforts, no matter how well intentioned, may result in increasing campus unrest and
recurring incidents of racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination.
Although diversity offers substantial benets to an institution, conicts

between majority and minority cultures are inevitable. These clashes often
occur over divergent interests, particularly in areas of cultural and social
interaction, when different groups rub against each another. For example,
conicts have arisen on several campuses over guidelines and funding for
student organizations, usually between minority groups and majority White
student government executive boards. For example, at one institution a
nearly all-White student government executive board decided to eliminate
funding for a number of minority student organizations on the grounds that
their numbers were too low. The executive board argued that funding should
be distributed to organizations on the basis of membership numbers. It is
perhaps unsurprising to nd this assumption within a majority culture. But
from the perspective of the minority student organizations, the physical
numbers are irrelevant. Instead, what matters is the benecial role an organi-
zation can play by supporting diverse students and helping them feel more
included on campus. What should the student affairs division do? Should it
intervene on behalf of minority groups, or support the decision of the stu-
dent governance committee? Indeed, how and to what degree should budget
allocations hinge on questions of student numbers, much less their minority
status? This is just one of the dilemmas that strategic diversity leaders must
be equipped to face, and again underscores the importance of understanding
the sociohistorical dimensions of diversity.
Understanding and Overcoming Resistance to Change

It is rare to hear a decision defended on explicitly political grounds, although
this is often exactly what happens in the backroom conversations that pro-
duce institutional policies. Thus, organizational dynamics can only fully be
understood after appreciating the political motives that exist on campus.
Strategic diversity leaders must be attuned to these dynamics and understand
that self-interest and deceit often exist in close proximity to an academic
communitys highest aspirations to do what is in the best interests of our
students.
Resource dependence theory (RDT) offers a way to help strategic diver-
sity leaders navigate resistance in the academy (Pfeffer, 1981; Pfeffer & Salan-
cik, 1978). As resource-dependent organizations, colleges rarely produce
internally the nancial and human resources adequate to support everything
they seek to accomplish. As a result, they must look outside for additional
support, as there is acute internal jockeying for nite funding and staff
resources. Creating support for ones academic and institutional goals inevi-
tably requires engaging in political maneuvering, internal competition, and
coalition building. In resource-dependent environments, the interest of
deans, department heads, or even diverse constituencies (women versus
minorities, or low-income versus minorities) can nd themselves competing
and even in conict.
As with all attempts to create change, diversity efforts inevitably prompt
a response from both proponents and opponents, however muted they may
be (Loden, 1996). Diversity champions need to appreciate that many oppo-
nents are unlikely to ever accept diversity as an institutional priority. As
T H E A R TF U L S C I E NC E O F S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P 237
discussed in Chapter 2, this is particularly true for opponents who view

diversity from a colorblind perspective, as a practice of reverse discrimina-
tion. For these individuals, any efforts to elevate issues of identity, power,
and privilege will always signify quotas and an erosion of quality. At the end
of the day, we must be ready at some level to engage opponents to diversity,
although trying to win them over should not be a top priority. We will get
far greater traction working with our allies and with those in the middle who
are at least approachable on our issues. As Jim Collins notes in Good to
Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap, and Others Dont, the key is
getting as many persons into the conversation of change and putting the
right people on the bus (2001, p. 41).
From an RDT perspective, effective leadership requires maximizing your
base of organizational power. If you are working from a position decient in
organizational funding or staff resources, it is essential to establish relation-
ships and alliances that will help facilitate obtaining these resources (Pfeffer,
1981). At the same time, however, diversity leaders must work to strengthen
their internal organizations so that they are ultimately less dependent on
outside individuals or institutions to further their work. Relationships should
be collaborative, symbiotic, and, whenever possible, based on outcomes that
can be shared equally. This does not mean diversity leaders should ignore
calls for help or collaboration by nontraditional allies. By providing assis-
tance to someone in need, and demonstrating teamwork and collegiality, a
strategic diversity leader can build a network of allies who can be called on
when needed to return the favor.
Understanding the dynamics of social obligations and responsibilities
are essential when academic entities and units are competing over limited
resources (Miller, 2005). Social exchange theory argues that how we feel
about a relationship with another person depends largely on our perceptions
of the balance between what we contribute to the relationship and what we
get out of it, the kind of treatment that we feel we deserve, and the changes
that we feel we can make to an existing relationship that will improve it
(Miller, 2005). Edwin Hollander (1993) argues that the social exchange in
leadership dynamics share analogies with principles of banking and account
balancing. According to Hollander, individuals bank idiosyncrasy credits
by demonstrating competence and shared values among those whom they
supervise, report to, collaborate with, and assist. The more of these idiosyn-
crasy credits that leaders accrue, the more inuence they can exert. When
account balances become decient, leaders lose their inuence.
Although the classic way of viewing power is dened through the formal
authoritative role of leaders, strategic diversity leaders have a range of power
sources that they can access to move their agendas. The rst is technocratic
and refers to information and expertise. For example, strategic diversity lead-
ers with a particular expertise or skill set can assist others working through
difcult diversity challenges. Power accrues when diversity leaders draw on
their expertise to help resolve a difcult policy or program challenge, from
establishing visa compliance regulations to understanding faculty culture and
the nuance required to implement an effective diversity faculty hiring policy.
Additional power sources include exercising authority over administrative
and nancial resources. And nally, possessing political capital and the abil-
ity to engage in effective grassroots organizing is often essential to effecting
change. Indeed, the more that students, diversity communities, and political
allies can be the messengers of change, the more effectively a strategic diver-
sity leader can facilitate a strong, democratically driven diversity agenda. As
one dean of multicultural affairs at a small liberal arts college in the North-
east explained:
My process can happen in a number of different ways. I hate to do things
in the shadows, but this work will pull that style of leadership to the top.
I always have the NAACP, the ALANA [African Latino Asian Native
American] student organization, the Latino staff alliance, and a number of
powerful allies in my network, which I can call upon to ask the questions
that I cannot or to raise issues from another vantage point. At the end of
the day, the work has to guide the conversation, not personal politics. As
the senior diversity person on watch, I have to understand that at times I
need allies to move the conversation in ways that are beyond my power.
Then the conversation can come back to me, and I can help the president,
provost, or whomever to nd a path that will serve multiple interests.
Strategic diversity leaders must build alliances and coalitions if they are
going to obtain the power and resources required to advance their campus
agenda (Bolman & Deal, 2003). As a result, the ability to bargain, negotiate,
and build relationships is invaluable for individuals working to advance cam-
pus diversity efforts. Particularly on campuses where decisions are not made
through open and transparent mechanisms, but rather hinge on long-
standing interpersonal relationships, coalition building is even more essen-
tial. To navigate in these potentially treacherous waters, strategic diversity
leaders must place a strong emphasis on building partnerships, creating col-
laborative traction, and galvanizing support for their agenda. Only by build-
ing key partnerships can strategic diversity leaders alter the campus power
structure and acquire visibility, support, and resources to drive the diversity
T H E AR TF UL S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P 239
change agenda. This point is particularly true when working from a chief
diversity ofcer position for whom diversity-themed change is the primary
focus of his or her role on campus. Box 5.6 presents some useful strategies
for negotiating campus politics.
BOX 5.6
Strategies to Successfully Navigate Campus Politics
Especially early in your tenure, learn the political landscape. Who are the play-
ers? What are the issues? How do your priorities t into the matrix?
Form a list of your allies and supporters, even if it is only a mental list. How
can you help them? And how can helping them help you?
Seek to build strong coalitions across diverse constituencies, leaving no stone
unturned. Potential partners include not just members of the academic com-
munity, but less direct contacts, like alumni networks, inuential donors, pub-
lic ofcials, media contacts, and others.
Look for creative partnerships that may not at rst glance seem like obvious
choices for promoting diversity, but that have the potential to create real
movement on your issues.
Develop a powerful advisory board to guide the efforts of your ofce.
Use informal networks to gather information and share ideas and resources.
Develop relationships of trust with those who you know will support you.
Help others freely but do not pass up the opportunity to call in a favor if you
need to.
Know when to be the public face of your efforts and when to work behind the
scenes.
Minimize drama and theatre in your leadership style, favoring instead con-
crete, well-researched, and meaningful engagement on the issues.
Source: Adapted from Egan, 1994.
Symbolic Leadership Frame: Managing Meaning and

Creating the Social Contract
Businesses and corporations invariably feature a vertical chain of command,
a clear unity of purpose, and obvious standards of success. By comparison,
colleges and universities are more often than not characterized by horizontal
or decentralized command structures and nebulous decision-making pro-
cesses (Alfred, 2005; Birnbaum, 1988, 1992; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). For
all the real and symbolic power associated with the college president, aca-
demic institutions still reect a cacophony of overlapping and at times com-
peting faculty, staff, and student voices and interests. Finally, many colleges
and universities do not have one simple mission but three interrelated and
complex missions: teaching, research, and service. The multilayered and
multifaceted quality of governance and mission has profound implications
not only for the way decisions are made, but for how those decisions are
then perceived by members of the campus community. The result is an
organizational environment in which symbolic leadership becomes incredi-
bly important to achieving ones ultimate change agenda.
Simple day-to-day decisions around issues of diversity send powerful sym-
bolic messages regarding an institutions commitment to diversity. Intended
or unintended messages conveyed from routine decisions suggest importance
and priority. From a symbolic diversity leadership perspective, organizational
change is about understanding the messages conveyed by ones actions and
creating a shared covenant that elevates diversitys importance and connects it
to core institutional assumptions about excellence. In cases in which the struc-
tural frame is focused on the material aspects of diversity budgetsthe out-
comes of new campus diversity plans and the stafng prole of the chief
diversity ofcer unitthe symbolic frame is most concerned about the mes-
sage that these tactics imply about institutional commitment, having a vision
for change, and moving forward with a cohesive campus diversity agenda. Box
5.7 presents several symbolic diversity leadership strategies.
BOX 5.7
Symbolic Strategic Diversity Leadership Strategies
1. Reinforce the importance of the diversity agenda with messages from the
president, chancellor, provost, chief diversity ofcer, and other senior leaders.
2. Encourage diverse stakeholders to participate at all stages of either revising or
developing a new strategic diversity plan.
3. Develop a campus diversity vision statement that receives input from multiple
stakeholders and is then adopted as part of the formal vision for diversity
efforts on campus.
4. Coordinate high-prole campus diversity events that present diversity in both
serious and celebratory contexts, fostering a sense of its academic and social
importance on campus.
(continues)
T H E AR TF UL S C IE NC E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 241
(continued)
5. Include diversity in other prominent speeches, events, and initiatives that are
not directly focused on diversity.
6. Create a hybrid chief diversity ofcer division that helps to integrate diversity
with other core institutional responsibilities, including student and undergrad-
uate affairs ofces. Include this division within the chief diversity ofcer port-
folio (e.g., vice president for diversity and student development, vice president
and vice provost for diversity and institutional research, etc.). (This tactic is
discussed at length in the companion volume to this book.)
7. Include diverse images and content in traditional campus outreach and brand-
ing efforts.
8. Celebrate high-prole diversity successes as signicant accomplishments for
the institution.
To quote Bolman and Deal (2003) the symbolic frame seeks to inter-
pret and illuminate basic issues of meaning and belief that make symbols so
powerful. It depicts a world far different from traditional canons of rational-
ity, certainty, and linearity (p. 242). Accordingly, actions resonate symboli-
cally insofar as they help dene an institutions culture and its values. From
this vantage point, the symbolic value of a strong diversity agenda has impor-
tant value irrespective of the practical and concrete successes it may have
through its policies and programs. The following discussion highlights some
of the critical aspects of leading through symbols, beginning with the impor-
tance of framing campus diversity efforts appropriately. The discussion then
explores multiple meanings and how strategic diversity leaders must con-
stantly ask how different groups perceive their actions. The section concludes
by addressing the social contract that a strategic diversity plan should seek
to construct, and how it is only when words and actions come together that
we can create the most meaningful change.
Framing the Institutional Case for Diversity

Campus leaders serve as social actors that cocreate the drama of organiza-
tional life through a complex dialectic of leadership, actions, reactions, and
processes. Together over time individuals and groups develop a shared de-
nition of diversity, although this denition is rarely straightforward or static.
The key for strategic diversity leaders is to facilitate the process and to help
frame diversity as a critical priority, not only for minority students but soci-
ety as a whole. As numerous works in the change management literature
have argued, achieving buy-in is critical if an initiative is to succeed (Kotter,
1996; Quinn, 1996). As such, a better understanding of what Dennis Gioia

and Kumar Chittipeddi (1991) refer to as sense-giving will help strategic diver-
sity efforts by focusing on how change activities are framed and disseminated
to an organizations constituents.
In his study of university presidents, Birnbaum (1988) quotes Smircich
and Morgan (1982), writing,
Leadership is about the management of meaning, and that leaders

emerge because of their role in framing experience in a way that provides
the basis for action; that is, by mobilizing meaning, articulating and den-
ing what has previously remained implicit or unsaid, by inventing images
and meanings that provide a focus for new attention and by consolidating,
confronting or changing prevailing wisdom. (p. 78)
From a symbolic and political perspective, this process of meaning-

making, or framing diversity issues, is an important tool for navigating
change and accruing power. That is building the business, or, in this
instance, organizational case for why diversity matters, not just today but
into the future. In a global and interconnected knowledge economy, every
person needs some form of postsecondary education, regardless of back-
ground. Furthermore, in the world today, the ability to interact with differ-
ence is not a nice to have but rather an essential part of being a leader and
a citizen in a diverse and global reality.
To overcome resistance and conict, strategic diversity leaders must
frame their agenda and demonstrate why that agenda is important and vital.
Vice Provost Raphael Tolland, one of the nations most experienced chief
diversity ofcers, said that the most powerful argument that he ever made to
advance diversity occurred during a presentation to the Board of Trustees.
The highlight of his presentation was one slide showing that there were only
27 tenured or tenure-track historically underrepresented minority faculty in
1977 and only 30 in 2000. By presenting this miserable record in such stark
and historic terms, Tolland reframed the discussion in such a way that the
Board of Trustees was inspired to authorize developing a more powerful and
cohesive strategic diversity agenda.
Framing diversity issues in visually and conceptually compelling ways is
critical to marshaling support from key stakeholders who can move a strate-
gic diversity agenda forward. It is for these reasons that Chapter 1 outlines the
ve pressure systems powering the perfect storm, and Chapter 4 posits the
analogy of the cheetah and the wolf. Similarly, Chapter 2 seeks to capture
the complexity of diversity by exploring the diversity idea, and Chapter 3

offers a venn diagram to explain the relationships among three primary
diversity organizational models. Although far from conclusive, the subjects
explored in these chapters are intended to empower diversity champions
with a variety of accessible images and concepts to frame how they talk about
diversity. Moreover, all these concepts are compatible with arguments made
in favor of diversity on a variety of different grounds, from a social justice
perspective to a probusiness rationale.
Navigating Multiple Meanings of Campus Diversity

Framing is so critical because the movement toward a more robust diversity
agenda is always laden with multiple interpretations as diversity is one of the
most highly contested ideas on college and university campuses. To take us
back to Chapter 2, just think of the meanings that come up when one
thinks about diversity. Diversity means quotas. Diversity means race. Diver-
sity means decit. Diversity means institutional priority. Diversity means
any number of different social identities. Or perhaps diversity means lip
service and no action. Strategic diversity leaders must navigate these com-
plexities and create a shared understanding of how diversity is dened, why it
matters and where the institution is going in this critical area of institutional
priority.
Strategic diversity leaders must be well versed in the various diversity
viewpoints presented in Chapter 2. A key element of that chapter was recog-
nizing how different groups may arrive at radically different interpretations
of the same situation. Building on that discussion, strategic diversity leaders
must recognize that campus diversity efforts exist like points on a compass
(see Figure 5.1), depending on the issue. Consequently, strategic diversity
leaders must look at their decisions and actions through multiple lenses,
asking, How do the various members of the campus community view the
effort or action? What is the view of women on a particular issue? How does
the Muslim community view it? What is the perspective of faculty, staff, and
students? Although caution must be used to avoid a pattern of widespread
stereotyping, asking how different groups may view a decision is part of
being a good leader. And even in the light of this type of analysis, it is
important to acknowledge that regardless of intentions, actions can have
unforeseen and unintended consequences. It is for this reason that campus
leaders must be vigilant regarding the symbols of inclusion or exclusion that
exist when they make various decisions, construct high-prole committees,
give remarks, or engage in any number of leadership activities on campus.
244 W H AT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
Building Powerful Traditions, Rituals, and Stories

Around Diversity
Symbolic leaders use traditions and stories to help people buy into their
vision, reframe past experience, portray shared values, and rally allies to act
on behalf of the organizations goals (Birnbaum, 1988, 1992). An academic
institutions commitment to diversity should be reinforced by campus ritu-
als, traditions, and stories of change. Periodic ceremonies, like a campus
celebration of newly tenured minority faculty or academic achievement cere-
monies for minority students, help these individuals feel more included on
campus, serving as a powerful ritual that conveys a message of diversitys
importance. It is particularly incumbent that senior campus leaders partici-
pate in diversity events. For example, hosting a banquet that honors diversity
leadership and success on campus is important not only to the individuals
and groups involved in the effort, it also sends a strong message to the
broader community about the institutional value of this work. Campus
diversity events create important emotional and social anchors that allow
institutional citizens to enact the change vision by participating in ritualized
activities that champion diversity successes and embody an institutions
vision for the future.
Symbolic stories of inuence and challenge also have a potentially pow-
erful effect on organizational culture and shaping the diversity change jour-
ney. Whether they take verbal, written, or visual forms, stories are often
more memorable than mere facts and gures and can supplement quantita-
tive analysis as a way of providing personal anecdotes and compelling exam-
ples to esh out the narrative. Stories should convey the real-life experiences
of individuals who have contributed in signicant ways to the organizations
vision for diversity. Stories that appear in the alumni magazine, the institu-
tions website, or in targeted branding campaigns can help inspire the entire
campus community, reinforcing positive images and showing the benets of
diversity. Box 5.8 presents one institutions approach to creating a powerful
symbolic event that anchors diversity in the history of the school while ele-
vating diversity as a cherished value on campus.
T H E AR TF UL S C IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA D E R S H I P 245
BOX 5.8
The University of Connecticut Celebrates
Diversitys Importance
Diversity needs to be integrated into the symbolic and cultural fabric of the institu-
tion. Rituals and traditions gure prominently at most colleges and universities,
where events like commencement and convocation offer important clues about the
cultural values of an institution. To achieve inclusive excellence, institutions should
infuse diversity into existing traditions and build new traditions to position diversity
on par with efforts to achieve academic, athletic, and leadership excellence.
For example, in 2004, the University of Connecticut, located in Storrs, hosted a
diversity awards celebration focused on achieving this goal. The formal sit-down
dinner featured Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger, and was dedicated
to the role of diversity as a global and educational priority in the twenty-rst century.
From the beginning, the event was more than an opportunity to have a nice dinner
and hear a good speaker. It was about creating a new consciousness and shared
understanding about diversity for those who attended.
Executed with the pomp and circumstance normally associated with the universi-
tys most cherished events, the evening began with a ve-minute retrospective on
the history of diversity and inclusion at the University of Connecticut. The retrospec-
tive began in the 1800s, when the rst women and African American students were
admitted, and continued through the 1990s, when the University of Connecticut
received the rst North American United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization Chair in Human Rights and developed the Ofce of the Vice Provost for
Multicultural and International Affairs as the chief diversity ofcer infrastructure.
Academic deans and administrative vice presidents, the provost, members of the
board of trustees, and state government ofcials attended the inaugural event and
by their presence helped reinforce the importance of the celebration. Awards were
given to students, faculty, staff, alumni, departments, corporations, and scholars
who had made signicant contributions to diversity both on campus and in the
broader community. In a particularly compelling moment, former mens basketball
coach Donald Dee Rowe brought two of his former players onstage and, eyes
welling with tears, accepted the Diversity Pioneer Award for his efforts to eld and
graduate an entire starting team of African American student athletes in the 1960s.
Rowe is an athletic icon in Storrs, and to have him discuss his personal commitment
to diversity created a powerful and lasting image. Although this event clearly had
important material consequences, equally critical was the message conveyed to the
community about the universitys support for diversity and its place in the history,
culture, and administrative fabric of the institution.
Developing a Powerful Diversity Brand Strategy

From a strategic diversity leadership perspective, the diversity brand is an
important part of the symbolic frame of leadership that is critical to advanc-
ing an institutions diversity efforts. The institutions brand refers simply to
what an institution stands for in the minds and hearts of its stakeholders.
When we think of Stanford University, we immediately think of its world-
renowned reputation for academic excellence. This is its brand. And just as
colleges and universities are associated with varying degrees of academic and
athletic excellence, they are branded, too, by how well they are perceived to
embrace diversity and include diverse communities in their campus culture.
In todays digital age, developing a powerful diversity brand is more
important than ever before. Particularly at institutions that have made prog-
ress on diversity issues, diversity branding may provide campus leaders with
several advantages over their competitors. One of the most important ways
of marketing your selling points is to tell the stories of individuals who can
attest credibly to their positive experiences, whether as students, faculty, or
staff. This was the case at Miami University, a selective, midsized public
institution in Ohio. In the late 1990s, Miami developed an urban, multicul-
tural marketing effort, the I am Miami campaign, which was designed to
position Miamis reputation for academic excellence rmly within a pro-
diversity context. This strategy was particularly compelling as it was devel-
oped to reposition an institutional brand that was not favorably associated
with diversity. Through the years, several incidents of racism, including
marches by the Ku Klux Klan in Oxford, Ohio, had generated a perception
that the institution was insensitive to the concerns of diverse students. Exe-
cuted as part of a broader strategy that included new student support ser-
vices, nancial aid, and other programs, the new campaign set the context
for increasing the numbers of minority students applying to the university.
Box 5.9 offers several recommendations regarding the development of a
diversity branding strategy.
BOX 5.9
Student-Centered Diversity Branding Strategies
The following strategies are drawn from national best practices and conversations
with institutions that have demonstrated success in diversity recruitment and institu-
tional branding.
(continues)
T HE AR TF UL SC IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 247
Conduct Consumer Market Research

Into the Universitys Diversity Brand
Diversity leaders should begin with surveys and focus groups with a wide array of
stakeholders to understand what those stakeholders think about diversity on campus.
The focus groups should encompass all members of the academic community (fac-
ulty, students, and staff) and include not only minority students and women, but also
members of the LGBT community and international students, as well as the White
majority. In addition, the focus groups should include other important stakeholders
who interact with the campus community, including alumni, current and prospective
parents, individual and corporate partners, and members of the wider community.
By rst understanding the values and concerns of all these stakeholders, diversity
leaders can begin crafting relevant messages and begin drafting relevant messen-
gers. Academic communities are also fortunate in that they have a wide array of
different mediums for delivering the diversity message. Diversity leaders therefore
need to consider several variables when moving to implement their branding effort:
What is the broad frame and what are the specic messages? Who are our primary
and secondary or targets for the message? And what combination of mediums will
we use to distribute the message?
Building and Communicating a Compelling Diversity Brand Message

Whatever specic forms the diversity message takes, it is essential that it be positive,
proactive, and creative, generating interest in and commitment to creating a diverse
and inclusive environment. The messages will also have to be tailored for different
audiences. For example, the medium and message for prospective students and par-
ents about the diversity resources on campus could vary signicantly from the
medium and message used to reach the legislative community about the educational
benets of a diverse student body. Indeed, having a specic message that attracts
support from companies, government leaders, and others is essential if institutions
are to attract the type of nancial, political, and collegial support required to advance
their diversity agenda, particularly at public institutions.
But even as diversity leaders disseminate a positive diversity message, they need
to recognize the challenges that diverse students face negotiating their college expe-
rience. Efforts to avoid issues raised in focus groups will only lead to an obviously
contrived and inauthentic diversity brand. Diversity leaders have to connect to a
diverse pool of students in a way that is authentic to them yet does not marginalize
their experience by presenting an image that is totally one sided. Everything that
we know about multicultural marketing suggests the importance of establishing an
authentic message of connectivity and relevance across diverse groups. At times a
general message is appropriate; at other times a more targeted effort is essential.
(continues)
(continued)
Whatever the strategies deployed by the diversity leaders, it is essential that they
understand who their prospective audiences are before they decide how to attract
them.
Some specic tactical activities might include the following:
1. Create a targeted marketing campaign. Several institutions have successfully

built their diversity efforts around a strong marketing campaign. Examples
include Unleash Your Potential at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich-
igan; I am Miami at Miami University in Athens, Ohio; and What It Means
to Be an Aggie at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
2. Produce targeted mailings. At a number of institutions diversity leaders pro-
duce highly focused letters and brochures talking about the diverse student
experience on campus. These materials serve as a personalized communica-
tion enabling students to learn more about campus-related activities, prompt-
ing them to take the next action step necessary in the application process.
3. Produce a diversity video, or sizzle wheel. By presenting several aspects
of the campus diversity experience, campus leaders can highlight resources
that might otherwise go unnoticed and have particular interest for diverse
student populations and students interested in issues of diversity. Essential to
this tool is the authentic voice of students.
4. Use social networking tools. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are already
essential to most marketing strategies, including those used in academia, but
diversity leaders need to focus on using these tools in a way that actively
engages students and builds community. The marketing plan should include
a strong element that builds these social networking resources from within
and then connects them to each other. This portion of the plan should also
involve the strong participation of students, because most of them are already
comfortable with online social networking. An effort that is generated and
directed by students in collaboration with diversity leaders will be more viable
than one maintained solely by staff on their own.
Increasingly, publications like U.S. News and World Report and Barrons
Guide to the Most Competitive Colleges are proling diversity efforts as a
means to measure and rate the steps that higher institutions are taking to
become more inclusive. A marketing strategy needs to take these and other
publications into account, because they are often the rst contact a prospec-
tive student has with a college or university. A strong branding effort may
lead to a halo effect, generating positive reviews and coverage for the insti-
tutions overall brand. This success, in turn, can generate positive public
relation opportunities with alumni, donors, and foundations.
T HE AR TF UL SC IE N C E O F S T R AT E G IC DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P 249
Collegial Leadership Frame: Building Relationships and

Working With Others
The collegial leadership frame of strategic diversity leadership also ows out
of the unique organizational context of colleges and universities. Although
they share some similarities with businesses, colleges and universities behave
differently from their corporate counterparts. To effectively implement
broad-based diversity changes, diversity leaders need to recognize these dif-
ferences. The rst and most important difference is the inherently demo-
cratic nature of academic institutions. That colleges and universities are more
generally characterized by horizontal and diffuse power arrangements means
that diversity leaders need to engage the entire campus community before,
during, and after implementing any change, particularly when these changes
affect the academic domain of the institution (Rowley & Sherman, 2001).
Although the structural leadership dimension focuses primarily on
administrators and university governance issues, it is important to remember
that colleges and universities are driven as much by faculty members as by
administrators.3 The strong presence of what we might call the legislative
branch of academiafaculty members and their associationsare what
help distinguish governing issues in academia from other kinds of entities.
The faculty senate frequently constitutes its own democracy within a democ-
racy, in which decisions are made through consensus building, shared power,
and common commitments and aspirations. It is for this reason that strategic
diversity leaders must possess the ability to build coalitions and integrate
diversity into the related goals of academic and institutional excellence. By
providing positive incentives that encourage involvement and buy-in to the
process of change, diversity leaders can move the diversity agenda forward.
Coalition Building
Given the collaborative and professional norms of the academy, it would be
difcult to envision a campus where faculty members were not involved in
the change process (Birnbaum, 1988, 1982). Faculty members must have the
means to engage in planning for and implementing strategic diversity initia-
tives as part of a broader, campus-wide process. This is particularly true
when the issues under discussion are fundamentally academic in nature, such
as changes to the curriculum, measuring student performance, and consider-
ing faculty qualications and performance during the hiring and tenure
process. As previously noted, senior administrative leaders also have an
important role to play helping the campus community understand the ratio-
nale for change and helping to shape the goals and implementation strategies
of the strategic diversity plan. This demands honest and open communica-
tion with campus constituencies. Faculty, staff, and students care about their
institutions and are more favorable to change projects if they are invited to
provide input at the beginning and during the process (Birnbaum, 1988;
Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Although senior leaders may fear a transparent
process, an open dialogue with the community is essential if the change is to
become a permanent part of the institutions culture.
Although websites, e-mail, LISTSERVES, and annual reports are impor-
tant, the most powerful strategies are built around creating opportunities for
dialogue between the campus community and institutional decision makers.
Successful efforts include drawing on campus faculty expertise for consulting
purposes; hosting regular meetings with key stakeholders; and holding town
hall meetings with faculty, students, and staff. These mechanisms allow
institutional leaders to engage the campus community in a conversation
about any proposed changes. In this way, even if individuals disagree with
the changes, they will respect senior leaders for acknowledging their views
and respecting campus traditions of collegial engagement. By providing an
opportunity to participate in the process and give feedback, diversity leaders
simultaneously attend to the symbolic and political realities of institutions
and the need to operate collegially and work toward consensus (Birnbaum,
1988).
Integrating Diversity Into Campus-Wide Decisions, Priorities,

and Initiatives
Perhaps the most powerful way for strategic diversity leaders to build support
for their vision is to integrate diversity into general conversations of an insti-
tutions commitment to academic excellence. Leaders skilled in the relational
and political aspects of strategic diversity leadership may nd opportunities
for diversity efforts to enhance discussions of tenure and promotion, budget-
ing, and capacity building as part of the natural process of decision making.
For example, infusing community-based research into the formal denition
of scholarship in the tenure and promotion system may prove helpful to
social scientists interested in conducting empowerment research in histori-
cally marginalized and vulnerable communities. Introducing diversity issues
into discussions about the renovation of the new student union can antici-
pate the need of minority students before construction work begins, resulting
in a better union for all students. Alberta Garcia, an executive director of
diversity at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast, gave this helpful
advice about raising diversity issues in the context of broader institutional
decisions and priorities:
When I was talking about a chilly campus climate, I couldnt get much
done. But when I started talking about the student-faculty relationship
and building rapport between educators and students regarding issues of
learning, the conversation changed immensely. The trick is to make the
issues relevant for all students, if you can. For me, it is often about the
outcome, not the language. Sometimes you have to change your language
to connect with different audiences. This is something that I have tried to
get better at through the years and is one of the reasons why I am always
looking to translate something that everyone is looking at [a major educa-
tional issue] into an agenda item that I can use to advance my work around
issues of diversity.
Ultimately, our goal should be to make creative associations between

our diversity goals and the overarching priorities of the institution. When
people understand that the strategic diversity plan complements, rather than
competes with, the institutions core mission, resistance often fades. The key
is to develop a powerful understanding of general campus priorities and look
for ways to align diversity efforts accordingly. If the provost is concerned
about quality and effectiveness, then make campus diversity efforts center
on issues of quality and effectiveness. If the campus is refocusing its energy
on setting clear denitions for student learning outcomes, orient your diver-
sity policies and programs so that they address student-learning outcomes.
By cross-pollinating diversity priorities with the broader priorities of the
institution, you can help move the campus diversity agenda from the mar-
gins to the center.
Of course there are people who will always contest the idea that diversity
is intrinsically valuable or that it adds to the intellectual and social strengths
of an academic institution. In situations in which disagreement is inevitable,
one option is to move below the visible line of campus politics and try
to sway opinion and support through political maneuvering, incentives to
encourage engagement, and relationship building with key stakeholders who
can champion campus diversity efforts and counteract the negative words
and actions of diversity opponents. Box 5.10 presents several recommenda-
tions for navigating campus politics in a hostile environment.
BOX 5.10
Building Strategic Relationships in a Hostile Environment
1. Frame your arguments in terms of organizational goals. In Organizational

Behavior (2005), Stephen Robbins argues that displays of self-interest will
limit ones effectiveness and that, therefore, arguments should always be
framed in ways demonstrating their benets to the institution.
2. Develop the right image. Learn to project a professional, collegial image that
reects the institutions mission, culture, goals, values, and traditions.
3. Maintain control of organizational resources. Keeping exact and transparent
accounting with respect to the management of all human, nancial, and insti-
tutional resources makes them less susceptible to questioning or capture.
4. Make yourself indispensable. Carving out a niche means building a place for
yourself, your staff, and your ofce that extends beyond your specic realm
of work and into the broader mission and activities of the campus community.
The more indispensible you are to them, the more indispensible you become
when senior administrators have to make tough budget and personnel
decisions.
5. Be visible. Highlight your successes and enlist inuential messengers to help
tell your story.
6. Develop powerful allies. Strong allies are important not only for advancing
your agenda, but for representing your interests before other stakeholders.
7. Avoid tainted colleagues. Every organization has people whose performance,
abilities, and ethics are questionable, and it is rarely hard to gure out whom.
Without giving offence or creating a stir, quietly make it your business not to
be involved in theirs, much less allowing them to involve themselves in your
policies and programs.
8. Support your boss. Obviously, support for senior staff and administrators
should be contingent on their performing effectively and honestly. But in
todays world, loyalty is in short supply. Consider ways that you can reward
and credit both superiors and subordinates. In other words, pay it forward.
Doing good turns is contagious.
Source: Adapted from Robbins, 2005, pp. 609610.
Entrepreneurial Pull Strategies to Orchestrate Change

Campus leaders should consider also deploying marketing pull strategies
to implement their strategic diversity plan. In this context, a pull strategy
refers to an effort to attract intellectual support or buy-in for diversity efforts
T HE AR T F U L S C I E N C E O F S TR AT EG I C D I V E R S IT Y L EA DE R S HI P 253
by promoting the benets that come with a more diverse campus. In an

environment characterized by shared governance and collective decision
making, entrepreneurial pull strategies can be particularly effective. Pull
strategies include incentives and rewards, salary increases, release time, per-
sonal recognition, and special perks like parking spaces. Pull strategies pro-
vide an effective way to reward individuals, schools, and departments who
are making strides with regard to diversity. For example, the president might
host a campus-wide recognition banquet attended by the board, senior lead-
ership, powerful alumni, and other institutional stakeholders. This type of
event sends a powerful message to the campus community regarding diver-
sitys importance and establishes new institutional traditions that help to
further underscore diversitys importance to the campus culture.
Although a central funding source for diversity efforts is critical, another
strategy is to have relevant entities (schools, colleges, departments, etc.)
contribute a portion of their annual budget, or carry-forward monies left
over from the previous year, toward a central strategic diversity initiatives
account. High-achieving diversity organizations could then access these
funds by competing to accomplish specic campus diversity goals. By plac-
ing diversity change efforts in a competitive context, diversity leaders can
motivate a wide range of community members to become active in diversity
efforts. This strategy was used during the implementation phase of the Uni-
versity of Michigans Michigan Mandate for Diversity, and, according to
former president James Duderstadt, was essential to the universitys diversity
efforts (Duderstadt, 2000).
A nal pull strategy is to make students, faculty, staff, and departments
eligible for diversity challenge grants. These competitive grants encourage
entrepreneurial energy and new diversity initiatives to bubble up from the
campus community. Funded initiatives then might contribute to a special
report, conference, or presentation that could be used to communicate the
institutions successes in achieving its diversity goals.
Summary
This chapter seeks to help diversity change leaders understand that their
work will at times be linear and formal, relying on a well-developed diversity
plan, and at other times improvisational and exible, as they respond to
the inherent resistance, and at times intentional opposition, of institutional
stakeholders. Strategic diversity leaders understand these challenges and
embrace their complexity. They creatively seek out ways to align campus
resources in the service of achieving diversity goals, always remaining open
to emerging possibilities and potential allies. These leaders are proactive in
managing campus symbols to champion diversity, sending inspirational mes-
sages on the benets of diversity, equity, and inclusioneven though the
reality of campus life may be very much a work in progress.
Strategic diversity leaders endeavoring to accomplish fundamental
changes should know that there are no easy answers or quick solutions.
Therefore, they must question the core assumptions about institutional life
that often impede change and progress on issues of diversity. Transforma-
tional change is never easy and requires great resolve and courage. Indeed,
leaders who push the envelope of change often do so at great personal risk,
particularly at the beginning of the journey, when others may not have a
clear understanding of diversitys value. In the words of one former president
of a major university:
You know, I waded in the water on racial and ethnic equity and built a
powerful diversity strategy for the university. I then waded in the water
on gender equity and really pushed an agenda for women, resulting in a
tremendous amount of change. But when I decided to push on issues of
sexuality and really embrace the challenges of the LGBT community, I was
shot down by conservative board members who disagreed with this aspect
of my vision for diversity. If not for that decision, I probably would have
remained as president for another ve years at least. I feel good about the
decision, but leadership, particularly when it is on the margins, can come
at a cost. You always have to understand that cost, and personally know
how far you can push it.
We need leaders who can collaboratively envision a diversity strategy and

then ignite their allies to help make this vision a reality. They must recognize
the types of resources and capabilities they need to win and have a clear
appreciation of the challenges involved in getting there. To lead strategically
is to avoid micromanaging every detail, but instead create accountability and
entrepreneurial energy that inspires others to execute the vision for change.
Notes
1. The Robert D. Haas Chancellors Chair in Equity and Inclusion serves as the chair for
the Haas Institute.
T HE AR T F U L S C IE N C E O F S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS HI P 255
2. Dr. Frank Hale, Jr., Vice Provost Emeritus at The Ohio State University (personal
communication, May 2007).
3. Although staff members are also essential to the strategic diversity plan, we focus on
faculty here because they tend to have a greater inuence on mission, policy, and governance
issues.
6
BEING ACCOUNTABLE
Building a Strategic Diversity
Leadership Scorecard
It is not setting small goals; it is setting no goals that lead to presidential

failure. Aimless, day-to-day management, busy inertia, pre-occupied
drift, and high-minded indecision mark too many presidencies, because
incumbents set no goals. The rst and greatest task of a president [or
any leader] is to articulate the vision, champion the goals, and enunciate
the objectives.
Frank Rhodes, President Emeritus, Cornell University1
D
uring a lecture delivered at a major national conference, the author
once asked, How many of you believe that diverse experiences are
critical to student learning? In an audience of close to a thousand,
nearly every hand quickly shot into the air. But to the next question, How
many of you have the ability to illustrate with data the implications of diverse
experiences and their relationship to student learning and other academic
outcomes? only a sprinkling of hands went up. This scenario illustrates a
major challenge to those who work on diversity, equity, and inclusion in
higher education: the troubling absence of diversity-themed performance
management systems to drive the campus diversity agenda. All too frequently
conversations about performance management are limited to considering
such basic measures as rst-year retention rates, six-year graduation rates, or
equal employment opportunity discrimination claims. Although important,
these data provide only one component of the diversity story, rather than
a broader view of how diversity can be aligned more powerfully with the
institutions strategic goals and efforts along multiple dimensions, involving
the curriculum, learning, and research.
256
B E I N G AC CO U N TA B L E 257
Those outside of academia often criticize higher education for its failure
to hold individuals accountable for their actions, a practice held sacrosanct
in the private sector. To make diversity a matter of excellence is to require
more than improving the headcount of minority students. It demands that
we hold ourselves to the highest standards of accountability through systems
of performance management that allow us to understand the implications of
efforts across many facets of our institutional diversity agenda. These include
everything from access and equity initiatives to the scholarly efforts of our
faculty, and to the role of leadership in creating a new context in which
enhanced diversity efforts become possible. Thus, accountability for better
results is clearly imperative. But heightening accountability efforts in the
current systems of diversity performance management would yield only mar-
ginal improvement. As practiced today, diversity performance management
can best be described as weak, haphazard, and lacking in substance. As a
tool for answering key questions, it gives leaders few consistent performance
indicators. And even when credible information exists, diversity performance
management is largely underutilized.
This chapter addresses three major themes. First, it examines the ve
big-picture strategic diversity goals that every institution needs to reach:
achieving access and equity; fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus
climate; preparing all students for a knowledge-based, global economy;
enhancing research and scholarship around domestic and global diversity-
themed research; and the key ingredient that makes these four dimensions
possibleleadership diversity commitment. The chapter then measures
diversity progress across these ve dimensions using a strategic diversity lead-
ership scorecard. Finally, it explains how to use the data gleaned from the
scorecard to drive organizational learning and create greater commitment to
change. By developing a well-dened diversity scorecard and measurement
system, academic institutions have an opportunity to create a new paradigm,
shifting poorly designed efforts to evidence-based practices and thereby a
stronger ability to advance your institutions strategic diversity agenda.
The Scorecard Methodology: A Tool to Drive Performance

With the emergence of new data management systems, most institutions
today have vast stores of institutional data available for analysis. Unfortu-
nately, campus leaders rarely take adequate advantage of this data, usually
sharing publicly only simple measures of student academic achievement or
faculty representation. Indeed, institutional leaders often hesitate to disclose

campus diversity data for fear of a backlash from the campus community or
the media, perhaps motivated by perceptions of a lack of progress on diver-
sity issues. In other cases, ofcials may shy away from discussing their efforts
in the context of access and equity for fear of attracting the kinds of targeted
attacks by conservatives that have forced institutions to pull back from a
more proactive approach to advancing diversity. If we are to become strategic
diversity leaders operating from an organizational learning perspective, we
must use data to ground, sustain, and institutionalize our diversity efforts.
High-performing organizations use data to understand where they are
and to align action and intention in ways that achieve even greater inuence.
Diversity efforts should operate no differently. Without clear systems of
alignment and accountability, any diversity strategy will attain only marginal
success. To drive the campus diversity agenda, therefore, leaders must
develop a system for measuring their diversity performance over time. To
assist in this process, the author offers a tool grounded in concepts drawn
from the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992), the Diversity/
Equity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012), the
Diversity Scorecard (Hubbard, 2004), and what in his own research has
been called the Inclusive Excellence Scorecard (Williams, Berger, &
McLendon, 2005). The tool is scalable, uid, and contextual, helping institu-
tions understand what they are doing well and where they need to improve.
Generally speaking, an organizational scorecard operates like a balanced
and carefully selected set of performance data that helps leaders understand
the effect of tactical activities and how these ultimately drive the big-picture
strategic diversity agenda. More than simply compiling data, the scorecard
identies key performance measures and aligns the institutional change
vision with the formal day-to-day realities of the institution. Thus, the score-
card can function as the centerpiece of an institutions campus diversity
agenda, and in this way should resemble the ways the institution measures
all aspects of its broader vision and mission. It also offers a way of communi-
cating progress to stakeholders. Deployed as part of a larger process of intro-
spection, dialogue, and action, the scorecard serves as a rallying point to
deepen an institutions commitment to change, what Chapter 5 denes as
the organizational learning perspective of strategic diversity leadership.
Constructed to generate success, the scorecard enables campuses to move
from simply checking off diversity outcomes as part of a diversity head-
count game, to managing a holistic and integrated plan to reach diversity
and educational quality goals as a matter of institutional excellence.
This means of accessing organizational diversity in a manner that is

sensitive to both process and outcomes can be traced to the scorecard tools
rst described in business literature and later adopted by the higher educa-
tion and nonprot sectors (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Kaplan & Norton,
1992; ONeil, 1999). Among the rst to translate the scorecard concept to
the diversity discussion in higher education was Bensimon (2004), who pre-
sented the initial concept as a diversity scorecard. Later reframed as an
equity scorecard, it reected an effort to help colleges and universities
monitor their progress and move toward equity in terms of access, reten-
tion, institutional receptivity, and excellence for historically underrepre-
sented groups. Hubbard (2004) also developed a diversity scorecard for
the corporate sector, dening diversity progress across the related dimensions
of customer and community partnerships, workforce prole, nancial
impact, workplace climate and culture, diversity leadership commitment,
and nally, learning and growth (p 132). At the heart of these scorecards
was an effort to understand and activate the organizational diversity agenda
from a broad perspective.
Why Are Diversity Scorecards Important?

Scorecards are important because they help an institution attain clarity and
consensus about diversity strategy in ways that, despite potentially high levels
of preexisting institutional commitment, were previously unimaginable.
First, although an institution may have a plethora of campus diversity initia-
tives in play, it may not have a means to assess their effectiveness, much
less understand how they are connected. Second, the capacity to develop
collaboratively a set of broadly shared diversity indicators allows the institu-
tion to sharpen its diversity focus. Third, scorecards allow the institution to
identify key drivers of performance and measure outcomes across a number
of diversity perspectives. Fourth, strategic diversity scorecards establish a
framework for setting priorities. Fifth, scorecards allow an institution to
understand how certain activities add value in ways that traditional analysis
may not have easily measured because they rely on surveys, focus groups, and
other primary data collection techniques. And nally, a strategic diversity
scorecard can provide clarity around places where an institution should build
new initiatives that aggressively move the agenda forward while scaling back
in areas that do not.
Once considered the primary domain of the business world, the score-
card methodology has become increasingly popular in higher education over
the last several years. That momentum continues to build as scorecard meth-
odology is now regularly implemented in several contexts, ranging from gen-
eral quality improvement efforts to issues of diversity. By adopting the
scorecard methodology to diversity issues, leaders in higher education now
have the opportunity to apply concrete accountability measures to their
diversity policies and programs. In short, a scorecard can translate a broad
vision to tangible examples of work that apply across multiple areas of the
institution.
The Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard

This section outlines the strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) that
builds on the work of Bensimon (2004); Bensimon and Malcolm (2012);
Astin (1991); Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen (1998); Hubbard
(2004); Smith (2009); Williams, Berger, and McClendon (2005); and others.
The SDLS is a multidimensional performance measurement tool designed
to drive change from a number of related perspectives: achieving access and
equity; fostering a multicultural and inclusive campus climate; preparing all
students for a knowledge-based, global economy; and enhancing diversity-
themed research and scholarship. Figure 6.1 offers a visual representation of
these four perspectives. The use of the word perspectives is intentional and
meant to reinforce the idea that a strategic diversity effort works best if
pursued from a number of different viewpoints. At the core of the model is
diversity leadership commitment, which operates as the key ingredient for
accomplishing the other four dimensions of the model. That said, the per-
spectives offered here are not meant to be exhaustive. A particular institution
might develop others, including strategic partnerships and communication,
or marketing. Finally, an institution might even split a perspective into two,
such as by examining access and equity from a gender perspective, an eco-
nomic perspective, and then a minority perspective.
For a scorecard to be meaningful, it must be framed to conform to the
unique vision and strategic goals of your campuss diversity efforts. If prepar-
ing students to join a diverse, global workforce is not an institutional goal,
then it should not be included as a perspective in the framework. Conversely,
other required perspectives should be developed as appropriate. The four
baseline perspectives offered here represent the big-picture diversity priorities
of most academic institutions. It has proven quite helpful as a starting point
for developing a balanced diversity performance measurement system. Figure
B E I NG AC C O U N TA B L E 261
6.1 presents each of these perspectives as a balanced set of diversity ideas that
can help an institution move forward in a more effective and coordinated
fashion. The model complements previous discussions of strategic diversity
leadership, presenting a performance management tool that captures the var-
ious threads of an institutional diversity strategy, however dened.
Objectives, Goals, Tactics, and Indicators

Figure 6.1 also indicates the need for leaders to dene the objectives, goals,
tactics, and indicators (OGTIs) of progress associated with each perspective.
OGTIs offer an effective way of aligning an institutions diversity efforts
within a particular area of diversity, capturing the big-picture vision for your
institution from a particular perspective. This part of each scorecard should
be very selective and as well dened as possible. A learning and diversity
objective might endeavor to ensure that every graduate is educated for a
diverse and global world. The specic action objectives are then translated
into goals. For example, an institution may decide that every student will
FIGURE 6.1
Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard
participate in a study abroad program and fulll a campus-wide general

education diversity requirement by the end of his or her junior year. Tactics
include the specic programs, initiatives and action steps that are necessary
to accomplish the goals and, by extension, the big-picture objective. In this
example, the tactics may be to create a new diversity requirement, develop a
plan to market the study abroad program, and train advisors in such a way
that they know how to present these initiatives and their importance to
students. It also may involve allocating more nancial resources to those
departments that teach the general education diversity requirement, and
funding to the study abroad ofce to assist economically vulnerable student
populations to participate.
Finally, indicators are the specic measures or themes used to track prog-
ress. In this context, indicators can be qualitative or quantitative, because
the aim is to have enough evidence to allow leaders to understand, make
adjustments, and lead change over time. At times, leaders will quantify their
indicators, as it will be important to express equity progress in terms of
where they are (baseline) versus where they ultimately want to go (target).
Leaders can also dene indicators in terms of progress and outcome indica-
tors. OGTIs can cascade down through the institution. Once the overall
OGTIs are outlined, individual departments can create their own OGTIs to
match the objectives articulated at the institutional level.
SDLS Progress and Outcome Indicators of Organizational

Diversity
Progress and outcome indicators constitute ways of thinking about develop-
ments within and across each perspective of your scorecard. Simply dened,
indicators are those specic criteria that are used in a performance manage-
ment system or scorecard. A description of progress and outcome indicators
is presented in Table 6.1, and examples are provided in Table 6.2. As they
illustrate, the scorecard functions as a tool for taking an accurate snapshot of
institutional diversity health across multiple dimensions, and also for under-
standing progress and outcomes over time. The mix of progress and outcome
indicators included in a diversity scorecard should give a clear sense not only
of where the institution is with respect to a particular effort in a summative
fashion (outcomes), but also where it stands in the formative processes of
change (progress). Progress or formative data allow us to understand how we
can improve the effect of a particular program, process, or initiative. Helping
us with an early indication of where the institution is across the various
B E I N G AC C O U N TA B L E 263
TAB LE 6. 1
Sample of Progress and Outcome Performance Measures
Dimension Progress Indicators Outcome Indicators
Denition Formative data that appear during the planning Measures that capture summative information
and operation of an activity and help drive the and historic performance
desired outcomes, normally measuring some
aspect of progress in terms of intermediate
processes and activities
Access and First-year retention rates Six-year graduation rates
Equity
Perspective
Learning and Number of participants in a service learning Ability to take the perspective of the other
Diversity program (captured through survey data)
Perspective
Multicultural Number of participants in a diversity training Perceptual measures of the campus climate
and Inclusive workshop (captured through survey data)
Campus Climate
Perspective
Diversity Number of diversity-themed research institutes Number of diversity-themed articles, books, and
Research and and projects on campus publications produced annually
Scholarship
Perspective
Leadership Qualitative assessment of diversity efforts as a Success across the other four diversity
Commitment part of the annual review of faculty, perspectives
Perspective administrators, and staff
Advantages Progress measures allow the institution to make Often easy to identify and capture
adjustments midprocess to drive new outcomes
Challenges May prove difcult to identify and capture; Historical in nature and do not reect predictive
often new measures with no history or power
organization
performance measures of the scorecard, these formative data help us to judge

the worth of the process or activity that is being used to drive diversity-
themed change.
For example, through a collaborative monitoring process of the diversity
of a pool of prospective applicants facilitated by a faculty search committee
and the Ofce of Afrmative Action, a department chair may obtain valu-
able information that suggests modifying the search committees process for
identifying and recruiting diverse talent. Progress data of this kind (diversity
of contacts, applicants, and interview participants) is an important comple-
ment to outcome data (the hiring decision) because it helps academic leaders
understand whether their hiring initiatives are on the right track, especially
if their efforts are failing to generate diversity even in the applicant pool. By
TA BL E 6 .2
Sample Tactics, Progress, and Outcome Indicators to Be Used in an Institutions Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard
Perspective Description Sample Tactics Sample Progress Indicators Sample Outcome Indicators
Access and Equity To achieve access and Curriculum Yield rates of ethnically and racially diverse applicants Six-year graduation rates for minorities and women,
Perspective equity for historically transformation to undergraduate and graduate programs students with disabilities, rst-generation students, Pell
underrepresented efforts in courses Yield rates of Pell Grant recipient students Grant Recipients, others
minorities and evidencing the Number of women in STEM and business majors Graduating minorities and women in the professional
women, boosting greatest academic Number of males in education majors schools commensurate with their representation on
attendance, disparity Ethnically and racially diverse students and Pell Grant campus
graduation, and Diversity-themed recipients in the honors program Graduating minorities, women, and rst-generation
promotion rates, scholarships First-year retention rates and sophomore retention students in the STEM majors commensurate with their
while achieving at K12 pipeline rates representation on campus
levels comparable to programs Gateway course achievement levels Minorities and women in signicant leadership
the majority Learning Number of historically underrepresented African positions at all levels
population communities American, Latino/a, Native American, and Southeast Minority and women advancement to full professor at
High-impact Asian students enrolled rates commensurate to all members of the faculty
learning experience Number of nonathlete males of color enrolled on Minority and women tenure rates
programs campus Percentage of minorities and women graduating with a
Retention programs Diversity levels in the search processes for faculty and 3.0 GPA or higher
Staff and administrative positions Graduation rates for African American, Latino/a, and
administrator hiring Levels of minority participation in high-impact Native American males
initiatives and learning experiences (e.g., rst-year experience) Percentage of minorities, women, students with
leadership Number of community college transfers disabilities, rst-generation students, and Pell Grant
development Pell Grants by race and ethnicity recipients graduating with honors
programs Percentage of minority and low-income students
Diverse faculty receiving merit-based scholarship support
hiring initiatives Percentage of students receiving need-based nancial
Targeted aid
recruitment efforts Ratio of student retention staff to number of student
Targeted STEM participants in the retention program
programs and Employee turnover
initiatives Levels of diversity in different majors, particularly in
STEM and professional disciplines
Levels of unmet nancial need by economic
background
Number of rst-generation students on campus
Multicultural and Establishing campus Diversity afnity Number of diverse student organizations Levels of use and participation in diversity and
Inclusive Campus climate of inclusion, professional Number of course syllabi that include a diversity, campus-wide activities and initiatives
Climate Perspective in which every organizations for inclusion, or campus climate statement Perceptions of belonging
member of the faculty and staff Number of campus climate incidents (e.g., Perceptions of engagement
institution feels a Diversity-themed homophobic letter put on the door of a member of the Perceptions of satisfaction
sense of belonging student organizations LGBT community) Perceptions of the campus climate
and is able to Diversity awards Number and presence of diversity-related articles in Perceptions of work-family conicts
participate fully in ceremonies campus media Number of lawsuits and settlements
the life of the Diversity Training Number of faculty, staff, and administrators who have Number of sexual harassment cases
institution Programs for attended diversity training, education, and leadership Number of racial discrimination cases
students, faculty, and trainings Structured employee feedback
staff Level of participation and vitality of professional
Domestic partner diversity afnity organizations (e.g., LGBT faculty and
benets staff association)
Family-friendly Level of participation and vitality of minority student
work policies organizations
LGBT ally training Minority student participation in campus-wide student
initiatives organizations
(continues)
TA BL E 6 . 2 (Continued)
Perspective Description Sample Tactics Sample Progress Indicators Sample Outcome Indicators
Learning and Ensuring that Diversity content Number of faculty actively infusing racial, ethnic, Social and emotional intelligence indicators
Diversity Perspective students, faculty, and infused in every gender, and other diverse perspectives into their content Democratic outcomes indicators such as the ability to
staff are prepared for course material take the position of the other, look at the world from
a diverse, global, and Ethnic and gender Majority student participation in campus diversity multiple perspectives
interconnected world studies education leadership efforts Measures of cognitive complexity
General education Number of ethnic, gender, and international area Measures of essential learning outcomes
diversity studies majors and minors
requirements Level of majority student participation in diversity-
International area related courses (e.g., general education diversity
studies requirement)
Service learning Minority and low-income student participation in
initiatives study abroad and other global experience activities
Study abroad Participation of majority students in intergroup
programs relations experiences
Participation in service learning and other volunteer
activities
Participation of students in advanced foreign language
courses
Presence of diversity in courses across the curriculum
Number of students participating in diversity-themed
courses by school, college, or department
Diversity Research To advance Diversity research Number of ethnic, gender, and international area Total number and value of grants designed to drive
and Scholarship scholarship and institutes and centers studies programs with departmental status research and scholarship in the areas of diversity, equity,
Perspective research around Ethnic and gender Number of full-time or afliated faculty in ethnic, and inclusion
domestic, studies efforts gender, and international area studies Research and scholarly output (e.g., articles, books,
international, and Faculty exchange Presence of diversity-themed research centers and chapters, etc.)
intersectional issues programs institutes Presentations at national and international meetings
of diversity Global research Participation of faculty in international research focused on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion
partnerships experiences
International Presence of innovative urban partnership efforts
studies centers focused on access, equity, and continuing education for
Visiting diversity underserved populations
scholars programs
B EI NG AC CO UN TA B L E 267
comparison, summative or outcome data center on end-point questions such

as: What does this educational initiative add up to? How many rst-
generation students did we graduate? How many female science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) faculty did we hire? Does our leadership
commitment meet our expectations as a campus community? Summative
measures provide the bottom line in a particular dimension of the scorecard,
but need to be understood in a context that measures progress.
Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence of Progress and Effect

In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins (2005) argues that the
critical question for higher education (and others in the social sector) is how
to create a culture of evidence when quantifying results is difcult. What
matters is to rigorously assemble both quantitative and qualitative evidence
to track progress over time. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then
think of your efforts like a genetics researcher measuring and analyzing data.
If the evidence is primarily qualitative, then think like a lawyer gathering
and assembling a body of evidence that tells a story of inuence. The key is
to use evidence to explain and drive performance in the area of diversity as a
value-added process of organizational learning and transformative action.
Addressing the question, How does our performance in diversity enhance
our ability to do what we are best in the world at? transforms the Good
institution into a Great one, in Collinss framing.
As you begin the process of creating your scorecard, it is important to
remember that all indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, are inher-
ently awed. There are no perfect measures of anything (J. Collins, 2005).
What matters most is not the search for the perfect indicator, but making
an intelligent decision in response to what the data do suggest, and then
tracking progress with rigor and clarity over time (J. Collins, 2005).
Although some dimensions of your scorecard will be easy to capture and
interpret, the majority will require a careful approach that establishes evi-
dence and allows you to calibrate your performance even without an easily
quantied diversity metric. Diversity, itself, is a collection of characteristics;
it stands to reason that its measurement would likewise require a triangula-
tion of multiple measures and types of information.
Multiple Sources of Data

Being able to combine, or triangulate from a number of different sources
and types of information is critical. Table 6.2 presents several examples of
progress and outcome indicators that may be used to develop a strategic

diversity scorecard. Although data will come from a number of different
sources, the most readily available source of information is an institutions
database. Campus data systems contain a wealth of information about the
prole, experience, progress, and outcomes of an institution, particularly in
the area of access and equity for faculty, staff, and students. Other sources
of data may be more difcult to tease out. Obtaining them may require such
formal data collection activities as pre- and postactivity program collections;
formative and summative evaluations; focus groups; organizational case stud-
ies; exit interviews; and campus climate, culture, and experience surveys of
faculty, staff, and students.
Another way to generate data is to conduct secondary research of
national projects like the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE),
the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the Collaborative
on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE), and the National
Study of Chief Diversity Ofcers.2 Although primary data gleaned from your
own institution is preferable, these studies may nevertheless provide critical
information and allow you to compare your campus against institutions of
similar size and scope. Regardless of the source, the goal is to amass data that
will help elucidate the process and outcomes for each dimension of your
scorecard, thereby facilitating conversations about where your institution
stands and where you hope to go.
The Importance of Disaggregating Data

In assessing campus performance along any number of different dimensions,
it is important to reect on the extent to which embedded benets may exist
for some groups to the exclusion of others who continue to struggle. Campus
leadership can only understand the differences in the experience of different
subgroups by disaggregating quantitative and qualitative data at every
opportunity.
The campus experiences of students, faculty, and staff are nested in a
broader social-historical context of difference dened by race, ethnicity, gen-
der, sexuality, disability, and other dimensions of the evolving diversity idea.
Despite whatever positive steps they may have taken, most institutions have
embedded processes that sustain the advantage of majority groups. Unless
we examine the campus experience through the lens of identity and disaggre-
gation, these advantages usually go unrecognized (Duster, 1993). As discussed
later in this chapter, this type of intentionality in data collection and analysis
is the only way that campus leaders can meaningfully discern how different
groups are excluded or included on campus.
LGBT Themes
While it is understood about the importance of disaggregating by gender;
wherever possible, it is also vital to disaggregate information as it relates to
issues of sexual orientation, understanding that this may not always be easily
accomplished given a particular data collection activity. Indeed, one of the
challenges of gathering LGBT-related survey and interview data is contin-
gent on the very process of coming out. As individuals negotiate the pro-
cess of dening their sexual orientation and gender identity, they may not
always feel comfortable openly identifying themselves. Indeed, Rankin
(2003) found that 27 percent of faculty and staff and more than 40 percent
of LGBT students hid their identity to avoid discrimination, and that 36
percent of students said that they had experienced harassment on campus in
the previous academic year. Thus, the LGBT community has understand-
able concerns about participating in surveys and other studies.
The key to overcoming these challenges is to use a culturally aligned
research process, similar to the ones that have been found to work for other
historically excluded groups. If not approached with sensitivity, discretion,
and condentiality, individuals within a particular group may ignore invita-
tions to participate in surveys, focus groups, and research projects. To over-
come these challenges, particularly as they relate to the LGBT community,
Rankin (2003) used purposeful sampling of LGBT community members in
an effort to build a database suitable for analyzing this groups experience on
campus. In purposive sampling, research participants are carefully recruited
in a sensitive and respectful way, focusing on qualitative interactions, even
though the data collection activity itself may be quantitative in nature (C.
Patton, 2002). Rankins purposive method was deployed across 14 institu-
tions. To accomplish this goal, surveys were given to prominent and trusted
LGBT leaders who then distributed the surveys to others within the LGBT
community. Surveys were also distributed through key organizations on
campus that enjoyed trust and communication with the LGBT community.
Over time this process resulted in nearly 1,700 usable surveys that provided
rich data for studying this groups experience with the campus environment.
Race and Ethnicity Themes
Perhaps one of the areas where disaggregation receives very little attention is
in terms of race and ethnicity data. All too often campus leaders either resist
looking at race and ethnicity data or limit their analysis to the most obvious
indicators, such as representation and graduation rates. Other times, leaders
lump different minority groups together in an effort to provide an aggregate
number of minority students who can be contrasted with the majority White
population. Although using aggregate numbers can be helpful, institutions
should disaggregate by race and ethnicity whenever these breakdowns are
statistically available.
In the authors experience, campus leaders often hesitate to study their
own data on race and class for fear of reinforcing widely held stereotypes
about the competitive abilities of minorities as compared with the majority
population. Well-intentioned administrators will sometimes say, Arent we
just reinforcing a message of racial or ethnic inferiority by highlighting these
differences? These individuals worry that highlighting the disparities
between minority subgroups and the majority culture sends a discouraging
message that minority individuals cannot perform as well as their majority
peers, colleagues, and coworkers. They also worry that disaggregation will
bring negative media attention to the institution by highlighting any persis-
tent challenges to achieving a greater equity of outcomes. Finally, they resist
disaggregation because it may call attention to particular academic depart-
ments where minority and female student achievement is apparently lower,
implying a systemic challenge they wish to ignore and leave undisturbed.
Yet we are only going to overcome these fundamental challenges if we
can openly and honestly examine the unique experiences of different groups.
Thus, it is vital that we not only disaggregate by as many factors as necessary,
but also that we work to distinguish the subtle nuances within a particular
subgroup. We know, for example, that the background, resources, and expe-
riences of a fourth-generation Latino student will differ markedly from a
Latino student who arrived in the United States six months ago. Racial and
ethnic communities are rarely homogeneous. Researchers need to give special
consideration to the different experiences of men and women within a
minority subgroup. There is still signicant work that remains to be done
on the challenges faced by women of color in the context of the double
burden they face with respect to issues of race and gender.
Broadening the discussion of diversity as a matter of excellence means
that the process of scorecard disaggregation cannot be wholly centered on
equity for diverse cultural identity groups. The goal is also to understand the
experiences of those in the majority. This point is particularly important
from a learning and diversity perspective and the degree to which our efforts
prepare students for a knowledge-based, global economy. As the promise of
B EI NG AC CO U N TA BL E 271
our global community unfolds, it is increasingly vital that we understand the

experience of majority White students, faculty, and staff, and the ways that
they are developing the skills necessary to thrive in an increasingly diverse
society.
Progress should also be tracked in a manner that allows for analysis by
family income or socioeconomic status. For example, the disaggregating of
outcome data by family income quartile and Pell Grant recipient should
become standard practice. These data must be publicly available in a format
that allows for easy access, interpretation, and analysis. Because the differ-
ences between and within groups are real, campus leaders should always
delve deeper into the data whenever possible. Exploring and communicating
their ndings, however modest, will be a welcome gesture for minority com-
munities who have often seen their particular concerns and interests either
ignored by, or subsumed within, majority White society.
Calculating Equity Ratios Across Scorecard Dimensions

As Estella Bensimon notes, deploying a diversity-themed scorecard consists
of more than simply tracking changes across the various dimensions or per-
spectives of interest (Bensimon, 2004). To that end, strategic diversity leaders
should focus on achieving the representation, equitable achievement, and
full participation of different groups on campus across the diversity perspec-
tives detailed earlier. Bensimon (2004) recommends using the Equity
Index, which is a quantitative method to measure equity in educational
outcomes for students, although it is transferrable to faculty and staff and
even other perspectives of the scorecard. The Equity Index is a measure
of proportionality based on the population for each group under analysis
(Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, Hao, & Bustillos, 2003). The index is a ratio
of two percentages that is presented in Figure 6.2.
Bensimon and colleagues go on to note that:
FIGURE 6.2
Equity Index for Educational Outcomes
Different reference populations can be chosen as the denominator depend-

ing on the purpose of the data analysis. At its simplest level, it means that
students in the K12 system should be representative of the population
demographics; college student enrollment should be representative of the
K12 students, the appropriate age cohort, or high school graduates; stu-
dents who obtain post-secondary degrees should be representative of the
college student body; students who successfully transfer from two-year
community colleges to four-year colleges should be representative of the
students in the community colleges; and the faculty composition should
reect the composition of the student body. (Bensimon et al., 2003, pp.
910)
Although each institution will have to determine its strategic goals and
reference points for dening equity, Bensimons vision for achieving equity
of outcomes can help leaders to ne tune their campus efforts. For example,
if women collectively receive 10 percent of the degrees in STEM majors but
50 percent of degrees overall, the Equity Index is 10/50 or 0.20. Equity is
reached when the index ratio equals 1.0 from a campus perspective. From
these data, measures of equity and inequity across all majors, programs, hon-
ors, faculty and staff positions, and tenure decisions can be compared. These
equity indicator measurements are then used to provide an even more inten-
sive analytic component for your scorecard. Table 6.3 provides an example
of what a portion of a scorecard might look like from the vantage point of
access and equity. One goal in this example involves addressing the equity
of historically underrepresented students in the STEM disciplines. Here we
offer specic strategies, such as identifying students in middle school and
helping them achieve academically, as well as creating an academic success
and leadership program to ensure success once students enroll in college.
This use of the equity ratio process offers a powerful way of understand-
ing where you are in terms of achieving true equity regarding your institu-
tions diversity performance. This process for calculating equity outcomes,
whether in the access and equity dimension of the scorecard or another
dimension, makes sense to campus leaders because it is concrete and quanti-
tative. Although the access and equity perspective is generally easiest to quan-
tify in this way, a similar process can be followed for other dimensions of
the scorecard as well.
Campus leaders should be aware that establishing baseline and target
goals, and calculating equity/success ratios, can lead to criticism and resis-
tance from conservative and reactionary forces arguing that any efforts to
B EI N G AC CO UN TA BL E 273
TAB LE 6. 3
Sample Portion of Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard for Access and Equity
Perspective Objective Goals Tactical Activity Indicators
Access and To achieve equity To achieve Precollege Efforts Baseline: Proportion
Equity of representation proportional Identify potential candidates of historically
and outcomes for representation in the among historically underrepresented underrepresented
ethnically and STEM disciplines middle school students. minority students in
racially diverse among historically Work with these students in STEM disciplines
minority underrepresented academic skills, college advising,
students in our minority students precollege information, and STEM Target: Proportion of
undergraduate commensurate with after-school and summer programs, ethnic and racial
student their representation beginning as early as the seventh minorities overall
population in the overall student grade.
population Create a recruitment and Equity Ratio:
scholarship program that targets Measured as the ratio
students from the precollege of the baseline gure to
program the target gure
Undergraduate Student Efforts

Develop strong academic and
leadership development programs
available to all students.
Establish a cohort-driven STEM
leadership and academic excellence
program featuring high expectations,
scholarship support, book stipends,
supplemental tutoring, mentoring,
research experiences, and
professional development activities.
Invest resources in campus-based
diversity-themed student
organizations like the National
Society of Black Engineers, the
Hispanic premedical student group
and others.
Invest resources into general
campus student organizations like
the Physics Club and the Natural
Resources Club to develop a
diversity outreach and recruitment
strategy and encourage minority
student participation.
Create specic minority
achievement gapthemed training
programs for academic advisors to
strengthen their ability to work with
diverse students.
promote minority students in a particular eld amounts to reverse discrimi-

nation and the promotion of special treatment. Thus, diversity leaders face
a stark choice: develop programs that utilize the most rigorous assessment
systems to encourage diversity access and equity, risking criticism from the
radical right; or sit on their hands, frozen by potential controversy, and do
little to advance diversity values at their institutions. For leadership using
equity ratios indicators, it is critical that the objectives, goals, and tactics
connect back to the big-picture diversity denition and rationale discussed
in Chapter 2. The goal of these equity ratios cannot be racial balancing
but rather, leveraging these assessment tools as a way of tracking progress
toward achieving the institutions broader educational goals and mission.
Some Caveats Regarding the SDLS

Cox (2001) offers several important caveats that should be understood before
putting an SDLS into action. First, do not oversell data when developing
conclusions. Legitimacy can be lost when diversity champions aggressively
position their initiatives beyond what a prudent person might consider the
limitations of the data at hand. Second, make sure that the data is user-
friendly and accessible. Although intensive statistical analyses are potentially
important for publication, some of the most inuential insights may emerge
from basic descriptive and multivariate analyses. According to Cox, A good
rule of thumb is that if the average high-school student doesnt understand
a graphic, it probably needs to be revised (2001, p. 74). Thus, it helps to
distinguish the most critical data from the entire pool of information. The
goal is to select enough information to make your point without overwhelm-
ing the reader. The third and most obvious reminder is that individuals
should have a rm grasp of any statistical analysis they are presenting. Too
often, well-meaning diversity committee members not formally trained in
social science research methods nd themselves unable to respond to ques-
tions presented by members of the community.
Because of the nature of the academy, it does little good for strategic
diversity leaders to develop their strategic diversity scorecard in isolation
from other stakeholders; any insights would be nearly impossible to imple-
ment, especially if they aimed for transformational change. Strategic diversity
scorecards must be developed and implemented in partnership with others
to achieve buy-in and viability. Participation, conict, cooperation, and
implementation are all behavioral aspects of the planning process and are
key factors in its success. In Creating Contagious Commitment, Andrea Sha-

piro (2003) argues that organizational change should spread virally, moving
from person to person, with each new recipient becoming a carrier of the
message of change. Some will need to come into contact with the idea in
multiple ways over time to become part of the movement. The key is to
reach as many people as possible, as frequently as possible.
Finally, diversity-themed assessment is too often used as a political cover
to eliminate programs and initiatives or cut budgets, rather than to spur
learning and organizational development. Although some programs may
need to be eliminated or tapered, the goal of developing a strategic diversity
scorecard is to drive learning and enhance results. Diversity-themed assess-
ment is not a smokescreen to roll back institutional commitment and elimi-
nate the limited capacity that often already exists on campus. Because many
campus diversity leaders often fear that their programs will be subject to
cuts, senior leaders should be especially cautious when using their scorecard
to eliminate campus efforts. If a policy or program is ultimately eliminated,
the process and rollout must be handled with integrity and a clear under-
standing of how various communities may interpret the move. Although a
cut or substantive change may be required, the process will ultimately deter-
mine if the history and mission of the efforts are handled with respect, and
if the focus is set on shifting newly freed resources to drive a more powerful
agenda for reaching the institutions diversity goals.
The Access and Equity Perspective

The access and equity perspective is the classic diversity prism for under-
standing diversity efforts in higher education. More than simply tracking
changes in the representation of historically underrepresented students, fac-
ulty, and staff, its focus is on the equitable representation and achievement
of diverse groups (Bensimon, 2004). Therefore, it involves tracking achieve-
ment between historically underrepresented or disadvantaged groups and
their normative other in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, economic
background, or any other identity prole dened as a subject of an institu-
tions scorecard. Although institutions may develop their scorecard in myriad
ways, the persistence of long-standing social injustice and forms of discrimi-
nation should motivate every institution to develop an access and equity
dimension in its scorecard that addresses issues of racial and ethnic diversity,
gender equity, economic background, disability, and national origin status.
Rooted in both historic and contemporary discussions of diversity, these

dimensions are fundamental to any discussion aimed at achieving equity of
outcomes in higher education. Depending on the goals that a particular
institution sets for its diversity efforts, several factorsincluding race, eth-
nicity, gender, and economic backgroundshould always form part of the
scorecard.
The access and equity dimension should be thought of in terms of prog-
ress indicators and institutional outcomes. Examples of progress indicators
are the number of incoming minority students, incoming community col-
lege transfers, minority students in the honors program, and the number of
students participating in a diversity-themed academic enhancement program
or in service learning opportunities. Today encompassing much more than the
traditional outcome measures of minority hiring or student graduation rates,
these indicators provide key process data that can help institutional leaders
understand how they can successfully adjust the activities that drive their
campus diversity agenda. For example, if a new articulation agreement is not
leading to more transfer students from a neighboring community college,
new tactics may be required, including efforts to strengthen and streamline
the articulation agreement and more extensive support services to ease the
transition once transferring students have arrived. The scorecard should be
used to make adjustments and drive change, not simply to report ndings.
Its also recommended that leaders track student participation in what
George Kuh (2008) and others have referred to as high-impact learning expe-
riences (Table 6.4). Leveraging data from the NSSE, Kuh (2008) concluded
that involvement in rst-year experience programs, learning communities,
undergraduate research, service learning, and other activities may have an
even more positive inuence on the academic achievement of historically
underrepresented students than previously understood. Given that they are
statistically less likely to be involved in campus experiences closely associated
with academic achievement, historically underrepresented students should
perhaps be overrepresented in these experiences as a platform for enhancing
their success. For this reason, institutions should monitor student participa-
tion in high-impact experiences as a critical process variable connected to
better grades, improved graduation rates, and more students entering gradu-
ate school to complete training in a range of professional elds.
A parallel indicator for faculty might involve a historical analysis of the
number of minorities or women participating in a campus fellowship or
leadership experience designed to groom the next generation of senior
administrators. If the program has a track record of launching faculty into
B EI N G AC CO U N TA BL E 277
TAB LE 6. 4
Monitoring Minority Student Participation in High-Impact Learning Practices Identied
Here as Progress Measures in a Strategic Diversity Leadership Scorecard*
High-Impact Potential Scorecard
Learning Practice Description Dimension
First-Year Includes programs that bring small groups of rst-year students Access and Equity
Seminars and together with faculty or staff on a regular basis. The highest Perspective
Experiences quality rst-year experiences place a strong emphasis on critical
inquiry, writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and
other skills that develop a students intellectual and practical
competencies. First-year seminars can also involve students with
cutting-edge questions and in the research efforts of faculty
members.
Common Include a set of required common courses or vertically organized Access and Equity
Intellectual general education efforts that include advanced integrative studies Perspective
Experiences or required participation in a learning community. These Learning and Diversity
programs often combine a variety of curricular and cocurricular Perspective
options for students.
Learning The key goals for learning communities are to encourage Access and Equity
Communities integration of learning across courses and to involve students with Perspective
big questions that go beyond the classroom. Students take two Learning and Diversity
or more linked courses as a group and work closely with one Perspective
another and with their professors. Learning communities explore
a common topic and common readings through the lenses of
different disciplines. Some deliberately link liberal arts and
professional courses, whereas others feature service learning.
Intensive Writing Includes courses that emphasize writing at all levels of instruction Access and Equity
Courses and across the curriculum, including senior theses and projects. Perspective
Students should be encouraged to produce and revise various Learning and Diversity
forms of writing for different audiences in different disciplines. Perspective
The effectiveness of these practices across the curriculum has
led to parallel efforts in such areas as quantitative reasoning, oral
communication, information literacy, and ethical inquiry.
Collaborative Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work Access and Equity
Assignments and and solve problems in the company of others, and sharpening Perspective
Projects ones own understanding by listening seriously to the insights of Learning and Diversity
those with different backgrounds and life experiences. Approaches Perspective
range from study groups within a course to team-based
assignments and writing to cooperative projects and research.
Undergraduate Undergraduate research has merits across all disciplines. The goal Access and Equity
Research is to involve students in critical reasoning, empirical research, and Perspective
cutting-edge technologies. For example, consider reshaping Learning and Diversity
courses to connect key concepts and questions with a students Perspective
early and active involvement in systematic investigation and
research.
(continues)
TAB LE 6 .4 (Continued)
High-Impact Potential Scorecard
Learning Practice Description Dimension
Diversity and Courses and programs that help students explore cultures, life Access and Equity
Global Learning experiences, and worldviews different from their own. This may Perspective
include diversity in the Americas, world cultures, or both, often Learning and Diversity
exploring such difcult differences in the context of racial, Perspective
ethnic, and gender inequality, or continuing global struggles for
human rights and freedom. Frequently, intercultural studies can
be augmented by experiential learning in the community and by
study abroad programs.
Service Learning, In these programs, eld-based experiential learning with Access and Equity
Community- community partners gives students direct experience with issues Perspective
Based Learning they are studying in the curriculum and with ongoing issues in Learning and Diversity
the community. A key element in these programs is the Perspective
opportunity students have both to apply what they are learning in
real-world settings and reect on their service experiences in a
classroom setting. These programs model the idea that giving
something back to the community is an important college
outcome, and that working with community partners is good
preparation for citizenship, work, and life.
Internships Internships are another increasingly common form of experiential Access and Equity
learning. The idea is to provide students with direct experience in Perspective
a work setting usually related to their career interests, and to give Learning and Diversity
them the benet of supervision and coaching from professionals Perspective
in the eld. If the internship is taken for course credit, students
complete a project or paper that is approved by a faculty member.
Capstone Courses Often called senior capstones, these culminating experiences Access and Equity
and Projects require students nearing the end of college to create a project that Perspective
integrates and applies what they have learned. The project might Learning and Diversity
be a research paper, a performance, a portfolio of best work, or Perspective
an exhibit of artwork. Capstones are offered both in departmental
programs and increasingly in general education as well.
Source: Adapted from Kuh, 2008.

*Please note that some of these experiences are more amenable to the Access and Equity Perspective while others are
more amenable to the Learning and Diversity Perspective. Campus leadership will have to make determinations
regarding the best placement in their campus framework.
campus leadership roles, then it may prove important that they diversify the
programs ranks. Participation might then serve as an indicator for your
institutional scorecard and inspire campus leaders to examine other leader-
ship, mentorship, and independent research opportunities, such as sabbati-
cals, to ensure that there is equity in participation levels and outcomes.
The Graduation Gap: A Possible Indicator for Your Scorecard
Institutions often face several challenges in regard to student achievement.
One obvious challenge is the graduation gap between majority White and
minority students. Another challenge is the underrepresentation of minority

students in the STEM disciplines. Generally speaking, minority graduates
are clustered in the humanities and social science elds. Although many
factors help account for these discrepancies, several can be traced to the
grade differentials evidenced in the rst two or three semesters of a students
experience on campus. It is important for institutions experiencing an aca-
demic achievement gap to disaggregate and analyze the academic achieve-
ment patterns in their gateway and prerequisite courses as an essential
indicator for their scorecard. Institutional leaders intent on closing the
achievement gap must understand the circumstances of lagging students
who, once they fall behind in their courses, nd it extremely difcult to
continue, much less catch up.
A lack of success in the gateway courses can have far-reaching negative
effects on students. Some leave school altogether, and others, if they do stay
enrolled, often take longer to complete their degrees. These students also
tend to nd it harder to gain entry into graduate school or professional
degree programs. Courses like precalculus, calculus, introductory chemistry,
biology, organic chemistry, and botany are referred to at many institutions
as the killer gateway courses. Helping students to perform at a high level
and monitoring their progress in these courses is therefore critical and repre-
sents an important potential dimension of an institutions SDLS.
More than any other measure, the access and equity perspective reso-
nates with campus leaders because it is historically anchored, concrete, and
relatively easy to quantify. Although developing performance measurement
indicators from the other perspectives of diversity can be more challenging,
it is possible. All perspectives are necessary to form a more complete picture
of an institutions success in advancing its strategic diversity agenda.
Multicultural and Inclusive Campus Climate Perspective

The multicultural and inclusive campus climate perspective offers another
effective means of developing a balanced view of diversity issues on campus.
Because it has been in use for so many years, the term campus climate is
familiar to almost everyone in higher education. Occasionally, however,
someone will ask, What do you mean by climate? Climate describes the
psychological temperature of the campus, and in this case chilly refers to an
environment that is hostile to diversity, whereas warm refers to a campus
environment that is receptive and responsive (Hurtado et al., 1998). The
campus climate, therefore, references the degree to which various community

members feel included or excluded in the learning and professional environ-
ments of a college environment. As noted in Chapter 3s treatment of the
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model, the goal is not simply to diver-
sify our environments and then leave faculty, staff, and students to fend for
themselves. To the contrary, our goal must be to create an institutional con-
text in which every member of our campus community can thrive and
achieve at his or her maximum potential.
Principles for Developing Credible Climate Indicators for an SDLS

Addressing campus climate is a necessary component of any strategic diver-
sity plan. To provide a foundation for a vibrant and collegial learning com-
munity, the academic institution must help foster a climate that cultivates
diversity and celebrates difference. Because of the inherent complexity of the
topic of diversity, it is crucial to examine the multiple dimensions of the
campus climate on college and university campuses. Hurtado and colleagues
(1998) have proposed that the campus climate should be understood as a
multidimensional concept that includes historical, structural (demographic),
psychological, and behavioral dimensions. The two dimensions of the frame-
work most helpful for this discussion of diversity scorecards and indicators
of progress and outcome are the psychological and behavioral dimensions of
the campus climate. These two dimensions are the focus of most campus
climate research, and should form the core of any survey or qualitative data
collection activities designed to produce campus climate performance mea-
surement indicators.
Although it is beyond the scope of this book to outline comprehensively
what information should be captured, there exist a number of social science
principles for collecting credible organizational diversity data to populate the
campus climate dimension of your scorecard. Although it is relatively easy
to track some indicators of campus climate, such as the number of reported
harassment incidents, it is more difcult to develop sophisticated systems for
monitoring the campus climate. For this reason, institutions should pull
from a number of different data sources. These sources might include insti-
tutional databases, a review of campus programs and initiatives, and the
establishment of a regular organizational diversity survey that would capture
information about the campus climate. Institutions should develop research
instruments and processes that can be used with delity in student, faculty,
and staff communities. Rather than create a single survey for students and
faculty, diversity leaders should work to create unique surveys that will allow
researchers to analyze the campus experience from several different perspec-

tives, at times using common items for multiple communities.
Given the high number of surveys that are deployed at many institu-
tions, campus leaders may also look to creatively embed diversity-themed
questions into preexisting survey instruments, creating a more efcient data
collection process. This could have the added benet of providing more
opportunities for diversity efforts to be collaborative with other initiatives
on campus. It also spreads the message that diversity and inclusion issues are
universally important. It also sends a strong statement about how much an
institution values diversity when these kinds of questions are included on,
say, a housing satisfaction survey, a senior exit survey from the department,
or an alumni survey. Probably one of the greatest benets that emerge from
this partnering strategy is that it avoids the growing culture of survey fatigue
that has crept into higher education as more and more surveys are deployed
each year. At the same time, these partnered efforts must aggressively pursue
their data collection efforts in a way that will allow them to achieve a high
enough response rate from diverse communities to allow for creative analyses
and disaggregation of the data, a point this text made earlier and will be high-
lighted in Box 6.1.
The Behavioral Dimensions of the Campus Climate

The behavioral dimension of the climate refers to reports of interactions
or contact experiences between and among different groups; rates of par-
ticipation in campus programs; traditions, rituals, and activities; and full
engagement in the various identity-specic and mainstream systems of the
institution. Some of this data may be readily available in campus databases,
but some of it will have to be gathered. One place for leaders to develop
their behavioral climate indicator systems is through their campus afrma-
tive action report. This report should contain data regarding the number and
location of harassment and racial discrimination claims. Another behavioral
indicator of the campus climate is the number of lawsuits brought against
the institution. Although not perfect indicators, these data are available and
in some instances widely known by the broader campus community. Track-
ing them as one set of indicators may be important, particularly if one
school, college, division, or department has a particularly poor track record
in this arena.
Another set of behavioral indicators includes the existence and health of
diversity-themed student and professional organizations. Organizations like
the National Society of Black Engineers, the Rainbow Student Alliance, or

the Latino Faculty and Staff Association can serve as important indicators for
gauging the presence of a supportive and multicultural campus community.
Research has consistently shown that college and university communities,
and student communities in particular, operate in racialized contexts (Hur-
tado & Carter, 1997; Williams, 2002). Indeed researchers have found that
becoming involved in organizations that reect and afrm a particular cul-
tural background is critical to giving minority students a sense of belonging,
thereby facilitating their participation in the broader campus community.
Yet the presence and vibrancy of identity-themed organizations are rarely if
ever monitored as a progress indicator for understanding the health and
supportiveness of the campus climate. We should view these organizations,
whether for students or faculty, as key indicators of an academic communi-
tys commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Finally, the behavioral dimension of the campus climate can be assessed
by gathering survey or qualitative data. Some areas of data collection might
address a respondents level of involvement in different campus-wide and
identity-specic experiences, such as their involvement in campus leadership,
orientation, or mentoring programs. An important aspect of the behavioral
dimension of the campus climate is the degree to which individuals partici-
pate in positive intergroup experiences. Have they developed friendships,
engaged in conversations, studied or conducted research, or mentored across
lines of difference? Recalling the access and equity perspective, another indi-
cator might be participation in high-impact learning experiences.
The Psychological Dimension of the Campus Climate

The psychological dimension of the campus climate refers to the extent to
which individuals perceive conict and discrimination on campus, feel some-
how singled out because of their background, or perceive institutional sup-
port and commitment related to diversity (Hurtado et al., 1998). Diverse
administrators, students, and faculty view the campus climate from perspec-
tives that often reect their social identities. Consequently, perceptions of
intergroup interaction, institutional commitment to diversity, and discrimi-
nation or racial conict can be used to assess the psychological dimension of
the campus climate. Who you are and where you are positioned within the
campus hierarchy inuences how you view and experience the institution.
Any potential differences and similarities should be captured in your strate-
gic diversity scorecard and then be used to inform ongoing and future diver-
sity policies and programs (Berger & Milem, 2000).
B EI NG AC CO U N TA B L E 283
Examining the campus climate for diversity is an important part of a

regular campus-based assessment, especially as a way of driving ever-higher
levels of performance. Launching a well-designed campus climate research
effort creates the type of data-driven approach that can lead to new initiatives
and an enhanced understanding of the key issues that university leadership
must address to create a more inclusive campus environment. If done well,
it can position the campus community to have a more sophisticated under-
standing of the various issues affecting both minority and majority commu-
nity members. Some common survey items might capture information about
general satisfaction, perceptions of the work or academic environment,
work-family conict, intergroup relations, perceptions of institutional com-
mitment, and questions designed to tap into views of discrimination and
exclusion. This research might also explore concepts related to the dynamic
and learning-centered nature of the organization, perceptions of morale, the
collaborative nature of decision-making, and other concepts related to insti-
tutional climate and institutional culture. Gathering this data is essential
to creating a robust conversation that is guided by reason and policy, not
politics.
Challenges to Collecting Campus Climate Data

Even when institutions attempt to assess the campus climate, the process is
sometimes undermined by a refusal by campus leaders to disaggregate the
data because of concerns about low participation or response rates. This is a
valid concern and should be seriously considered. However, campus leaders
should explore the possibilities of disaggregation, recognizing that although
a small sample size may lead to mischaracterizations, it may also at times lead
to meaningful differences that, although not statistically signicant, suggest a
course of action for leaders to pursue. To reiterate a point made earlier
regarding the critical importance of disaggregating academic achievement
data, campus leaders should disaggregate campus climate as well, and
emphasize obtaining a strong response to their data collection efforts. How
can one determine if the environment is equitable if the particular experi-
ences of individual subgroups are not recognized? Research often fails to
address the inter- and intragroup differences between and among majority
White and minority populations. The result is that studies often (a) mini-
mize the importance of race and ethnicity by not developing measures that
qualitatively assess these dynamics; (b) fail to supplement quantitative data
with interviews or focus groups; and (c) fail to use sufcient oversampling
techniques in which every minority student is surveyed, rather than drawing

a sample, to yield a robust sample size of ethnic and racial diversity, prevent-
ing both inter- and intragroup analyses of the data. Even more problematic
is the lag that occurs when troubling issues are identied and committees
and units are not poised to translate ndings into actionable recommen-
dations.
For this reason, institutions should develop a system of institutional
metrics of diversity progress and outcomes. These metrics should be tracked
and monitored over time, using not only institutional database information
but also survey and other data that can be used to assess campus progress in
a particular area. Some evidence may be qualitative in nature and involve
focus groups for different primary and secondary identity groups. Indeed,
certain demographics present a number of challenges that campus leaders
must consider in their data collection efforts. Furthermore, individuals across
a number of different identity groups simply may not trust the process of
data collection. Researchers must be careful to ensure condentiality and
respect for privacy. This is where the process of data collection and the effort
to collect qualitative information is important. Although survey information
is often helpful, it is not always possible. The key is to collect data systemati-
cally and consistently over time. Box 6.1 provides sample techniques to miti-
gate small respondent numbers.
BOX 6.1
Potential Strategies to Increase Student
Survey Response Rate
1. Develop a high-prole message from the president or another high-ranking

ofcial proactively requesting that students respond to the campus survey.
2. Oversample the minority student population.
3. Consider the merits and limitations of conducting an additional wave of data
collection for minority students.
4. Leverage controlled opportunities to collect data like summer orientation, or
rst-year experience courses.
5. Invite students to participate in a steering committee and empower them to
help drive responses.
(continues)
(continued)
6. Consider the merits of a paper and pencil versus a digital survey in terms of
increasing response rates.
7. Consider modest incentives as long as they do not jeopardize obtaining unbi-
ased responses.
8. Conduct targeted outreach calls at specic times during the data collection
effort to nonresponders, reminding them of the survey.
9. Involve campus diversity professionals in cultural centers, student affairs,
and other areas as agents to drive response rates.
10. Develop an online website for the climate research project to ensure public
access to the project.
11. Pay attention to the academic calendar and avoid midterms and other periods
when students are busier than usual
12. Coordinate with other data collection efforts on campus to avoid sending
surveys at the same time.
13. Consider piggybacking with other survey efforts by including key climate
questions on other surveys.
Learning and Diversity Perspective

In todays changing world, the learning and diversity perspective is growing
increasingly important. As discussed in Chapter 1, demographic trends and
the emergence of a global economy demand that todays college graduates
attain a high level of cultural competency if they are to succeed. With instant
communication and a multicultural marketplace, we must ensure that all of
our students, faculty, and staff are prepared to participate in a diverse and
interconnected world.
Diversity and Learning Outcomes

Recent research has validated earlier ndings that cognitive skills develop
more strongly through interactions with diverse communities and by grap-
pling with diverse content and pedagogies. As early as 1975, Jean Piaget
found that through interactions with diverse peers, students were able to
more effectively negotiate differences between their own views and those of
others (Piaget, 1975). In addition, they developed the ability to manage the
strong feelings that intergroup interaction can sometimes engender. These
cognitive and affective processes can be measured as part of the learning and
diversity perspective of an SDLS. Some critical learning outcomes might
include the presence of active thinking skills, intellectual engagement and

motivation, and effective communication and group problem-solving abili-
ties, all outcomes associated with diverse learning environments (P. Gurin,
Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002).
In its Greater Expectations report (2002), the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) outlined a set of contemporary liberal
education outcomes important for all students regardless of academic spe-
cialization. Developed out of an analysis of promising educational practices
nationwide, these outcomes include the ability to think critically and to
integrate knowledge across domains, being intellectually curious and moti-
vated for lifelong learning, being able to communicate across cultures, being
socially responsible and able to function in a diverse society, and being able
to solve problems by working as a team. Tracking student learning and devel-
opment is especially important because it provides critical benchmarks to
assess how institutions are doing in terms of preparing all students to partici-
pate in a multicultural and interconnected world. Although the focus of this
area is mostly directed toward students, the learning needs of faculty, staff,
and other members of the higher education community can also be included
under this dimension of your SDLS scorecard.
Another way of considering the different types of indicators that may
be tracked from this perspective is through the essential learning outcomes
highlighted previously and adapted from the AAC&U. From this vantage
point, some relevant outcomes might include integrating learning in a way
that learners are able to draw on diverse viewpoints and understand issues
contextually by connecting knowledge and skills from multiple sources and
experiences. Inquiry learning, a process in which learners are asked to engage
actively with both their material studies and the process of learning, allows
students to assume responsibility for their own progress. Global learning is
about establishing the habits of mind and skills that will allow students to
look beyond the obvious to the broader context of issues and how they play
out in ways that are both local and global in their implications. Finally,
diverse communities are conducive to civic learning, and indeed to one of
the fundamental guiding principles of higher education, namely that colleges
and universities have a responsibility to help students become active mem-
bers of a functioning democracy.
Still a third way of conceptualizing measures for the learning and diver-
sity dimension of your scorecard is through the lens of what Gurin and
associates (2002) refer to as democratic outcomes. Democratic outcomes
include the ability to take the position of another person, racial and cultural
B E I NG AC C O U N TA B L E 287
understanding between and among groups, acceptance of conict as a nor-

mal part of life, capacity to perceive differences and similarities both within
and between social groups, and interest in the wider social world and civic
engagement (Gurin et al., 2002). Springer, Palmer, Terenzini, Pascarella, and
Nora (1996) found that students who interacted with diverse peers reported
more frequent discussions of complex social issues, including such topics as
the economy, peace, human rights, equality, and justice. Meanwhile, Astin
(1993) found that socializing with people from different racial and ethnic
backgrounds actually increases an individuals cultural awareness and com-
mitment to racial understanding and the environment. Research has con-
rmed the close connection between a diverse learning environment and
increases in understanding and empathy (Gurin et al., 2002; Milem,
Chang, & Antonio, 2005). These studies show that students who interact
with diverse peers are simply better at developing cultural competencies and
navigating complex social environments than students who do not. Drawing
on the tools and models offered by a wide range of social theorists and
education scholars, diversity leaders can build an SDLS that actually mea-
sures the development of these skills and thereby validates cultural com-
petence and diversity intelligence as valuable assets for an educated and
productive society.
A Breadth and Depth of Indicators

The challenge is to include these varying perspectives in the strategic diver-
sity scorecard in a way that develops measures in terms of both breadth and
depth. A study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
revealed that 54 percent of the 543 campuses responding to their survey had
a general education diversity requirement (Humphreys, 2000). However, the
real challenge rests in assessing the particular qualities and contents of these
requirements. Is the requirement based on content knowledge about diver-
sity issues, or developing the skills to interact and lead in diverse settings? In
situations in which there is a course requirement, how do we weigh situa-
tions in which students fulll the requirement in their rst years of study?
What can we learn about how a diversity requirement in the rst semesters
of an undergraduate career affects subsequent intellectual, social, and profes-
sional pursuits?
It is not enough for an institution simply to create a diversity require-
ment, a designated diversity major, or a living-learning program focused
on diversity and intergroup relations. Although important as process indica-
tors and formative inputs, they alone do not tell the story of impact. When
288 W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L E A D E R S H I P ?
developing indicators for this area, therefore, it is important to capture the

type and quality of offerings that are presented and the levels and quality of
student engagement (Milem et al., 2005). For example, one diversity progress
measure may be the number of courses offered per school or department that
focus on issues of diversity and feature small-group discussion and personal
reection. Although challenging, it is possible to develop an institutional
database that can begin to measure the outcomes of this course beyond
whatever grade the student receives. A signicant body of literature suggests
that engaging with diversity issues in the curriculum and cocurriculum
increases a students abilities both cognitively and relationally in terms of
their ability to interact in groups and with individuals from different back-
grounds (Milem et al., 2005). One obvious progress indicator includes the
number of participants in a range of curricular and cocurricular diversity
experiences. Another might include the number of courses and majors that
explore issues of power, social justice, equity, multiculturalism, and diversity.
A third indicator is the percentage of faculty who integrate diversity themes
and pedagogical techniques into their courses, readings, assignments, and
evaluative mechanisms (Cohn & Gareis, 2007). Table 6.5 offers possible
strategies for integrating diversity principles into a college course.
One important nding in recent years is that it is not simply the pres-
ence of ethnic and racial diversity on campus, but rather an active engage-
ment with diversity issues that is critically important for promoting diverse
educational outcomes (Gurin et al., 2002). Informal interactions are an
important part of the diversity equation and can be included among the
indicators developed to assess learning and diversity. Although challenging,
measuring interactions outside of class, whether in dorm, dining halls, or
extracurricular programs, can help inform policies and programs in a wide
range of more formal, institutional settings (Gurin et al., 2002). In particu-
lar, extracurricular activities, including student intergroup dialogue pro-
grams, service learning activities and other diversity education initiatives,
should be included as core components of the learning and diversity dimen-
sion of a strategic diversity scorecard. To capture data from each of these
experiences generally requires primary data collected through surveys, focus
groups, and interviews, similar to the techniques that will be required to
capture indicators in the campus climate perspective.
International and Domestic Diversity Research Perspective

The international and domestic diversity research perspective centers on
driving scholarship and research around local, regional, national, and in-
ternational issues of diversity. During the last 50 years, questions of class,
TAB LE 6. 5
Strategies for Integrating Diversity Principles Into a College Course
Syllabus Include a statement of institutional diversity values in the course
syllabus reecting individual faculty members commitment to
creating a supportive and inclusive campus learning environment.
Textbook and Where possible, select course readings that include minority
Readings perspectives and are respectful of diversity values, while eschewing
readings that engage in stereotypes or perpetuate majority
assumptions.
Assignments Create assignments that allow students to explore diverse ideas from
different personal and cultural perspectives, and accommodate
different learning styles and needs.
Participation Begin the course with a discussion of ground rules and expectations
Norms for communications and interactions, and take advantage of
opportunities in classroom discussion and homework assignments to
facilitate and encourage intercultural dialogue and exchange.
Course Where appropriate, develop course evaluations that provide
Evaluations opportunities for addressing issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity.
Source: Adapted from Cohn & Gareis, 2007.
gender, sexuality, nationality, race, ethnicity, power, and privilege have

transformed guiding research assumptions in the academy. Scholars across a
range of disciplines and schools, from sociology to psychology, from anthro-
pology to evolutionary biology, have witnessed profound changes in the
direction of their elds in response to the rising prominence of diversity.
Scholars in the physical and natural sciences and in professional elds like
law, medicine, communications, and business are making important contri-
butions to advancing our understanding of diversity issues, from multicul-
tural marketing to international human rights, and from immigration policy
to health care.
Diversity-themed research opens new conversations in neglected areas of
inquiry while offering a fresh perspective on previously well-trodden intellec-
tual terrain. Hence, it is critical for campus leaders to understand the diver-
sity dimension of their facultys research and scholarship. The rst step in the
process is to develop a clear framework for assessing the depth and breadth of
diversity research on campus. Although multicultural and international stud-
ies areas are obvious candidates for assessment, they are not the only ones.
Moreover, diversity leaders need to be sensitive to the fact that both tradi-
tions emerged out of unique historical processes and are very different
(Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007). Indeed, in some circumstances these
two elds have been forced to compete with each other for funding and staff
resources, even as they have found themselves occupying different intellec-
tual, political, and organizational spaces on campus. Despite these past dif-
ferences, the domains of both multicultural and international studies offer a
rich place to begin the conversation on diversity scholarship, research, and
teaching in academia. The very fact that domestically oriented diversity and
multicultural studies have been traditionally separated from international
studies underscores how slowly academic institutions have responded to the
changing reality of our increasingly global society. With time, institutions
are beginning to appreciate that diversity issues cannot be taught in isolation
either as local, domestic or international questions. In their discussion of
the connections between the domestic and international diversity studies,
Cornwell and Stoddard (1999) argue that it is insufcient to teach students
about diversity issues in isolation. Appreciating the full complexity of di-
versity issues in the United States means, at some point, entertaining the
international dimensions of an expanding global economy and society
(Cornwell & Stoddard, 1999).
Measuring the International and Domestic Diversity Research

Perspective
Any effort to create a balanced understanding of diversity should seek to
capture research productivity as a dimension of an institutions scorecard.
Some progress indicators may be descriptive, including, for example, the
number of diversity disciplines and program areas, as well as the way these
disciplines are structured. From this vantage point, the presence of depart-
ments or research centers across such areas as African American studies, La-
tino and Hispanic studies, Native American studies, Middle Eastern studies,
queer studies, womens studies, and international studies become critical
markers of institutional capacity. Other indicators could include the number
of faculty members and students teaching and studying in these areas, the
number of courses being offered, and the number of graduate degrees being
conferred. Other indicators include the number of grant dollars, research
projects, articles, books, and conference presentations these various area
studies are able to generate.
The effect of the work produced in the research and scholarship domain
is often difcult to describe qualitatively. To address this challenge, your
scorecard may feature a description of exemplary contributions that illustrate

excellence. Examples of keynote lectures, expert testimony given before pol-
icy and regulatory bodies, and teaching and research awards can all help give
a sense of the effects and outcomes of the institutions diversity efforts. Has
a member of the faculty been chosen to give a keynote address at a diversity-
themed conference? Is a senior administrator consulting with another uni-
versity about its strategic diversity plan? Is a faculty member serving as a
scholar-in-residence at a prestigious research center? Highlighting these suc-
cess stories in the SDLS lends context and credence to the quantitative analy-
sis. Indeed, have these success stories already appeared in a diversity-themed
journal or campus publication? The publication itself can help inform the
scorecard. Although not perfect, capturing these data with rigor, discipline,
and focus will allow the institution to track its trajectory of progress and
change over time, while making adjustments along the way by using the
SDLS to guide policy change.
Diversity Leadership Commitment Perspective

Diversity leadership commitment is essential to creating a culture of
accountability to embolden your institutional diversity efforts and deliver
the four major strategic diversity goals outlined in the SDLS presented in
this chapter. Borrowing from Hubbard (2004), diversity leadership commit-
ment constitutes demonstrated evidence and actions taken by leaders to
support, challenge, and champion the diversity process within their organiza-
tion (p. 147). Hubbard continues, It reects the degree to which the orga-
nizations leaders utilize behaviors that set the diversity vision, direction, and
policy into actual practice. It also reects the individual level and degrees of
accountability that leaders have in forging an implementation strategy, and
it analyzes the level of specic behavior they exhibit as a model diversity
champion (p. 147). This dimension is critical to establishing, driving, and
sustaining an organizational change agenda and moving your institution
toward more mature stages of diversity implementation. It sets the tone for
communicating change, building organizational capacity, and attracting the
necessary resources to make diversity efforts more than symbolic. As such,
this dimension serves as a critical ingredient of the four dimensions of the
strategic diversity scorecard framework offered in this chapter. (See Table
6.6.)
It is important to note that diversity leadership commitment is not as
easily captured or measured as the four diversity perspectives offered earlier.
TAB LE 6 .6
Diversity Leadership Commitment Perspective
Perspective Description Sample Tactics Progress Indicators Outcome Indicators
Diversity Building strategic Allocating A stand-alone diversity plan that Assessed across the
Leadership diversity capacity nancial resources is developed, organized, and other four dimensions
Commitment that allows the to drive the resourced for implementation of the scorecard as this
Perspective institution to campus diversity (quality review) perspective is
engage diversity agenda Campus denition of diversity foundational to
as a strategic Creating an that is articulated, achieving success in
priority empowered institutionalized, and widely each unique area
diversity promoted (quality review)
infrastructure (e.g., Decentralized diversity plans that
chief diversity are put into place in each school,
ofcer, faculty college, or department (quality
efforts, diversity review)
ofces, Level of dedicated campus
committees, etc.) diversity unit budgets
Diversity Diversity included in
incentive grant performance review and
funds to drive assessment of leaders
innovation Diversity that is infused into the
Integrating campus strategic and academic
diversity into the plans (quality review)
strategic plan Level of the campus diversity
Presidential incentive fund budget
prioritizing of Levels of foundation resources
diversity in raised to benet issues of diversity
speeches Number of initiatives funded out
Presence of a of the diversity incentive fund
campus diversity Presence of diversity within the
plan institutional mission (quality
review)
Number of minority and
women-owned contractors and
vendors serving the institution
Number and quality of
community-based partnerships
and collaborations
Development of new diversity
policies to guide admissions,
nancial aid, hiring decisions, and
other matters designed to promote
diversity
Level of funds allocated to faculty
diversication initiatives
Requiring diversity point
leadership in every school and
college across campus
B EI N G AC CO UN TA BL E 293
At the same time, it is important to highlight ways that institutions might

develop a statement in their strategic diversity scorecard reports that high-
lights diversity leadership commitment. Leadership and diversity commit-
ment is as much dened by personal interactions and collegial engagement
as through formal structural matters of policy and budget allocations. As
a result, campus leaders must be committed to being creative, gathering
information that tells the story of institutional leadership and commitment
in novel and innovative ways.
Although all members of the campus community need to embrace the
diversity change process, it is particularly incumbent on leaders to assume a
central role in guiding the effort. In addition to student and faculty diversity
champions, these leaders include the president, provost, deans, senior
administrators, and board of trustees. Members of these groups must be
committed to establishing strategic diversity initiatives as a top priority. The
roles of the president and provost are particularly critical. Although they may
task a campus diversity committee to create the driving vision and a chief
diversity ofcer to help lead the process, the campuss most senior leadership
must remain active and involved if it is to be successful. Senior leadership is
key to creating systems of accountability and incentives for success, as well
as to generating short-term wins, consolidating gains, and institutionalizing
novel approaches in effective and innovative ways (Kotter, 1996).
Accountability Systems for Diversity

Without robust accountability systems that can complement and sharpen
the strategic diversity scorecard, diversity efforts can run the risk of becoming
so much window dressing. For this reason, it is important that senior leaders
consider ways to embed diversity procedures within individual schools and
departments, and to integrate diversity principles with central administrative
functions. Some examples might include facilitating the creation of a strate-
gic diversity scorecard that is specic to each department, school, or college.
Another system of accountability might be to include diversity leadership as
part of the merit, performance, or activity reviews of faculty, staff, and senior
campus leadership. Although such contributions may not weigh decisively
in tenure or promotion decisions, the very act of requiring this information
sends an important message about diversity as an institutional value. If insti-
tutions follow this message with a system that takes this information into
account in a meaningful way, diversity leadership can assume a valued posi-
tion in ways that are similar to nancial stewardship, research productivity,
and other tangible examples of leadership.
An easy way for leaders to create a culture of diversity accountability

is for a president, provost, or dean to implement a meeting schedule or
communication process that addresses a particular diversity issue. For exam-
ple, a new president at a large research university developed a very effective
communication strategy without a lot of fanfare or public attention. As
reported by Adrianna Kezar and Peter Eckel (2005) in their study of college
and university presidents and diversity:
[I] met with the deans once a week. The very rst meeting, I asked the
deans individually how their plans for hiring minority faculty were going
and nobody had much going on. . . . For that entire year, I asked that
same question every single cabinet meeting. Every dean knew that when
they went to that meeting, they were going to have to explain, in front of
their colleagues, what it was that they were doing; how many people they
were interviewing, how many candidates they had identied, when the
interviews were going to start, what the quality of the candidates were. . . .
Everybody was going to be held responsible. . . . This pushed people to
have something good to say when we went through that weekly analyses
of how we were doing. (Kezar & Eckel, 2005, p. 1516)
Still another indicator of accountability might be evidence of exempting

or protecting diversity efforts from budget cuts during times of nancial
retrenchment. With so many institutions in difcult straits, the ability to
maintain funding for diversity speaks volumes about an institutions com-
mitment. Capturing this information in reports that highlight diversity lead-
ership commitment shows how well ground-level budget decisions affecting
diversity match the vision and rhetoric.
Diversity-Themed 360-Degree Assessment Process

Another approach to creating a culture of accountability from the leadership
commitment perspective is to evaluate directly the campus leadership teams
commitment to institutional diversity. This could involve a 360-degree per-
formance review. In this type of performance review, subordinates, peers,
supervisors, and other key stakeholders provide feedback. The review could
be implemented using key campus stakeholders or an outside third party
relying on multiple components of data. Both approaches should involve the
participation and guidance of campus leaders.
For example, the review of a campus president might involve a review
committee comprising a student, a direct report, the chief diversity ofcer,
chair of the campus diversity committee, leaders in shared governance, mem-

bers of the board of regents or trustees, faculty in ethnic or womens studies
programs, staff working in the multicultural student center, and others.
Indeed, one approach is to have this group emerge as an ofcially appointed
campus governance committee. Still another approach is to use an external
consultant to conduct the review, similar to the process used in other high-
prole evaluations. Both approaches of internal and external review teams
involve campus leadership. An internal group brings an intimate understand-
ing of the campus community, although campus leaders should take care
that their presence on campus does not create a biased assessment, or politi-
cal fallout should the evaluation not go well. Conversely, an external team
brings an independent perspective, although obviously the team might lack
the internal teams more intimate knowledge of the institution.
The review team gathers data around diversity leadership commitment
using a conuence of surveys and interviews with key stakeholders. These
should be compiled along with other elements of data drawn from key diver-
sity budget decisions, high-prole speeches, editorials, and policy decisions
in a given period to construct a system of evidence for a general assessment
of the leadership. By establishing clear guidelines for the study, conducting
a transparent and fair review process, and focusing on ways to improve rather
than tear down existing guidelines and personnel, a 360-degree assessment
could help develop specic recommendations for improvement. Enhancing
a learning-centered organizational culture, this review process would also
reinforce the institutions commitment to issues of diversity. Even if the
institution does not proceed with a specic diversity-themed performance
review, it could consider incorporating diversity in the general performance
review that most senior leaders undergo every three to ve years, or as their
contracts come up for renewal.
Cascading Your Scorecard: Achieving Buy-In

An effective strategic diversity scorecard is necessary to help establish where
an institution is on the change continuum and help the institution move
forward in a number of important ways. At the same time, a top-level score-
card will not, by itself, drive results, even if senior leadership supports it. A
campus-wide scorecard must be linked with other assessments across the
institution, which will have a cascading effect as multiple entities engage
diversity issues at multiple levels (Bensimon, 2004; Kaplan & Norton, 1992;
ONeil, 1999). At their best, scorecards decentralize the framework, vision,

and process of change, involving multiple constituents as learners and con-
tributors to the overall effort.
In a cascading process, each unit develops its own strategic diversity
scorecard across the ve areas outlined in this chapter. Hence the division of
student affairs, the division of enrollment management, the business school,
the medical school, and other critical areas might have a scorecard in their
area. By deploying the scorecard at multiple levels, the entire campus com-
munity is afforded the opportunity to contribute to the vision of change
from many unique vantage points. The key is to use the ve dimensions of
the scorecard as a framework for accomplishing change up, down, and across
the institution.
When it comes to implementing a modern-day campus diversity agenda,
responsibility should not be conned to diversity professionals. Everyone in
the campus community has a role to play. This can only happen if the
diversity agenda is dened as a matter of institutional excellence and em-
braced as part of a shared covenant to lead in the new millennium. As a
result, institutional leaders must nd a way to infuse the campus diversity
agenda as part of the strategic priorities of the institution. This means linking
issues of diversity to conversations about institutional priorities; connecting
issues of diversity to learning; talking about access and equity goals from the
perspective of serving the broader needs of society; and educating students
for a diverse, knowledge-based global economy.
Plans called for by the board of trustees or president and crafted by task
forces can mean very little to the various academic, administrative, and stu-
dent affairs units of an institutioneven if these areas are represented on
the planning committee. To achieve long-term success, change must be
understood and acted on at multiple levels. It is not enough for a diversity
planning committee to recommend that the institution increase the repre-
sentation of historically underrepresented students to match the population
of the state. Admissions and other units that play a role in achieving this
goal must dene what this means for them in measurable terms and then
develop realistic objectives, tactics, and metrics to guide their efforts. This
requires a level of alignment to the big-picture agenda using a cascading
scorecard process.
Structured Learning Forums as a Tool of Engagement

Among the useful tools to help leaders cascade their scorecard throughout
the institution and create a space for constructive dialogue are structured
learning forums. Simply sharing the data from your strategic diversity
scorecard is not enough. It is critical to bring together stakeholders in a series
of discussions in which evidence can be shared, analyzed, and used to drive
new initiatives (Moynihan, 2008). Thus, Moynihan (2008) argues that the
gap between dissemination and use [of data] occurs partly because of an
absence of routines in which data are examined and interpreted (p. 205).
These learning forums provide opportunities for students, faculty, and other
members of the campus community to consider the information across the
various dimensions of the SDLS, analyze its importance, and decide on ways
to use this information to make adjustments. It is only by engaging commu-
nity members in the process that individuals will be empowered to take
actions regarding issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
One type of learning forum should involve members of the campus
diversity committee that was responsible for implementing the scorecard in
the rst place. Another forum might involve senior leadership and the cam-
pus deans. These forums should be condential and limited in size to allow
for an open and honest dialogue. Ideally the forums would involve a blend
of informal conversations and formal presentations. Forums should involve
key participants who can play an important role leveraging the data to create
greater effect. For example, the learning forum might involve multiple aca-
demic deans, department chairs in courses with a high level of grade disparity
between groups, faculty engaged in teaching and learning and curriculum
reform efforts, campus diversity professionals, academically themed student
organizations, and leadership in high-impact learning experiences. The key
is to expose and engage leaders to the data so that they can confront the
reality of the data, consider new possibilities, and develop new initiatives to
drive change.
Benchmarking and Competitive Analysis

Although your campus SDLS provides you with a system of data, it is also
important to put those data in context both internally and externally. By
adopting competitive analysis techniques popular in the organizational liter-
ature, diversity leaders can better understand how their diversity efforts stack
up against those of peer institutions. As the name implies, competitive analy-
sis involves understanding how peer institutions are performing on a given
diversity dimension, or benchmarking.
Benchmarking uses standard measurements in a service or industry for

comparison to gain perspective on organizational performance. When orga-
nizations want to improve their performance, they benchmark. That is, they
compare and measure their policies, practices, philosophies, and perfor-
mance measures against those of their competitors, especially competitors that
are out-performing them. Benchmarking provides the most effective ap-
proach for assessing operational change. Used appropriately, benchmarks can
serve as a catalyst to move institutions to a higher level of performance. To
accomplish this goal, benchmarking must take into account not just out-
comes, but the processes and capabilities that could ultimately improve
results (Prasnikar, Debeljak, & Ahcan, 2005). It also means looking beyond
a narrow focus on the most similar peer institutions. Therefore, diversity
leaders should reach beyond their most obvious peers to explore not only
other types of colleges and universities, but organizations outside of higher
education altogether. Several different benchmarking techniques offer a
means to gauge and assess performance over time (Boxwell, 1994; Prasnikar
et al., 2005):
Competitive benchmarking enables an organization to compare its

performance with competitors in the same sector (e.g., community
college to community colleges, Catholic institution to Catholic insti-
tutions, etc.).
Best-in-class benchmarking allows leaders to compare their organiza-
tion to best-in-class institutions across a range of indicators. As such,
there may be different benchmark institutions for different dimen-
sions of the comparison.
Internal or historical benchmarking is the internal procedure for com-
paring results from past performance to current or forecasted per-
formance. This is an entirely internal mechanism for tracking
progress within the institution.
Functional or external benchmarking involves comparing efforts with
those of organizations from other industries and sectors that share
similar operating procedures. For example, how does your institu-
tions SDLS stack up against the SDLS of a top private corporation
or business?
Collaborative benchmarking involves setting up a competitive analysis
in two phases. The rst phase examines the efforts of two voluntary
institutions within a sector. The second phase establishes an analysis
between the two collaborators and an external third-party institution.
For example, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC)

helps coordinate and evaluate the collaborative efforts of the Big Ten
university members and the University of Chicago. Institutions can
work with each other and the CIC to benchmark a variety of diversity
indicators.
In conducting competitive benchmarking analyses, institutions should

track a range of inputs, outcomes, and capacity dimensions. Some input
areas might include the number, background, and national origins of minor-
ity students, transfer students, and students receiving nancial aid. In terms
of outcomes, some key variables include graduation rates, time to degree,
student loans, and placement in graduate and professional schools. One of
the most important dimensions of any competitive analysis relates to the
capacity of your competitive set. In this arena, campus leaders should ask
questions regarding their capabilities in the areas of afrmative action and
equity, multicultural inclusion, learning and diversity, and scholarship. At a
minimum, do we have similarly performing diversity planning systems and
infrastructures as our peers? How do we compare with those institutions we
aspire to be like? Do we have a distinguishing diversity message, or are our
diversity marketing efforts indistinguishable from those of other institutions?
Do we have a chief diversity ofcer role, high-level diversity advisory com-
mittee, faculty diversication program, and other capacities essential to
advancing diversity issues at the big-picture level? Box 6.2 offers a set of
possible benchmarking indicators.
BOX 6.2
Potential External Benchmarking Indicators
Diversity of student, faculty, staff, and administrative ranks

Rate of success of ethnic and racially diverse faculty and students in terms of
academic achievement, graduation, hiring, promotion, and retention
Minority student participation in the honors, study abroad, and service learn-
ing programs at rates consistent with their presence on campus
Campus diversity resources that can be easily accessed through our campus
website
Campus diversity efforts that are included in the campus mission, strategic,
and academic plans of the institution
(continues)
300 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S HI P ?
(continued)
A broadly communicated and endorsed campus diversity plan
Campus-wide accountability system to ensure progress on issues of diversity
An ongoing campus climate assessment process
An ongoing assessment of the educational outcomes of diverse experiences
The presence of a chief diversity ofcer who is well positioned to provide
leadership throughout campus
The presence of cultural centers, student organizations, and resources
designed to foster an environment in which all students feel a sense of belong-
ing and inclusion
The presence of mentoring programs and leadership development efforts
designed to enhance the experience of women and minority students, faculty,
and staff
The presence of diversity leadership development programs designed to
enhance the teaching, administrative, and related leadership abilities of faculty,
staff, and administrators
The presence of a general education diversity requirement designed to provide
all students with experiences that will enhance their ability to thrive in a
diverse and interconnected world
The presence of majors and minors in area studies that address both domestic
and global diversity issues
The presence of domestic and international leadership programs designed to
provide all students with experiences in diverse groups and communities
The presence of a well-coordinated intergroup dialogue program
The presence of scholarship and fellowship programs designed to increase
the participation of historically underrepresented groups
Domestic partner benets available to faculty, staff, and student members of
the LGBT community
Perhaps the greatest tangible benet of benchmarking is its potential

to enhance decision-making through improved institutional knowledge of
diversity issues. The second benet of benchmarking is that it potentially
removes self-imposed barriers to success by showing how others have ap-
proached their efforts to overcome diversity barriers and challenges.
Summary
The primary goal of this chapter has been to demonstrate the tremendous
value of creating a system for evaluating an institutions diversity perfor-
mance. Unfortunately, although many institutions have implemented strong
diversity programs, many simultaneously lack strong evidence-based mea-

sures to evaluate efforts and improve outcomes. These institutions have spent
billions of dollars and involved generations of students, faculty, and staff in
diversity programs, but only a few have gathered the kind of evidence needed
to demonstrate the return on their investment, much less make a clear case
for why more substantive support could lead to further improvements. This
lack of evidence means that there are also fewer compelling narratives to
highlight ongoing developments or successes. In other words, many institu-
tional leaders are ying blind, unsure of how well their programs are
addressing the needs of the campus community, much less preparing stu-
dents and others for the diverse and fast-paced world that is just outside the
ivy walls.
A strategic diversity scorecard offers a vital means to track, evaluate,
and make improvements to diversity efforts. Although all of us can produce
compelling anecdotes and individual success stories, our colleagues and sen-
ior administrators are more often driven by quantitative assessments and
statistics. And these statistics must be accessible and compelling; only by
connecting the numbers to compelling case histories can diversity leaders
expect to get buy-in for their initiatives. Ultimately, what this means is pro-
ducing a holistic scorecard that is broad in its implications and specic in its
recommendations. A strong diversity accountability system is serious about
improving performance while respecting the challenging obstacles to diver-
sity that have plagued our institutionsindeed all of American societyfor
so long. A strong system of diversity accountability puts more emphasis on
educational attainment, the educational implications of diverse experiences,
and high-quality research. It is, after all, about creating accountability.
Notes
1. This quote is taken from Alfred, 2005, p. vii.
2. To learn more about the NSSE, contact the National Survey of Student Engagement
located at Indiana University at http://nsse.iub.edu/. To learn more about the CIRP, contact
UCLAs Higher Education Research Institute at www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php. To learn more
about COACHE, contact Harvard University at http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword
coache&pageidicb.page307142.
7
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
SUCCESSFUL DIVERSITY PLANS
There is nothing wrong with having a diversity plan. In fact, I think diver-
sity plans are incredibly important. Whether you make diversity a focus
of your academic plan or do a stand-alone plan, the issue is to get some-
thing done. Youve got to approach implementation in a way that has
accountability, resources, presidential involvement, and coordination, or
the plan is dead on arrival. We have seen lots of plans through the years;
the challenge is to implement in a meaningful way that can truly lead to
change.
Professor of Psychology and Associate Vice Provost for
Academic Diversity at a midsized public university on the
West Coast
A
Google search using the terms higher education and diversity plan
garners more than 41,000 hits, largely describing the work of diver-
sity committees at institutions around the country. As this book has
emphasized repeatedly, these plans often emerge out of a campus crisis inci-
dent, or cheetah moment. Regardless of why an institution writes its diver-
sity plan, the same hurdles always exist, namely to animate the numerous
recommendations so that the plan achieves its mandate: increasing the repre-
sentation and retention of historically underrepresented students and staff,
improving the campus climate, leveraging diversity in the service of all stu-
dents, and enhancing diversity-themed research and scholarship.
Diversity plans come in all shapes and sizes. Some are highly textual,
philosophical, and reective. Others are a complex matrix of goals, strategies,
and action steps. Some emphasize process; others focus on percentages. Some
are lengthy treatises; others are more abbreviated. Although each diversity
plan should have its own look and feel, the authors review of more than 100
302
D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N TI NG S U CC E S S F U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A NS 303
diversity plans has led to the development of a framework for categorizing

diversity plans, as well as some clear guidelines for writing and implementing
them effectively.
This chapter focuses on campus diversity plans, beginning with an his-
torical overview of early antecedents of todays diversity plan. From this
overview, the discussion outlines three complementary approaches to diver-
sity planning and implementation for college and university leaders: (a) the
integrated approach, in which diversity goals are infused into the institu-
tions academic and strategic plans; (b) the centralized institutional diversity
approach, in which diversity is treated as an area of strategic focus and prior-
ity in its own right, and (c) the decentralized diversity approach, in which
individual departments, schools, and colleges construct their own unique
plans. Although obviously each of these plans can operate independently,
there are important ways to coordinate all three so that they can be enacted
simultaneously.
In particular, multicycle, three-year decentralized diversity planning
processes work effectively, even though this approach is underused in the
academy. Most academic institutions put their energy into integrating diver-
sity goals into their campus strategic plan, taking essentially a top-down
approach in terms of design and implementation. The decentralized
approach offers some distinct advantages on the grounds that it is more
consistent with the academys unique culture of shared governance and col-
lective decision making. By creatively leveraging a decentralized approach in
combination with the other two methods, campus leaders may quicken the
pace of success, shifting the culture and institutional capacity in ways that
benet the entire campus community. This chapter concludes with an out-
line of key diversity planning guidelines that must be in place no matter
what approach is taken.
Precursors to the Modern-Day Diversity Plan

The rst campus diversity plans emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, during a
time of rapid change as colleges and universities struggled to accommodate
the arrival of new African American students (Peterson et al., 1978). Seismic
shifts in federal law, the emergence of new nancial aid incentives, and the
campaigns of student activists all played a role in pressuring leaders to take a
more proactive approach to building diversity capacity (Ogbar, 2005). These
dynamics changed the academy forever as predominantly White faculty and
administrators found themselves encountering the cultural, academic, politi-
cal, and nancial needs of African American students. In response, the
federal government, private foundations, and academic institutions them-

selves supported new initiatives, including minority affairs ofces, afrmative
action ofces, ethnic studies departments, student support ofces, and new
nancial and admissions policies.
Many of these early African American students had been active in the
civil rights movement, and, after enrolling, directed their activism toward
college and university administrations (Peterson et al., 1978). As their num-
bers grew, these students and their allies challenged the legacy of discrimina-
tion and racism at these institutions through demonstrations, sit-ins, and
other forms of nonviolent protest. At the heart of these student-led efforts
was a belief that students should have a greater say in directing and governing
colleges and universities, and that institutions needed to incorporate the
values and aspirations of an increasingly diverse student body in every facet
of institutional life (Peterson et al., 1978).
The Ten-Point Platform

Students often submitted their demands to senior leaders in the form of a
ten-point platform, and these platforms invariably reected the same core
priorities: diversify student, faculty, and staff ranks; acknowledge and pro-
mote diversity in the curriculum; and develop new diversity-themed services
and resources (Peterson et al., 1978). Colleges and universities responded to
these demands as they do to most calls for change: with a great deal of
caution and reticence. Hence the earliest efforts to engage in diversity plan-
ning and implementation activities were grounded in the principles of the
diversity crisis model and characterized by the metaphor of the cheetah and
the wolf presented in Chapter 4.
Many of the reforms that resulted from student activism followed a
cycle: explosive planning energy giving rise to new initiatives, then a gradual
retrenchment and erosion of early efforts to enhance diversity and build
capacity. The real test of any diversity initiative is whether its change energy
will continue past early spurts of enthusiasm when the campus community
has returned to its normal state of balance. In some instances, the gains
achieved by these early plans zzled and died. Leadership changed; priorities
shifted; external grants were exhausted; and the new ofces, programs, schol-
arships, and initiatives were eliminated. In other instances, these early plans
endured and evolved, shaping the representation, curriculum, and infrastruc-
tures of their institutions in new and unforeseen ways. Indeed, many depart-
ments that now exist to support diverse students nd inspiration from the
D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 305
ethnic studies and early cultural centers that emerged to benet racially and
ethnically diverse students in the 1960s and 1970s (Ogbar, 2008; Peterson et
al., 1978).
Institutional Adaptation to Diversity

The tectonic shifts that took place in the demography of most campuses
forced predominantly White institutions to adapt to diversity. Although one
group may control the formal bureaucratic structures of an institution, pres-
sure from new groups often leads to structural adjustments as the institution
moves to serve the needs of the new group. We might term this process
institutional adaptation to diversity, as the organization responds to mounting
pressure, in this instance from activism, changes in policy, and an emerging
diverse population.
During the tumultuous years of the civil rights movement, as today,
institutions had three broad categories of response. One response was to
ignore the presence of diversity, building no new programs, ofces, or special
initiatives. A second response was to develop dedicated diversity programs
specically focused on the academic, cultural, political, and social needs of
minority students and establishing dedicated diversity capacity. A third
response was to integrate new diversity programs and initiatives within tradi-
tional campus units. Most institutions struck a balance, downplaying some
concerns while acknowledging others. Similarly, some efforts were made to
create truly robust and distinct bureaucratic structures to implement new
policies and programs, whereas in other situations initiatives were simply
window dressing tacked onto preexisting ofces and processes, serving a
more symbolic than material function on campus.
Looking across the multiple dimensions of diversity activity on most
campuses, strategic diversity leaders nd a general philosophy in the academy
that encompasses each of these three potential responses. For example, some
institutions may have ignored various aspects of the diversity challenge (e.g.,
the desire for a Latino studies department) while acknowledging other
aspects with dedicated efforts (e.g., building a race-conscious scholarship for
historically underrepresented minorities) and then infusing diversity priori-
ties into preexisting ofces and processes (e.g., establishing a special minority
recruiting role within the ofce of undergraduate admissions). These ap-
proaches indicate the general architecture that colleges and universities use
to this day, and echo the themes of assimilation and identity afrmation
presented in the exploration of the diversity idea in Chapters 2 and 3.
The Modern Diversity Plan

This text denes a diversity plan as any intentionally created document that
includes a diversity denition, rationale, goals, recommended actions, assign-
ments of responsibility, timelines, accountability processes, and a budget.
According to the authors survey of colleges and universities throughout the
United States, the most common form of diversity plan is the integrated
approach, in which diversity is infused as a priority in either the academic
or strategic plan.1 Among respondents, 86 percent infused diversity in their
academic plans and 74 percent in their campus strategic plans. The second
most common approach was a centralized institutional diversity plan, with
59 percent of surveyed institutions. The decentralized diversity plan, at 34
percent, ranked last. Although coordinated centrally, this approach locates
the planning and implementation processes in schools, colleges, and divi-
sions, rather than within the central administration. Despite being less popu-
lar than the other two, this approach presents great promise as a planning
method. Indeed, the most effective approach requires blending the three, so
that diversity efforts combine the advantages that each has to offer. Figure
7.1 offers a visual representation of this idea, placing outcomes like the educa-
tional benets of diversity and the imperatives of incentives and accountabil-
ity at the core of any diversity plan efforts, regardless of type.
Each of these models offers great possibilities for establishing a broad
vision and framework for change, although obviously they also face chal-
lenges. As discussed in Chapter 4, three common challenges stand out: a lack
of senior level support, a lack of nancial resources, and a vague implementa-
tion plan. Because no approach is perfect, diversity leaders should rst exam-
ine the specic needs and objectives of their institutions and then examine
these needs in the context of these differing approaches.
Implementation of the Modern-Day Diversity Plan

As with so many efforts to improve higher education, diversity plans will not
succeed simply because diversity champions want them to. On too many
campuses, tales of heroic diversity plans and heartfelt efforts play out along-
side overt and covert forms of cultural and institutional resistance. It is for
this reason that planning and implementation efforts must unfold consistent
with the principles of strategic diversity leadership and the challenge of over-
coming the reactive, tradition-bound governing structures of college and
university environments. The question for diversity champions is, How can
we get people to do diversity work?
D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A N S 307
FIGURE 7.1
Integrated, Centralized, and Decentralized Diversity Plans
The days of afrmative action may be ending. The efforts of conservative

special interest groups have challenged, and in some places weakened, efforts
by many campuses to become more diverse and inclusive. As a result, institu-
tions have become more reluctant to put forth ambitious strategic diversity
plans. During the 1980s and early 1990s, for instance, some institutions
included in their plans specic targets to increase the representation of
minority students. Given the current climate, institutions are often reluctant
to identify even general numerical targets, even though target ranges are an
important component of establishing a clear diversity strategy (Coleman &
Palmer, 2004). In a period of legal uncertainty, diversity leaders have to
308 W HAT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L EA DE RS H I P?
TAB LE 7 .1
Three Types of Diversity Plans in the Academy
National
Percentage of Potential Potential
Diversity Plan Description Institutions Strengths Weaknesses
Integrated Campus diversity 86 percent Diversity is built into the Diversity becomes an
Diversity Plan goals are infused (Academic strategic priorities of the unfunded mandate.
into the Plan) institution.
institutions Diversity does not exist as a
broader academic 74 percent Regular feedback and priority as other goals are
or strategic plan. (Strategic Plan) reporting occurs as part of more readily understood and
broad campus strategic efforts. valued by campus stakeholders
and community members.
Potential exists to receive
funding, visibility, and The broader campus strategic
support similar to other plan fails to account for
campus priorities. educational benets of a
diverse learning community
and the rise of global
economy.
Diversitys complexity is often

not sufciently engaged as it
relates to access and equity,
learning and diversity, campus
climate, and research and
scholarship.
Centralized Dedicated diversity 59 percent Diversity is symbolically and Diversity becomes an
Diversity Plan plan features goals, substantively a focus of unfunded mandate.
assignments of strategic planning and
responsibility, implementation. Difculty engaging in a
indicators of change project that takes hold
progress, and Diversity plan is resourced as throughout campus.
implementation an institutional priority.
timelines across Diversity is viewed as the work
one or multiple Dedicated focus allows for in- of the CDO alone.
diverse groups. depth analyses, planning, and
implementation activities. Can create a sense of diversity
fatigue as campus leaders grow
Potential exists to develop a weary while moving deeper
diversity plan that either into plan implementation.
focuses on the particular needs
of a particular group or May lend itself to simplistic
addresses the needs of all evaluations of
groups. implementation, viewing plan
as either failure or success.
Potential exists to develop a
diversity plan focused on one
aspect of strategic diversity
work, like faculty
diversication, or preparing
students for a diverse and
global world.
D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A N S 309
Decentralized Plans guided by a 34 percent Emphasis placed on local Requires complex planning
Diversity Plan central overarching planning and implementation and coordination between and
framework and encourages greater buy-in. among different entities.
strategic diversity
goals, but are Plan provides greater clarity Challenge of integrating
developed and about the specic challenges decentralized plan with
implemented in and opportunities of integrated or centralized plans.
the various schools, individual entities because
colleges, divisions, planning takes place at the Lack of resource support from
and departments of local level. central administration means
the institution. that local entities forced to
Plans feature Plan is consistent with the resource and staff efforts on
assignments of decentralized culture of the individual level, leading to
responsibility, academy and avoids negative unequal and uneven
indicators of associations of a top-down implementation.
progress, and approach.
implementation Greater challenge exists in
timelines across creating local expertise and
one or multiple capacity across varied units
diverse groups. and entities.
pursue two challenging paths simultaneously. On the one hand, it is impor-

tant to implement the most robust afrmative action policies as allowed by
law. On the other hand, it is vital to develop race-neutral alternatives that
enhance diversity by strengthening the pipeline of eligible applicants and
to promote an inclusive and welcoming learning environment. Should the
Supreme Court strike down race conscious admissions policies, institutions
can only compensate by afrming their commitment to diversity as a strate-
gic and cultural value, and by building the policies and programs that reect
those values at the curricular, administrative, and institutional level.
If diversity is to become a core institutional value, it will be because
leaders are committed to high-caliber diversity planning and implementation
techniques that (a) educate all stakeholders about the educational, economic,
and social benets of diversity; (b) establish institutional structures and
incentives that encourage and reward those who engage constructively in
diversity issues; (c) build systems of accountability to drive institutional
diversity efforts that are connected to the nancial systems of the institution;
and (d) create the conditions for a cultural shift in values, so that positive
efforts on diversity can ourish independently of any institutional or struc-
tural incentives. For this to happen, diversity plans cannot unfold purely in
a top-down manner, but must reect a genuine, grassroots engagement that
builds commitment from the ground up.
It is for this reason that faculty must be involved in the creation of
campus diversity plans. Although many diversity plans are framed in terms
of preparing students for a diverse and global world, few seem to offer clear
recommendations in this area. Learning, diversity, and research paradigm
goals often do not seem as central to diversity plans as issues of recruitment,
retention, and campus climate. Because of individual faculty autonomy,
some curricular issues may be difcult to implement from a central adminis-
trative perspective. This situation highlights the importance of developing
plans that engage faculty and academic departments as key players in design-
ing and implementing localized diversity plans that can inuence the pace
and direction of change.
The Integrated Diversity Plan

Integrated diversity plans are woven into the goals, tactics, rationale, and
operational focus of institutional strategic plans. Although centralized and
decentralized plans give dedicated focus to issues of diversity as the core
subject matter of the plan, integrated plans infuse diversity into the broader
goals of the institutions strategic plan. As pointed out by Kezar and Eckel
(2005), a campus strategic plan can provide an effective avenue for addressing
diversity issues. Strategic plans provide a rationale for the allocation of
resources, propel faculty and staff toward new initiatives, provide a frame-
work for accountability, and serve as a unifying force that rallies the campus
community around a number of strategic themes (Alfred, 2005). Thus, every
5 to 10 years, most institutions revise their strategic plan or, in some cases,
generate a new strategic plan. The plan generally emerges through a commit-
tee process that involves faculty, staff, and senior administrators.
Broadly speaking, a strategic plan articulates a vision and list of priorities
that are then reected in its budget recommendations. For diversity leaders,
therefore, the strategic plan provides an opportunity for integrating diversity
priorities into the overall vision, as well as the complex network of funding
priorities, staff decisions, and accountability mechanisms. Among the best
reasons to have an integrated diversity plan is that it provides institutional
leaders with the political coverage they need to elevate diversity as a campus
priority. Indeed, from a political perspective, infusing diversity into the cam-
pus strategic plan might be an important and necessary step before develop-
ing either a centralized or decentralized diversity plan. When done well,
expressing a deep commitment to institutional diversity can have a positive
effect on institutional policy and the future direction of the institution. The
challenge is simply that too often the infusion effort is more symbolic than
material. Some diversity plans leave the impression of having disingenuously
gone through the motions. For instance, one schools diversity goal was to
work in ways that support minority faculty. That was it. The integrated
D EV EL OP IN G A ND IM PL E M E N TI NG S U CC ES SF UL DI V E R S IT Y P L A NS 311
diversity plan provided nothing of substance to indicate this recommen-

dation would be pursued. A diversity plan should not just make uffy
statements, but develop clear, actionable recommendations that can be
implemented through concrete initiatives.
A Strategic Plan or a Strategic Framework

Although it is no guarantor of change, the integrated approach situates diver-
sity in the central strategic plan and allows leaders to take steps toward
implementing their diversity priorities over time. That said, it cannot be
emphasized strongly enough that just because diversity is in the strategic
plan does not mean it enjoys real support. Without funding and serious,
committed engagement by senior leaders, diversity efforts will prove ineffec-
tual (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Therefore, senior leaders should be prepared to
allocate signicant nancial and human resources to implement new diver-
sity initiatives. When strategic plans are done correctly, resources follow pri-
orities and diversity efforts are well supported as essential components, not
as afterthoughts without resources, leadership, or attention.
An integrated diversity plan should include several features, including a
diversity denition, rationale, goals, recommended actions, assignments of
responsibility, timelines, accountability processes, and a budget. The failure
to include any of these dimensions will result in a document that lacks the
key ingredients of a strategic plan. According to Richard Alfred, Plans and
budgets without goals are meaningless; goals without resources are empty.
Goals give meaning to actions; but without a description of how they are to
be achieved, they are merely statements of desire and hope (Alfred, 2005).
So when we are talking about a strategic, academic, or diversity plan, we are
specically dening this document as one that brings together an integrated
set of concepts that present a vision for the future as well as specic steps to
realize that vision (Figure 7.2).
In many instances, an institution offers as its strategic plan something
more aptly described as a strategic framework. Figure 7.2 helps elucidate this
FIGURE 7.2
Strategic Plan Versus Strategic Framework
312 W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P ?
important distinction. Although a strategic framework may speak generally

to the mission and goals, it often fails to address key issues of implementa-
tion. Diversity leaders should develop strategic plans that articulate not only
the broad aspects of the diversity effort, but also provide specic details on
tactical activities, individual responsibilities, and a timeline for delivering
change.
Embolden Diversity Efforts as Part of Advancing the

Institutional Mission
To move forward with a more aggressive diversity agenda, college and uni-
versity leaders must make a paradigm shift toward a strategic diversity leader-
ship rationale, in which empowering the campus diversity agenda becomes
synonymous with fullling the institutional mission. This paradigm shift
requires upending many of the biased attitudes that currently permeate the
diversity debate. For example, if an institutions mission is to educate and
empower all students, graduate rate disparities become less a matter of indi-
vidual student deciencies and more an issue of what steps the institution is
taking to meet its educational mission. The inability of an institution to
recruit ethnically and racially diverse faculty becomes as much a function of
fault lines in the faculty development pipeline, as it is an inability of campus
search committees to confront their own biases and embrace difference in
the interview and selection process. Campus leaders must reframe diversity
in terms of its clear intellectual and academic benets to create a richer, more
nuanced understanding of diversity challenges and why overcoming them
matters. In this way, campus leaders can begin to rearticulate diversity as an
important driver of the institutional mission, not as an obstacle that detracts
from the real academic and administrative priorities of the institution.
In an American Council of Education monograph on presidential diversity
leadership, one president echoed the importance of connecting diversity to
the institutional mission:
When I came in as president, I situated diversity within the colleges mis-

sion, as we were redening the mission [to be an outstanding public liberal
arts college]. I explicitly identied diversity as one of the three things the
college needed to do to achieve greatness as a public liberal arts college.
Our diversity efforts were then carefully integrated with our redenition
of the mission. You should not isolate diversity from the central mission of
the college, because they are part and parcel of it. When the mission and
diversity become connected, then diversity becomes part of the strategic
D EV E L OP IN G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES SF U L DI V E R S I T Y P L A N S 313
plan, curriculum, hiring practices, etc. And it becomes much easier to sup-
port. (Kezar & Eckel, 2005, p. 8)
Kezar and Eckel (2005) note that it might seem cliche to say that link-
ing diversity to institutional mission will insure that it is a priority, but
experience shows that this can be a powerful tool for developing an institu-
tional commitment (p. 8). The key is for the president and top leaders to
frame diversity as an essential component of fullling the campus mission.
Diversity should not, therefore, be the sole work of the chief diversity ofcer
(CDO). When there is active engagement on the diversity implications of
campus decision making, budget priorities, and long-range hiring, an inte-
grated diversity plan can emerge as a powerful action platform.
A Comprehensive Diversity Framework

When developing an integrated diversity plan, it is vital that senior leaders
avoid limiting the discussion of diversity to a simple review of demographic
data. Although knowing minority student and faculty representation and
retention is critical, it is even more important to create a qualitative assess-
ment of the effectiveness of current policies and programs. Thus, campus
leaders should consider the merits of including other dimensions into their
integrated diversity plan. As discussed in Chapter 6, the guiding perspectives
of your strategic diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) should help guide the
strategic plan: (a) the access and equality perspective, (b) the learning and
diversity perspective, (c) the multicultural and inclusive campus climate per-
spective, (d) the diversity research and scholarship perspective, and (e) the
leadership commitment perspective. Moreover, each dimension of the plan
should include a description of specic programs and initiatives that will
be used to drive new outcomes. Accountability for implementing specic
recommendations should be assigned to specic leaders across campus.
Because some aspects of the plan will need to evolve during the process, it is
impossible to project every aspect of implementation. However, by building
in as many concrete steps as possible, the plan can at least initiate the process
of creating material changes on campus.
Strategic plans must be viewed as living documents that will need to
evolve, whether they are integrated, centralized, or decentralized in nature.
Loden (1996) notes, As particular changes are introduced into the environ-
ment, their ripple effects create new, unanticipated issues and opportunities.
These in turn, lead to other adjustments in project direction, assumptions,
systems, practices, and so on (p. 131). Leaders must be prepared for these
shifts because diversity-themed implementation is complex and will lead to

unexpected responses, both of resistance and support. Being open to new
opportunities during implementation is important to making both incre-
mental and transformative gains.
Limitations of the Integrated Approach

Many institutions have adopted the integrated approach to making diversity
a part of their campus strategic plans. However, at some institutions campus
diversity champions have expressed the feeling that because diversity only
exists as part of the overall strategic plan, their diversity efforts are oating.
This feeling inevitably arises in response to poorly articulated plans that do
not include all of the elements outlined here. It also stems from academias
long history of treating diversity crisis incidents in cheetah fashion, and
of acknowledging diversity as an institutional priority only grudgingly and
intermittently. The symbolic infusing of diversity into the campus strategic
plan can become a smokescreen, offering grandiose gestures but doing little
to commit resources, create accountability, or take action.
In an integrated approach, diversity is forced to compete with priorities
that are traditionally more prominent. As such, infusing diversity into the
broader strategic plan may not allow campus leaders the opportunity to fully
express a denition, rationale, or strategic diversity leadership framework
that captures diversity across a range of different dimensions. Because of the
complex character of diversity in the twenty-rst century, integrated plans
need to reect the emerging challenges of a more diverse, global society and
economy. For this reason, campus leaders should consider supplementing
their strategic plan with a centralized diversity plan focused specically on
building a campus-wide infrastructure for further planning and implementa-
tion activities that serve the institutions diversity agenda.
The Centralized Diversity Plan

Centralized diversity plans are a type of strategic plan that specically focuses
on driving the institutions overall diversity strategy and is commonly known
as the campus diversity plan. Although centralized diversity plans can emerge
out of diversity crises, senior leaders use them as a way to illustrate commit-
ment and galvanize the campus. A centralized diversity plan can build from
or complement the overall strategic plan by delving more deeply into the
institutions specic vision, denition, rationale, and strategy for implanting
its diversity priorities.
D EV EL O P IN G A N D IM P L E M EN TI NG S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 315
As with the campus strategic plan, a centralized diversity plan should

emerge from campus-wide planning committees composed of students, fac-
ulty, and staff. Engaging in broad discussions and shared strategic thinking,
these diversity-planning committees should rst articulate a set of principles
and recommendations aimed at institutional transformation. Centralized
diversity plans generally require at least 9 to 12 months of planning and
involve studies, audits, campus-wide meetings, listening sessions, and
national benchmarking. The advantage of a centralized plan is that it can
function proactively, building broad commitment and a greater sense of
shared mission and purpose.
Ideally, a centralized diversity plan contains the following key features:
a denition of diversity, a rationale for diversitys importance, a data-driven
overview of diversity challenges and issues, and a framework that outlines
recommendations. Recommendations should address issues of access and
equity, campus climate, learning and diversity, and diversity-themed scholar-
ships, as well as other areas of strategic importance, including the develop-
ment of partnerships with other institutions, K12 schools and private sector
and nonprot stakeholders. These plans should also feature assignments of
responsibility, specic recommendations, and a timeline for implementation.
Box 7.1 summarizes ongoing diversity efforts through the University of
WisconsinMadisons centralized diversity plan.
BOX 7.1
A Focus on Strategic Partnerships: The University
of WisconsinMadison PEOPLE Program
An increasingly prominent aspect of todays diversity plans is their focus on building

strategic partnerships as a way of galvanizing campus diversity efforts. These part-
nering constituencies include alumni, business and community leaders, and local
government agencies. Indeed, strategic partnerships were a key aspect of the Univer-
sity of WisconsinMadisons diversity plan, Plan 2008, which has built an impres-
sive K16 infrastructure designed not only to prepare more students for higher
education, but also to provide them with academic scholarship and support after
admission to the university. Having laid the original groundwork in 1999, the Pre-
College Enrichment Opportunity Program for Learning Excellence (PEOPLE) is a
comprehensive academic pipeline development initiative. The program works primar-
ily with talented, historically underrepresented minority, rst-generation, and urban
(continues)
(continued)
students, beginning as early as elementary school and extending through their
undergraduate years at UWMadison. During the summer, participants from middle
and high school programs spend time on campus to become acclimated to college
life.
More than 1,200 students are currently enrolled in the precollege component of
the program, which focuses on math education, literacy, leadership development,
and career exploration. The precollege component of the program has enrolled more
than 600 students at UWMadison and more than 1,000 students in higher education
at other institutions across the state and country. The program is almost completely
funded by the state of Wisconsin. In the fall of 2010, there were 340 PEOPLE stu-
dents enrolled at UWMadison with a 75.7 six-year graduation rate for the entering
class of 2003.
The program is built on in-depth relationships with K12 schools, corporations,
community members, government agencies, and others. Partnership features
include the nancing of scholarships, teachers working with students during the
summer months, after-school programs located in partner schools and community-
based organizations, and an agreement in Madison that allows PEOPLE staff access
to student grades, attendance, and behavioral data directly from the school districts
electronic databases. In addition, members of the corporate and nonprot commu-
nity are involved in the program, sponsoring summer internships and mentoring
students in a range of potential careers, including lawyers, health professionals, and
journalists.
Source: www.peopleprogram.wisc.edu/
Centralized diversity plans must retain their strong emphasis on the

classic issues of access and equity for historically underrepresented minorities
while adapting to address new challenges, including LGBT concerns, inter-
nationalization, and gender equity in the science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) elds. Some institutions have created parallel plans for
racial and ethnic equity, gender equity, economic need, and internationaliza-
tion, preferring to develop a focused strategy in each of these areas. At the
same time, a notable trend in central campus diversity plans reects a holistic
diversity perspective that goes beyond representation for diverse groups of
faculty, staff, and students. As such, it is common for these plans to include
sections on leadership and accountability, precollege preparation, and stu-
dent retention, infusing diversity into the curriculum, campus climate, and
intergroup relations and community and alumni relations.
D EV EL O P I N G A N D IM P L E M EN TI N G S U CC ES S F UL D I VE R S IT Y P L A N S 317
Conducting an Institutional Diversity Audit

An effective diversity plan should take into account where your institution
is on its diversity journey before delving into where you want to go. To
achieve campus diversity goals, an effective plan must follow from a careful
assessment of the history, demographics, current ofces, policies, initiatives,
and priorities as they relate to diversity. Put simply, this means conducting
a diversity audit. Indeed, the diversity audit is particularly important when
developing a centralized or decentralized dedicated plan. Because of their
potential to create far-reaching recommendations, such plans require exam-
ining areas of need and establishing a culture of evidence regarding the cur-
rent state of diversity within each area of the institution. Short of conducting
a dedicated diversity audit, you should make sure that you have a very clear
understanding of your organizational needs regarding diversity through such
other reliable quantitative and qualitative sources as surveys of faculty, staff,
and students, as well as institutional assessments, such as the accreditation
report. Without these data, leaders will struggle to understand the current
state of diversity and the progress that may result from new initiatives and
activities.
The rst step in the diversity audit process is to determine its timeframe.
Working back from the current year, audit leaders must identify the time-
frame within which to prole their institutions demographics, history, and
institutional capacity. Because change activities are nested within an histori-
cal context of inclusion or exclusion, it may be important to begin the audit
with an overview of the history of diversity efforts in your area. This histori-
cal overview should address any cheetah moments, past planning and
implementation activities, past or current grants that made a difference on
diversity, and other relevant matters. This historical analysis allows the diver-
sity team to situate its work in the context of prior efforts, becoming more
strategic, intentional, and outcome oriented.
We have seen how mining the institutional memory of a college or uni-
versity can often bring previous challenges and roadblocks into clear focus.
For example, one institution with which the author consulted conducted
metaanalyses of every diversity plan that had been written during a period
of 25 years. They found that many of the recommendations had never been
fully implemented on campus. As a result, the heart of their rst draft was
to contextualize these recommendations in contemporary data and current
capacity, and build from innovative ideas that had been offered in the past
but never realized.
The diversity audit should illustrate the challenges and opportunities.

Some evidence that tells the diversity story may be internal and include
numbers of minority graduate students, rates of faculty tenure for women,
and data from campus diversity surveys. Other elements of data may be
external and capture information on national labor trends and graduation
rates for diverse students at other institutions, as well as national and peer-
institutional data on transfer rates, average GRE scores, and rates of partici-
pation in study abroad programs. What matters is that you gather informa-
tion that helps to frame the diversity picture with as much focused specicity
as possible. You need to gather as much information as possible regarding
the state of diversity at your institution; you need to know what works and
does not work as a strategy of change; and, ultimately, you must be ready
and able to evaluate the efcacy of current efforts.
Developing an Institutional Diversity Database and

Engagement Map
One technique for conducting a diversity audit is to develop an institutional
diversity engagement map. For example, San Jose State University (SJSU)
deployed this tool as part of a multiday institutional planning retreat. As
part of their ongoing implementation efforts, and under the direction of
SJSU communications professor Rona Halualani, SJSU developed an in-
depth diversity audit and mapping process as part of their readiness activities.
To establish a baseline measure, Professor Halualanis research team con-
ducted an extensive diversity inventory and mapping of every initiative and
course at SJSU that engaged with issues of diversity. This inventory served
as the universitys launching point to incorporate major diversity efforts
across all levels of the institution. After the data was compiled and entered
into a spreadsheet, it was transferred into a brainstorming software program
to create a graphic map or infographic. The resulting visual offered a clear
and compelling means to move from the data to a robust conversation. Box
7.2 offers an overview of this methodology drawn from the authors experi-
ence at SJSU.
D EV E L O P IN G A N D IM PL EM E N TI N G S U CC E S SF U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A N S 319
BOX 7.2
Diversity Data Inventory and Mapping
Methodology Best Practices
Establishing the Research Team
The rst step is to establish a small group of qualied people to build the diversity-
scoring rubric, which will be used to evaluate existing diversity policies and
programs. Although most members should have extensive expertise in diversity
issues, there should be adequate representation from the broader campus commu-
nity. The selection of this group is critical because the success of the entire process
hinges on the commitment and credibility of those who lead the data collection and
analysis effort.
Dening Diversity Efforts and Qualied Courses

After the team is assembled, the next step is to establish a scoring rubric for diversity
efforts within and outside of the curriculum. For its purposes, SJSU dened a cam-
pus diversity effort as:
any activity or program that promotes and/or supports the active appreciation,
engagement and support of all campus members in terms of their backgrounds,
identities and experiences (as constituted by gender, socioeconomic class, political
perspective, age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, regional
origin, nationality, occupation, language, among others, and the intersection of
these aspects) and/or promotes the larger importance of diversity, difference, or
cultural sharing for the public.
Dening what classes qualify as diversity courses requires looking not only at
any general education diversity requirements, should they exist, but the entire curric-
ulum. Moreover, these courses must be examined in the context of clearly articulated
learning goals (Humphreys, 2000), which may require a more intensive approach
that denes a diversity course as one that explores issues of power and privilege and
the experiences of historically oppressed groups, and focuses on meaning-making
through personal reection, writing, and the utilization of small-group pedagogies
and interactive discussion.
Collecting Diversity Data on Campus

Information about diversity efforts, programs, courses, and activities can be col-
lected in a number of ways. The rst step might include an e-mail and formal letter
from the Ofce of the President or Provost to all campus divisions, units, programs,
and departments, with a request to send all information about their current diversity
(continues)
efforts and documentation by a specic date. This letter should also identify the
research team leading the data collection process. Data collection should also include
a comprehensive review of the campus online environment, using a series of search
terms that might include diversity, equity, inclusion, multiculturalism, and other key
diversity terms. Inevitably a large number of links and documents will emerge that
must then be reviewed and coded for inclusion in the diversity database.
With regard to courses, data collection might involve analysis of course syllabi,
reviews of course catalogs, and web-based course descriptions. Depending on the
clarity of these written materials and the intensity of the mapping process, data
collectors should consider interviews and even faculty surveys. At many research
institutions, this data collection process can create hundreds, even thousands, of
data entries. For example, the SJSU research team engaged in live data collection
tours of the various schools, colleges, and divisions over several weeks to conrm
and extend the ndings of their data collection activities.
Organizing and Analyzing the Diversity Data

After all diversity efforts have been identied, the review team should organize the
data by divisions, schools, colleges, and departments. The establishment of the data-
base will now allow you to answer several questions, including: How many diversity-
themed efforts exist on campus? What types of initiatives exist in terms of focus?
Foci include social identity group focus (race and ethnicity, LGBT, international, etc.),
institutional role focus (faculty, students, and staff), type (course, grant, program,
initiative, etc.), and others. What is their level and type of funding? Where are diver-
sity efforts located? How high a priority is diversity within the curriculum, research
elds, and other critical areas?
San Jose State Universitys Key Findings:

Diversity-Related Curricula:

Six percent of the universitys entire curriculum addresses diversity issues,
for a total of 277 diversity-related courses.
Eighteen academic departments have a curriculum that primarily focuses on
diversity-related issues.
In terms of the total number of course offerings in their colleges, the College
of Humanities and the Arts, the College of Business, and the College of Social
Sciences have the highest percentage of diversity-related courses.
Thirty-three percent of all general education course offerings are diversity-
related, or 103 courses.
General education offers 37 percent of all diversity-related courses at the uni-
versity, with two upper-division general education areas completely devoted
to diversity, for a total of 70 courses.
(continues)
D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 321
Diversity Efforts Across Campus:
There are 176 active diversity efforts at SJSU. Diversity efforts are dened as
any activity or program that promotes and supports the appreciation of all
backgrounds, identities, experiences, and perspectives of campus and com-
munity members.
Academic Affairs leads, with 70 percent of all diversity efforts offered on
campus.
The next two leading diversity divisions are Student Affairs and University
Advancement, with 19 and 10 percent, respectively.
Within Academic Affairs, the College of Science, International and Extended
Studies, and College of Applied Sciences and Arts lead with the most diversity
efforts.
Although the largest percentages of diversity efforts fall within the areas of
curriculum and academic support programs and services, 70 percent of diver-
sity efforts are spread across 15 different themes (as indicated later). Thus,
SJSU has taken action on diversity but not centrally in any one area besides
the curriculum.
Seventy-one percent of all diversity efforts within Student Affairs focus on
student development, student leadership, and academic support services.
Clearly, the two primary target populations of diversity efforts are undergradu-
ate students and faculty.
Only a small percentage of diversity efforts are aimed at general staff, graduate
students, and international students.
Developing the Visual Map
It is critically important to create effect through a strong visual presentation of the

diversity data story. Many experienced diversity leaders recommend infographics as
a tool to facilitate understanding and inspiration among campus stakeholders.
Although some well-resourced institutions may engage professional graphic design-
ers in this process, others have relied on basic computer creativity tools like Inspira-
tion, Microsoft Visio, and Omnigrafe, all of which allow for a visual organization of
information.
Why New Energy May Emerge
The presentation of diversity data will not magically drive change. But by compiling,
analyzing, and presenting diversity data in a compelling way, diversity leaders can
help generate a new sense of urgency around diversity efforts. By creating awareness
(continues)
(continued)
of where diversity is strongest and weakest in the curriculum, diversity leaders can
identify areas for additional initiatives.
Source: www.sjsu.edu/diversityplan/history/stages/mapping/
Implementation Cycles
Most diversity planning efforts result in a 5-year diversity implementation
cycle, although some schools opt for a 10-year cycle. The rationale for the
5-year planning cycle is that it presents a manageable period to develop and
implement a meaningful campus diversity plan. Moreover, it does not lock
the institution into an irreversible course of implementation. That said, the
10-year cycle can demonstrate a greater commitment to change as it allows
for new initiatives to take hold and for leaders to address systemic issues that,
no matter how comprehensive and well intentioned the plans implementa-
tion, remain resistant.
To keep diversity on the radar of campus priorities, both the 5- and 10-
year planning cycles require creating regular reports for the various members
of the campus community, whether board of trustees, faculty senate, alumni
audiences, or staff and student associations. Indeed, at the University of
Connecticut, the vice provost for multicultural and international affairs was
required to report on the Diversity Action Plan 2002 annually, and biannu-
ally in the early years of the plans implementation. It is also common for
presidents to give an annual state of diversity address, which speaks to
milestones and next steps. At some institutions, this address takes place dur-
ing an annual campus diversity conference or forum, where the campus
community comes together to reect on diversity issues and the implementa-
tion of their plan. These forums are essential because they communicate
what is going on with the diversity change project and simultaneously posi-
tion that project within the evolving myths, symbols, and rituals of the cam-
pus community (Kezar, 2001).
Our experience tells us that well-coordinated, resourced, and intentional
implementation cycles, whether 5 or 10 years, can allow for sufcient time
to launch a meaningful change process. No matter which timeline is pur-
sued, campus leaders need the time and exibility to make not only minor
adjustments but also to implement the far-reaching and potentially trans-
formative change strategies outlined in Chapter 5. Both cycles require a con-
tinual commitment to implementing a diversity change process that is
D EV EL OP I N G A ND IM P L E M E N TI NG S U CC ES S F UL D I V E R S IT Y P L A NS 323
systematic and intentional (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Two excellent examples
include the universities of Michigan and WisconsinMadison, which imple-
mented a succession of diversity plans over several years. The dramatic effect
of their diversity efforts on the institutional demographics, capacity, and
culture of their institutions suggests the type of deep commitment that must
be sustained across multiple planning cycles.
The University of Michigan and the University of

WisconsinMadison: A Focus on Centralized Diversity
Plans and Capacity
The author has had the good fortune to have personal experience with the
legacy of some of the nations most ambitious diversity plans. The University
of Michigans Michigan Mandate and a series of plans at the University of
WisconsinMadison (The Madison Plan, Design for Diversity, Plan 2008, etc.)
provide a window into two visions for change that catalyzed numerous shifts
in diversity-themed institutional capacity, and provide a compelling vision
for other academic institutions.
Both the Michigan Mandate and the Madison Plan for Diversity emerged
out of racial incidents and student mobilizations. Although the University
of Michigan has not had a campus diversity plan since the ending of the
Michigan Mandate extension in the early 1990s, UWMadison continued its
commitment to developing diversity plans in the Design for Diversity, and
later Plan 2008, two 10-year plans supported by the University of Wisconsin
Board of Regents, reecting the boards commitment to engaging diversity
at every institution across the states system of higher education. Table 7.2
summarizes the chief features of the Michigan Mandate, The Diversity Blue-
prints, the Madison Plan, and Plan 2008, the most recent diversity plan
implemented at the University of WisconsinMadison.
These plans provided broad vision statements around diversity and aca-
demic excellence. Each led to new diversity infrastructures and set aggressive
goals, with recommendations in a number of different areas. Each featured
a deep commitment from their respective senior leaders that was reected in
millions of dollars in resource allocations. Rather than one-time programs
and initiatives, each plan focused on sustainable capacity, exhibiting many
of the tendencies of wolf-like behavior discussed in Chapter 4. Some
important themes from the implementation of both plans are highlighted in
the following sections.
TA BL E 7 .2
The University of Michigan and University of WisconsinMadison Centralized Diversity Plans
Dimension University of Michigan University of Michigan University of WisconsinMadison University of WisconsinMadison
Diversity Plan The Michigan Mandate: A Michigan Diversity Blue Prints The Madison Plan for Diversity UWMadison Plan 2008: A
Strategic Linking of Academic Blueprint to Enhance Campus
Excellence and Social Diversity Diversity
Launch Date 1987 2006 1988 1998
Launch Rationale The third Black Action The Diversity Blue Prints were Responding to racial incidents The University of Wisconsin
Movement in 1987 led to a broad developed as a way of and student mobilization, the Board of Regents charged every
presidential commitment to strengthening and maintaining University of Wisconsins Steering campus in the system to develop a
develop a new institutional the universitys commitment to Committee on Minority Affairs diversity plan for each and every
diversity strategy, bringing diversity following the issued the Holly Report, institution.
together multiculturalism and introduction of Proposal 2, which detailing diversity
academic excellence. eliminated the universitys ability recommendations that the
to use individual characteristics in Chancellor then directed the
admissions, nancial aid, and Madison Plan for Diversity to
other administrative decisions. address.
Major Implementation Cycle Five-year cycle; three-year Ongoing Five-year cycle Ten-year cycle
continuing cycle
Major Goals Goal 1: Improve faculty Goal 1: Establish fully The Madison Plan focused on Goal 1: Increase the number of
recruitment and development. coordinated educational and increasing the ethnic, racial, and Wisconsin high school graduates
Goal 2: Improve student community outreach and economic diversity of students; of color who apply, are accepted,
recruitment, achievement, and engagement activities. enhancing the ethnic and racial and enroll at UW System
outreach. Goal 2: Maintain and improve diversity of the faculty; infusing institutions.
Goal 3: Improve staff recruitment student admissions, conversion, diversity into the curriculum; Goal 2: Encourage partnerships
and development. and retention practices within the expanding precollege outreach that build the educational pipeline
Goal 4: Improve the environment new legal parameters. and community engagement; and by reaching children and their
for diversity. Goal 3: Address the universitys improving the campus climate for parents at an earlier age.
interpersonal climate by providing diversity. Goal 3: Close the gap in
structured interactions, facilitated educational achievement by
dialogue, and opportunities to bringing retention and graduation
work across boundaries. rates for students of color in line
Goal 4: Dismantle structural with those of the student body as
impediments and increase a whole.
structural support for faculty, Goal 4: Increase the amount of
staff, and students, especially nancial aid available to needy
those working on diversity-related students and reduce their reliance
issues. on loans.
Goal 5: Ensure campus-wide buy- Goal 5: Increase the number of
in, engagement and transparency faculty, academic staff, classied
with diversity efforts. staff, and administrators of color,
Goal 6: Increase accountability so that they are represented in the
and sustainability mechanisms for UW System workforce in
all units and departments across proportion to their current
the university. availability in relevant job pools.
Goal 6: Foster institutional
environments and course
developments that enhance
learning and a respect for racial
and ethnic diversity.
Goal 7: Improve accountability of
the UW System and its
institutions.
The Michigan Mandate for Diversity: A Powerful Platform

for Diversity at U of M
Arguably one of the best-known efforts in the history of American higher
education, the Michigan Mandate was developed at the University of Michi-
gan in the 1980s and launched in 1987 (Duderstadt, 1990, 2000). Under
President James Duderstadt, the University of Michigan embarked on a
journey to become a multicultural university for the future. Like so many
institutional diversity efforts, the Michigan strategy grew out of crises. Box
7.3 summarizes the cheetah moments that provoked what became, over
time, a focused, intentional, proactive process. The degree of high-level strat-
egy resulted in an infrastructure that has lasted and evolved over two subse-
quent decades.
Although many universities have promoted positive diversity plans, Uni-
versity of Michigan was among the rst to create a data-driven, evidence-
based platform seeking to prepare all students for a diverse and global world
(Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2002, 2010). Drawing from rigorous
social science methodology demonstrating the educational benets of diver-
sity, Michigans model provided an original, compelling, and detailed argu-
ment in support of diversity. Moreover, the Michigan Mandate produced
results: by the late 1990s, the Ann Arbor campus more than doubled its
minority student population and signicantly increased its minority faculty.
For his efforts, President Duderstadt has been credited with changing the
institutional culture and character in important ways, which testies to
diversity as a core value of the institution.
BOX 7.3
University of Michigans History of Activism:
Black Action Movements IIII
Black Action Movements (BAMs) at the University of Michigan were an extension of

the broader civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Beginning with the
formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in 1960, and the student-
led sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina, African American students and their allies
banded together to push for change. Students at the University of Michigan were
especially active in the civil rights movement, as well as the broad range of civil
(continues)
D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN TI N G S U CC ES S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 327
(continued)
rights campaigns of the 1960s and 1970s. Over the years, there have been several
crisis moments, including events in 1970, 1975, and 1987.
The rst BAM was staged in 1970 and involved a massive student demonstration
in which students (both undergraduate and graduate) protested the lack of African
American student and faculty representation at the University of Michigan. Submit-
ting their demands in a 10-point platform, students pledged to Open It Up or Shut
It Down. What ensued was the longest and most successful student protest in the
history of the University of Michigan. The BAM strike received national attention
as students demanded a 10-percent enrollment of African American students, the
development of the Center for African and African American Studies, and the recruit-
ment of more African American faculty. BAM I was a watershed moment for the
University of Michigans struggle to become a diverse and inclusive community for
all students.
In 1975, students initiated the second Black Action Movement (BAM II). Less well
organized than the rst, the goals of this group built on BAM I. Enrollment levels
continued to fall below the 10 percent target and African American faculty and staff
remained extremely underrepresented around campus. Interestingly, African Ameri-
can students in BAM II linked their agenda to that of other people of color and
included demands that would specically benet Latino/Hispanic and Asian American
students.
The third Black Action Movement (BAM III) took place in 1987 and is also known
as the United Coalition Against Racism. A general feeling of disenchantment on cam-
pus was galvanized by racist comments made during a student radio show. In
response, students challenged the University of Michigan to adopt a proactive stance
on diversity issues. The leadership of BAM III presented demands specically
designed to empower African American students at the University of Michigan. In
response, the university granted the Black Student Union an autonomous budget of
$35,000 to conduct programs and events that would benet the African American
and University of Michigan communities. This movement also led to the Michigan
Mandate for Diversity and the hiring of the rst vice provost level senior diversity
ofcer, in addition to a new Ofce of Minority Affairs, located in the new ofcers
portfolio.
Source: The University of Michigan Bentley Historical Museum. Retrieved July 8, 2012, at http://
bentley.umich.edu/research/topics/bam.php
The Michigan Mandate was also unique for expressing its campus vision
for change through an evolving strategic planning document. Published on
numerous occasions and circulated broadly, the document always had
draft emblazoned on its cover. When asked about the focus on circulating
so many draft documents in an interview associated with this project, Presi-

dent Duderstadt responded:
You have to keep draft on the thing so that you can actually keep the ball
moving. You write the best plan you can, but to keep the change energy
going, you have to have the latitude and exibility to move in new direc-
tions or change course. As long as we kept the word draft on the docu-
ment, we had the ability to do just that. (Personal interview with President
James Duderstadt, November 2004)
Duderstadt and others recognized that although they had clear goals
about what they wanted to accomplish, they could not know exactly how
the implementation would evolve. As a result, they took an exploratory
approach to implementation, making investments in sustainable capacity
while remaining open to emerging opportunities. The Michigan Mandate
also developed a creative nancing plan to drive the campuss diversity
agenda. Recapturing 1 percent of the annual budgets of every department
throughout the institution, President Duderstadt created a centralized diver-
sity resource pool. A fairly common technique for moving other priorities
on campus, this approach was new to supporting a campus diversity agenda.
The move by leaders at the University of Michigan to leverage campus mate-
rial resources and create a more powerful and cohesive campus diversity
agenda transcended a merely symbolic discussion of diversitys importance.
A nal critical aspect of the plans implementation was its focus on
linking diversity and academic affairs. In a novel approach to reaching their
goals, leaders changed the name and scope of the Ofce of Minority Affairs,
which became the Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI).
Not only did this titular change signal that diversity and academic goals
must be connected, it foreshadowed a future in which higher education
diversity ofces not only maintained their historic focus on minority groups,
but broadened their services to include all students (Box 7.4).
BOX 7.4
A Diversity Ofce for the Twenty-First Century:
The Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives
As an outcome of the Michigan Mandate, the Ofce of Minority Affairs was renamed
the Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives (OAMI). OAMI is a now a centerpiece
(continues)
(continued)
in Michigans ongoing commitment to foster an intellectually and culturally diverse
campus community. OAMI works collaboratively with the campus and varied stake-
holders to develop initiatives that enrich the academic, social, cultural, and personal
development of students.
The primary mission of OAMI is to serve students through a variety of programs,
research, and strategic planning activities. OAMI priorities include providing supple-
mental resources to enhance the academic achievement levels of all students. The
ofce also develops leadership retreats, conferences, and programs designed to
enhance the leadership skills of undergraduate students and their organizations. Its
ofce director holds the rank of associate provost.
Some of OAMIs signature efforts include the continuation of the nations longest
ongoing study of undergraduate student experiences with diversity, The Michigan
Student Study. The program also engages in several studies focused on student
retention and community college transfer students. OAMI houses a diversity incen-
tive grant program, the Student Academic Multicultural Initiatives grants. This pro-
gram annually funds dozens of efforts designed to advance the institutions academic
diversity initiatives, including precollege initiatives designed to enhance the pipeline
of diverse and college-ready students throughout the state of Michigan. Some of
these efforts focus specically on gender-based challenges and the unique needs of
men and women. The ofce also hosts high-prole diversity events, regularly spon-
soring conferences, symposia, historical celebrations, and an annual awards event
designed to engage the campus community around issues of diversity. One of its
signature events is its campus-wide, multiweek celebration of the life and work of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.The MLK Symposium. It is one of the most comprehen-
sive to occur outside of the King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and regularly features
more than 100 different events.
Source: www.oami.umich.edu/
Long before the CDO role became vogue, the Michigan Mandate called
for the creation of a senior administrative role at the level of associate provost
who would act as that institutions CDO. Over time, this dedicated CDO
role evolved into a more general leadership position that, to this day, contin-
ues to focus on diversity as part of its core mission. Areas of responsibility
now include undergraduate admissions, student nancial aid, the OAMI, the
Center for Teaching and Learning, and the National Center for Institutional
Diversity. The Michigan Mandate also helped direct an aggressive recruit-
ment effort to hire more ethnically and racially diverse faculty. In the words
of President Duderstadt, the various schools and colleges were given an
opportunity to hunt without a license; if a department found a top-level
minority candidate, the university would nd a way to hire him or her. As

Duderstadt explained:
I basically said, you nd the talent that matches our standards as an institu-
tion and we will nd a way to pay for the position. Look, faculty diversi-
cation is a matter of getting something done. We never have all that we
need, but we always nd a way to fund what we prioritize. Thats just how
higher education operates.
Evidence-Based and Data-Driven Understanding

One of the most novel tactics that emerged out of the Michigan Mandate
was an increased focus on organizational learning. Diversity champions at
the University developed The Michigan Study of the Undergraduate Stu-
dent Experience With Diversity, a longitudinal study of student experiences
with diversity and the largest of its kind in higher education. The data from
this study was instrumental in Michigans legal defense before the U.S.
Supreme Court. Shaping the development of numerous campus programs,
this study has launched the careers of more than 20 scholars who have used
its rich data in their academic research. The study explores issues of campus
climate, retention, academic achievement, student development, teaching
and learning, social integration, academic integration, belonging, and a host
of other areas critical to understanding diversity issues in the academy (Mat-
lock et al., 2010).
The long-term legacy of these efforts has been to position the University
of Michigan as a national leader on issues of diversity. The Michigan Man-
date established the context for the University of Michigans commitment
to diversity as a top priority, even in the face of legal attacks and a public
referendum to eliminate afrmative action. Additionally, the Mandate pro-
vided the template for the Michigan Agenda for Women, a parallel strategy to
advance gender equity on campus (Duderstadt, 2000).
BOX 7.5
University of Michigan Diversity Blue Prints:
A Strategic Response to Proposition 2
Combining aspects of a diversity plan and framework, the University of Michigan

went several decades before developing another campus-wide diversity strategy,
(continues)
D EV E L OP IN G A N D IM PL E M E N TI N G S U CC ES SF U L DI V E R S I T Y P L A N S 331
(continued)
although the University advanced a number of new efforts in the interim following
the active years of the Michigan Mandate. In 2006, the University offered their rst
new campus-wide diversity strategy when President Mary Sue Coleman formed a
55-member Diversity Blueprints Task Force separated into four subcommittees: (a)
Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee; (b) Graduate Recruit-
ment, Retention, and Pipeline Subcommittee; (c) Educational Outreach and Engage-
ment Subcommittee; and (d) the Undergraduate Admissions, Financial Aid, and
Pipeline Subcommittee.
The overarching mission of the task force was to address how the university could
achieve diversity within new limits of the law resulting from the passage of Proposal
2 in the state of Michigan. Proposal 2 amended the Michigan Constitution to ban
public institutions from giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based
on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public
employment, or public contracting. Proposition 2 effectively neutralized the universi-
tys victory in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger just three years before.
A key theme of the Diversity Blue Print development process was an intentional
effort to understand key lessons from public universities in the states of California,
Washington, Texas, and Georgia that had sought to maintain their racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity in the wake of legislative and judicial changes outlined in Chapter 1
of this book. The recommendations offered by the Diversity Blueprint Task Force
focused on a number of different themes. Educational outreach, partnerships, collab-
orations, investments into new infrastructures, and engagements were common
threads, especially ways to develop stronger relationships with K12 education and
with other colleges and universities. Although none of the Diversity Blueprints sub-
committees was specically charged with the task of addressing the universitys
campus climate, this theme emerged as a key consideration in each of the subcom-
mittee deliberations. With this in mind, Diversity Blueprints also explored issues
relating to the quality of life on campus, including structural accountability, rewards
for commitment, remediation of institutional barriers to success, and the provision
of rich opportunities for interaction.
The nal report included new tools for use in the admissions and nancial aid
processes and programs for attracting and retaining faculty and staff. A signature
program that emerged from the Diversity Blueprints was the Center for Educational
Outreach and Academic Success, a unit that facilitates and supports partnerships
between the University of Michigan and K12 schools and community-based educa-
tional organizations. Improving the pipeline through earlier involvement with schools
was a driving theme in the Centers development and its focus on providing coordina-
tion and support to the numerous outreach programs that take place across campus.
As a result of this planning process, the university now regularly hosts a campus
diversity summit to remain focused on campus diversity issues, priorities, promising
practices, and efforts.
Source: www.diversity.umich.edu/about/bp-summary.php
Centralized Diversity Plans at the University of

WisconsinMadison
With the development of the Madison Plan in 1988, the University of
WisconsinMadison began a 20-year diversity implementation process. Like
the Michigan Mandate, Wisconsins Madison Plan was one of the rst cen-
tralized diversity plans ever implemented at a major public research univer-
sity and emerged out of student crisis under the leadership of Chancellor
Donna Shalala. Revised in 1994 as the Madison Commitment and then
again in 2008 as Plan 2008: A Blueprint to Enhance Campus Diversity, Wis-
consins diversity plans have articulated the view that diversity and excellence
are core values and strategic priorities. The plans have produced a steady
increase in the numbers of historically underrepresented minority students,
the elimination of disparity in rst-year retention rates, continual gains in
six-year graduation rates, and a wide array of programs and initiatives
designed to enhance the campus climate. The University of Wisconsin can
now claim one of the nations largest precollege-to-college pipeline pro-
grams; initiatives designed to improve intergroup relations; fellowships for
graduate students; and faculty-authorized diversity committees charged to
lead around issues of equity and diversity in every school, college, and major
divisional infrastructure. In all, more than 200 diversity, equity, and inclu-
sion initiatives exist on campus.
The most recent iteration of Wisconsins diversity plan, Plan 2008: A
Blueprint to Enhance Campus Diversity, emerged after the Board of Regents
requested that each institution in the University of Wisconsin system
develop centralized campus diversity plans. Chaired by senior administrative
and faculty members, a 35-member committee of faculty, staff, students,
alumni, and community representatives collaborated for more than a year to
develop the plan. Four working groups complemented the larger effort by
focusing on undergraduate student issues, graduate and professional student
issues, diversity in the curriculum, and human resource issues. These com-
mittees included members of the overall planning team and other campus
representatives, thereby creating broad buy-in from the campus community.
In all, more than 100 people had a structured planning role in developing
the campus plan. Finally, the planning process sought even greater input by
holding stakeholder meetings that included student organizations, campus
experts, and community leaders. The draft plan was then vetted and ulti-
mately adopted by faculty, staff and student governance bodies. Consistent
with the UWMadison culture, this level of engagement by shared gover-
nance is a distinguishing characteristic of this institutions approach to both
D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU C C E S S F U L DI VE RS IT Y P L A N S 333
planning and ultimately implementing new initiatives, whether diversity

themed or not. Table 7.3 summarizes the shared governance process.
Despite a charge by the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to
develop a plan, Plan 2008 could not become ofcial until the shared gover-
nance community had committed to its implementation. After multiple revi-
sions, the plan received formal resolutions of endorsement. This level of
involvement by institutional governance is rare because senior leaders are
sometimes afraid that opening a plan to these democratic institutions will
endanger their efforts. However, the resolution passed by the faculty and
staff communities not only supported the plans focus on racial and ethnic
equity, they also (a) provided a specic endorsement to create material
resources to support the plan; (b) endorsed creating a supportive educational
environment for the entire campus community; and (c) elevated issues per-
taining to the representation, inclusion, and success of women, members of
the LGBT community, and individuals with disabilities. The role of shared
governance in achieving campus buy-in is vital because it provides a wonder-
ful example of an institution working to achieve formal structural, collegial,
symbolic, and cultural harmony between the campus diversity strategy and
an institutions guiding democratic principles and governing institutions.
As with the Michigan Mandate, senior leaders at Wisconsin viewed Plan
2008 as a living document that will need to evolve over the course of its
implementation. To this end, framers of the plan wrote:
This document will not cover all circumstances, nor stay current, over nine
years. Some parts will become obsolete or be impossible to attain. We
have presented several initiatives, many recommendations to continue and
strengthen current programs and practices, and some ideas to be studied
and possibly implemented in the future. Our guiding principle is to do
everything we can to implement our initiatives and recommendations and
to include a section of worthy ideas, so they will not be lost. We are recom-
mending ongoing discussion, with appropriate revision, of the goals and
strategies during the whole period of the plans operation. (University of
WisconsinMadison Plan 2008 Planning Committee, 1998, p. 6)
As planners at Michigan and Wisconsin both noted, successful diversity

plans feature a healthy balance between a predetermined course of action
and openness to evolution and new possibilities. Because so much of the
plan involves launching new initiatives, it is important for campus leaders to
be exible. This means developing a plan that is clear and well organized,
but also uid and dynamic.
TAB LE 7 .3
UWMadison Plan 2008: A Shared Governance Process
Governance
Community Resolution
Faculty The Faculty Senate of the University of WisconsinMadison endorses the principles
Governance set forth in Plan 2008, presented to the UW System Administration on April 15,
1999. The actions set forth in Plan 2008 are to achieve the goals of signicantly
improving the representation and academic success of members of four targeted
ethnic groups, namely, American Indian, African American, Latino, and Southeast
Asian American, not only among students but also faculty and staff; enhancing the
campus social climate for those groups; and increasing the appreciation for the
customs and experiences of these groups within the broader campus community.
The Faculty Senate urges the administration to pursue opportunities for full
funding of programs to achieve the goals of Plan 2008.
The Faculty Senate encourages the universitys administration and the shared
governance standing committees to continue their development of directed plans that
deal with other groups in our society who have experienced discrimination based on
gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and whose full participation in educational
or other campus activities is limited as a result of such discrimination. Finally, the
Faculty Senate urges action on these plans, calling for an improved campus climate
and a deeper understanding of the situations of those groups.
Academic Staff The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of WisconsinMadison endorses the
Governance principles set forth in the campus diversity Plan 2008, which is drafted in accordance
with the goals dened in the UW Systems Plan 2008, and will be presented to the
UW System Administration on April 15, 1999. The actions set forth in the
UWMadison Plan 2008 are to achieve the goals of signicantly improving the
representation and academic success of members of four targeted ethnic groups,
namely, American Indian, African American, Latino, and Southeast Asian American,
among not only the student body but also the faculty and staff; the social climate of
this campus for those groups; and the depth of understanding by the large fraction of
our population not in those groups for the values, customs, and experiences of those
groups.
The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of WisconsinMadison urges the
administration to pursue opportunities for full funding of programs to achieve the
goals of Plan 2008 on our campus.
The Academic Staff Assembly of the University of WisconsinMadison encourages
the universitys administration and the shared governance standing committees to
continue their development of directed plans that deal with other groups in our
society who have experienced discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and
disability, and whose full participation in educational or other campus activities is
limited as a result of such discrimination. We urge action on these plans and call for
an improved campus climate and a deeper understanding of the situations of those
groups. We urge the administration to endorse and implement the resolutions of the
1997 report of the Faculty Senate Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans-
gendered Issues.
Source: University of WisconsinMadison Plan 2008 Diversity Oversight Committee, 2002.

The Ofce of Multicultural Arts Initiatives and the First

Wave Program
One particularly innovative program to emerge over the nal three years of
Plan 2008 was the nations rst hip-hop urban arts retention and academic
excellence learning community. Housed in the Ofce of Multicultural Arts
Initiatives of the Division of the Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and
Educational Achievement, the First Wave program is an unprecedented
diversity initiative with a broad inuence on diversity issues that cuts across
a range of dimensions.2 Bringing together young leaders from across the
United States, First Wave offers students the opportunity to study and grow
as artists in a dynamic community of poets, rappers, dancers, social activists,
and visual artists. The program contributes to the campus diversity agenda
in terms of access and equity, campus climate, preparing students for a
diverse and global world, and developing new forms of scholarship and intel-
lectual engagement through the arts (Table 7.4).
The program has awarded more than 65 largely rst-generation, histori-
cally underrepresented students with full academic scholarships. And in its
rst phase, the program has achieved an average rst-year retention rate of
nearly 100 percent, graduating 75 percent of its rst cohort in four years. It
won the prestigious National Governors Award for the Arts, has been fea-
tured in an off-Broadway collaboration with the New York Knicks, and
competed in global poetry slams in the United Kingdom. The program
exerts a positive effect on the campus climate; student performances and
showcases regularly attract hundreds, creating new opportunities for build-
ing community and establishing an inclusive campus climate.
Working with the guidance of the programs creative director, a faculty
member in the dance department, students are at the forefront of a new
form of scholarship, Hip-Hop Performance Theater, which combines
song, beat boxing, rap, poetry, instrumentation, and break dancing. Stu-
dent artistic pieces often engage challenging topics of race and ethnicity,
power and privilege, gender equity, sexuality, intergroup relations, the
environment, and global politics. Finally, the program has attracted na-
tional and international attention with student performances going viral
through the web, and appearances on cable channels BET and HBO, and
Time-Warners Brave New Voices series. These student-led efforts have
helped the university position itself as an institution that supports diver-
sity, equity, and inclusion.
Linking Centralized and Decentralized Diversity Plans
By themselves, centralized diversity plans cannot change the campus cul-
ture. Nevertheless, they are essential for creating an environment in which
TAB LE 7 .4
Diversity Outcomes and First Wave Impact at UWMadison
Dimension First Wave Effect
Access and equity Students in First Wave are granted a full four-year
academic scholarship based on their academic and
artistic abilities. The program is largely composed of
rst-generation, historically underrepresented artists
active in the urban arts.
Fostering a multicultural and First Wave students are active leaders on campus,
inclusive campus climate hosting regular poetry slams, exhibits, and
performances, as well as headlining events that include
the Board of Regents Conferences, the Chancellors
Inauguration, and campus conferences and events,
including a monthly poetry showcase that attracts
hundreds of diverse students from across campus.
Preparing students, faculty, Students, faculty, and staff attend First Wave artistic
and staff for a diverse and events that address topics on sexuality, misogyny, and
global world gender in hip hop culture, racism, Islamophobia,
White privilege, and other challenging topics.
Domestic and international The First Wave Scholars program is highly selective,
diversity research and admitting around 15 students each year. Among other
scholarship pursuits, students engage in an emerging form of
scholarly and artistic expression known as Hip-Hop
Performance Theater. This artistic form addresses
challenging issues through music, theater, poetry, break
dancing, beat boxing, singing, and rapping as a new
form of educational pedagogy meant to create
awareness and change.
diversity initiatives are taken seriously by the campus community and earn
the respect of faculty and administrators. Getting buy-in from all stake-
holders is therefore key, and diversity leaders at UWMadison reached out
to the entire campus community while developing Plan 2008. Every unit,
including academic departments, was charged to develop a plan to contrib-
ute toward the goals of Plan 2008, with both benchmarks and incentives
for progress. These goals were integrated into the units strategic plans,
combining aspects of the integrated, centralized, and decentralized
approach to diversity planning in one implementation effort. Meanwhile,

accountability for implementing the plan remained at the campus level
and not at the individual unit level. One drawback of this approach was
that deans and department heads were not evaluated as leaders of their
units diversity efforts. As a result, some units developed powerful initia-
tives, whereas others did relatively little.
Also instrumental were efforts to promote collaboration between the
various schools, colleges, departments, and the central campus administra-
tion. For example, the Division of Information Technology (DoIT) built
a multiyear summer precollege program focused on drawing historically
underrepresented and rst-generation college students into information
technology careers. This program was implemented in partnership with
the PEOPLE program, so that a student who enrolled in the information
technology component of the program would, upon admission to UW
Madison, be eligible for the academic scholarship offered through the
PEOPLE program. Thus, DoIT staff were able to leverage their core com-
petencies in the area of information technology while simultaneously
building alliances with the PEOPLE program.
Campus Accountability Efforts

Although Plan 2008 included very few accountability tools at the individual
level of faculty, staff, and administrators, it included a range of campus-wide
processes. One technique identied and catalogued diversity best practices
from the various plans and forwarded them to the central administrative
leadership for cataloguing. The Plan 2008 oversight committee and the cam-
puss implementation cochairs kept abreast of the plans progress. The com-
mittee met with the Chancellor and other members of senior leadership at
least once a semester to discuss progress. Each semester, the oversight com-
mittee hosted one or more open forums involving the chancellor, provost,
and vice chancellor for student affairs/special assistant to the chancellor for
diversity. Additionally, the chancellors annual report to the UW system
president and campus shared governance bodies included a progress report
card on the implementation of Plan 2008.
Plan 2008 leaders also authored a biennial Diversity Update as an
accountability report from the administration. Campus point people and an
external review team completed a four-year review, after which the oversight
committee and administration made modications to the second ve-year
period of the plan. Finally, a student advisory committee was appointed to
338 W H AT I S S T R AT E G IC DI VE RS IT Y L E A D E R S H I P ?
support the senior diversity ofcer and ensure the continuing involvement
of students. Students were also appointed to serve in an advisory capacity to
several governance committees and ofces across campus. A national UW
Madison diversity advisory board of visitors was proposed, but never put
into place as leadership transitioned midway through the plans implementa-
tion. The advisory board was proposed as another way to gather advice,
leadership, visibility, and support for campus diversity efforts.
Decentralized Diversity Plans: A Three-Year

Planning Model
Colleges and universities are diffuse environments. Diversity plans called for
by a board of trustees or president can mean very little within the decentral-
ized academic, administrative, and student affairs units of an institution. The
enforcement of centralized and integrated diversity plans by the president or
the provost may be viewed as an intrusion and perceived as a violation of
school, college, or divisional autonomy. Although centralized and integrated
diversity plans can mobilize resources and present a big-picture vision for
diversity, the decentralized nature of the academy limits their utility for cre-
ating change across individual units and departments. Unable to garner suf-
cient buy-in or generate accountability among the right people, centralized
and integrated plans sometimes fail to burrow deep into the culture and
overcome institutional resistance. Therefore, deans, vice presidents, depart-
ment leaders, and others must participate in the planning and implementa-
tion process.
One approach that campus leaders can take to create this type of engage-
ment is to require a diversity plan from each school, college, or divisional
unit, thereby promoting a decentralized diversity plan. At the individual
administrative level, each dean or vice president might cochair a task force
assigned to create a unique diversity plan for his or her direct area of respon-
sibility. This leader has the power to hold department heads accountable for
the plans adoption by providing incentives, generating short-term objec-
tives, and promoting new approaches. In direct contrast to integrated and
centralized planning, in which leaders dene diversity institutionally and
present recommendations for the plan, the decentralized approach relies on
localized planning and implementation, connected to a big-picture institu-
tional vision for change.
Given the challenge of infusing diversity efforts throughout the institu-
tion in a coordinated and systematized way, more on-the-ground diversity
planning and implementation activities must complement centralized and

integrated diversity plans. Indeed, national research reported in Chapter 8
illustrates that less than 35 percent of institutions have a decentralized diver-
sity plan in place at their institution, a point suggesting that this most impor-
tant of planning and implementation techniques is not nearly as prevalent
as it should be in the academy. It is for this reason that the decentralized
diversity plan is featured in this chapter, and a three-year decentralized diver-
sity planning and implementation model is outlined in Figure 7.3. As you
read this particular approach, its important to keep in mind that many of
the recommendations presented here are also applicable to the centralized
diversity planning process as well. They are included to allow them to be
put into context of the three-year planning model, not as an indication that
they are not viable for centralized and integrated diversity planning efforts.
To the contrary, the collegial and engaged approaches showcased here make
sense no matter the particular planning approach that is used.
The Decentralized Diversity Planning Model

The decentralized model is offered as a particularly powerful way to develop
an approach that will create strategic consistency while allowing for freedom,
individuality, and creativity in the planning and implementation process
(Figure 7.3). Three-year cycles are often ideal because they are long enough
to allow a meaningful project to be implemented, but not so long that people
lose sight of the original charge. The higher education literature on organiza-
tional culture and change suggests that transformative change may take
between 10 to 15 years to achieve (Simsek & Louis, 1994). Ultimately, there-
fore, one three-year cycle is not enough, and should be part of an ongoing
planning and implementation process that may include several cycles imple-
mented concurrently (Cox, 2001).
Clearly, more on-the-ground diversity planning and implementation
activities must complement centralized and integrated diversity plans.
Indeed many of the recommendations and themes presented here are appli-
cable to the centralized diversity planning process in particular and can serve
an important role in strengthening those campus approaches to diversity
planning and implementation overall.
The model outlined in Table 7.5 is based on a three-year planning cycle.
It begins with establishing institutional priorities and creating an administra-
tive oversight system (Phases 13). The next steps address developing the
diversity plans at all levels (Phases 46). Units then implement their plans
FIGURE 7.3
Decentralized Diversity Implementation Model Timeline
(Phases 79). Finally, in Phase 10 the unit head is evaluated with regard
to the progress accomplished through the unit plan, which allows the next
cycle of planning to begin. Based on this plan, one could expect to meet the
following milestones:
Each school, college, unit, department, or division should go through

a process of launching, achieving readiness, and writing the diversity
plan, which should be ready for implementation by the end of the
rst year.
The second year is dedicated to implementing major aspects of the
plan and concludes with a thorough review to ensure quality and
organizational learning.
In the third year, implementation activities continue and a major
accountability review is held to assess the efforts of the dean, vice
president, or unit director to accomplish broad institutional diversity
goals. This review should be used as part of a merit review assessment
TAB LE 7. 5
Timeline and Action Steps for Diversity Planning and Implementation
Cycle Phase Action
Year 1 Phase 1 Launch the diversity planning process with a clear directive from the
Launching the Planning president and provost, a creative use of campus symbols and rituals,
Process nomination of a diversity coordinating council, and events and activities
designed to focus attention on the seriousness of the diversity change effort.
Phase 2 The dean and other key administrative and faculty leaders nominate a team
Selecting the Diversity from the relevant unit to serve as the diversity planning and implementation
Planning and team and lead their school, college, or division through all phases of the
Implementation Team diversity planning and implementation process.
Phase 3 A series of readiness activities is initiated by each diversity planning team,
Establishing Readiness aimed at preparing the community within each specic area in which the
diversity plan will be developed.
Phase 4 Use an SDLS to conduct an audit of the current state of diversity within
Leveraging Your SDLS the unit that examines demographic data; past evaluations; diversity and
Framework strategic plans; and all diversity programs, units, and initiatives.
Phase 5 Each diversity plan should have several common elements, including a
Writing the Diversity Plan statement dening the challenge, a unit rationale for diversity,
recommendations across the dimensions of your SDLS, and indicators of
progress and outcomes.
Phase 6 After the diversity plan is written, the diversity coordinating council reviews
Diversity Plan Review and provides recommendations to the president or provost, who then issues
a recommendation for further revision or to move directly to imple-
mentation. At this phase, further technical assistance may be provided by
campus diversity ofcials, institutional planners, human resource
professionals, and external consultants.
Year 2 Phase 7 Each area implements its plan, leveraging all or some combination of
Implementation activation concepts, including establishing strategic diversity themes,
creating incentives, recognizing diversity leaders, working toward both
short- and long-term goals and overcoming systemic challenges.
Phase 8 A one-year diversity progress report details progress made during the rst
Quality Review year of diversity progress implementation and guidance is given by the
coordinating council to deans regarding ways to improve their
implementation efforts.
Year 3 Phase 9 The continuing implementation effort may be rened based on information
Evolving the provided in Phase 8 and technical assistance. A major launch event may be
Implementation helpful to convey new energy to the implementation projects next phase.
Phase 10 Each unit head will be assessed on progress made in implementing his or
Accountability Review and her diversity plan. This assessment is used as one measurement in
Celebration of Successes determining merit pay for the divisional head, as well as part of his or her
overall performance review. At this point, a new diversity planning cycle
may begin.
and to establish institutional accountability. Some institutions may

want to have an accountability review at the end of the second year.
Following the third-year review, the plans should be tweaked and the
cycle of implementation continued after the appropriate adjustments
have been made.
Situating the Model at the Dean or Divisional Level
When creating decentralized diversity plans, senior leaders must determine
the level at which they will require plans. Will plans be developed at the
school, college, divisional, or departmental level? Will they be developed
for academic departments, administrative departments, or both? These are
decisions that leadership should make early in the planning process. Devel-
oping decentralized diversity plans at the dean and divisional levels often
proves effective for several reasons. First, these leaders are uniquely posi-
tioned to inuence the budgets, plans, hiring, and initiatives of multiple
departments at the same time. Additionally, it is easier for senior leaders to
hold these individuals accountable for connecting their efforts to the big-
picture goals of the institution. To be successful, diversity implementation
efforts will require resources; discipline; and a creative, exible approach.
Because deans and divisional leaders control their unit budgets, they, unlike
department heads and unit directors, have the ability to reallocate resources,
prioritize new initiatives and recapture funds to drive efforts. As a result,
these leaders are ideally situated to leverage current nancial, human, and
technical resources required to make change happen. For example, they can
make diversity a priority of their development teams, connecting with high-
capacity alumni from their school or college to procure new diversity-themed
gifts. They have the ability to leverage future faculty hiring decisions by
making current resources available for a diversity hire presenting itself out-
side of a normal department search. They also possess the ability to leverage
their discretionary resources to explore new programs and initiatives that
may bubble up from members within their area of responsibility. Although
department leaders may enjoy some of the same privileges, it is the dean or
divisional leader who is best positioned to make tough decisions against the
backdrop of campus politics and budget concerns.
Phase 1: Launching the Planning Process and the
Charge Letter
Direct personal involvement by senior leaders is essential at every phase of
diversity planning and implementation. During the launch phase, the presi-
dent or provost must establish high expectations and create a clear process
for coordinating the diversity planning effort. Without this emphasis, many
will view the diversity planning process as another symbolic activity and not
meant to foster meaningful change. Thus, Kotter describes the role of presi-
dent or provost as the sponsor of the change effort on the grounds that
sponsors provide executive level support and resources, which includes
selecting and facilitating the efforts of the coordinating team (Kotter, 1996).
At the big-picture institutional level, the sponsor is the most senior executive,
either the president or provost, whereas at the local level the sponsor is the
dean or divisional leader.
The planning process must begin with a clear letter that connects the
diversity planning and implementation effort to the academic mission and
strategic plans of the institution. It should also include specic institution-
wide diversity goals, provide explicit instructions and communicate a clear
message of accountability. Without clear and direct communication, some
campus constituents may not take the process seriously, relying instead on
information from recent accreditation reviews and annual reports that,
although helpful, may not focus on diversity at the necessary depth. The
goal is for each unit to engage in a process of deep organizational reection
about diversity that includes dening a rationale for why diversity matters to
their unique organizational mission; understanding their unique challenges
and opportunities; and establishing a shared sense of purpose of what they
will do, who will do it, and how it will get done.3 Finally, the charge letter
is vital to establishing an appreciation of campus diversity that no longer
hinges solely on a social justice rationale. As emphasized elsewhere, contem-
porary diversity plans must be framed using social justice, educational, and
organizational effectiveness diversity rationales (Cox, 2001; P. Gurin, Dey,
Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005; Wil-
liams & Clowney, 2007).
The Diversity Coordinating Council
Continuity and leadership are critical components of successful diversity ini-
tiatives. Hence, another important launch activity is the appointment of a
central diversity council to guide the diversity planning and implementation
process. Members of the coordinating council must be committed to estab-
lishing diversity as an institutional priority. This group should include diver-
sity leaders whose reasoned voices address how the campus culture operates
and who can directly inuence the campus diversity agenda.
The president should tap a committed senior leader of the faculty or
administration to serve as coordinator of the planning and implementation
process. At some institutions, and depending on this individuals experience

and rank, this coordinator might be the CDO. At another institution it may
actually be the provost or another senior administrator. It is also common
for the president to have cochairs to the process, even when a high-ranking
CDO is participating; doing so offers another means of creating greater buy-
in from senior leaders. Reecting on his diversity efforts at one institution,
one president reected:
I chose the members in close consultation with a number of people. My

commission consists of students, clerical staff and faculty. As president, it
is important to handpick and to choose the leadershipa senior faculty
member who had been involved in diversity work was chosen on our cam-
pus. Also, include some of the people you would expect, who have been
working hard and have a commitment, but also people who were not the
usual suspects from the faculty and staff. Also, some people have a particu-
lar commitment or expertisemaking the curriculum more diverse, mea-
suring effectiveness, or identifying ways of reaching different student
populations. Search for and stay open to various people. (Kezar & Eckel,
2005, p. 12)
This group will ultimately review diversity plans from across campus,
provide guidance to the president or provost and assist with coordinating
the diversity planning process institutionally. The most effective diversity
coordinating councils use a task-oriented approach to guide their strategic
thinking, planning, and implementation activities. If a campus diversity
committee already exists, it may be appropriate to assign the diversity coordi-
nation process to them as a core element of their responsibilities.
Involving the CDO and Planning Leadership

It is imperative that the CDO and his or her staff be involved from the
start, whether or not the CDO is a cochair to the process. This group can
address diversity issues on campus, offer best practices in the eld of strategic
diversity leadership, and address potential pitfalls in the planning and imple-
mentation process. Members of the institutional planning, nancial adminis-
tration, research, human resources, and quality improvement ofces can
complement the CDOs efforts. These teams will provide valuable insight
into other campus planning and implementation processes, establish an
evidence-based understanding of diversity by mining current campus data
sources, and offer technical guidance.
D E V E L OP IN G A ND IM P L EM E N T I NG S U C C E S S F U L DI VE RS I T Y P L A NS 345
It is also important to involve faculty and other members of the campus

community who have expertise in issues of diversity, organizational change,
and strategic planning. Too often, our institutional planning efforts do not
leverage the world-class expertise that may already exist in our schools of
education, social work, business, and the social sciences. Even if these indi-
viduals cannot serve directly on the committee, they may be engaged in the
process as consultants to assist at different phases of planning, implementa-
tion, and diversity plan review. By creatively enlisting these experts, institu-
tions can buttress their diversity planning and implementation efforts,
grounding them in the best practices and knowledge capabilities of experts
in the campus community.
At least one academic dean should complete the central diversity coun-
cil, along with several committed campus diversity leaders drawn from stu-
dents, faculty, and staff. Other potential stakeholders include alumni and
community members. Depending on the institution, the process may be
enhanced by including a member of the faculty senate.
Phase 2: Selecting the Diversity Planning and Implementation

Team
Successfully building a decentralized diversity implementation strategy
requires the work of multiple teams. In addition to the central coordinating
council, each school, college, or divisional area must establish its own diver-
sity planning and implementation team. This local team must be able to
conceive the effort and actively champion it by setting the strategy, providing
the necessary resources, clarifying priorities and recommendations for
departments, and building support for implementation. Without a strong
team, change efforts are seldom provided the support necessary for success.
Table 7.6 presents several recommendations for assembling a team equipped
with the necessary knowledge, authority, and commitment to implement a
strong diversity plan. The teams leader should be the dean or vice-provost
of the unit along with one individual who may serve as cochair and provide
executive-level support. The team should include voices from every stake-
holder group, including students, faculty members, staff, and administrators.
In this particular model the dean or divisional leader is ultimately accountable
and should be involved with the plans development from the beginning.
To heighten its sense of commitment, the planning and implementation
team should include a broad cross-section of stakeholders. Among them are
individuals who possess the inuence, authority, and credibility to imple-
ment a high-caliber diversity plan. It is also important to have one or two
TAB LE 7 .6
Diversity Planning and Implementation Team
Member Rationale
Vice President, This leader has overarching responsibility for guiding the diversity
Provost, or Dean plan process and the formal authority to direct institutional
resources to support it.
Associate Dean or Each division should have at least one ofcer who has specic
Vice President responsibility for overseeing unit diversity efforts. This individual
serves as the essential contact person to the CDO and others within
the central administration regarding questions, strategic assistance,
and best practices.
Budget Ofcer This individual helps to identify resources, execute nancial

procedures, and develop cost-share mechanisms.
Department One or more department heads or their designees should be

Heads represented on the team, both to provide leadership and to assist
with implementation.
Faculty and Staff At least one or two faculty or staff members should be recruited to
provide perspective, encourage buy-in, and share the vision for
change.* They might include staunch diversity champions as well
as others who provide relevant expertise.
Undergraduate Student perspectives are essential to developing a strong plan as
and Graduate they provide valuable insights into student culture, expectations,
Students norms, and challenges.
*
One tactic that every institution should consider is to provide a course buy-out as an incentive for
faculty involvement on each diversity planning and implementation team. We particularly recommend
this as a way of enticing faculty leadership to serve as a cochair to the diversity planning and
implementation process.
members who bring a clear understanding of the school, college, or divi-

sional culture and the unspoken boundaries against which the team must
productively push its recommendations. Next, the team should include at
least one person who brings a budget and nance perspective, and who
can propose the viable nancial strategies for guiding the plans ultimate
implementation. It is also important to include a faculty expert on diversity,
organizational change, or strategic planning. Finally, a diverse group of stu-
dents should also be included; their perspectives are key to understanding
the student experience and to earning broader student support.
Taken collectively, these varied perspectives can help establish a commu-

nity of organizational possibility. The hopes and dreams of diversity champi-
ons, who may have a deep critique of the institutional culture, are balanced
with the nuanced perspectives of those who may be responsible for holding
the campus culture intact. A balanced team is essential to developing a plan
that is both forward looking and grounded in reality because the group must
simultaneously push the envelope while understanding where the boundaries
lie. Recognizing that leaders may seek qualications specic to their particu-
lar efforts, the author has identied nine broad guiding membership criteria.
And because large groups can be cumbersome, the team ideally numbers no
more than 15 individuals. Table 7.7 presents sample criteria that campus
TAB LE 7. 7
Basic Criteria for Creating a Diversity Planning and Implementation Team
Candidates
Criteria A B C D E F
Able to provide executive level support
Has an in-depth understanding of diversity issues
Is viewed as a committed and vocal advocate for diversity
Respected by other leaders and faculty within the school or college
Has an in-depth understanding of the culture of the school, college,

or divisional unit
Able to motivate and inspire others to get involved with diversity

implementation
Vested with the authority to make decisions
Able to secure the necessary nancial resources required to

successfully implement the diversity plan
Has experience and expertise leading and contributing to strategic
planning and implementation efforts
Brings political relationships and insight that can be helpful in

removing barriers that may inhibit implementation
Brings legal expertise related to issues of diversity and community
Other Criteria:
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

leaders can use to select members of the diversity planning and implementa-
tion team.
Phase 3: Establishing Readiness

Although no higher education studies have ever compared diversity-themed
change efforts with other change efforts, the content of change matters as
much as the context of change. Because so many sectors within the academy
tend to undervalue diversity, implementing a diversity planwhether cen-
tralized, integrated, or decentralizedoffers greater challenges than other
implementation activities. For any hope of success, leaders must achieve
higher levels of readiness at every phase of the effort. This means fostering
psychological, behavioral, and material readiness, not just among team mem-
bers, but also among members of the institutional community more broadly.
Randomly engaging community members in diversity planning activities
will not prepare them or their units for diversity implementation. Therefore,
individuals within the unit must be educated about what diversity means in
the new millennium, and then provided with the necessary resources and
support. Indeed, unless there is a concerted effort to prepare the campus
community for any proposed changes, campus community members may
become jaded in their thinking, sensing that the diversity effort is little more
than lip service.
Table 7.8 provides an overview of many of the most critical readiness
activities and their timeline for implementation in the planning and imple-
mentation process. You will note that some activities should take place early
in the process, whereas other readiness activities occur throughout imple-
mentation. Granted, readiness is never complete; a community is always in
the process of becoming more ready for change. Some key techniques
include developing a diversity audit, building an implementation tool kit,
establishing a digital communication strategy, hosting workshops and meet-
ings with key leadership, and pursuing other activities designed to increase
the technical acumen of strategic diversity leaders.
Education as a Platform for Readiness
Just as a plow prepares a eld for new crops, implementation leaders must
dig beneath the soil to create awareness and support. It is therefore vital to
create multiple spaces for educating the planning team and the community
about the benets of diversity. Some readiness strategies might include town-
hall meetings, department meetings, and other opportunities to discuss the
diversity planning and implementation process.
TAB LE 7. 8
Change Readiness Techniques Overview
Change Readiness
Techniques Recommendation Timeline for Development
Diversity Audit Engage in a learning effort to gauge the diversity Beginning of the planning
temperature on campus. Activities include secondary process
analyses of recent data, conducting surveys and focus
groups with key constituents, interviews, reviewing
prior diversity plans and implementation processes,
and looking at other successful campus planning and
implementation processes that have little to do with
diversity.
Implementation Develop a decentralized diversity planning and Beginning of the planning
Tool kit implementation tool kit that includes the charge process
letter; a brief on how to write a higher education
diversity plan; a diversity plan template, which each
unit should use to guide its effort; relevant campus-
wide diversity planning documents, mission
statements, and reports; a PowerPoint presentation
on the diversity planning and implementation process
that can be customized by each planning unit;
diversity planning worksheets and planning guides;
and a number of articles, monographs, and essays on
issues of diversity.
Digital Launch an online presence that might include a web- Beginning of the planning
Communication site, Facebook page, Twitter feed, blogs, Google docs process
Strategy area, and other shared online resources useful for
collaborating.
Strategic Diversity Hold a strategic diversity leadership workshop with Beginning of the planning
Leadership all deans and vice presidents who will be ultimately process
Workshop accountable for implementation. At this meeting, the
major components of the diversity planning kit will Throughout the process
be reviewed, expectations set, and potential challenge
areas assessed.
(continues)
TAB LE 7 .8 (Continued)
Change Readiness
Techniques Recommendation Timeline for Development
Strategy and Host individual meetings between members of the Beginning of the planning
Implementation diversity planning committee and key academic process
Meetings deans, vice presidents, and key institutional
administrators. Use the meeting to provide an Throughout the process
individual preconsultation before engaging in the
process of developing each units diversity plan. The
meeting should serve as a condential setting to
explore questions and issues about the plan and its
implementation.
Internal Diversity Assign a diversity consultant to each school, college, Beginning of the planning
Consultants or division to assist with any technical issues that may process
arise during the process. This consultant may be a
member of the diversity planning committee, a Throughout the process
member of the chief diversity ofcer area, an
institutional planning professional, or a faculty or
staff member with relevant skills and knowledge to
assist the process.
In some instances, members of the CDO unit, diversity consultants,

or others should be deployed to educate team members about best practices
in the strategic diversity eld. Other tactics include hosting faculty de-
velopment seminars and brieng sessions dealing with minority faculty
recruitment, undergraduate student retention, infusing diversity into the
curriculum, or establishing inclusive classroom environments. Most staff,
faculty, and students invariably appreciate promising techniques for doing
their work differently. Yet even while discussing best practices it is important
to emphasize that no magic diversity solution exists. Each phase of the pro-
cess requires an intentional, well-coordinated planning effort to swing the
institution in a new direction. To return to the critical themes discussed in
Chapter 5, institutional leaders need to ask more than, What we are going
to do? This question only takes them as far as the rst loop of organizational
learning. The more critical may be the double and triple loops of learning
that provide insight into why plans fail or succeed, along with the big-picture
environmental issues that shape the context of diversity planning and
implementation.
Asking Key Questions

Diversity-themed change happens when organizational members can
respond to the following critical questions: First, do individuals believe that
diversity efforts are important and worth addressing? Second, what will it
take to implement diversity efforts effectively? Third, do we have the neces-
sary resources required to implement diversity efforts? And fourth, can we
implement new diversity efforts given the current context? Implementation
capability in part depends on how these questions are answered during the
early phases of the process. It is therefore critical that the planning team
establish early on whether it has the requisite human, nancial, and technical
resources to pursue a diversity plan. Furthermore, they should consider the
external factors explored in the Introduction: Is the college or university
located in a rural or urban area? Is the institution facing widespread nancial
or stafng challenges? These situational factors must be considered through-
out the process because they in some sense set the outer boundaries for what
is possible as the agenda moves forward.
Talking With Key Stakeholders

Getting different individuals involved in developing the diversity plan is vital
to establishing buy-in. It is for this reason that leadership should also host a
series of open discussions about the impending diversity planning process.
This is a great way to hear stories from key stakeholders and connect them
to the process. And although soliciting comments on potentially controver-
sial items from those most affected may require a greater time investment,
the pay-off down the road is a greater fulllment of the principles and
themes at the heart of strategic diversity leadership. Implementing readiness
activities like these reduces or eliminates the conjecture that is bound to arise
if certain stakeholders feel they were excluded from the process. One of the
most common criticisms is a lack of feeling included in the process. It cannot
be emphasized enough that in the academy, process matters greatly and indi-
viduals must be engaged if they are to become invested in the outcome.
Funding New Diversity Initiatives

A critical part of readiness often ignored is the importance of establishing a
nancial strategy for funding the diversity initiative. Only the wealthiest
institutions have the nancial resources to do everything they want to do.
For the vast majority, understanding their nancial challenges is essential.
Not only does a nancial assessment give a sense of the challenges, it also
helps participants to start thinking creatively about other potential funding

sources. Therefore, the success of the diversity planning effort depends on
both the strategic reallocation of existing resources and nding new
resources. One effective strategy stems from institutional leaders obtaining
private and public grants to sustain campus diversity efforts. The clear
advantage to this strategy is that it creates new possibilities without burden-
ing the current budget. The challenge is that new sources are nearly always
nite and invariably require a matching commitment of the institutions
resources.
Whatever the strategy for nding new funds, the institution needs to
consider ways to create a central repository to house these resources. Doing
so will help foster a more transparent and accountable allocation process and
streamline any competitive grant programs. The existence of a centralized
budget will also convey the seriousness, quality, intentionality, and focus of
the planning and implementation activities, even as it emphasizes that deans
and divisional leaders must also develop ways to nance their plans. As noted
earlier, the budget is a direct reection of an institutions values. No commit-
ment to fund new diversity efforts simply means no true commitment exists.
Phase 4: Leveraging Your Strategic Diversity Leadership

Scorecard Framework
Campus leaders should leverage the SDLS as a tool to guide diversity plan-
ning and implementation activities. The scorecard offers ve prisms for
understanding diversity issues: the access and equity perspective, the multi-
cultural and inclusive campus climate perspective, the learning and diversity
perspective, the diversity research and scholarship perspective, and nally the
diversity leadership commitment perspective. This framework allows for a
balanced and multidimensional understanding of campus diversity efforts.
Again, other dimensions are possible, including community engagement and
marketing and communication.
The process of articulating a planning framework for the decentralized
implementation process should be established at the discretion of the central-
ized diversity coordinating council, with feedback from the planning and
implementation teams across campus. The diversity coordinating council
articulates the overall diversity goals, rationale, and architecture for the plan.
Each unit will customize these dimensions as appropriate to their context
because they may not desire to create recommendations across every aspect
of their diversity plan. For example, the division of student affairs or the
DoIT may not have a diversity research and scholarship perspective. In this
case, they would develop their plan across the other areas articulated by the
diversity coordinating council. This point is especially important for creating
diversity initiatives that focus on race and ethnicity in admissions, nancial
aid, and hiring, as anchoring them to the key priorities of an institution is
essential to substantiating an institutions diversity rationale in this particular
dimension of activity (Coleman & Palmer, 2004).
Phase 5: Writing the Diversity Plan

The diversity plan should include the following: a data-driven denition
of the challenge, a unit-specic rationale for diversity, goals that comple-
ment the overall campus diversity strategy, implementation strategies that
address the various dimensions of the SDLS, a nancial plan, and progress
indicators that will be monitored over time. The plan should also include
responsibility assignments for each recommendation of the plan. Having
already given extensive treatment of the various dimensions of the SDLS, it
is important to devote some time to three additional nuts and bolts
dimensions of implementation: establishing a diversity rationale, revising
preexisting diversity efforts, and establishing nancial incentives.
The Diversity Rationale

The diversity rationale statement denes diversity from a particular institu-
tional context. Although a general rationale provides guidance for dening
diversity at the institutional level, each unit should develop its specic phi-
losophy or grounding statement to explain the importance of diversity to
achieving excellence within the context of each individual school, college, or
division. By placing diversity within a specic context, each unit can estab-
lish its own center of gravity with respect to its campus and be positioned to
move forward.
For example, the business school might make a business case for diver-
sity that focuses on the effect of diversity on a knowledge-based, global
economy. The medical school might focus on diversity in the context of a
changing health care eld or the persistent racial and ethnic health disparities
in our society. The college of agriculture might frame their rationale in terms
of a national goal to diversify Americas overwhelmingly White male farming
profession, or agricultural issues specic to minority populations, such as
heirs property claims and the lack of access to healthy, local produce in
urban areas, also known as food deserts. The more specically a particular
entity within the institution denes diversity in ways relevant to its mission,
the greater the potential for a plan that leverages the unique strengths of that
entity.
Linking Preexisting Efforts With the Emerging Strategy

The units diversity rationale should be used to articulate a set of unit diver-
sity goals aligned to the big-picture expectations of the central coordinating
council. Once the team designs a plan that has fairly widespread support, it
is time to move to implementation. This requires the team to articulate
actionable recommendations that can help to deliver the plans goals within
the context of the SDLS framework.
At this point it is important to take into account current viable efforts
that may need to be modied or scaled up. Your recommendations may also
include a radical departure from current activities, requiring a shift in efforts
or eliminating any current efforts deemed ineffective. Given the political
nature of campus diversity efforts and the long-standing history of some
programs that were created as long as ve decades ago, readers should take
this advice with a note of caution. Whether the efforts need to be eliminated,
evolved, or strengthened, the diversity planning and implementation team
should approach these conversations with respect both for the history and
importance of these preexisting efforts.
Financial Resources, Incentives, and Accountability Strategies

Finally, the diversity plan should include a section that discusses the process
to allocate resources for the new recommendations. Although the resources
should be housed centrally, each dean and divisional leader should also create
a local unit-based implementation budget to help drive efforts. Although
these funds may be fairly modest, making an individual nancial commit-
ment conveys unit support for the diversity goals. The dean or divisional
leader might also develop a series of incentives to encourage buy-in and
engagement from faculty, students, and staff. Release time to work on special
projects, summer stipends, honors and awards, bonuses, and diversity-
themed scholarships are all activities that turn diversity from an unfunded
mandate into a priority.
The dean or divisional leader should also clarify how they will hold
individuals accountable for pursuing their units diversity goals. This could
take a number of different forms. Accountability could become a part of the
annual review of department heads, modeling a process very similar to the
unit leaders own review process with the president or provost. Another tech-
nique might be to allow a department to launch a search for an open faculty
or staff position provided that each member of the hiring committee has
undergone a diversity training or workshop. Although it is illegal to use
diversity as the sole criteria in hiring decisions, it is well within the preroga-
tive of a dean or divisional leader to continue the search process until he or
she is satised that a candidate pool is diverse. Here as elsewhere, the key in
developing solid nancial and accountability strategies is to be creative.
Phase 6: Diversity Plan Review

This phase of the model enhances implementation through the use of an
organizational learning-centered approach. Members of the campus-wide
diversity coordinating council appointed in the launch phase should review
each plan. The diversity coordinating council should comment on the qual-
ity of the plan; the clarity of the recommendations; and the overall merits of
each school, college, or divisional effort. Only then is the council in a posi-
tion to draft recommendations to the president or provost. Using the coun-
cils recommendations as guidance, the president or provost will craft for
each unit head a written response to the proposed unit plan. Depending on
their involvement in the process, the CDO, planning professionals, or others
may provide an additional round of technical assistance to guide the plans
implementation. As part of this process, unit plans can be posted digitally to
encourage feedback. Going forward, the plan should be subject to further
revision and review, even as the planning and implementation team is given
permission to begin implementation.
Phase 7: Implementation
As is the case with any strategic planning initiative, the real work of diversity
planning is to make the school, college, or divisional plan work. The unit
must rationally pursue diversity recommendations while enacting a new
understanding of institutional diversity and engaging the organizational
community in an interpretive dance to capitalize current efforts and build
ever-increasing change energy (Senge et al., 1999). Although some imple-
mentation activities may begin at the end of the rst year, the planning
process for launching the implementation does take time. Some diversity
planners may want to consider launching implementation in the second
year of a three-year cycle. The following are several concepts to activate the
implementation process.
Establishing a Strategic Theme of Implementation

It is helpful to launch the effort in conjunction with a high-prole event
that creates positive energy for change. Like the beginning of a capital cam-
paign, this event announces that the implementation process has begun
(Hirschhorn & May, 2000). A major symposium, keynote speaker, or other
opening activity brings attention to the diversity planning effort, particularly
if the featured speaker provides a message consistent with the diversity plan-
ning vision. It may also be appropriate to involve key alumni and others in
the diversity launch event. Box 7.6 provides two examples of successful
launch events.
Establishing a strategic theme can help provide new energy for the diver-
sity planning and implementation effort (Hirschhorn & May, 2000). There
are a myriad of effective branding concepts: Inclusive Excellence, Good
to Great, Finding Common Ground, Now Is the Time, and Engag-
ing With the World are examples. The strategic theme should be broadly
framed to reach multiple audiences, yet narrow enough to invite interest and
engagement at the individual level. As Malcolm Gladwell explains in Tipping
Point (2002), the key is to create a sticky theme that invites individuals to
ponder the themes meaning. In the busy worlds of faculty, staff, and stu-
dents, a sticky theme holds a distinct advantage when so many ideas and
commitments are competing for nite time and attention (Hirschhorm &
May, 2000; Gladwell, 2002). Establishing a sticky theme is particularly
important because todays diversity effort requires a new diversity framing,
as more than simply the morally right thing to do. Having a strategically
branded theme can help in this regard, by an inclusive and engaging message
for the plans launch.
BOX 7.6
Towson University and San Jose State
University Launching Activities
Creating Shared Commitment
Towson University and SJSU both used a campaign-style approach to launch their
institutional initiatives.
Towson launched a Now Is the Time diversity planning and implementation
process with an all-day conference. SJSU launched its Inclusive Excellence strate-
gic planning efforts with a three-day retreat that featured national speakers before an
(continues)
audience of nearly 100 university students, faculty, and staff. These events tapped
into national guidelines from leading higher education policy groups and helped
these institutions to shape the perspectives of key campus leaders, providing them
with an opportunity to learn not only about new information but also to contribute to
the diversity goals and strategies.
Because of the nature of the academy, it does little good for diversity planning
committees to develop a campus diversity plan in isolation from other stakeholders;
the resultant plan would be nearly impossible to implement, especially if it aimed for
transformational change. A campus-wide diversity strategy must be developed in
partnership with others to achieve buy-in and viability. The absence of broad involve-
ment will lead to fear and rejection. Participation, conict, cooperation, and imple-
mentation are all behavioral aspects of the planning process and are key factors in
its success.
In Creating Contagious Commitment, Andrea Shapiro (2003) argues that organi-
zational change should spread virally, moving from person to person, with each new
recipient becoming a carrier of the change message. Some need to come into
contact with the idea in multiple ways over time to become part of the movement.
The key is to reach as many people as possible, as frequently as possible. Here are
several helpful steps to help leaders to engage in a collaborative strategic thinking
effort:
Form diversity-themed work groups composed of people from different parts

of the institution.
Engage stakeholders in campus-wide discussions of diversity priorities.
Obtain support from shared governance communities for new diversity initia-
tives early and often.
Consciously develop a shared language of terms, information, and examples.
Share diversity-themed data widely to create a shared basis for decision-
making.
Ask leaders to send consistent messages about issues of diversity and its
importance on campus.
Award resources consistently across units, according to clear diversity
priorities.
Develop forums, projects, and interest groups that cut across boundaries of
administrative areas, schools, and departments to bring multiple constituents
and efforts into the diversity conversation.
Establish dedicated website, Facebook, and Twitter accounts to help move
your message through the digital world.
Appoint diversity afliates or champions to key positions on campus and give
them an assigned role in helping to implement the strategic diversity plan.
(continues)
(continued)
Develop diversity-themed templates, PowerPoints, and trainings to empower
key leaders on campus.
Establish a central electronic repository where members of the campus com-
munity can submit their campus diversity plans, reports, and initiatives.
Institutions should consider these kinds of tactics not only on a campus-wide level,
but as projects that they might pursue at the individual department, school, college,
or divisional level.
Building on Current Capacity and Leaders

Finding a way to synthesize both existing diversity efforts and new, innova-
tive approaches is vital. Most obviously, it creates more visibility for diversity
champions whose innovative initiatives may have never been fully embraced
because the institution lacked either commitment or the necessary funding
support. Another strategy might be to showcase faculty members whose
engagement in diversity-related research and outreach efforts bring new
attention to matters of institutional diversity. Showcasing unit diversity
efforts through press releases, newsletters, alumni communications, award
banquets, graduation ceremonies, and other opportunities will help encour-
age members of the unit. For example, a school of social work might create
a diversity champion award given to the faculty, staff, or student member
who best embodies the values of diversity.
A key theme of any change project is to use early wins to build
momentum. Diversity implementation efforts are no different. If the change
project is too aggressive in its early stages, it may falter. Implementation
leaders should therefore begin their efforts with low-hanging fruit. Without
timely wins that yield an identiable result, existing and potential supporters
may abandon the effort. Kotter (1996) recommends that leaders ask two
questions early in the implementation process. What are the benets or pay-
offs to the initiative or activity? And how easy is it to implement? The goal
is to nd projects that, although easy to implement, generate immediate
payoffs. Once these early wins are identied and obtained, diversity leaders
should communicate their successes to the broader campus community.
Working Through Systematic Challenges
In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins argues that in the face of
systemic obstacles, organizations should strive to achieve pockets of excel-
lence as starting points (Collins, 2005, p. 31). These initiatives become the
foundations of success and breakthrough change, even though they may be

imperfect. This point is crucial because change advocates and detractors alike
often point to systemic obstacles as their rationale for doing nothing. For
example, many argue that the lack of a pipeline prevents the recruitment
of historically underrepresented faculty and students in the STEM disci-
plines. Although no one will deny that the pipeline challenge is indeed for-
midable, it should not deter an institution from approaching the effort with
commitment and creativity. So while institutions set to work over the long-
term building the pipeline, they should also develop todays pockets of
excellence. It will take decades to build a pipeline, but institutions must act
today if they are to achieve any level of improvement. Hence, diversity lead-
ers should take a both/and attitude toward implementing short- and long-
range plans to achieve diversity.
Promoting Diversity-Leadership Development Efforts

Implementation leaders might also want to develop an ongoing diversity
leadership education program to quicken change. To accomplish this goal,
conferences, symposiums, and faculty development seminars are essential.
These platforms allow leaders to develop the new understanding and skills
necessary for implementing diversity policies and programs. Some institu-
tions have begun hosting summer institutes dedicated to exploring specic
thematic issues around strategic diversity leadership. For example, the CDO
at Michigan State University created a summer institute with faculty partners
and others to explore issues of diversity in the curriculum. With support
from the Lumina Foundation, researchers at the UCLA Higher Education
and Organizational Change program created a national summer institute
focused on helping practitioners with high-caliber diversity and inclusion
research projects.4 Whether developed by the central coordinating commit-
tee or in a particular school, college, or division, structured campus leader-
ship experiences can prove helpful to current and potential stakeholders and
allies.
Another tactic is to provide resources to send teams to advanced leader-
ship development institutes to work on issues of diversity and organizational
change. The Association of American Colleges and Universities Greater
Expectations Institute, now the Institute on High-Impact Practices and
Student Success,5 provides an intensive ve-day retreat during which teams
engage with leading experts on issues of strategic planning and implementa-
tion. The Institute can help teams on issues like improving student-learning
outcomes, infusing diversity into the curriculum, reenvisioning the rst-year,
and other projects. This type of investment could help provide direction for
the efforts of both the executive diversity council and the various unit teams.
The key to any of these activities is to focus on connecting issues of
diversity to the central themes of implementation and change, from develop-
ing an intergroup dialogue program to engaging issues of diversity in the
classroom. An important guiding principle for these experiences is that they
take a specic, targeted approach to the particular needs of participants.
For example, a targeted session for receptionists and other front-line service
providers about ways to establish a supportive campus environment will
necessarily differ from a session oriented toward senior administrators. With
regard to diversity leadership development, one size rarely ts all. The more
targeted the focus into the issues and action steps of a particular population,
the better the intervention.
Phase 8: Quality Review

At its most basic level, institutional change has been described as unfreezing,
moving, and refreezing the culture (Lewin, 1951). A substantial shift in values
and beliefs are essential if transformational change is to take place (Kezar &
Eckel, 2002). Change can be threatening for individuals and organizations
as a whole. Without regular assessments and communication, organizations
that participate in any change processincluding the types of planning and
processes proposed in this discussionmay be destined for failure. Thus, a
quality review at the end of the second year offers an effective way to guide
further implementation efforts. The goal of this phase is to provide feedback
that helps unit leaders become more sensitive to the requirements of the
diversity change initiative.
The Diversity Progress Report

The dean or divisional leader of each unit should submit a progress report
using the unit scorecard as the guiding framework. This report should sum-
marize all implementation activities and provide qualitative and quantitative
evidence of the plans progress. Measuring performance in the context of
quantitative and qualitative goals simultaneously ensures rigor and builds
condence. Some examples might include compiling satisfaction surveys
after diversity speakers and program events, internal evaluations of diversity
training initiatives, or providing summaries of the efforts by a subcommittee
that developed a new diversity curriculum requirement. The goal is to report
D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 361
information that illustrates what has been accomplished during the imple-
mentation year. This report might also include challenges associated with
implementation as well as ways that the unit plans have evolved over time.
Individual Unit Meetings

The executive diversity council should lead the quality review process by
examining each units report. Every unit will meet with the appointed review
team to discuss the specics of their progress and provide details regarding
the implementation. The review team will then generate a response to each
progress report and develop a summary statement for senior leaders that
includes comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each units progress.
Senior leaders should use this information to draft a statement for each unit
head to be led in his or her professional development le. The goal of the
feedback statement is to enhance quality and should not be used to demor-
alize or discourage a dean or divisional head.
Best Practice Meetings

From a central coordinating committee perspective, senior leaders might
consider hosting a half-day symposium to bring the various implementation
teams together. At this gathering, each team would give a brief presentation
summarizing their efforts and lessons learned during the rst year of imple-
mentation. This sharing process allows best practices to emerge and foster a
common understanding of challenges facing each implementation effort.
This symposium could also capitalize on the creative and competitive possi-
bilities among the various deans and divisional leaders, drawing on the
benchmarking principles discussed in Chapter 6.
Realities of the Review

As noted throughout this book, colleges and universities are messy environ-
ments that often operate in confusing, even frustratingly obscure ways. Thus,
it is often difcult in the academy to tie causes to effects, even in the face of
a strong SDLS or planning process. Unless evaluations are conducted on
each initiative, the outcomes of some efforts may become clear only after a
signicant lapse of time and only after other events have occurred that help
explain the outcome (Eckel, Green, Hill, & Mallon, 1999). For example,
the effect of a precollege outreach and mentoring program for young Black
males may be clear only after time, and such measures as graduation from
high school or matriculation to college might be expressed only indirectly.
Hence, some of the quality review will be highly descriptive and have limited
reach. Senior leaders should therefore weigh these reviews carefully against
the actual work being done, so that constructive adjustments can be made
without letting the process descend into one long evaluation.
The quality review should improve implementation and move the insti-
tution toward a performance standard that rewards success and holds indi-
viduals accountable for their efforts. In the end, the quality review should
increase communication, establish clear expectations, and reinforce good
performance through a spirit of cooperation, organizational learning, and
teamwork.
Phase 9: Evolving the Implementation

Each unit should evaluate the feedback it receives during the quality review
and then look for creative ways to adapt their implementation efforts. Guid-
ing questions include, What is working? What is not working? And what
new human, nancial, and technical initiatives might be developed? As
emphasized throughout this discussion, change leaders must be open to
embracing a number of opportunities and initiatives that may not readily be
available at the outset of the plans launch.
The third year should begin with a unit-wide conversation about how
the implementation might evolve to quicken the pace of change while main-
taining the consistency of ongoing efforts. In many instances, current change
strategies will only need slight revisions rather than radical changes to
enhance their efcacy. But no matter what the proposed changes, communi-
cation and feedback loops will create transparency in the diversity implemen-
tation effort. Activities might include a town hall meeting during which an
update is given about the project. The implementation team might also write
a summary article in the unit newsletter or develop a special website that
allows for the periodic posting of activities, meeting notes, reports, presen-
tations, and even streaming video of important diversity activities. What
matters is that members of the campus community be given plenty of oppor-
tunities to provide feedback and suggestions. At no point should the campus
community feel closed out of the information loop. This is essential for
building the credibility of the initiative and moving toward accountability at
multiple levels of the institution.
Phase 10: Accountability Review and Celebration of Successes

At the end of the three-year process, an accountability review should occur.
Similar to the quality review, each unit should develop a diversity progress
D E V EL O P IN G A N D IM P L EM EN T I N G SU CC E S S F U L DI VE R S IT Y P L A N S 363
report commenting on their efforts across all three years, with a specic focus
on implementation and outcomes. Again, the review team analyzes these
reports and provides feedback to senior leaders. At this point, senior leader-
ship should include this information as part of a performance review for each
dean and divisional leader. Senior leadership should establish a standard of
quality that is used to assess the overall success of the effort.
Assigning a Performance Management Score
Some formal reviews may result in simple descriptions of performance, in
which the review team writes a statement about the merits of the implemen-
tation activity. This statement inevitably comments on critical aspects of the
implementation, centered in the unique goals of that particular unit. Others
might go beyond these descriptions and assign a formal letter grade or
numerical score to give a clear assessment of progress. Although the assign-
ment of a formal letter grade is a more general assessment of implementa-
tion, actual scoring is a more rigorous and quantitative assessment of process.
Possible scoring criteria include (a) the strategic focus and utilization of
evidence-based practices, (b) the leaderships commitment, (c) the allocation
of nancial and technical resources, and (d) the outcomes and successes.
Across these dimensions one might assign each a performance score of 1 to
5, creating a total of 20 possible points. Others might weigh the various
aspects according to internal priorities. For example, we could posit a system
in which nancial and technical resources are graded on a 10-point scale,
and the other categories are set on a 5-point scale, creating 25 possible points.
Although evaluators should avoid creating too much complexity, using a
more sophisticated assessment method may lead to a clearer evaluation of
progress and outcomes.
Any numerical assessment should include an effort to acknowledge and
reward individual and group successes. The options here are unlimited and
the more creative the better. For example, consider initiating some type of
public notice that acknowledges their successful implementation work. This
might include coverage in the annual state of the institution letter from the
president or perhaps inclusion in the annual report to the trustees or board
of governors. Another technique is to release a diversity progress report and
press release about the diversity planning and implementation process that
includes an assessment and update on the work of each planning unit. The
goal is to create public moments that reinforce the importance of the imple-
mentation effort and establish a culture that encourages the institution to
move forward (Williams & Clowney, 2007). Other institutional rewards
include merit pay increases or bonuses. By implementing a positive reward
system for successful change leaders, the institution will automatically create
an effective and discrete vehicle for reminding recalcitrant or negative senior
leaders that foot-dragging and opposition means being stuck on the sidelines
in terms of bonuses and advancement. In particular, institutions might con-
sider developing a bonus structure for individuals who lead especially strong
implementation efforts, as well as ways to reward broader units that are
particularly effective. Finally, it may be necessary to connect the implemen-
tation to future budget decisions.
Multiple Three-Year Cycles
Each successive three-year cycle should inevitably address new initiatives and
ways to achieve even greater levels of accountability. Subsequent implemen-
tation cycles should look to make gains in the following areas: accounting
for diversity in faculty merit reviews, incorporating diversity into standard
assessments of teaching and learning, and integrating diversity issues into the
tenure and promotion review process. If these change goals are accomplished
in the rst phase of the implementation process, the institution should
consider other ambitious goals in subsequent years. The point is that each
diversity cycle should engage change at deeper institutional levels. Done
effectively and over a series of implementation cycles, diversity leaders can
look to expect transformational change, not just in the policies and programs
of the institution, but in its culture and values.
Summary
Historically, colleges and universities have engaged in the diversity planning
process as a response to institutional crises. Although senior leaders must
always be responsive to crisis incidents, policies crafted in reaction almost
never lead to deep, systemic changes. Recent demographic changes and an
emerging global economy have provided colleges and universities with an
unparalleled opportunity to become proactive about integrating diversity
priorities into the culture and curriculum of their institutions. For all the
apparent chaos that characterizes colleges and universities, they do contain
patterns of behavior and formal structural dynamics that make them naviga-
ble. It is within this context that campus diversity plans can succeed, pro-
vided their architects build strong processes and allocate enough resources to
overcome the institutions inherent complexity. The diversity planning and
implementation approaches presented in this chapter are intended to accom-
plish this goal.
D EV E L O P IN G A N D IM PL EM E N TI N G S U CC E S SF U L DI V E RS I T Y P L A N S 365
TAB LE 7. 9
A Checklist for Institutional Diversity Planning and Implementation
Diversity Planning Element Yes/No Action Steps for Inclusion
Outlines a diversity vision for change that expresses diversity
as an important component of the institutions vision for
excellence and not as a stand-alone priority.
Presents institutional and operational denitions of diversity
to help shape priorities and recommendations.
Applies a multidimensional diversity change framework that
includes the following: increasing access and equity,
promoting a multicultural and inclusive campus climate,
enhancing diversity-themed research and scholarship, and
building leadership commitment.
Presents a diversity rationale that leverages institutional data,
campus survey data, institutional history, national data, higher
education and other relevant diversity literature, and court
rulings to build the case for diversity.
A clear implementation cycle is presented that outlines a 3-,
5-, or 10-year diversity timeline.
National benchmarking of best practices is included in the
plans development.
Senior institutional leadership commitment is expressed to
implement a real and meaningful diversity plan.
School, college, divisional, unit, and departmental leaders
have a clear role during implementation.
Dedicated nancial resources are allocated to support new
initiatives, provide incentives, and encourage creativity and
innovation.
Plan includes a campus diversity audit of current programs
and evidence of their success, failure, and ability to
synchronize with new initiatives.
Senior institutional leadership in the form of a CDO or
another high-ranking administrator or faculty member will
guide and coordinate the implementation process.
Shared planning and engagement from the campus
communityincluding a campus-wide diversity oversight
committeewill convene throughout the plans development
and implementation.
Clear accountability systems at the individual and institutional
level are in place to ensure implementation success.
Plan reects a exible approach that may be subject to change
or modication during implementation.
There is a clear communication plan to update and engage the
community in regular conversation regarding the plans
implementation.
The projected approach takes into consideration next steps
following the implementation cycle.
366 W HAT I S S TR AT EG I C DI VE R S IT Y L EA DE RS H I P ?
This chapter provides an overview of integrated diversity plans, central-

ized diversity plans, and decentralized diversity plans. Although each of these
approaches to diversity planning and implementation can provide a focused
institutional diversity agenda, most of the successful institutions that the
author has reviewed draw from all three in combination. Although each
institution should look to craft its own unique approach, several common
denominators are hallmarks of any successful plan. To be successful, the
diversity process must possess both structure and exibility, and capitalize
on the decentralized nature of the academy at the same time as it fosters
implementation in a way that is grounded in local actions, organizational
learning, coordination, and accountability.
Several key elements must be in place in developing any type of diversity
plan. The checklist presented in Table 7.9 enumerates certain planning
themes that will ensure a successful diversity plan and implementation pro-
cess. This concluding gure offers a tool to guide planning, whether it is
integrated, centralized, or decentralized. In your planning and implementa-
tion efforts, once you have an answer to a dimension of the checklist, indicat-
ing that it is included in your plan, you can then move to the next item. If
the answer is no, create action steps for addressing this omission. Respon-
dents may include institutional diversity planners, CDOs, governing board
members, faculty governance leaders, or senior institutional leaders. The use
of this checklist may be helpful to the planning committee and other stake-
holders as a tool that aligns the planning community with the best practices
for diversity planning and implementation, and as a way of launching the
plans next phase.
Notes
1. For many institutions, the terms academic plan and strategic plan are used synony-
mously and in reference to the same process: designing and implementing the central, strate-
gic plan that guides all of the major aspects of the institution. For the purposes of this chapter,
we use the term strategic plan on the grounds that it appears more inclusive in scope, unless
we are specically reporting on survey data that asked about a particular type of plan. For
more discussion of this distinction please see Richard Alfreds Managing the Big Picture in
Colleges and Universities: From Tactics to Strategy (2005).
2. For more information on the OMAI First Wave Program at the University of Wiscon-
sinMadison, please visit http://omai.wisc.edu/.
3. As noted in Now Is the Time, a recent report by a coalition of higher education
associations, localized reection is essential to understanding the unique challenges and
opportunities in a postsecondary environment that is diverse, decentralized, and focused on
D E V E L O P IN G A N D I M P L EM E N T I N G S U C C E S S F U L DI VE RS I T Y P L A N S 367
pursuing numerous organizational priorities (AASCU/NASULGC Diversity Task Force,

2005).
4. For more information about the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute Summer
Diversity Research Institute, please visit www.heri.ucla.edu/diversityinstitute.php.
5. For more information about the Association of American Colleges and Universities
Institute on High-Impact Practices and Student Success, please visit www.aacu.org/meetings/
SummerInstitutes.cfm.
8
ACTIVATING THE DIVERSITY
CHANGE JOURNEY
A National Portrait of Diversity
Capabilities in Higher Education
An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an
idea that exists only as an idea.
Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha)
T
his book explores the diversity idea; outlines models of organiza-
tional diversity; and provides guidelines for writing effective diver-
sity plans, developing institutional scorecards, and outlining some
of the critical techniques necessary to overcoming the challenges of imple-
menting diversity-themed change in the academy. It explores why diversity
plans fail, and provides a multidimensional perspective on the most impor-
tant leadership styles that strategic diversity leaders must apply to successfully
lead diversity efforts on their campuses. A lot of ground has been covered.
What remains is to outline the extent to which colleges and universities are
currently using some of these techniqueshow they are leveraging the
wolf qualities of strategic diversity leadership so vital to creating incre-
mental and even transformative change.
Higher Education Diversity Capabilities

Using responses from the national survey of chief diversity ofcers at more
than 700 academic institutions, this chapter provides one of the rst exami-
nations of its kind addressing how postsecondary institutions are building
their formal diversity capacity.1 Some of the key questions include: What
368
AC T I VAT IN G T H E DI V E RS I T Y C H A N G E J O U R N EY 369
types of diversity plans are colleges and universities developing? How are
institutions creating accountability among faculty, staff, and administrators?
Are they focusing on developing educational initiatives to prepare students,
faculty, and staff for knowledge-based, global economy? What differences
exist between public and private, and large and small, institutions?
More specically, this chapter provides a perspective on ve areas of
capacity that are particularly important for moving the needle of an institu-
tions diversity strategy. Table 8.1 gives an overview of these ve higher edu-
cation diversity capabilities and a description of their characteristics. These
capabilities include (a) diversity planning systems, (b) diversity accountabil-
ity systems, (c) diversity research and assessment systems, (d) diversity train-
ing and educational initiatives, and (e) faculty diversication systems.
These ve capabilities are essential to implementing a strategic vision for
diversity. In many ways, it is the presence of these ve capabilities that indi-
cates an institutions diversity leadership commitment, the diversity account-
ability theme explored in Chapter 6. More specically, this chapter identies
both general diversity capabilities and those systems that are more intensive
and aggressive. Generally, the more intensive strategies achieve the following:
they place an even greater premium on engaging issues of diversity in a
proactive and intentional manner; they dene diversity efforts with a dedi-
cated focus that is specic to issues of diversity; and, more often than not,
they cut against the grain of traditionalism by requiring the institution to
engage diversity as a high-level strategic priority backed by nancial re-
sources, rigorous accountability techniques, and involvement from faculty
and administrative leaders not usually involved in diversity implementation
efforts.
The discussion of these capabilities provides a foundation for under-
standing how institutions are building capacity, which is helpful for multiple
reasons. First, it provides perspective for leaders to understand where their
diversity efforts may be innovative and cutting edge, and where they may be
more traditional and foundational. This clarity helps leaders to move for-
ward with tactics that may be novel and more effective. When leaders create
more intentional and intrusive diversity accountability techniques and pro-
cesses, resistance will inevitably emerge. The data in this chapter should help
leaders target areas in which dissonance may emerge so that they can develop
strategies to engage with these challenges. In addition, this chapter provides
a national context for understanding where institutions are with respect to
their campus diversity efforts, and where they are not. As a result, leaders
TAB LE 8 .1
Higher Education Diversity Capabilities Overview
Capabilities Description Items
Diversity Planning systems designed Existence of an ofcial denition of diversity
Planning to advance institutional Ofcial mission statement that addresses diversity
Systems diversity efforts across the Diversity addressed in institutions academic
various campus planning planintegrated diversity plan
systems Strategic and academic planning documents that
contain goals for diversity
Presence of a campus-wide diversity plan
Decentralized diversity plans for schools, colleges,
divisions, and departments
Existence of campus-wide plans for international affairs
(e.g., study abroad, global research partnerships,
international student recruitment, faculty exchanges,
etc.)
Diversity Intentional systems to Institution formally reports on campus diversity plans,
Accountability drive the institutional including successes, challenges, and ongoing
Systems diversity agenda opportunities
Diversity goals and achievements discussed annually at
board of trustees or regents meetings
Diversity leadership is assessed as part of the merit
review of administrators and faculty
Diversity Intentional capacity to Institution assesses the educational implications and
Research and assess campus diversity benets of diversity
Assessment progress Institution uses a diversity scorecard system or other
Systems measurement to assess diversity progress
Institution regularly assesses the campus climate for
diversity
Diversity Formal systems designed Presence of diversity training and education program
Training and to prepare entire campus for students and staff
Education community to engage with Presence of diversity training and education program
Initiatives issues of difference, for faculty and administrators
enhancing abilities to Existence of diversity course graduation requirement
thrive in a diverse campus for students
environment and world
Faculty Intentional capacity to Institution has a formal minority or diversity faculty
Diversication advance faculty diversity recruitment initiative
Efforts on campus Key diversity personnel sit on search committees to
ensure diversity perspectives
Key diversity staff are an integral part of the tenure and
promotion process
Resources are available to partner with academic
departments on new faculty hires
ACT IVAT IN G T HE DI VE R S IT Y C H A NG E J OU RN E Y 371
can use this information as another tool to help develop and rene their
efforts on campus.
Leaders will nd this data particularly important because it provides a
national snapshot of each capability before delving into a more nuanced
discussion of similarities and differences by institutional control and size. A
detailed perspective should help leaders gauge the prevalence of specic
diversity techniques relative to the types of institutions that exist across the
country. Although the general institutional DNA of shared governance,
teaching, learning, and research priorities exist throughout, this chapter
acknowledges and explores how these themes play out differently at public
and private, and large and small, institutions.
Capability One: Diversity Planning Systems

Institutions demonstrate their support for diversity in a variety of ways, often
commencing with a commitment to engage in strategic planning. Although
this planning should ultimately take place at multiple levels, it usually begins
with an institution expressing commitment to diversity in its mission state-
ment and strategic plans. Although a mission statement reects the formal
expression of an institutions core values, a strategic plan offers a more
process-oriented expression of commitment and implementation. This is
generally followed by the development of a set of concrete goals and actions.
Thus, although the mission statement and strategic plan express intent, the
more accurate indicators of institutional commitment to diversity can be
found in the concrete actions taken by an institution. These actions include
admissions and hiring policies, budgets, and the development and imple-
mentation of specic policies and programs.
As this research revealed, most institutions generally agree that express-
ing a commitment to diversity in their mission statements and strategic plans
is important. However, with respect to specic goal-setting activities and
other action-oriented items, the number of participants who indicated that
these activities were underway was not nearly as strong. Furthermore, when
asked questions designed to gauge an institutions deeper commitment to
promoting diversitysuch as a decentralized planning process at the depart-
ment, school, college, and division levelresponses indicated a precipitous
drop in positive outcomes.
The National Snapshot
This national survey showed that academic institutions throughout the
United States are committed to expressing support for diversity as part of
their institutional missions and campus-wide strategic and academic plans.

As illustrated in Figure 8.1, the great majority (86 percent) of respondents
conrmed that diversity is mentioned in their institutions academic plan
(integrated diversity plan). A strong majority (83 percent) also reported that
their ofcial mission statements address diversity. Another strong majority
(75 percent) indicated that their strategic or academic planning documents
contain specic goals for enhancing campus diversity. However, only 50
percent of institutions combined diversity commitments at all three levels,
including commitments to diversity in their ofcial mission statement, insti-
tutional academic plans, and institutional strategic or academic planning
plan.
The commitment to diversity in more focused diversity planning sys-
temsincluding centralized and decentralized campus diversity plans, a ded-
icated denition, or international affairs planssuggested a somewhat
different story. Sixty-ve percent of respondents indicated the existence of
an ofcial campus denition of diversity, and nearly three-fths (59 percent)
reported the presence of a centralized diversity plan. However, fewer than
half (46 percent) reported having a campus-wide plan for international
affairs, and only 34 percent reported institutional engagement in a decentral-
ized diversity strategic planning process. Finally, only 10 percent of institu-
tions had all four of the more intensive diversity planning systems in place
simultaneously: a centralized diversity plan, ofcial denition of diversity,
decentralized diversity plan (diversity plans required from schools, colleges,
departments, and vice presidents or department heads), and a plan for
internationalization.
Thus, although campus leaders should be commended for infusing
diversity into their general missions and for creating integrated diversity
plans, those serious about promoting diversity should look for more robust
processes, including the creation of institutional denitions and both cen-
tralized and decentralized plans. Indeed, it was discouraging that although
86 percent of institutions included diversity in their general academic plan,
only 42 percent also had a centralized diversity plan and only 24 percent
reported having decentralized diversity plans. Finally, only 7 percent of insti-
tutions reported the existence of all seven diversity planning systems. Only
through the strong activation of diversity planning activities can an institu-
tion achieve meaningful diversity changes.
First and foremost, a diversity strategy is essential because it sets the
direction and establishes priorities for the institution. A diversity strategy
helps students, faculty, and staff rank their priorities and work on the most
ACT IVAT IN G T HE DI VE R S IT Y C H A NG E J OU RN EY 373
important issues rst. Without a clearly dened and articulated diversity

strategy, priority initiativesthe ones that will drive the highest successare
not necessarily on the institutions radar. Achieving diversity requires the
active engagement and participation by all members of the institutional com-
munity. If diversity is a priority, then commitment should be evident in the
institutions formal statements of mission and its future academic and strate-
gic plans. It is important that leadership be fully committed to the goals and
that this commitment be demonstrated symbolically and substantively.
Public Versus Private Institutions

As the proportion of public university budgets that comes directly from the
state continues to decline and as the proportion that comes from student
fees, endowment, private gifts, and commercial activities continues to grow,
the concept of the public university is slowly changing, now becoming the
reality of the publicly supported university. Nevertheless, the public service
roots of public institutions were evident in the data; generally speaking,
public institutions evidenced a greater level of diversity strategic planning
than did private institutions. Figure 8.2 illustrates these differences and offers
several summary points.
Nearly 9 out of 10 public institutions responded afrmatively to ques-
tions concerning the presence of diversity in their mission statements and
academic plans (85 and 88 percent, respectively), compared with private
institutions (80 and 82 percent, respectively). Additionally, public institu-
tions reported a slightly higher presence of diversity goals in strategic and
academic planning documents compared with private institutions (76 to 74
percent).
When the survey moved from general to a specic discussion of diversity
planning activities focused on issues of diversity in the form of dedicated
denitions and plans, the differences between public and private institutions
crystallized. To put it simply, public institutions were consistently more
likely to engage in dedicated diversity planning efforts than their private
peers. Although 68 percent of public institutions reported the existence of
an ofcial institutional denition of diversity on campus, a smaller propor-
tion of private institutions reported the same (60 percent). Additionally,
public institutions more often reported the presence of a centralized campus-
wide diversity plan as compared with private institutions (66 to 47 percent).
Although private institutions were slightly more likely to report the existence
of a campus-wide plan for international affairs than public institutions (47
FIGURE 8.1
Strategic Diversity Planning Systems in Higher Education
FIGURE 8.2
Strategic Diversity Planning Systems in Public Versus Private Institutions
to 45 percent), public institutions were substantively more likely to engage

in a decentralized planning processes in the various schools, colleges, divi-
sions, and departments of the institution (41 to 22 percent).
Findings by Institutional Size

The data demonstrated that an institutions size plays a role in the number
and intensity of its diversity efforts. Figure 8.3 presents a summary of these
ndings.
When one hears the phrase big university, among the rst concepts
to come to mind is structure and formality. The term structure encompasses
policy manuals, comprehensive job descriptions, human resource hand-
books, and administrative hierarchies. By contrast, hearing the phrase small
institution almost always invokes the opposite impression: a relative lack of
formality, a premium on interpersonal relationships, and an absence of for-
mal process. Although neither stereotype is necessarily true, the ndings
from this research indicate that large institutions were more likely to have
dedicated diversity planning systems in place than their smaller peers. With
few exceptions, the general pattern of respondents indicated that as an insti-
tution increases in size, it implements more diversity planning technology, a
nding similarly reected in studies of the corporate sector (Dexter, 2010;
Diversity Best Practices, 2005).
Similar to the patterns found previously, the majority of institutions in
this study were engaged in the three more general diversity-planning systems
(institutional mission includes diversity, diversity is part of academic plan,
diversity goals are infused into the academic and strategic plan) regardless of
size. More than four-fths of all institutions, regardless of size, reported that
diversity was mentioned in their academic plan, with percentages ranging
from 82 to 90 percent. Similarly, between 80 and 86 percent reported that
diversity was included in their ofcial mission statements. The presence of
actual diversity goals in the academic and strategic plans of institutions was
not as prominent, but was still present. Roughly three out of four institu-
tions reported that their strategic and academic planning documents
contained diversity goals, ranging from 72 percent at small institutions
(enrollment less than 5,000) to 77 percent at very large institutions (enroll-
ment in excess of 20,000).
As a general trend, institutions both large and small were more likely to
have general rather than dedicated campus diversity planning resources. Very
large (greater than 20,000) and large (10,00019,999) institutions reported
FIGURE 8.3
Strategic Diversity Planning Systems by Institutional Size
the existence of an ofcial institutional denition of diversity (68 and 69 per-

cent, respectively) more often than medium and small institutions (60 and 63
percent, respectively). Very large and large institutions were also more likely to
have a campus-wide diversity plans (67 and 64 percent, respectively) as com-
pared with medium and small institutions (56 and 51 percent, respectively).
Across all institution sizes, the existence of a campus-wide plan for inter-
national affairs was the second least commonly mentioned aspect of the
various strategic planning areas, with percentages ranging from 40 to 53 per-
cent. Very large and large institutions more often reported a plan for interna-
tional affairs (50 and 53 percent, respectively), as compared with medium
and small institutions (44 and 40 percent, respectively).
The question regarding decentralized diversity plans at the departmen-
tal, school, college, and divisional level received the lowest number of af-
rmative responses, and also reected the sharpest differences with respect to
institutional size. Here, although only about one in four small and medium
institutions (23 and 25 percent, respectively) reported that their institutions
engaged in international studies efforts, large and very large institutions
reported investing in international affairs at roughly twice the rate (39 and 50
percent, respectively). Given the more decentralized nature of larger research
institutions generally, it is not surprising that they are more apt to pursue
international affairs and indeed a wider array of more decentralized diversity
efforts. But this conclusion should not preclude smaller institutions from
investigating the merits of international affairs and decentralized diversity
efforts.
A Summary of Diversity Planning Systems

The ndings presented in Figures 8.1 through 8.3 indicate a clear demarca-
tion in the strategic planning capabilities of different institutions. Put sim-
ply, academic institutions are more likely to pursue general campus diversity
planning systems than robust planning systems. It is encouraging that, across
the board, most institutions are likely to have diversity infused into their
institutional missions, mention diversity in their academic plans, and have
specic diversity goals in their strategic and academic plans. This nding is
encouraging and suggests that many institutions are making an effort to
integrate diversity into the strategic architecture of their campus-wide plan-
ning efforts. The challenge, however, is making sure that these efforts are
not hollow.
ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI VE R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U RN EY 379
This study further revealed that although integrated diversity planning

strategies abound, fewer institutions were committed to developing central-
ized or decentralized campus diversity plans. As discussed in Chapter 7, cen-
tralized and decentralized diversity plans allow campus leaders to focus
greater energy and attention on diversity efforts than do general campus
strategies. Indeed, the planning technology that capitalizes most in the
decentralized and shared governance culture of the academy was least likely
to be in place at the institutions that participated in the survey.
Finally, there were clear patterns in terms of control and size. Public
institutions were more likely to have more robust diversity planning activities
in place, as were large institutions. Moving beyond the planning process, the
next four capabilities (Figures 8.48.15) reect survey responses capturing the
myriad ways that institutions tangibly convey their commitment to building
sustainable capacity to support and nurture diversity. These capabilities
include diversity accountability systems, diversity research and assessment
systems, diversity-themed training and education systems, and faculty diver-
sication systems.
Capability Two: Diversity Accountability Systems

Institutional diversity efforts cannot be the responsibility of one, or even a
few, ofces and units. Indeed, as Wade-Golden and Matlock (2010) argue,
institutional diversity should be everyones business, as institutional commit-
ment to diversity must be shared, irrespective of whether an institution has
a chief diversity ofcer. Institutions committed to diversity must hold faculty
and administrators accountable for the diversity-related issues within their
respective spheres of inuence.
A simple start might involve leaders providing information about diver-
sity efforts in annual reports from deans, department heads, and faculty. To
promote even greater diversity accountability, provosts and deans could
include support for diversity among the criteria for leadership appointments
and during performance evaluations. As Chapter 6 makes clear, accountabil-
ity at the institutional level should involve metrics or diversity scorecards,
not only to measure progress in hiring, promoting, and retaining women
and minority employees, but to link these outcomes to key institutional
objectives. The most rigorous diversity accountability processes might
engage diversity-related indicators in the performance evaluations of faculty
and academic leaders as a matter of course in determining merit, promotion,

bonuses, annual budgets, tenure decisions, and other nancial and human
resource decisions.
Too often accountability measures fall short of linking diversity perfor-
mance and progress to the nancial systems of the institution. Despite
numerous site visits, the author did not uncover a single institution that
denitively linked performance on institutional diversity indicators to the
compensation of faculty or staff. This is an area in which academic institu-
tions could learn a great deal from the corporate sector, as examples abound
of effective programs and initiatives that link diversity progress and achieve-
ments to the compensation of business leaders.
As can be seen from the items included in this national survey of diver-
sity personnel in higher education, there are a variety of ways to foster diver-
sity accountability on campus. Activities can range from formal diversity
reports to targeted efforts aimed at an institutions key decision makers.
Figures 8.4 through 8.6 present the surveys ndings regarding the diversity
accountability systems in the academic institutions that participated in the
study. Figure 8.4 summarizes the overall national picture, and Figures 8.5
and 8.6 break down the results by public or private designation and institu-
tional size.

Although a majority of institutions were likely to make formal reports to the
campus community on their diversity efforts, the overwhelming majority
were not engaged in the most intensive diversity accountability systems that
the corporate community has practiced for years (Cox, 1991). Nearly half (47
percent) of the questionnaire respondents stated that their institutions board
of trustees and regents discuss diversity goals and achievements annually,
and slightly more than half (56 percent) indicated that their campuses
actively report on the successes, challenges, and opportunities reected in
their campus diversity plans. However, there were only a few instances in
which colleges and universities reported linking diversity leadership to merit
review; only 12 percent reported these processes and systems for faculty,
and only 25 percent registered systems to hold top-ranking administrators
accountable for diversity efforts.
For academic institutions to compete in the twenty-rst century, they
must embrace diversity as a core institutional value and then embed diversity
in their institutional structures, operations, and nancial priorities. It is a
FIGURE 8.4
Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems Overall Sample
positive sign that half of the institutions surveyed are making regular diver-
sity reports and presentations to their decision makers and communities.
These types of presentations are critical to informing the community, creat-
ing transparency, and fostering dialogue. These presentations also reinforce
the social contract that exists between campus leaders and the students, fac-
ulty, staff, and others who desire to see diversity embraced as an institutional
and cultural value.
The challenge is moving from an annual diversity report to concrete
policies and actions that would drive further change. What does it say when
diversity plays so small a role in the performance reviews of administrators
and faculty members? As the site visits demonstrated amply, many institu-
tions simply do not make a strong nancial commitment to their campus
diversity plans, often leading to ineffective diversity infrastructures and ini-
tiatives that end up on the periphery of campus priorities. A failure to engage
in the most intensive forms of diversity planning, combined with a relatively
weak system of accountability, leads to a state of institutional inertia. Often
diversity issues become disengaged from conversations of institutional excel-
lence, leaving the institution unable to meet the strategic mandates of a
changing environment.
When examined across the four systems of diversity accountability, the
national story appears particularly disappointing. Although 29 percent of the
institutions surveyed possess reporting for both their campus communities
and board of regents or trustees, only 7 percent reported the existence of
diversity merit review processes for both administrators and faculty. Further-
more, only 3 percent of institutions reported having all four of the diversity
accountability systems summarized in Figure 8.4.

According to the survey, public institutions were more likely to have diver-
sity accountability systems in place. Indeed, public institutions more often
reported involvement across all four of the strategic diversity accountability
indicators as compared to private institutions. Figure 8.5 depicts these
ndings.
Public institutions were more likely to report the existence of processes
for formally reporting on diversity plan successes, challenges, and opportuni-
ties than private institutions (62 to 48 percent). They also indicated a greater
likelihood of discussing diversity goals and achievements at annual meetings
for the regents or the board of trustees (49 to 42 percent). Public institutions
FIGURE 8.5
Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems Public Versus Private Institutions
were also twice as likely as private institutions to include diversity success

indicators as part of the merit review process for administrators (32 to 16
percent) and two-thirds more likely to include diversity as part of merit
review for faculty (14 to 9 percent).
Institutional Size
Generally, larger institutions were more likely to use diversity accountability
systems than smaller institutions. The largest institutions were the most
likely to be committed to using both institutional and individual leadership
accountability systems. Figure 8.6 provides an overview of diversity account-
ability systems by institutional size.
As institutions increase in size, so too does their apparent focus on for-
mally reporting diversity progress to the campus community. Although
fewer than half (48 percent) of small institutions possess reporting mecha-
nisms, more than two-thirds (66 percent) of very large institutions do. In
terms of giving annual diversity reports at the board of trustees level, a simi-
lar nding emerged. Forty-two percent of small and medium-sized colleges
and universities reported on diversity efforts at their regents or trustees board
meetings. By comparison, slightly more than half (51 percent) of large and
very large institutions discussed their diversity goals and achievements at
regents and board of trustee meetings.
When asked about the merit review process for administrators and fac-
ulty, institutional responses again broke down by size. With respect to evalu-
ating administrators, small institutions considered diversity efforts in only 15
percent of cases, medium institutions in only 24 percent of cases, and large
institutions in only 26 percent of cases. When it came to evaluating faculty,
only 8 percent of small and large institutions, 12 percent of medium institu-
tions, and 20 percent of very large institutions consider diversity issues in
reviewing faculty merit pay evaluations. The most promising efforts on con-
sidering diversity in administrator evaluations can be found at very large
institutions, of whom 42 percent reported taking diversity into account as
part of the merit review of administrators.
A Summary of Diversity Accountability Systems

To be effective, an institutions diversity efforts cannot rest with single indi-
viduals or solitary ofces, but must be a priority for the entire campus com-
munity. The data suggests that although diversity is part of the conversation
at academic institutionsespecially at the top leadership levelsnew efforts
FIGURE 8.6
Strategic Diversity Accountability Systems by Institutional Size
would help strengthen diversity accountability systems, particularly in the

context of the institutions human resource systems and annual reviews.
Overall, it appears that larger public universities are taking the lead with
respect to embedding diversity efforts into their institutional processes.
However, work remains for both large public institutions and their smaller
private counterparts. As Julius, Baldridge, and Pfeffer (1999) assert, account-
ability within higher education must be connected to real consequences for
members of the campus community. It is the role especially of senior leaders
to ensure that ofces and individuals follow through on the specic objec-
tives laid out in the strategic diversity plan.
Capability Three: Diversity Research and Assessment

Systems
A central question in carrying out any diversity charge is, How will we
know if we are making progress? Answering this question requires assess-
ment strategies that utilize both quantitative and qualitative methodologies,
and that strive for clarity in dening and measuring indicators of progress.
As such, diversity research and assessment is a key aspect of strategic diversity
leadership.
Campus leaders must generate reliable data if they are to understand
campus diversity successes and continuing challenges. The presence of diver-
sity-centered research and assessment is fundamental to organizing and pro-
viding empirical support for diversity policies and programs. As discussed in
Chapter 6, diversity progress is best assessed from a balanced perspective that
focuses on access and equity, campus climate and inclusion, learning and
diversity-themed research and scholarship, and leadership commitment.
Indeed, this national survey drew on these guiding themes by asking three
related questions designed to gauge the strength of diversity assessment
efforts at American colleges and universities. First, participants were asked
about their ability to collect data on the educational implications of diversity
efforts (the learning and diversity-themed research perspective); second, par-
ticipants were asked to rate the atmosphere of inclusion or exclusion for
minority individuals and groups (the campus climate and inclusion perspec-
tive); and third, participants were asked about whether they use a strategic
diversity leadership scorecard (SDLS) to promote diversity values among
students, faculty, and staff (the access and equity perspective).
Generally, the survey revealed that although the majority of respondents
indicated their institutions assessments of the campus climate and of the
ACT IVAT I N G T HE DI VE RS IT Y C H A N G E J O U R N E Y 387
educational benets of diversity, very few reported the presence of systematic

measurement processes to collect, analyze, and leverage these data in the
interest of advancing the institutional diversity change agenda. Figures 8.7
through 8.9 present these ndings. Figure 8.7 depicts the nding for the
aggregate sample. Figures 8.8 and 8.9 depict results by public versus private
designation and institutional size, respectively.

Survey participants answered a series of questions designed to evaluate their
institutional diversity assessment efforts. They were asked whether their
institutions assessed the educational implications and benets of diversity,
whether their institutions regularly examined the campus climate for diver-
sity, and whether their institutions possessed a systematic measurement pro-
cess for assessing their diversity progress, such as an SDLS.
Respondents were more likely to report the presence of assessment tech-
niques for understanding the campus climate and educational benets of
diversity, than to deploy a diversity scorecard or another more comprehen-
sive tool. Although the majority of institutions reported that their institution
assessed the educational benets of diversity (58 percent) and the campus
climate for diversity (52 percent), only 19 percent reported the existence of
a systematic institutional diversity assessment program such as a diversity
scorecard. A much smaller proportion of institutions (30 percent) reported
leveraging two of these assessment systems. Finally, only 9 percent of institu-
tions reported having all three of the diversity research and assessment sys-
tems in place: assessing the educational benets of diversity, regularly
assessing the campus climate for diversity, and using a diversity scorecard
system or other measurement process to assess diversity progress.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court afrmed in Grutter v. Bollinger that
diversity enhances the educational enterprise and is essential to preparing
students to be constructive, active members of our increasingly diverse soci-
ety. This ruling endorsed the key role of diversity on our college campuses
and helps explain the positive steps that institutional leaders are making to
evaluate their diversity initiatives. Although this study did not examine the
specic methodologies of the institutions surveyed, it is a positive trend that
nearly 60 percent of institutions reported collecting data on the educational
implications of diversity. Gathering and studying this data will be essential
to communicating the value-added possibilities that emerge from having a
diverse learning environment.
FIGURE 8.7
Diversity Research and Assessment Systems in the Overall Sample
A push for enhanced diversity assessments should help an institutions

ability to develop and evaluate strategic planning and implementation mod-
els related to campus diversity. Diversity assessments also help to meet the
cries for proof by both the courts and a skeptical public that diversity
works. Institutions should therefore consider using both longitudinal sur-
veys and interviews to gather assessment data on how diversity efforts are
working, examining not only life on campus, but what happens once stu-
dents graduate (Matlock, Wade-Golden, & Gurin, 2010). That very few
institutions are currently using an institutional diversity scorecard tool sug-
gests a need for more comprehensive methodologies to collect and report on
diversity progress overall. Rather than using a set of key indicators balanced
across multiple scorecards, institutions are pursuing less coordinated meth-
odologies that are not integrated into a comprehensive assessment of how
diversity efforts are playing out across multiple institutional dimensions.

Figure 8.8 depicts some of the same patterns that were observed in other
diversity capabilities at public and private institutions. In most cases, public
institutions showed greater commitment to research and assessment on
diversity issues as compared with their private counterparts.
Roughly three-fths (60 percent) of respondents from public institu-
tions reported that their institutions assess the educational benets of diver-
sity, and another 55 percent regularly assess the campus climate for diversity.
By comparison, 54 percent of private institutions make efforts to assess the
ACT IVAT I N G T HE DI VE RS IT Y C H A N G E J O U R N E Y 389
FIGURE 8.8
Diversity Research and Assessment Systems Public Versus Private Institutions
educational benets for diversity, and 47 percent explore issues of campus

climate. Twice as many public institutions conrmed the existence of a sys-
tematic diversity assessment tool, such as a diversity scorecard system, as
compared with private institutions (24 percent to 12 percent).

As can be seen in Figure 8.9, the pattern of ndings by institutional size
was a little more varied. Although similar proportions of small (55 percent),
medium (54 percent), and large (56 percent) institutions reported assessing
the educational implications of diversity, 64 percent of large institutions
assess educational implications. Fewer respondents from small institutions
(44 percent) reported that their institutions regularly assessed the campus
climate for diversity as compared with their peers at medium, large, and very
large institutions (55 percent, 54 percent, and 58 percent, respectively).
With respect to diversity scorecard and other measurement assessments,
12 and 15 percent of small and large institutions, and 25 and 29 percent of
medium and very large institutions, report using these tools. These numbers
speak perhaps to the growing popularity of diversity scorecard processes
among medium and very large institutions, although clearly more work
needs to be done.
A Summary of Diversity Research and Assessment Systems

Given the importance of diversifying our colleges and universities, anecdotal
stories cataloguing the success of diversity efforts are no longer sufcient.
FIGURE 8.9
Diversity Research and Assessment Systems by Institutional Size
ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI V E R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U R N EY 391
Increasingly, institutions are being asked by our judicial system and the pub-
lic to demonstrate the positive effects of campus diversity efforts. To main-
tain credibility, institutions need to nd ways to assemble and disseminate
the relevant data. Failing to provide concrete evidence demonstrating the
importance and effectiveness of diversity efforts will only undermine the far
larger project of creating a more inclusive and productive American society.
Diversity research and assessment systems are critical to tracking the
progress of campus diversity initiatives. They help ensure that effective tac-
tics are being implemented and that leaders are being held accountable.
Using an SDLS, diversity leaders can identify and track key performance
indicators. Despite their strong commitment to promoting diversity, even
many large, public universities are behind in using robust assessment systems
to measure their progress. The lack of scorecard systems to track diversity
progress was disappointing and suggests that more work needs to be done to
create a more balanced and systematic approach to identifying and tracking
key diversity performance indicators over time.
Capability Four: Diversity Training and Education

Initiatives
Diversity-themed education and training systems help to cultivate a shared
understanding of what diversity means and how diversity values should be
expressed within the campus community. Diversity education and training
programs can take a number of different forms, ranging from diversity train-
ing workshops for faculty, staff, and students, to general education diversity
requirements implemented throughout the curriculum.
Diversity education platforms help create and sustain an environment
that is respectful and inclusive of all groups in the campus community, by
exposing them to issues of power, privilege, difference, and diversity. In the
twenty-rst century, diversity trainings, workshops, and courses are essential
to fostering inclusion in a diverse and interconnected world. It is for these
reasons that colleges and universities are responsible not only for creating a
safe and welcoming campus environment, but a setting where differences
and divergent perspectives can be voiced and respected. Diversity education
and training programs offer a critical step toward ensuring that the institu-
tion meets its obligations to the campus community.
Diversity graduation requirements are among the most important diver-
sity capabilities that an institution can develop. By infusing diversity into
the curriculum as a core requirement, institutional leaders ensure that all

students have a baseline academic experience that helps to prepare them to
become leaders in the global marketplace. At many institutions, require-
ments have been established through courses in ethnic, gender, and interna-
tional studies areas. Although not an end solution by any means, these
courses help students develop the requisite skills to interact constructively
with diverse peers. When designed correctly, these courses can contribute to
a students overall college experience. In addition, study abroad, service
learning, and other activities that encourage diverse learning environments
can provide key opportunities for young people preparing to live and work
in an increasingly diverse society. Figures 8.10 through 8.12 present the
surveys results regarding these key training and educational program
opportunities.

The study asked participants to indicate whether their campuses had diver-
sity training and education programs. In many institutions, such programs
do exist and across most branches of administrative life. However, among
senior administrators, participation levels in diversity training programs were
particularly low. Of the various facets of diversity education, programs tar-
geting students and staff are most common, followed by services for faculty
members. Finally, diversity education and training programs proved more
common than diversity course graduation requirements. Figure 8.10 summa-
rizes these ndings.
Approximately half of the respondents reported diversity training and
education programs on their campuses for staff and students (51 and 50
percent, respectively), and a smaller proportion reported these programs for
faculty (43 percent). Diversity training and education programs targeted
toward senior administrators received the fewest responses, existing at less
than one-third of institutions (32 percent). Fifteen percent of institutions
reported the existence of all four facets of diversity training at their institu-
tionfor students, staff, faculty, and administrators. And only 6 percent of
institutions reported having all four facets of the diversity training systems
and a diversity course graduation requirement.
The ndings of this research differed considerably from a national survey
by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) in
2000, which took an in-depth look at diversity graduation requirements in
a national sample of institutions. In the AAC&U study, among 543 respon-
dents, roughly 54 percent of colleges and universities had a diversity course
FIGURE 8.10
Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems in the Overall Sample
requirement (Humphreys, 2000). In this study, 40 percent of respondents

reported having a diversity course graduation requirement for students. Both
of these percentages suggest that academic institutions still have a ways to go
in addressing diversity through curriculum efforts. Given the premium that
the business sector has placed on hiring leaders fully prepared to lead in
diverse organizational contexts, senior leaders should give serious consider-
ation to advancing diversity opportunities through the curriculum, interna-
tional study and study abroad programs, and service learning projects.
Research by Hart (2006) indicated that three-fourths of corporate leaders
want academic institutions to do a better job preparing students to thrive in
a diverse working environment, understand global issues, and practice the
skills of intercultural competence.
Another troubling nding was the minimal number of institutions that
offered diversity training and educational programs for senior leadership.
Given the vital role of these leaders in guiding and implementing any strate-
gic diversity efforts, the lack of outreach and trainings suggests a disconnect
between the rhetoric of institutional commitment and the reality for those
who actually lead. Diversity education workshops, briengs on key topics,
and individual seminars on diversity leadership could help administrators
learn best practices and explore how their administrative responsibilities
intersect with issues of power, privilege, racism, gender equity, sexuality, and
issues of relevance to the disabled and members of the LGBT community,
among others.
Diversity education programs for senior leaders also provide an opportu-
nity to facilitate understanding about the implications of changing environ-
mental dynamics and the new ways that diversity must be framed as a
strategic priority on campus. Indeed, it is the lack of diversity-themed leader-
ship development for those individuals at the top of our institutions that
may compromise our diversity efforts the most, particularly when it comes
to developing diversity accountability systems, materially affecting diversity
plans, and diversity initiatives that are backed by meaningful nancial
resources.

Figure 8.11 depicts the differences between public and private institutions. In
most cases, public institutions were more proactive regarding their commit-
ment to diversity training and education for the campus community as com-
pared with their private peers. The most prevalent diversity and learning
FIGURE 8.11
Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems Public Versus Private Institutions
capacities were evident in diversity training and leadership development sys-

tems for staff at public institutions, whereas programs for senior administra-
tive leaders were the least evident.
When asked if they had diversity education and training programs for
students, 50 percent of both private and public institutions responded
afrmatively. However, public institutions were more likely than private
institutions to have training programs for staff (57 to 43 percent), faculty (49
to 34 percent), and administrators (38 to 23 percent). There was a small
difference in the presence of a diversity course graduation requirement, with
41 percent of public institutions conrming this requirement as compared
with 38 percent of private institutions. Given the explicit emphasis that lib-
eral arts colleges give to character development and broadening horizons, it
was surprising to nd that fewer than half have instituted some kind of
diversity learning requirement. Instituting a curriculum requirement offers a
positive opportunity for addressing issues of diversity, discrimination, and
inclusion in our complex, changing global society.

As can be seen in Figure 8.12, opportunities for diversity learning among
faculty, staff, students, and administrators are more common at larger insti-
tutions. With respect to diversity training and education programs for stu-
dents, very large institutions reported the most (60 percent), followed by
large (51 percent), medium (48 percent), and small (45 percent). Similar
trends exist with respect to a diversity course requirement, with very large
institutions reporting the highest number (49 percent), followed by large (40
percent), medium (37 percent), and small (35 percent). Very large institutions
also outpaced smaller schools with respect to training and education
resources for faculty, staff, and senior administrators.
Summary of Diversity Training and Education Programs
Diversity training and education programs are vital to an institutions diver-
sity strategy and represent an opportunity to inform and educate all members
of the campus community. The purpose of diversity training and educational
platforms is not only to increase awareness of the experiences and cultural
traditions of different groups, but also to develop and enhance communica-
tion abilities, perspective taking, empathy, and conict resolution skills.
Although these types of programs do not offer a panacea for conicts and
exclusion, they can enhance awareness and help members of the campus
community engage positively and constructively on issues of difference.
FIGURE 8.12
Diversity-Themed Training and Education Systems by Institutional Size
Diversity training and education programs still have a way to go before

they become an accepted and pervasive aspect of higher education, particu-
larly at small, private institutions. The survey also clearly demonstrated that
although institutions are perfectly capable of implementing diversity pro-
grams for students and staff, they are less interested in pursuing programs
for faculty and administrators. In the authors direct exchanges with senior
administrators and faculty members, it often came down to the fact that
administrators and faculty do not feel that they need training or education
in diversity issues. But given the number of crisis incidents and cheetah
responses that trace their origins to administrators and faculty, one begs to
differ. One also has to ask what kind of message it sends to staff and students
if those who sanction and implement diversity training and education pro-
grams are somehow automatically exempt from participating in them.
The benets of a well-designed diversity education program can be felt
almost immediately within a campus community. By enhancing their aware-
ness and pedagogical skills, diversity programs help faculty become more
aware of the biases and assumptions that exert an unseen and negative inu-
ence on their interactions with students. As academic institutions become
more diverse, it is in the best interest of all members of the campus commu-
nity that not just students and staff, but also faculty and administrators,
demonstrate their appreciation of the benets of diversity. In the end, it is
as much about effective teaching as making students feel included, and this
process requires a long-term commitment to community building and inclu-
sion by the institution.
For staff and administrators, diversity education programs help ensure
that an inclusive climate extends beyond the classroom and into all spheres
of campus life. Whether in the nancial aid ofce, residence hall, or dining
facility, students should feel they are in a supportive, welcoming environ-
ment. And as mentioned earlier, it is not enough for an institution to talk
the talk by offering diversity education and learning opportunities to stu-
dents only. If the administrators and staff are going to deploy diversity
resources, they need to walk the walk. Diversity training programs not
only help staff, administrators, and faculty demonstrate their commitment
to diversity, but then manifest their commitment in subsequent leadership
decisions, whether in regard to hiring, funding new initiatives, fund-raising,
or supervising subordinates. When diversity training is successful, employee
commitment and motivation rises, which translates into fewer resources
being spent on grievances and employee turnover.
ACT IVAT IN G T H E DI VE R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U RN EY 399
Given our changing world, every college student should learn about
diversity issues as part of their undergraduate curriculum. Although some
colleges and universities have developed courses and requirements to address
issues of diversity in their core curriculum, many have not. With so many of
our students still coming to higher education from segregated backgrounds,
and with very little exposure to racial and ethnic diversity prior to college,
diversity training and learning programs are essential to preparing them for
the future.
Capability 5: Faculty Diversication Systems

Because of the critical role of faculty in advancing an institutions core edu-
cational mission, this study delved deeply into the capacity and commitment
of institutions to advancing their faculty diversity agenda. Among the most
pressing issues in higher education today are the recruitment and retention
of faculty of color and the recruitment of women in the science, technology,
engineering, and math elds. These dual and related challenges continue to
confront many institutions even as more and more historically underrepre-
sented minorities and women obtain advanced degrees.
A recent study concludes that faculty of color make up less than 20
percent of total full-time faculty nationally, and fewer than 12 percent of full
professors in the United States (C. S. V. Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008).
In their review of two decades of data, Turner and associates have demon-
strated that, although student diversity efforts have made progress, efforts to
diversify our faculty ranks have not fared as well. This survey sought to assess
four key practices that are integral to the recruitment and retention of faculty
members of color. Three of the items surveyed were related to recruitment,
and one was related to retention. With regard to recruitment, respondents
were asked whether key diversity personnel sat on search committees to
ensure a diverse perspective, whether the institution had a formal minority
or diversity faculty recruitment initiative, and whether resources were avail-
able to seed or partner with academic departments to encourage the develop-
ment of diverse faculty lines. The retention of faculty of color was addressed
by a question that probed whether key diversity personnel served as integral
members of the institutions tenure and promotion process.
Of the four indicators probed, institutions reported the highest level of
commitment with respect to diversifying their search committees. Mean-
while, they evinced the lowest level of commitment to including diverse
400 W H AT I S S TR AT EG IC DI V E R S IT Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
representation in the tenure and promotion process. Given the immensity

of this challenge, viable solutions must be aggressive and multipronged. Fig-
ures 8.13 through 8.15 illustrate the extent to which colleges and universities
in the sample are addressing this challenge. Figure 8.13 depicts the ndings
for the aggregate sample. Figures 8.14 and 8.15 depict results by public versus
private designation and institutional size.

As can be seen in Figure 8.13, institutions have made attempts to diversify
search committees and offer formal recruitment initiatives much more often
than seeding new faculty lines or ensuring diverse representation on tenure
review committees. Several summary points are offered.
Although a slight majority of respondents (55 percent) reported that key
diversity personnel sit on search committees to ensure a diverse perspective,
less than half (45 percent) identied a formal minority or diversity faculty
recruitment initiative on their campus. Institutions reported even fewer
resources dedicated to partnering with academic departments on new faculty
lines, with only one-third of respondents (33 percent) indicating the exis-
tence of such initiatives. Meanwhile, only 11 percent reported that key diver-
sity staff members are an integral component of the tenure and promotion
process at their institutions.
When examined across the various faculty diversication systems, a
small proportion of institutions (23 percent) reported having both a formal
minority faculty diversication initiative and key diversity personnel sitting
on search committees to ensure a diversity perspective. Ten percent of insti-
tutions reported jointly leveraging three of the four faculty diversication
systems featured in the survey: key diversity personnel on search committees,
a formal minority or diversity faculty recruitment initiative, and the avail-
ability of resources to seed or partner with academic departments on new
faculty lines. Only 3 percent of institutions reported combined the three
preceding capabilities with efforts to include a key diversity staff member as
an integral part of the tenure and promotion process.

Figure 8.14 reveals the differences in faculty recruitment and retention efforts
by public and private institutions. Public institutions were much more likely
than private institutions to indicate the presence of key diversity personnel
on search committees (59 to 47 percent). Public institutions were also more
FIGURE 8.13
Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability
FIGURE 8.14
Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability Public Versus Private
AC T I VAT IN G T H E DI VE RS I T Y C H A N G E J O U R N EY 403
likely than private to have a formal recruitment initiative targeting diverse

faculty (49 to 39 percent). Roughly one-third of both public and private
institutions reported that their institutions offered resources to seed or part-
ner with academic units to spur new faculty lines (34 and 31 percent, respec-
tively). Also, similarly low proportions of public and private institutions
indicated that key diversity staff were integral to their tenure and promotion
processes, with only about 1 in 10 responding afrmatively (12 and 10 per-
cent, respectively).

Findings regarding faculty diversity initiatives by size are summarized in Figure
8.15. Roughly half of all small, medium, and large institutions reported having
key diversity personnel sit on search committees (51, 51, and 55 percent, re-
spectively). This proportion was somewhat higher at very large institutions,
with three-fths (60 percent) reporting positively. Similar proportions were
reported for all of the groups in relation to the existence of institutional
resources to seed or partner with academic departments on new faculty lines,
with roughly one-third of all the institutions reporting these initiatives. Like-
wise, similar proportions were reported for all of the groups in relation to the
presence of key diversity staff in the tenure and promotion process at their
institutions, with roughly 1 in 10 (9 to 12 percent) reporting this capability.
With respect to institutional size, the greatest variation occurred on the
question assessing the presence of a formal minority or diversity faculty
recruitment initiative. Here, the proportion of institutions reporting this
capability increased substantially as institutional size increased. Although
one-third (33 percent) of small institutions reported afrmatively, 38 percent
of medium, 49 percent of large, and 56 percent of very large institutions
deploy diversity recruitment initiatives.
Summary of Faculty Diversication Systems
This issue is of special signicance when one considers the shifting demo-
graphics of our nation and the growing numbers of people of color and
women in academia. To meet the educational needs of an increasingly
diverse student body, and to fuel the engine of innovation that their new
perspectives bring to the classroom, colleges and universities will have to
adapt. One key adaptation will be to recruit the faculty and administrative
leaders of tomorrow from among the best and brightest historically under-
represented students of today. So, what can colleges and universities do to
more positively affect this issue?
FIGURE 8.15
Recruitment and Retention of Diverse Faculty Capability by Institutional Size
ACT IVAT IN G T H E D I VE R S IT Y C HA NG E J OU RN EY 405
Throughout the authors eld visits and interviews, one concern

emerged repeatedly: the dearth of effective recruitment and retention prac-
tices. This issue has been widely studied (C. S. V. Turner, Gonzalez, &
Wood, 2008). Thankfully, a number of strategies have emerged to aid in the
recruitment and retention of talented and committed faculty of color. As
discussed in previous chapters, there is little efcacy in seeking to promote a
diverse hire if the applicant pool lacks diversity. Many senior leaders have
begun to recognize that they must initiate their efforts at the ground level.
These efforts include helping to create proactive faculty recruitment policies,
ensuring that search committees are diverse, and factoring a wide array of
important considerations into hiring and promotion policies. Campuses can
create incentives for hiring faculty who are engaged in research that advances
the understanding of issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and multiculturalism,
as well as research that examines the socioeconomic or political challenges of
disadvantaged groups in areas such as community development, public
health, urban affairs, social justice, and educational reform. Departments
and search committees can also consider a candidates demonstrated com-
mitment to issues of social, educational, and economic justice as evidenced
by his or her record of teaching and public service. A department may con-
sider such criteria in its evaluation of current faculty for promotion and
advancement, and may provide release time or development resources for
faculty who are active in research, teaching, or service that promotes equal
access for underrepresented students or that enhances our understanding of
the dynamics of race and gender in our society.
Summary
To meet the challenge of diversity, people often ask, Why havent we been
able to successfully meet our diversity goals? If this survey revealed just one
overriding lesson, it is the need for senior leaders to do more than talk the
talk; they need to walk the walk. Assessing and revising weak strategic
diversity policies and programs is only one part of the puzzle and usually the
easiest piece to correct. But, as with so many aspects of life, actions speak
louder than words. The change processes pursued by administrators and
faculty can help set the stage for students and staff. Although many campuses
are making headway, building general capabilities to advance their diversity
goals, more robust and intentional resources are necessary if they are to
move forward. Passive policies that rely on good intentions are not enough;
contemporary biases are expressed largely unintentionally. It is therefore nec-

essary to structure policies and programs in ways that hold people and insti-
tutions accountable while providing an accurate assessment of how well these
programs and policies work over time.
This study revealed that most colleges and universities are deploying
general and diffuse diversity technologies, mentioning diversity in campus
strategic plans, and providing general updates on diversity efforts to senior
administrators and boards. This is both good and necessary; if we are to
make any signicant headway, we must infuse diversity into the embodied
and symbolic leadership that frames the mission and educational vision of
an academic institution. The challenge is in working to avoid relegating
diversity to the sidelines, as some tacked-on or secondary priority. Although
our goal as a postsecondary knowledge industry is to move toward a more
integrated approach to diversity planning and implementation, the reality is
that many institutions are not ready for this more sophisticated and intensive
undertaking. Across all ve dimensions of capacity examined in this chapter,
it was obvious that institutions were slow to embrace the most robust tech-
niques for driving diversity. To succeed, institutions must consider working
toward dedicated centralized and decentralized diversity plans, rigorous
scorecards, and other tools that connect diversity progress to merit review
and the nancial systems of the institution.
From the introduction of this book to this penultimate chapter, the
author has emphasized that strategic diversity leadership is about simultane-
ously creating and assessing diversity change. The institution must be ready
and willing to work across a number of challenging dimensions: creating a
more diverse educational environment, infusing diversity into the curricu-
lum, creating a more supportive and engaged campus environment, and
engaging in diversity-themed research and scholarship. Sadly, many senior
leaders have still not yet adopted the types of strategic planning and change
management technologies that have proven successful at our nations leading
colleges and universities. The national survey showed that whatever they
may say about the importance of diversity and inclusion, small and private
institutions have not made as strong a commitment to diversity as their
larger, public colleagues. It is never too late, however, and both the theoreti-
cal and practical guidelines offered in previous chapters are meant to provide
positive encouragement to whatever steps these schools might contemplate.
Unfortunately, the diversity equation in the United States is such that
there are no quick xes. Improving the campus climate for underrepresented
students, and the learning environment for all students, requires dedicated
ACT IVAT IN G T H E D I V E R S IT Y C HA N G E J O U R N EY 407
leadership from senior administrators and policies and programs that work.
Senior leaders must be committed to moving past cheetah moments and
toward building diversity capacity over the long haul. The process is slow,
painstaking, incremental, and evolving, but when done well, leads to deep,
even transformational change in the culture of the campus community.
Note
1. Of the 2,513 ofcers contacted, 772 individuals responded, a 31 percent response rate.
The 772 responses were used to create this national context of strategic diversity leadership
capabilities.
9
DIVERSITY COMMITTEES,
COMMISSIONS, AND TASK FORCES
When the Commission attempted to use the report to promote institu-

tional change, however, Commission members found few institutional
leaders ready to address its challenges. While the Commission could
usefully pinpoint problems, it was not positioned to transform information
into action. It became clear to Professors Sturm and Kessler-Harris that
data alone was insufcient to generate an institutional commitment to
changing racial and gender demographics at Columbia.
Freudenberger, Howard, Jauregui, & Sturm (2009)
A
s discussed in Chapter 4s treatment of the Diversity Crisis Model,
many institutional leaders look to diversity committees, commis-
sions, and task forces as a way of showing commitment to strategic
diversity planning. However, as this passage from Doing Diversity in Higher
Education: Faculty Leaders Share Challenges and Strategies reveals, these efforts
can be woefully ineffective when not supported by senior leadership and a
true institutional commitment to producing results (Freudenberger et al.,
2009).
It is therefore tting to conclude Strategic Diversity Leadership by focus-
ing on diversity committees as an important mechanism for activating a
cohesive, effective, and shared diversity agenda. Diversity committees are
an important aspect of an institutions formal diversity infrastructure and a
potentially powerful platform for thinking strategically and raising questions,
even if they are sometimes challenged in leading strategic diversity change
efforts (Cox, 2001; Freudenberger et al., 2009; Maltbia & Power, 2009).
Regardless of an institutions size, diversity committees can offer an impor-
tant lateral component of its diversity infrastructure.
408
D I V E R S I TY CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA S K FO R C E S 409
This chapter offers an organizing framework for developing diversity

committees and then addresses the numerous pitfalls that can befall them.
The chapter concludes by highlighting several key challenges that confront
institutional leaders, including how to establish denitions and missions,
how to nominate members and assign roles, and how to set the terms of
service.
Diversity Committees in Higher Education

For the sake of clarity, a diversity committee can refer to a wide variety of
commissions, councils, and task forces. Another popular term is diversity
action groups, which implies that the group will not only develop strategy,
but also work toward action and change (Iverson, 2007).
A quick Google search using the terms diversity, committee, and higher
education brings up thousands of links illustrating the breadth of the diver-
sity committee infrastructure, not only in higher education, but across other
organizational sectors. Indeed, diversity committees have become ubiquitous
and many higher education institutions have one if not several diversity
committees. Table 9.1 provides a small sample of institutions with one or
more diversity committees.
Dening Diversity Committees

The gamut of titles ranges from the simpleCommission on the Status
of Womento the complex, including the Advisory Committee to the
President on Diversity, Intergroup Relations, and Campus Community,
and the Diversity Affairs Committee of the Department of Human
Resources. But whatever its size or structural location within an institution,
a diversity committee can be characterized as a group of diversity stakeholders
who have formally joined forces to shape and in some instances implement a
shared plan for the future relative to diversity in a particular organizational
context.
As a collective, a diversity committee can play a lead role partnering
with the chief diversity ofcer (CDO), president, provost, faculty leaders,
students, diversity champions, alumni, boards of directors, and others in
moving the institutional diversity agenda forward. Far from seeking solu-
tions on their own, diversity committees provide another means for strategic
diversity leaders to use in integrating their diversity efforts within and across
TAB LE 9 .1
Sample of Institutions With One or More Diversity Committees
Cal State San Bernardino Stanford University
Carleton College State University of New York
Delaware County Community College Texas Tech University
Florida Atlantic University The Peabody Institute of Johns
Department of Human Resources Hopkins University
Florida Gulf Coast University University of CaliforniaLos Angeles
Fullerton College University of Chicago
Grinnell College University of Connecticut
Hampshire College University of Dayton
Iowa State University University of Illinois
Kansas State University University of Illinois Chicago
Kenyon College University of Iowa
Louisiana State University University of Kentucky
Loyola College University of Louisiana at Monroe
Miami University University of Michigan
Michigan State University University of Minnesota
Minnesota State System of Colleges University of Oregon
and Universities University of Southern Indiana
Missouri State University University of Tennessee
North Hampton Community College University of Texas Arlington
Northwestern University University of Tulsa Law School
Ohio State University University of Washington
Ohio University University of Wisconsin
Pacic University Villanova University
Pamona College Wellesley College
Pennsylvania State University West Virginia University
Pine Technical College Westmont College
Purdue University Williams College
Rochester University Yale School of Public Health
Sinclair Community College
the institution. When designed effectively, diversity committees bring indi-

viduals with diverse skills, perspectives, and day-to-day role responsibilities
into an institutions diversity agenda in meaningful ways.
In the shared governance environment of higher education, diversity
committees are a key part of the decision-making process. However, diversity
committees have an associated time and cost, and should therefore only be
established if they can add value to the decision-making process. Effective
D I V E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA SK FO R C E S 411
diversity committees with a clear mission afford the opportunity for broader
ownership of the diversity agenda across the campus community.
Typically, diversity committees struggle with the same issues that challenge
the effectiveness of other types of committees. These challenges include the
lack of a clear directive and long-term agenda; reliance on incomplete informa-
tion and anecdotes; poorly constructed rosters; and the failure to establish
whether recommended diversity initiatives are the purview of the administra-
tion, faculty members, or the committee itself (Cox, 2001; Maltbia & Power,
2009). This chapter focuses on diversity committees as an important counter-
part to the work of CDOs and as a stand-alone entity that can provide the
type of collaborative thinking that is so essential to developing diversity plans,
strategies, and initiatives. Box 9.1 provides an in-depth description of how a
diversity committee and CDO partnered to create a new faculty diversity strat-
egy and implementation plan at Columbia University.
BOX 9.1
A Case Study of Strategic Diversity Leadership,
the Role of Diversity Committees, and CDO
Leadership at Columbia University
Strategic Diversity Leadership in Action: The Faculty Diversity

Initiative at Columbia University
A powerful example of strategic diversity leadership took place at Columbia Univer-
sity as a small group of committed faculty led an impressive array of initiatives to
drive faculty diversity.
Background of the Challenge

In 2004 a diverse group of faculty members came together to address the lack of
faculty diversity. They were led by two faculty members who had been involved with
the University Senates Commission on the Status of Women, which in 2001 issued
a report, The Advancement of Women Through the Academic Ranks of the Columbia
University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Where are the Leaks in the
Pipeline?
The data in the report revealed that except in a few places in the humanities,
women and historically underrepresented minority faculty members were not present
on the faculty in numbers reecting their availability in the talent pool. Unfortunately,
(continues)
the committees attempt to use the report to drive a serious commitment to address-
ing racial and gender inequity made little progress. Although the Commission was
an important tool for elevating the issues, it was not an appropriate structure to lead
institutional movement on this very difcult diversity challenge.
The Diversity DNA of institutional politics, lack of senior leadership support, and
an absence of nancial resources and integrated diversity point leadership served to
stymie the committees work at the stage of elevating the issues and reporting on
the challenge. Fortunately, as noted in Chapter 4, an institutions Diversity DNA can
shift, particularly when new senior leadership seeks to move the diversity agenda in
a new direction.
The Columbia University Faculty Diversity Initiative

The potential to engage in a more powerful faculty diversity effort shifted with the
arrival of President Lee C. Bollinger. Thanks to his work at the University of Michigan
and active role during the Supreme Court cases, President Bollinger had already
made a high-prole commitment to diversity. At Columbia he helped inspire a core
group of committed faculty to believe that a new conversation on faculty diversity
was possible. The group then began to work in a politically nuanced and collegial
way, realizing that the Diversity DNA of the institution had changed. Using the original
faculty diversity report as a platform to open discussions, a small group of change
leaders ultimately convinced senior administrators to invest $15 million into a new
multidimensional faculty diversication initiative.
The components of this diversity initiative included appointing a faculty member
to a new vice provost level CDO role, establishing a presidential advisory commission
on diversity, establishing an eight-gure strategic faculty hiring fund, educating
search committee members, initiating dual career hiring initiatives, strengthening
child and family services to promote faculty retention, and creating institutional
learning forums designed to engage academic departments in the challenges and
opportunities of faculty diversication.
Building Capacity to Lead Change

Several dynamics helped this group move its agenda forward. First, the change lead-
ers at the center of the effort were primarily senior faculty leaders who were well
respected on campus. The group included leaders from women and gender studies,
African American studies, the biology department, the cochair of the Commission on
the Status of Women, and a prominent legal scholar well known for work on law and
sexuality. The group was intentionally designed to include individuals viewed as
widely credible, sensible on issues of diversity, and deeply committed to the long-
term academic excellence of the institution.
(continues)
D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK FO R C E S 413
(continued)
Also important to their success was the presence of CDO point leadership. Early
on, the core change team recommended for the appointment of a vice provost for
diversity initiatives to serve as CDO. The position operated in a collaborative ofcer
model, a role explored in detail in the companion volume to this book. The vice
provost was responsible for supervising an executive assistant and graduate student,
and reporting to the provost and president.
The role was located in the symbolic leadership hub of the institution in Low
Library, which fostered visibility and informal interaction between the CDO and other
senior leaders. From the beginning, powerful strategic relationships were built
between the CDO and the Ofce of Institutional Research, University Counsel, Human
Resource Units, and the Ofce of Equal Opportunity and Afrmative Action.
Professor Jean Howard was rst to hold the position. Because the position was
centered on the faculty diversity challenge, the core group of change leaders was
emphatic that only a faculty member rising from the Columbia University ranks would
have the institutional knowledge, political capital, and academic understanding to
lead successfully. Howard was a noted scholar and faculty member with twenty
years experience. She had served as department director of the Institute for
Research on Women and Gender, and had chaired the original commission that
produced the pipeline report. Most vitally, she enjoyed the trust of her faculty peers.
The vice provost for diversity role served as a catalyst for change that operated
at the intersection of individual, group, and institutional systems. The role derived its
authority by placing a tenured faculty member with political capital in a central loca-
tion in senior administration, and then granting the ofcer with the institutional and
nancial resources to provide faculty with the tools to move their institutional agenda
forward. A key tactic of the vice provost was to focus on identifying and overcoming
barriers to faculty diversication in a very clear and linear fashion. Clearly, the barri-
ers to diversity also have a deleterious effect on other areas of the institution in terms
of general recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, and faculty mentoring. As a
result, this group focuses its energy in areas where momentum for change has the
potential to gain traction. Finally, this group has used data to sway support, creating
clarity around the issues, and expanding its network of change agents across cam-
pus. Data is generated to help search committees understand the current realities of
the campus, the search process, and other dynamics that may assist in their work.
Source: Freudenberger et al., 2009.
An Organizing Framework
Effective diversity committees can be one of the most important forces work-
ing at the heart of an institutions diversity agenda. Committee work can
and should be an extremely rewarding experience to both the individual and

the organization. The objectives of a committee may be clear and concise,
but as with any group of leaders trying to achieve a common goal, many
other factors determine whether the committee will in fact succeed. As with
other issues of organizational design, there are no set universal models of
successful committee implementation. Unless their role has been poorly
articulated, diversity committees are important tools for knitting the lattice
of the lateral diversity infrastructure across the white space that exists
between units on the formal organizational chart. A well-constructed com-
mittee can provide clear thinking, operational leadership, political capital,
and a depth of knowledge about diversity best practices, provided it enjoys
the material commitment of senior leaders.
As outlined in Table 9.2, ve contingencies must be resolved when
designing diversity committees. First, what will be the groups working
denition of diversity? Second, what is the role responsibility of the commit-
tee: strategy, implementation, or a mix of the two? Third, what is the scope
of the committees work? Plotting its scope requires entertaining its target in
terms of students, faculty, and staff, and deciding whether it operates in a
specic unit context or as a campus-wide group. Fourth, what is the mem-
bership of the committee? And fth, how long should the committees man-
date last? In other words, should it be permanent or nite?
Although these ve contingencies are listed in linear order, the develop-
ment of the campus diversity committee is an organic process that must be
guided by the strategic diversity agenda. Indeed, the rst three contingencies
are closely related to one another and in many ways fashion the strategic
diversity platform of the committee, a point explored in the discussion of
the Chief Diversity Ofcer Development Framework in The Chief Diversity
Ofcer. These three dimensions shape committee membership and the per-
manence of the group. The following discussion presents these ve contin-
gencies as essential elements for developing an institutions lateral diversity
infrastructure.
Dening Diversity
In thinking about creating a diversity committee, institutional leaders must
rst dene diversity. This inevitably begins with how the committee will
dene diversity, returning to themes explored throughout this book and
D IV ER S I TY C O M M I T T E E S , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC ES 415
TAB LE 9. 2
Diversity Committee Design Contingencies
Contingencies Key Questions
Dening Diversity How is the diversity idea dened within the context of the
committees work?
Is the committee focused on a particular diversity topic, or
is the focus on diversity issues broadly dened?
Committee Scope Does the committee operate at the student, faculty, staff,
or administrative level? Or across a combination of levels?
Is the group focused on a particular area of the institution,
or does it operate in a specic part of the organizations
structure?
Committee Role What is the action orientation of the committee?
Responsibility Does it focus on strategic thinking and making
recommendations, implementing programs and initiatives,
or a combination of both?
Permanence of the Is the group a standing or ad-hoc diversity group?
Group
Membership Does senior leadership appoint members?
Is it a formal shared governance committee?
Is representation drawn from different campus
communities?
What are the relevant skills and perspectives required for
the committee?
the challenge of dening diversity from an individual, organizational, and

capabilities perspective. Diversity committees are incredibly varied in mis-
sion, focus, and title. In many ways the challenges of framing the role of the
campus diversity committee is remarkably similar to the challenges associ-
ated with dening diversity and creating the CDO role.
A Clear Denition of Diversity

Too often campus diversity committees are stymied because leadership fails
to provide a clear denition of diversity and the committee is unable to
clarify what diversity means in the context of its work as a group. An unclear
diversity denition muddles the mission of the committee and can stall a
movement unless it is handled quickly and early. It is important to remem-
ber when dening diversity that the meaning often depends on the context
in which it is used. Workplace diversity may lead us to think about the variety
of individual communication styles and cultures within the workplace, fos-
tering a discussion of the Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Model of
organizational diversity. Diversity training and leadership development may
bring to mind human resource workshops aimed at educating people about
diversity. Increasing diversity may invoke demographic issues and equal
employment opportunity legislation, topics explored by the Afrmative
Action and Equity Model, or the Learning, Diversity, and Research Model.
Establishing the denition and mission of the group can be difcult
because so many diversity topics are part of the strategic diversity leadership
paradigm. The issues of strategic diversity leadership include questions of
access and equity, improving campus climate, fund-raising for diversity, man-
aging the diversity brand, and engaging diverse alumni. As a result, many
committees should consider organizing themselves into subcommittees,
allowing for the group to focus specically on different aspects of the institu-
tions diversity agenda. Box 9.2 provides a description of diversity subcom-
mittee structure found at an institution on the West coast.
BOX 9.2
A Diversity Subcommittee Structure at a Midsized Private
University on the West Coast
If its diversity committee is large enough, an institution might consider establishing

subcommittees that take on different areas of responsibility as they relate to various
aspects of the strategic diversity agenda. These subcommittees might focus on fac-
ulty diversity, campus climate, intergroup relations, precollege initiatives, or any
number of different diversity goals. A private university on the West coast provides
the following subcommittee structure to further its diversity committees efforts:
The Alumni and Community Outreach Subcommittee seeks to engage alumni

and community partners in the universitys diversity and inclusion initiatives,
and, when possible, to involve them directly in the planning and implementa-
tion of campus events and activities.
(continues)
D I V E R SI TY CO MM IT TE ES , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O RC E S 417
(continued)
The Campus Climate Subcommittee seeks to assess the campus environ-
ment in terms of its attitudes, perceptions, symbols, and institutional practices
as they relate to diversity and inclusion, and to report how they affect the
universitys intention to develop an inclusive culture.
The Curriculum Development Subcommittee seeks to educate and assist fac-
ulty in their efforts to embed diversity and inclusion in the curriculum and
cocurriculum.
The Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee seeks to
support the University in its commitment to recruit, hire, develop and retain
the best possible staff and faculty and ensure the welfare of the overall
community.
The Multicultural Programming Subcommittee seeks to offer a broad base
of cultural experiences within the institutional community. Programs include
examining cross-cultural communication styles, as well as practices that high-
light the spectrum of cultural richness.
The Student Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee seeks to examine
recruitment and retention practices and how they affect the overall commit-
ment to diversity and excellence.
The committee chair should determine the number of diversity-themed subcommit-

tees based on the mission of the group and the total number of members assigned to
the committee. Committee leaders should also weigh the benets of a subcommittee
structure against its additional complexity. If a group does not have a number of
good subcommittee chairpersons, the subcommittee structure may prove ineffective.
Diversity or Social Identity Committees

Some diversity committees dene their work broadly, whereas others focus
their efforts in a more tailored fashion that focuses on the needs of a particu-
lar social identity group or issue. Those committees focusing on an inte-
grated approach to diversity are increasingly grappling with the process of
embedding a multifaceted diversity agenda in the same committee. Framing
a committees work as diverse if its sole focus is on the needs of a single
identity group often hinders action, especially if the committee is composed
of individuals interested in engaging multiple diversity groups and issues.
One of the rst action steps for creating an integrated or social identity
themed committee is to develop a rationale statement that inspires action.
At Pomona College, the president decided to use a newly created presi-
dential diversity advisory as a way of integrating the institutional diversity
agenda across a number of disparate conversations. It is clear from a Presi-

dential Advisory Committee Statement that this institution is seeking ways
to connect issues of race and ethnicity, gender equity, LGBT issues, campus
climate, and the educational rationale for diversity. Box 9.3 provides an
excerpt from Pomonas Diversity Statement.
BOX 9.3
Pomona College Presidential Advisory
Committee on Diversity Statement
The Presidents Advisory Committee on Diversity at Pomona College represents a

new and unique undertaking for the college, one that brings together all its various
campus constituencies to study and address the matter of diversity on the campus.
Traditionally, the college had approached matters of diversity by attempting to
expand the number of historically underrepresented faculty and students. Over the
years, various programs and efforts have been implemented by the administration,
the faculty and the ofce of admissions to further these objectives.
As a premier educational institution in the United States, Pomona College seeks
to educate and prepare students to meet the present and future challenges as respon-
sible citizens of this nation and as members of a global community. To ensure that
goal, it is important that our own community mirror the society and world in which
students will live and function. The College has the obligation to lead by example, to
create the conditions and climate where people of different backgrounds, genders,
cultures, races/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and national origin can constructively
engage each other in a climate free of discrimination and prejudice of any kind.
Education without diversity would be a failed enterprise. Diversity therefore should
not simply be a slogan, but is at the core of our educational mission.
The programs we developed to achieve these goals occurred largely in isolation,
with little exchange of information, or actual cooperation between the various cam-
pus entities charged with this responsibility. The campus-wide Irvine initiative, con-
versations within the various ethnic studies departments and the restructuring of the
faculty recruitment plan in the aftermath of the Michigan case compelled us to rethink
how we approached diversity. Out of these discussions, it became clear that in order
to fully address and grapple with diversity, the entire campus community faculty,
students, staff and alumni had to be engaged and drawn into the discussion. More-
over, our administrative approach largely isolated to faculty, student recruitment and
several outreach programs had to be expanded to include representation from all
sectors of the campus community. The president accepted the recommendation of
(continues)
D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C O M MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK F O R C E S 419
(continued)
these committees and the faculty, resulting in the Presidents Advisory Committee
on Diversity.
The committee has been charged by the president to monitor all aspects of
institutional diversity pertaining to faculty, students and staff. . . . That charge
includes, at a minimum, providing the community with reports on the status of diver-
sity and advising the President on strategies to enhance diversity on the campus
(Faculty Hand Book, p. 18).
In keeping with its charge, the committee began to gather information regarding
the state of diversity on the campus. This has meant attempting to decipher data on
faculty, students and the various staff categories and develop a comprehensive view
of diversity on campus. In addition, we have also been collecting information on the
various programs and initiatives which the college has implemented over the years.
This has not been as simple as it may sound since many of these programs and
activities are dispersed throughout different campus ofces, departments or pro-
grams. The different constituencies represented on the committee have also met
independently and established priorities that we have discussed as a group. A list of
concerns and areas that require attention is beginning to emerge.
One of our rst recommendations was to establish a Pomona College Diversity
web page where we could centralize information and share with the campus commu-
nity the material we have gathered. The only way in which this committee can effec-
tively implement its charge is by involving the campus community, [and] to that end
we welcome your comments and suggestions.
Source: Downloaded August 1, 2011, from www.pomona.edu/about/diversity/committee
statement.aspx
Although framing their committees work in very broad terms as diver-

sity themed, too many institutions continue to focus almost exclusively on
issues of race and ethnicity. This approach should be avoided. If a committee
is to have a specic identity focus, this focus should be reected in the
committees mission and charter and not presented as a broad sweeping
diversity committee. Some common examples of single-identity diversity
committees include those focused on race and ethnicity, gender equity,
LGBT, disability, and national origin. The goal of single-identity diversity
committees is to dive deeply into the specic needs of a particular group,
whereas a multicultural committee often engages diversity issues in a more
broadly dened manner.
Some institutions deploy multiple committees, each with a single iden-
tity focus. This is the case at a number of large research universities in partic-
ular, as they often have a number of different diversity committees focused
on the issues of different identity groups. At Penn State University, the

Commission on Racial/Ethnic Diversity focuses on the issues of ethnic and
racial minorities, and the Commission for Women and the Commission on
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equity Issues focus on the unique
needs of women and members of the LGBT community, respectively.
Although an infrastructure composed of multiple committees with a
single identity has some denite benets, the challenge is to nd a way to
create spaces for collaboration, alignment, and connectivity across the diver-
sity plans and efforts of the various groups. Some important techniques
might include having an executive committee composed of the various diver-
sity committee chairs, an annual joint retreat, collaborative conferences and
initiatives, and perhaps even a joint report on diversity and inclusion that is
authored every several years articulating the state of diversity on campus.
Although these coordinating structures potentially add another cumbersome
bureaucratic layer to the lateral diversity dynamics of an institution, this
structure is critical to avoiding the institutional silos that fracture diversity
discussions across different groups within the campus community.
The single identityfocused diversity committee is particularly relevant
when an institution desires to develop an in-depth understanding of a partic-
ular set of issues and build a comprehensive set of strategies designed to
address that groups concerns. This type of diversity committee is closely
related to another component of the lateral diversity infrastructure, diver-
sity afnity groups, which focus on the needs of minorities, women, and
members of the LGBT community. Although the differences between single-
identity and afnity groups are sometimes difcult to detect, they do have
important differences. Single-identity diversity committees constitute an
important structure for planning strategy and working on matters of related
policy, whereas diversity afnity groups are often more grassroots in nature,
focusing their efforts on programs and initiatives that provide ongoing
opportunities for support, outreach and engagement. Less important than
debating the differences between a committee or afnity group structure is
establishing the baseline priorities of each and organizing them for successful
action.
Although a focused conversation on the needs and strategies of a particu-
lar group are perhaps more important than ever before, these conversations
cannot take place in a vacuum. As a result, even single-identity groups must
nd a space to articulate how their issues and concerns align or depart from
those of other groups. The failure to collaborate in this way may result in
political sniping over limited resources, a lack of strategic clarity, and an

inability to offer and then nance meaningful diversity solutions.
Committee Scope: Establishing a Target or Focus for the

Committees Work
Whether focusing on a broad or narrow agenda, many committees often
address particular diversity issues at the student, faculty, or staff levels, or
focus on a particular diversity theme or challenge. For example, some com-
mittees focus their work exclusively on campus climate issues. Indeed, this
was the focus of a recent task force at a large research university in the South,
which worked to promote tolerance and foster a climate of inclusion
following a rash of racial incidents on campus.
A common agenda item for many campus diversity committees is to
focus specically on faculty diversity, and during the last 10 years numerous
institutions have launched high-prole faculty diversication committees.
Some of the nations most elite institutions, including Columbia University,
Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have all
developed faculty diversity committees to focus on a combination of race
and gender in equity in the faculty.1 At each of these institutions, the com-
bined efforts of senior leaders and faculty diversity committees ultimately
resulted in signicant institutional commitments to helping departments
diversify their faculty ranks.
At a number of large institutions, the efforts of faculty diversity commit-
tees are often supported by the National Science Foundation, specically the
Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Sci-
ence and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE) fund, which focuses on increas-
ing the number of women faculty in the science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) disciplines. Over time, the efforts of these groups often
embrace not only underrepresented minority women, but historically under-
represented minorities overall and across disciplines, extending beyond the
STEM elds. One of the lasting contributions of ADVANCE grant-funded
projects is the way that these groups have accelerated the use of certain
strategic diversity leadership techniques like campus climate and organiza-
tional satisfaction studies, faculty search committee training efforts, and the
creation of learning forums designed to discuss recruitment and retention
issues.
The benet of a more focused diversity committee is that it can tunnel
deep into a particular issue and articulate a clear course of action. Moreover,
the presence of a CDO coordinating leadership, a substantial commitment
of nancial resources, and a collegial engagement on the issues will often
lead to positive change. This was the conclusion drawn by a powerful case
study written by Freudenberger and colleagues (2009), Linking Mobiliza-
tion to Institutional Power, which explains the diversity initiative at
Columbia University summarized earlier in this chapter. Moreover, the
Columbia University case study illustrated some of the critical points made
in Chapter 4, namely that an institutions Diversity DNA must be aligned
if change is to happen. In this instance, the presence of a clear diversity
challenge, a group of committed and savvy faculty leaders poised to act, and
the arrival of a president with a high-prole commitment to diversity created
a context in which new possibilities could emerge. Absent these dynamics,
even the presence of a well-intentioned committee that produced a clear
report would not have resulted in the types of changes that prompted the
committees efforts into existence in the rst place.
Committee Role Responsibility

Crafting a meaningful denition of diversity and target focus for the commit-
tees work are two critical steps toward establishing a diversity committees
effectiveness. A related step involves senior leaders determining the general
role responsibility of the committee beyond its denition of diversity. Will
the committee operate as a strategic group, an implementation group, or as
a hybrid of the two? Failure to settle this issue can cripple a committees
work, particularly when a group has been sitting for some time and is unclear
of its overall agenda and next steps. To this end, one diversity committee
member at a small liberal arts institution in the Northeast stated:
I am not quite sure what we are supposed to do. We have developed a plan
that I feel good about, but how do we implement it? Is it our responsibil-
ity? After all even though we came up with some good strategies, we do
not supervise the admission ofce. How do we put our suggestions into
action as a committee when we do not have any budget or real administra-
tive authority? Just because the President tasked us to create a plan does
not mean we are ready to continue forward with next steps. I am just not
sure.
Senior leaders must resolve this dilemma early in the process of charging
a diversity committee, so that the group can proceed forward with con-
dence and certainty. In the authors experience, it is common for strategy-
focused committees to operate in a highly generative way, drafting a campus
D I V E R SI TY CO M M IT TE ES , C O M M I S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C E S 423
denition of diversity; developing a framework for diversity; benchmarking

their peers; establishing metrics for success; developing rst-draft recommen-
dations; and formally submitting the plan to the president, provost, or even
board of trustees for implementation.
By contrast, more implementation-focused groups tend to develop
workshops and initiatives, and play a role in monitoring diversity implemen-
tation efforts. It is worth reviewing some of the key themes associated with
both types of committees.
A Hub for Strategic Thinking

At their best, diversity committees serve as a hub of strategic thinking for
senior leaders. Strategic thinking focuses on developing unique opportunities
to create value by enabling a creative dialogue among people who can affect
the institutions future direction. Good strategic thinking uncovers opportu-
nities for creating value and challenges assumptions about how the institu-
tion should think about diversity matters, so that when the plan is created,
it targets these opportunities. Strategic thinking is a way of both dening
the fundamental assumptions and challenging conventional thinking, which
is why it is so important to have the right people serving on the committee.
Successful diversity committees should consider responding to ve key ques-
tions that have shaped much of the discussion presented throughout each
section of this book. These questions are:
1. What is our institutional denition and rationale for diversity?

2. What are the campuss strategic diversity goals?
3. How well is the institution performing on matters of diversity?
4. How can the campus broadly communicate diversity progress and
challenges across our institution?
5. Finally, what system of implementation and accountability can be
activated to ensure that diversity efforts are moving in the right direc-
tion and that many stakeholders share responsibility for success?
Campus leaders need to think of diversity committees as a critical ele-

ment of the lateral diversity infrastructure that the CDO must interface with
to be successful. In the authors research and consulting engagements, he has
found that most CDOs work in close alignment with campus diversity com-
mittees, whether serving as ex-ofcio chairs, funding the committees work,
advising their efforts or, in some instances, appointing their membership.
424 W H AT I S S TR AT E G IC DI VE RS I T Y L E A DE R S H I P ?
Many campus diversity committees with a strategic overlay are often

advisory committees to the president, provost, or board of trustees. In these
instances, the charter of the group generally focuses on providing direction
and guidance to help top leadership shepherd the campus forward on issues
of diversity.
A Working CommitteeImplementing Diversity Efforts

Some diversity committees go beyond their work as hubs of strategic diver-
sity thinking, operating as a working committee that actually implements
diversity-related programs and tasks. A common design decision for many
institutions is to have campus diversity committees report what is going on
regarding matters of diversity. These committees write regular reports and
communicate the institutions diversity and accountability progress. It is also
common for these groups to implement high-prole conferences, review
matters of formal institutional policy, and oversee the implementation of
campus climate research studies. Single-identity diversity committees often
implement diversity programs; examples include womens history month, a
conference on issues of sexual orientation, or a forum on access and disability
issues.
If a campus diversity committee is designed to have a programmatic
function, it is critical that it possess a budget and some degree of autonomy
in planning and implementing activities. Indeed, one of the best ways to
empower a diversity committee is to provide the group with authority over
key issues that affect the future of the institution. Examples include seeking
the committees input on difcult budget decisions; fostering an advisory
role with presidents, provosts, deans, and other senior leaders; and including
members of the group in other high-prole committees, such as the aca-
demic planning committee, to ensure that diversity is integrated into other
shared governance spaces and not solely in the diversity committee.
Permanence of the Group

As we have suggested throughout this discussion, diversity committees gen-
erally fall into one of two categories: impermanent or ad-hoc groups and
permanent or standing groups. When designing the lateral diversity infra-
structure of an organization, these committee structures should be viewed as
complementary design choices. Whether choosing one or both, the key is to
coordinate efforts in a way that adds the most value. Whether the group is
D IV ER S I TY C O MM IT T E E S , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C ES 425
standing or ad-hoc, focused on a campus-wide agenda or the needs of a

particular constituency, senior leaders need to design the committee so that
it can help the institution meet its diversity goals, however they are dened.
Box 9.4 offers a thumbnail sketch of several committee structures.
BOX 9.4
Diversity Committee Overview
Ad-Hoc Diversity Committee

Ad-hoc diversity committees stand just long enough to develop the campus diversity
plan or implement some specic activity like a campus climate study or targeted
report. These committees have a sunset date, although it is not uncommon for them
to evolve into more permanent elements of the campus diversity infrastructure after
they have been established.
Localized Diversity Committees

Localized diversity committees are standing structures that exist in the various
schools, colleges, and divisional areas of the institution. In this type of committee,
the business school, college of arts and sciences, and the student affairs division
have their own diversity committees that develop and implement diversity-themed
initiatives to t their particular contexts.
Diversity Point Leadership Council

The diversity point leadership council may be populated by diversity professionals or
champions from across the campus community (e.g., an assistant vice president or
associate deans council for diversity). At schools with a number of campus diversity
ofces, this may be the most appropriate structure for coordinating among diversity
professionals and others who do not occupy the same vertical infrastructure.
Executive Diversity Leadership Council

In contrast to the other diversity committees mentioned here, this standing commit-
tee features the executive leadership, including positions like the vice president for
enrollment management, vice president for administration, the chair of the faculty
senate, and leaders in student government. This may be the appropriate committee
for implementing broadly framed priorities.
Ad-Hoc Diversity Committees

Some institutions may decide to evolve an ad-hoc diversity strategy group
into a standing diversity committee assisting with implementation and advis-
ing senior leaders around a particular or general set of recommendations.
This was the case at a growing comprehensive institution in the South, where
an ad-hoc committee designated to study the campus climate eventually
morphed into a standing advisory committee to the president, developing
and generating recommendations for implementation and change. In this
instance, the president believed that the campus needed the group as a way
to engage the campus community in a process of shared decision-making
and ownership. Hence he appointed the group to offer a way of shaping and
activating the insights that emerged from the study.
Localized Diversity Committees
It is also common to distribute campus diversity committees across the vari-
ous schools and colleges of the institution. We refer to these standing groups
as localized diversity committees. This type of lateral structure is a standard
practice in corporations and at large institutions, where diversity committees
are often the backbone of the organizations formal diversity capacity. The
benet of a distributed diversity committee model is that it brings diversity
efforts closer to the school, college, or unit where the work of implementa-
tion will ultimately occur. This type of diversity structure also facilitates a
local rationale for why diversity matters in a particular context, a topic
explored in some depth in the discussion of diversity planning and imple-
mentation in the third section of this book.
Diversity Point Leadership Council
Related to the distributed diversity committee infrastructure is another type
of standing group, the diversity point leadership council. This type of
standing diversity committee is often populated by diversity professionals
or appointed diversity champions from across the campus community. For
example, a large Southwestern university had a diversity leadership council
that featured individuals from nearly every part of the campus community.
Diversity councils of this kind are common design choices for large institu-
tions that have diversity capacity distributed institution wide. They are par-
ticularly useful for creating a coordinating council at institutions where every
school or college may have an assistant or associate dean with a designated
responsibility for collaboratively advancing the diversity agenda of their
organization.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) believe that integration requires resolution

of conicts between departments through the efforts of teams and individual
leaders working both inside and outside formal channels. Diversity leaders
need to be embedded in the institution, and not simply at the top. Within
this context, diversity point leadership councils form the type of formal and
informal relationships that allow the campus community not only to resolve
conict, but to become even more tightly focused on a common agenda.
Diversity point leadership councils are benecial to CDOs as they communi-
cate what is going on within the institution. Because CDOs are often the
face of campus diversity efforts, they must not only understand the cen-
tralized campus diversity agenda, but the many programs, initiatives, and
efforts taking place institutionally.
Diversity point leadership councils enable the CDO to become
informed about what is going on within other parts of the campus commu-
nity, align distributed campus diversity capabilities to new priorities, and
engage these groups in collaborative solutions and strategies. Without regular
meetings, online social media communication strategies, and required
annual reports, it is nearly impossible to harness the energy needed to address
diversity challenges. Although this is a common design choice at large insti-
tutions, smaller institutions may nd this design choice to be even more
effective, allowing for even more alignment and strategic possibilities because
they are regularly meeting in this way.
Executive Diversity Councils

A fourth standing diversity committee less common in higher education, but
widely deployed in the corporate sector, is the executive diversity council
(Cox, 2001). This type of diversity committee features line leadership in
executive positions throughout the institution. Because of the decentralized
nature of the academy, major campus diversity initiatives always ow
through the commitment of senior leaders. Although the executive diversity
committee may be less ideal for generating the diversity strategy because of
its potential lack of expertise and the nonrepresentative nature of the group,
this structure on occasion proves ideal for implementing the campus diver-
sity plan after it has been articulated and accepted by campus leadership.
More than any other diversity committee discussed here, the presence of this
group ensures that diversity accountability resides at a level of the organiza-
tion that has the requisite authority to make decisions that will lead to
implementation.
Deans and divisional vice presidents of enrollment management, student

affairs, faculty senate leadership, student government leadership, or perhaps
the president or provosts senior cabinet could all serve in an executive diver-
sity council. An executive diversity council may work collaboratively with the
CDO, who might chair the group in an ex-ofcio capacity. If the president is
the committee chair, the CDO can function in a staff capacity to ensure that
implementing the plan receives as much attention as developing it. As the
conversation shifts from planning to implementation, this body must work
to achieve results.
Reconciling the temporary ad-hoc charge with permanent standing
committee work requires recognition of the roles the committee will play
within the institution, returning us to the question of committee role
responsibility. Will the group serve primarily as a strategy or implementation
group? The answer to this question will play a key role in determining if the
group should be an ad-hoc group or a standing group. Obviously, if the
group were to play an oversight, implementation, or continuing role, it
should serve as a permanent standing group. If the groups charge is more
nite in nature, such as developing a strategic diversity framework or plan,
then an ad-hoc structure is more tting.
Establishing the groups permanence is also determined by the presence
of other diversity capabilities on campus. What other committees, ofces,
units, or roles are engaged in similar work? Indeed, a major determinant of
the committees permanence is being able to delineate the role of the com-
mittee with respect to others engaged in similar strategic diversity leadership
efforts. This can be a sensitive topic among committee members themselves.
It has been the authors experience that many diversity champions may want
their committees to be permanent, even if the committees mission or group
target suggests that the committees tenure should be nite. For many diver-
sity champions, these committees are their primary way of remaining con-
nected to issues that they are deeply committed to addressing. If their
diversity committee is disbanded, or disbanded too early, the institution
risks losing a primary vehicle for providing formal leadership on diversity
initiatives.
Knowing When to Sunset a Diversity Committee

Although it is important to consider the concerns of diversity leaders, their
perspectives should not prevent dissolving a committee that has fullled its
mandate. On occasion it is important for one diversity committee to end so
that another can emerge in its place. One common criticism of these groups
is that they often do not result in enough change. They can create new
strategies and recommendations, but too often the recommendations sit on
a shelf. This is not the fault of committees that performed their designated
purpose of developing the strategy. At the same time, some committees may
be plagued by a number of challenges that could negatively affect any com-
mittee or working group.
Some of the challenges identied here represent important triggers that
institutions should use to potentially repurpose or disband a diversity com-
mittee that seems to have lost its way and is ineffective:
Individual committee members feel they are not meaningfully

engaged because roles are unclear or underutilized.
Committee members feel little urgency to attend meetings as no one
notices their absence.
Committee members feel lost in a big group. There is a lack of cohe-
sion and group vitality.
The staff time and material costs associated with maintaining a large
committee do not appear to produce sufcient results.
Members received insufcient or ineffective orientation.
Agendas are weak; they either lack substance or seem detached from
moving the campus diversity agenda.
There is too little opportunity for discussion and members feel bored
or frustrated.
Membership Selection
Another contingency to consider when creating an effective committee is
how best to appoint the committees membership. The optimal size of a
diversity committee is between 10 and 15 members, with no more than 20.
Committee members should be selected with the following question in
mind: What tasks are the committee responsible for and who within our
community possesses the skills and experience needed to complete these
tasks? Every effort should be made to match the needs and requirements of
the committee with the skills, knowledge, and interests of prospective com-
mittee members.
Diversity committees can be organized in a number of ways. Some can
draw representatives from campus governance groups as well as stakeholder
communities that include alumni and local community members. Others
can be appointed by senior leaders, including the president, provost, and

CDO. Box 9.5 provides an example of a shared governance group that
advises the chancellor at the University of WisconsinMadison.
BOX 9.5
Membership and Mission Charter for the Campus Diversity
and Climate Committee at the University of
WisconsinMadison
Campus Diversity & Climate Committee
Membership
The Campus Diversity and Climate Committee shall consist of the following
members:
1. The chancellor, or his/her designee, who shall cochair the committee.

2. The committee shall select a cochair from among its voting members.
3. Four faculty members appointed by the Committee on Committees.
4. Four academic staff.
5. Four students.
6. Four classied staff, two represented and two non-represented, appointed by
the chancellor after consultation with the Ofce of Classied Human
Resources, the Council for Non-represented Classied Staff, and represented
labor groups.
7. Two alumni appointed by the chancellor after consultation with the Wisconsin
Alumni Association.
8. Two community representatives appointed by the chancellor.
9. The chancellor or provost may appoint ex-ofcio nonvoting members, or the
committee may appoint consultants.
10. Faculty, staff, alumni, and community representatives shall serve three-year
staggered terms, and may be reappointed to second consecutive three-year
terms. Students shall serve renewable one-year terms.
Function
This shared governance body advises the administration, faculty, academic staff,
classied staff, and the recognized student governance organization regarding cam-
pus diversity and climate policy, striving to create an environment where each
(continues)
D IV E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O N S , A N D TA SK FO R C E S 431
(continued)
individual feels respected, valued, and supported while respecting academic freedom
and freedom of speech.
1. Provides for faculty, staff, and student participation in long-range planning.

2. Meets twice annually with the chancellor and provost to discuss policy and
progress.
3. Hears reports from groups, units, programs, and administrators.
4. Holds the annual campus-wide policy and progress forum.
5. Assists the administration in the preparation of annual reports to the UW
System, Faculty Senate, Academic Staff Assembly, the Council for Non-
represented Classied Staff, represented labor groups, and student gover-
nance body.
6. Meets periodically with deans and directors to discuss policy and progress.
7. Collaborates with other groups, programs, and units on matters of diversity
and climate.
8. Makes policy recommendations.
Source: Secretary of the Faculty Website: www.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/fpp/Chapter_
6.htm627
Balancing Power and Politics in Committee Selection

As mentioned earlier, diversity work is a full-contact sport. As a result, issues
of power and politics are always part of advancing a campus diversity agenda.
Constructing the campus diversity committee is no exception to this rule.
Table 9.3 provides tips for developing a well-balanced committee that
encompasses numerous roles and perspectives.
The committees composition helps dene the range and quality of ideas
that emerge from its meetings. For example, if the diversity committee is
composed solely of minorities, there is the risk that the committees efforts
will lack perspective and balance. The same would hold true if the commit-
tee is charged with designing a plan to address student and staff issues but
includes representatives from neither of these communities. In higher educa-
tion, where so many communities often feel a sense of responsibility for the
future success of the institution, a large committee is almost inevitable. The
author has at times consulted on committees with as many as 50 members.
One of the challenges of having a large diversity committee is that it can
be difcult to focus the conversation and bring the group to consensus.
When determining the size of the group, leaders should begin with a consid-
eration of what the group needs to accomplish and what the campus climate
TAB LE 9 .3
Criteria and Pitfalls for Developing Diversity Committees
Criteria for Candidate Consideration Pitfalls in Committee Development
Highly respected and knowledgeable Committee is too big
Personal interest in the work and a Members are too homogenous

desire to serve
Majority White candidates are
Knowledge about diversity or highly excludedcommittee becomes insular
motivated to learn about it and isolated from majority culture
Willingness and ability to commit a Committee is overrepresented by

signicant amount of time to the work diversity professionals and faculty
members with research agendas in
Brings different identities to the table these areas
in terms of race, ethnicity, gender,
sexuality, and so on Committee is overrepresented by
human resources and staff
Experienced in leading organizational
change initiatives Committee burdened by members
with no credibility on diversity issues
Source: Adapted from Cox, 2001.
is like with respect to diversity. If the institutional community is just begin-

ning the conversation, a larger committee may prove necessary to vet lots of
opinions and initiate an inclusive agenda. If the institution and potential
committee members are seasoned and experienced, the committee should
assume a more modest size.
One valuable technique to consider when appointing a committee is to
survey different communities to determine who may be best suited to serve.
Who has a good track record of serving the institutions best interests and
delivering results in a committee structure? Who has a relevant diversity
research agenda in the area of consideration? Who has the requisite political
capital with faculty, students, staff, and senior administrators, and can best
assist with implementation?
The Diversity Committee Chair
The committee chair should be a respected member of the campus commu-
nity and someone with impeccable qualities, whether as a full-time adminis-
trator, faculty, or staff member. For example, a tenured faculty member with
D IV ER S I TY C O MM IT T E E S , C O M MI S S IO N S , A N D TA S K F O R C ES 433
a distinguished research record on diversity issues, who also has a track

record as a successful administrator, constitutes an ideal candidate. As
Columbia University illustrates, the power of faculty leadership in doing
diversity cannot be underestimated (Freudenberger et al., 2009). This helps
ensure that the leadership of the committee is in sync with the culture of the
institution as a whole and that the chair has the personal capital to serve as
a catalyst of new diversity possibilities (Freudenberger et al., 2009).
Beyond this very general description, in seeking an effective chair,
senior leadership should look for several qualications: (a) proven leader-
ship and social skills that are essential to keeping a group of experienced
and passionate voices on course, (b) cultural knowledge of the institution
and how committee work gets done, (c) content knowledge and experience
relevant to diversity issues, (d) the courage to ask hard questions of senior
leadership about the extent to which they are committed to implementing
the committees recommendations, and (e) the ability to accomplish proj-
ects on time.
On this last point, an effective diversity committee chair must focus on
tapping the potential energy of the group. The diversity committee chair
must be able to collaborate and motivate rather than berate and belittle. Box
9.6 provides several recommendations that diversity committee chairs can
implement to enhance member effectiveness. Finally, the chair should be
willing to relinquish some formal authority when necessary to advance the
committees success.
BOX 9.6
Practices to Enhance Committee Member Effectiveness
Provide an orientation for new committee members that walks them through
the charter of the group.
Provide all diversity reports to each committee member to ensure that they
have the most accurate information possible.
Make sure that committee members receive an agenda in advance of meetings
and have all of the information they will need to complete their work.
Provide regular and appropriate recognition to active committee members.
The chair should also seek out unproductive committee members to nd out
what is getting in the way of performance and then devise strategies to over-
come those barriers.
(continues)
(continued)
Involve committee members in developing an annual committee plan of work
and make sure that the committee plans align with the overall strategic plan
of the institution and department, in terms of standing committees.
Periodically schedule campus leaders to come before the committee and share
what is going on in their schools, colleges, or divisional areas as a way of
ensuring that the committee is up to speed on efforts on campus.
The committee chair is responsible for preparing meeting agendas,

assigning responsibilities to committee members, checking in with subcom-
mittee chairs, and making sure that members are doing their assigned work.
Thus, the role of diversity committee chairs requires creating time to com-
municate with stakeholders, organize and analyze research, draft reports,
keep senior leaders informed, and, when necessary, resolve conicts among
members. For this reason, we recommend reducing the teaching load of a
faculty chair or the administrative responsibilities of a staff chair. Assigning
a graduate or undergraduate student to the project offers another means of
providing additional staff support.
At times it may prove appropriate to assign the role of chair or cochair
to a CDO. However, having the CDO colead the process should not out-
weigh the need for a capable, credible chair. Each institution should evaluate
the merits and potentially competing responsibilities of the CDO before
assigning him or her to lead the diversity committee.
Recommendations for Successful Diversity Committees

Although there is no single roadmap for developing a campuss lateral diver-
sity infrastructure, several common denominators exist (Table 9.4). For
example, a committee must have a clear understanding of its mandate from
the very beginning. If it is to focus on strategy, it should focus on strategy.
If it is to serve in an implementation role, then it should focus on implemen-
tation, to the extent that is possible as a committee. The committee has
to operate from a data-driven perspective and rely on institutional data,
benchmarking opportunities, and lived experiences to develop strategies and
implement solutions that align with the institutions overall mission. It is
also critical that senior leaders provide the diversity committee with adequate
levels of staff and nancial support to ensure that it is capable of fullling its
mandate.
D I V E R S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI S S I O NS , A ND TA SK FO R C E S 435
TAB LE 9. 4
Recommendations for Successful Diversity Committees
Recommendation Description
Understand the It is vital to understand the scope and limits of the committee. Can it
limitations of your authorize initiatives, or only recommend them? If it can recommend only,
committee. who in the organization will be the person to issue any nal decisions?
Formulate the Early in the process, the committee should dene diversity in the context of
committees its process as a group. Will it work on diversity issues broadly dened or
denition of through the prism of a particular issue or group?
diversity.
Develop a clear The committee should begin by reviewing the institutions current data and
understanding of developing a comprehensive understanding of the various diversity ofces,
current diversity units, and initiatives on campus. This process may include gathering data
capacity and levels. from the institutions research ofce as well as more dynamic data in areas
like succession rates and time to promotion, graduation rates, and academic
achievement levels in the critical gateway courses. Additionally, the committee
should launch its work with full knowledge of current diversity programs and
initiatives. Hence the committee should consider beginning its work with
relevant diversity plans, reports, evaluation, assessments, and so on.
Gather feedback The committee should send out a survey to community members about the
from the greatest challenges and opportunities of diversity and the overall tangible
organization. recommendations to inform the work of the group. It is important to manage
community member expectations by making it clear that the committee is
using the survey expressly for exploratory purposes. It is always discouraging
for community members who take the time to give feedback and then feel
that nothing is done with their suggestions. It is also important to interact
informally with various members of the community to get individual
perspectives.
Align the agenda of Develop a clear picture of the institutions top priorities for the year, and then
the committee to nd out how to tie the committees goals to the goals of the institutions most
the institutions senior leaders and governance groups.
strategic agenda.
Prioritize your Use the information that has been gathered to prioritize and implement the
work. work of the committee. By working this way, the committee will be able to
discern which goals and initiatives are most likely to be embraced and the
ideal order for implementing them.
Create a culture of Set a regular meeting schedule for the entire year. Incorporate criteria for
accountability for ongoing participation in committee and subcommittee meetings, including
committee an attendance policy. Assign clear responsibilities and then set policies for
members. promoting communication and creating accountability.
Establish a working Whether the committee is an ad-hoc or standing group, and involved in
budget and stafng advising or implementation, it is critical that the committee have adequate
appropriate to staff and nancial support. At a minimum this should include rooms,
deliver the work. refreshments, audiovisual equipment, and a host of other physical supports.
Institutions should also dedicate staff resources that can help facilitate the
overall effort, from recording committee minutes and processing requests, to
following up on correspondence and minor projects.
At the end of the day, diversity implementation rests with senior leaders,
presidents, provosts, deans, CDOs, faculty leaders, and studentsnot diver-
sity committees. Senior leadership must devote sufcient energy into devel-
oping an implementation plan that can grow and evolve over time. Hence,
much of the implementation work hinges on other dimensions of the con-
versation, in particular the quality of work that goes into establishing and
building the change management systems of the institution.
Summary
This chapter explores the many contingencies that must be considered in
developing an institutions diversity committee. Mission, scope of responsi-
bility, permanence of the committee, and membership selection are just
some of the vital concerns that senior leaders need to consider. Although
they can vary greatly in size, scope, and mission, diversity committees play a
vital role in articulating and honoring the importance of difference on cam-
pus. These committees can both advise and help implement programs and
policies to promote an institutions diversity goals.
Having a committee infrastructure that provides perspective from across
campus is an important element of building a comprehensive institutional
diversity vision. In a best-case scenario, diversity committees complement
the role of the CDO and other dedicated diversity units, providing senior
leadership with a fresh and unique perspective.
In developing a campus-wide or unit-based diversity committee, it is
important to remember that members often have demanding jobs indepen-
dent of their diversity committee service. For this reason the best designed
committees work to negotiate some form of release time to allow members
to fulll their responsibilities, particularly during the most critical periods of
the committees life span.
To be successful, senior leadership must ensure that diversity committees
have clear goals as well as an action plan and supporting resources. They also
need to recruit well-respected individuals beyond the usual suspects to
avoid what Tierney (1999) refers to as cultural exhaustion among a core
group of change agents. This is particularly true among communities of
color as these individuals are often asked to serve on every diversity initiative.
Finally, diversity committees should include a number of respected voices
that can push the envelope while ensuring that existing initiatives are devel-
oped and maintained. Too often, campus diversity committees are formed
D IV ER S I T Y CO MM IT TE ES , C OM MI SS IO NS , A ND TA S K FO R C E S 437
without clear goals, a timeline for work completion, adequate credibility and
leverage, or sufcient resources to get the job done. In such cases, the com-
mittee itself can become an institutions answer to diversity challenges,
rather than a channel through which true solutions are formulated. When
done right, the diversity committee can serve as the intellectual ground zero
for promoting a robust discussion on diversity issues and their solutions.
Note
1. For a discussion of these efforts see Freudenberger et al. (2009); Harvard University
Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering (2005); and the MIT Initiative on Faculty
Race and Diversity Committee (2010).
REFERENCES
AASCU/NASULGC Diversity Task Force. (2005). Now is the time: Meeting the chal-
lenge of a diverse academy. Washington, DC: American Association of State Col-
leges and Universities and the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges.
Alfred, R. (2005). Managing the big picture in colleges and universities: From tactics to
strategy. New York: Praeger.
Alger, J. (2009). Diversity in the age of Obama: New directions or status quo? (Employ-
ment context). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
of College and University Attorneys, June, 2009.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Demography as destiny: How America
can build a better future. Issues Brief, October 2006.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
American Civil Rights Institute. (n.d.). States & legislation. Retrieved September 28,
2011, from http://www.acri.org/ legislation.html
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effective-
ness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Asante, M. (1991). Kemet, afrocentricity, and knowledge. Philadelphia: Africa World
Press.
Asian/Pacic/American Institute and the Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education
Policy at New York University. (2008). Asian Americans and Pacic Islanders facts,
not ction: Setting the record straight. New York: The College Board.
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
(2010). Sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system (STARS) overview techni-
cal manual. Retrieved from http://stars.aashe.org
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater Expectations: A
new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the
new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education
and Americas promise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment
and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey Bass.
439
440 R EF ER EN CE S
Attinasi, L. C., Jr. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans perceptions of university
attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 60(3), 247277.
Baez, B. (2004). The study of diversity: The knowledge of difference and the
limits of science. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 285306.
Banks, J. A. (1979). Shaping the future of multicultural education. Journal of Negro
Education, 48(Summer), 237252.
Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Barnes, J. S., & C. E. Bennett. (2002). The Asian population: 2000. Washington,
DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Barry, B. (1997, July 27). Questions of race run deep for foe of preferences. New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/27/us/questions-
of-race-run-deep-for-foe-of-preferences.html
Baum, S., & Steele, P. (2010). Who borrows most? Bachelors degree recipients with
high levels of student debt. New York: College Board Advocacy and Policy Center.
Beckham, E. (2008). More reasons for hope: Diversity matters in higher education.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Beleld, C., & Levin, M. (2007). The economic losses from high school dropouts in
California. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institu-
tional change. Change, 36(1), 4552.
Bensimon, E., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. (2003, October). Measuring the state of equity
in public higher education. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights and UC
Conference on Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: California and the
Nation, Sacramento, CA.
Bensimon, E., & Malcom, L. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implement-
ing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (2000). Organizational behavior in higher education
and student outcomes. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research (Vol. 15, pp. 268338). New York: Agathon.
Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2002). Descriptive summary of 199596 begin-
ning postsecondary students: Six years later (NCES 2003151). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Berry, J. (1994). An ecological perspective on cultural and ethnic psychology. In
E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on
people in context (pp. 157189). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bess, J. L. & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization:
Theories for effective policy and practice. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development
models and implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111,
2539.
R E F E R E N CE S 441
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In

E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on
people in context (pp. 261284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and fail-
ure in the college presidency. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Bobo, L., Kluegel, J., & Smith, R. (1997). Laissez faire racism: The crystallization
of a kinder, gentler, anti-Black ideology. In J. Martin & S. A. Tuch (Eds.), Racial
attitudes in the 1990s (pp. 1544). Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (1997). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation.
American Sociological Review, 62(3), 465480.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence
of racial inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld Press.
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences
of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Boxwell, R. (1994). Benchmarking for a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tintos theory
of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 107164). New York: Agathon Press.
Breines, W. (2006). The trouble between us: An uneasy history of White and Black
women in the feminist movement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown, R. (2011, July 1). U.S. appeals court overturns Michigan ban on afrmative
action at public colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/article/US-Appeals-Court-Overturns/128127/
Buchanan, D. A., & Badham, R. J. (2008). Political expertise: Why you need it,
and how to develop it. In D. A. Buchanan & R. J. Badham (Eds.), Power, politics
and organizational change: Winning the turf game (pp. 286321). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Carey, K. (2010). Why do you think theyre called for-prot colleges? Chronicle of
Higher Education, 56(41), A88.
Carnevale, A. P., & Fry, R. A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve
equity when Generation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Ser-
vice. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/dload/CrossingDivide.pdf
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and
education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce.
442 R E F ER E N CE S
Chaffee, E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1),

8998.
Chang, M., Chang, J., & Ledesma, M. (2005). Beyond magical thinking: Doing the
real work of diversifying our institutions. About Campus, 10(2), 10, 916.
Chemerinsky, E. (2010). The conservative assault on the Constitution. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Chesler, M. (1994). Strategies for multicultural organizational development. Diver-
sity Factor, 2(2), 1218.
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: Penguin Group.
Ciarlante, M., & Fountain, K. (2010). Why it matters: Rethinking victim assistance
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer victims of hate violence & intimate
partner violence. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
Clayton-Pedersen, A., ONeill, N., & McTighe Musil, K. (2008). Making excellence
inclusive: A framework for embedding diversity and inclusion into college and univer-
sities academic mission. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/
Clayton-Pedersen, A., Parker, S., Smith, D., Moreno, J., & Teraguchi, D. (2007).
Making a real difference with diversity. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Clegg, R. (2009). Unnished business: The Bush Administration and racial prefer-
ences. Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, 32(3), 971995.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational
choice. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 17(1), 125.
Cohn, E., & Gareis, J. (2007). Faculty members as architects: Structuring diversity-
accessible courses. In J. Branche, J. Mullenex, & E. Cohn (Eds.), Diversity across
the curriculum: A guide for faculty in higher education (pp. 1823). Boston: Anker.
Cokorinos, L. (2003). The assault on diversity: An organized challenge to racial and
gender justice. New York: Rowman and Littleeld.
Coleman, A., & Lipper, K. (2011). Legal update Fisher v. University of Texas case
summary. New York: The College Board.
Coleman, A. L., & Palmer, S. R. (2004). Diversity in higher education: A strategic
planning and policy model regarding federal law in admissions, nancial aid and
outreach (2nd ed.). New York: The College Board.
Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., Richards, F. S., & Holland & Knight LLP. (2005).
Federal law and nancial aid: A framework for evaluating diversity related programs.
New York: The College Board.
Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., Winnick, S. Y., & Holland & Knight LLP. (2007).
Echoes of Bakke: A fractured Supreme Court invalidates two race-conscious K12
student assignment plans but afrms the compelling interest in the educational bene-
ts of diversity. Washington, DC: The College Board.
Coleman, A. L., Palmer, S. R., & Winnick, S. Y. (2008). Race-neutral policies in
higher education: From theory to action. Washington, DC: The College Board.
R E F E R EN C E S 443
College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. (2010). The educational crisis facing
young men of color. New York: The College Board.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others dont.
New York: Harper Collins.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany
Good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the poli-
tics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2009). From soldier to student: Easing the transition of service
members on campus. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cornell, S. (1996). The variable ties that bind: Content and circumstance in ethnic
processes. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 19(2), 265289.
Cornwell, G., & Stoddard, E. W. (1999). Globalizing knowledge: Connecting interna-
tional and intercultural studies. Washington, DC: Association of American Col-
leges and Universities.
Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Executive, 5(2), 3447.
Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the
power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cross, W. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World, 20(9),
1327.
Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010, October 27). Indian entities
recognized and eligible to receive services from the bureau of indian affairs. Fed-
eral Register, 75(207), otices.
Dexter, B. (2010). The chief diversity ofcer today: Diversity gets down to business.
Chicago: Heidrick & Struggles.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational elds. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147160.
Diversity Best Practices. (2005). The chief diversity ofcer report. Washington, DC:
Diversity Best Practices Inc.
Duderstadt, J. (1990). The Michigan mandate: A strategic linkage of academic excel-
lence and social diversity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Ofce of the
President.
Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Duster, T. (1993). The diversity of California at Berkeley: An emerging reformula-
tion of competence in an increasingly multi-cultural world. In R. Thomp-
son & S. Tyagi (Eds.), Beyond a dream deferred: Multicultural education and the
politics of excellence (pp. 231256). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Duster, T. (2008, July). Is It Balkanization, or just lunch? Retrieved from http://
www.diversityweb.org/digest/F96/balkanization.html
444 R EF ER EN CE S
Eckel, P., Green, M., Hill, B., & Mallon, W. (1999). Taking charge of change: A
primer for colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council of
Education.
Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher
education. Washington, DC: American Council of Education and Praeger Series
on Higher Education.
Education Trust. (2006). The funding gap 2005: Low income and minority students
short-changed by most states. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Egan, G. (1994). Working the shadow side: A guide to positive behind the scenes manage-
ment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ellstrom, P. E. (1983). Four faces of educational organizations. Higher Education
Journal, 12(2), 231241.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts
change: Maintaining identication and responding to threat. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 67(2), 243251.
Feagin, J., & Sikes, M. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Finnell, S. (1998). The Hopwood chill: How the court derailed diversity efforts at
Texas A&M. In G. Oreld & E. Miller (Eds.), Chilling admissions: The afrma-
tive action crisis and the search for alternatives (pp. 7182). Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard Education Publishing Group.
Fischer, M. J., & Massey, D. S. (2007). The effects of afrmative action in higher
education. Social Science Research, 38, 531549.
Fish, S. (2005). Chickens: The Ward Churchill and Larry Summers story. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 51(36), B9.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d at 24766 (Garza, J., concurring specially).
(2011).
Flannery, M. (2011, June 3). For-prot colleges face tougher regulations. Re-
trieved from http://neatoday.org/2011/06/03/for-prot-colleges-face-tougher-
regulations/
Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fogg, P. (2005a, May 17). Harvard panels suggest steps for improving the lot of
female professors; some proposals already have been endorsed. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Harvard-Panels-
Suggest-Steps/120285/
Fogg, P. (2005b, May 27). Harvard committee suggests steps to help women. Chron-
icle of Higher Education, 51(38), A8A9.
Freudenberger, W., Howard, J., Jauregui, E., & Sturm, S. (2009). Linking mobiliza-
tion to institutional power: The faculty-led diversity initiative at Columbia Uni-
versity. In W. Brown-Glaude (Ed.), Doing diversity in higher education: Faculty
leaders share challenges and strategies (pp. 249276). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
R EF ER E N CE S 445
Frey, W. (2011a). Americas diverse future: Initial glimpses at the U.S. child population
from the 2010 Census. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Metropolitan
Policy Program.
Frey, W. (2011b). Melting pot cities and suburbs: Racial and ethnic change in metro
America in the 2000s. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute Metropolitan
Policy Program.
Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? Los
Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/mapus
Gates, G., & Cooke, A. (2010). United States LGBTQ Census snapshot: 2010. Los
Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/mapus
Gates, G., & Ost, J. (2004). The gay and lesbian atlas. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Gilmer, M., Littles, M., & Bowers, R. (2008). Momentum: Sustaining efforts
to improve life outcomes among African-American males. New York: Ford
Foundation.
Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 443448.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference.
New York: Back Bay Books.
Gluckman, A., & Reed, B. (1997). Homo economics: Capitalism, community, and
lesbian and gay life. New York: Routledge Press.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Greater Expectations National Panel. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for
learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specications.
Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199220.
Grusky, D., Western, B., & Wimer, C. (Eds.) (2011). The great recession. New York:
Russell Sage.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Gurin, G., Matlock, J., & Wade-Golden, K. (2012). Michigan student study: Opin-
ions, expectations, and experiences of undergraduate students, 19901994. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. Retrieved
from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/4027
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher educa-
tion: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,
72(3), 330366.
Gurin, P., & Epps, E. (1975). Black consciousness, identity, and achievement. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
446 R EF E R EN CE S
Gurin, P., Lehman, J., & Lewis, E. (2004). Defending diversity: Michigans afrma-
tive action cases. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hale, F. (2004). What makes racial diversity work in higher education. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Harper, S., & Quales, S. (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York: Routledge.
Harris, A. L., & Teinda, M. (2012, April). Hispanics and the Texas top 10% law.
Race and Social Problems 4(1): 5767.
Hart, P. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in todays global econ-
omy? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Harvard University Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering. (2005).
Report from the Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Ofce of the President.
Harvey, B., & Anderson, E. (2005). Minorities in higher education 20032004:
Twenty-rst annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council of
Education.
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on coun-
seling: A Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 153165.
Hirschhorn, L., & May, L. (2000). The campaign approach to change: Targeting
the universitys scarcest resources. Change, 32(3), 3137.
Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and inuence: A perspective on rela-
tional features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership
theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 2948). San Diego: Academic.
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (1996).
Hubbard, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity and
organizational performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Humes, K., Jones, N., & Ramirez, R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
2010 Census briefs. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
Humphreys, D. (1997). General education and American commitments: A national
report on diversity courses and requirements. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey nds diversity requirements common
around the country. Diversity Digest. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from www.diversityweb.org/digest/F00/
survey.html
Humphreys, J. (2012). The multicultural economy 2012 report. Athens, GA: University
of Georgia, Terry School College of Business, Selig Center for Economic Growth.
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of
higher education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185196.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of
the campus racial climate on Latino students: Sense of belonging. Sociology of
Education, 70(4), 324345.
R E F ER E N CE S 447
Hurtado, S., & Dey, E. (1997). Achieving the goals of multiculturalism and di-
versity. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and
management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary
institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing cam-
pus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review
of Higher Education, 21(3), 279302.
Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond afrmative action: Reframing the context of higher educa-
tion. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2011). Initial college attendance of
low-income young adults. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Iverson, S. (2007). Camouaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of
university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586611.
Jackson, B., & Holvino, E. (1988). Multicultural organizational development (PCMA
Working Paper Series No. 11). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Program on
Conict Management Alternatives.
Johnson, C., & Ham, C. (2010). Report of the comprehensive review of the issues
associated with a repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/
0610_dadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf
Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. Jour-
nal of Higher Education, 70(2), 113133.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2003). Economic afrmative action in college admissions: A progres-
sive alternative to racial preferences and class rank admissions plans. New York:
Century Foundation.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2004). Toward afrmative action for economic diversity. Chron-
icle of Higher Education, 50(28), B11B13.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecardMeasures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 7179.
Katz, J., & Miller, F. (1997). Between monoculturalism and multiculturalism: Traps
awaiting the organization. In D. Van Eynde, J. Hoy, & D. Van Eynde (Eds.),
Organizational development classics (pp. 292302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kelly, P. (2005). As America becomes more diverse: The impact of state higher education
inequality. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Kerber, L. (2005). We must make the academic workplace more humane and equita-
ble. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(28), p. B6.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st
Century. Recent Research and Conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kezar, A. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institu-
tionalize a diversity agenda. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413439.
448 R E F E R E N CE S
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process:
The importance of sense-making, inter-related strategies and balance. Research in
Higher Education, 43(4), 295328.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2005). Important journeys: Presidents supporting students of
color. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Kim, J. (1981). The process of Asian American identity development: A study of Japanese
American womens perceptions of their struggle to achieve positive identities (unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Kimmel, M., & Plante, R. (2004). Sexualities: Identities, behaviors, and society. New
York: Oxford University Press.
King, J., & Gomez, G. (2008). On the pathway to the presidency: Characteristics
of higher educations senior leadership. Washington, DC: American Council of
Education.
Kirkham, C. (2011, August 3). For-prot colleges draw minorities, stir murky debate
on student success. HuffPost: Black Voices. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from
http://www.hufngtonpost.com/2011/08/02/as-minority-enrollments-s_n_916541
.html
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access
to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Kutz, G. (2010). For-prot colleges: Undercover testing nds colleges encouraged fraud
and engage in deceptive and questionable marketing practices. Written testimony
before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate.
GAO-10948T. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Ofce.
Laird, T., Engberg, M., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects:
Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement.
Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448476.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex orga-
nizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 147.
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key
learning outcomes. Greater Expectations Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Washington,
DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
Lipson, D. (2004, June). The new politics of afrmative action. Paper presented at
the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
Liptak, A. (2012, February 21). Justices take up race as a factor in college entry. New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-to-
hear-case-on-afrmative-action-in-higher-education.html?_r2&pagewanted
all
Lockman, Z. (2009). Contending visions of the Middle East: The history and politics
of orientalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
R E F ER E N CE S 449
Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. Chicago: Irwin Professional.

Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfullled prom-
ise of for-prot colleges and universities. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Maltbia, T., & Power, A. (2009). A leaders guide to leveraging diversity: Strategic
learning capabilities for breakthrough performance. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making
of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mather, M., & Adams, D. (2007). The crossover in female-male college enrollment
rates. PRB: Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/arti
cles/2007/crossoverinfemalemalecollegeenrollmentrates.aspx
Matlock, J., Wade-Golden, K., & Gurin, G. (2002). The Michigan student study:
Students expectations of and experiences with racial/ethnic diversity. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. Retrieved
from www.oami.umich.edu/mss/downloads/ synopsis0103.pdf
Matlock, J., Wade-Golden, K., & Gurin, G. (2010). Michigan student study: An
assessment of students and alumni experiences and outcomes with diversity. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives.
McKnight, G. (1998). The last crusade: Martin Luther King, Jr., the FBI, and the Poor
Peoples Campaign. Boulder, CO: Westview.
McNeal, L. (2009). The re-segregation of public education now and after the end
of Brown v. Board of Education. Education and Urban Society, 41(5), 562574.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of
the rm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117127.
Meade, B., Gaytan, D., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2009). A close look at the dropout
crisis: Examining Black and Latino males in New York City. New York: Metropoli-
tan Center for Urban Education, New York University.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure
as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340363.
Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories. New York: McGraw Hill.
Mintz, S. (2012). U.S. failing to meet global education and competitiveness challenges.
Retrieved from http://www.ethicssage.com/2011/11/us-failing-to-meet-global-
education-and-competitiveness-challenges.html
MIT Initiative on Faculty Race and Diversity Committee. (2010). Report on the
Initiative for Faculty Race and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ofce of the
President.
Montesino, M., & Sherr, M. (2008). A challenge to diversity in the United States:
Two points of view on immigration reform. International Journal of Diversity in
Organizations, Communities and Nations, 8(3), 7584.
450 R EF ER E N CE S
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mortenson, T. G. (2010). Family income and educational attainment, 1970 to 2009.
Postsecondary Opportunity: Public Policy Analysis of Opportunity for Postsecondary
Education, 221, 116.
Mottel, S., & Patten, E. (2012). The 10 largest Hispanic origin groups: Characteristics,
rankings, top counties. Pew Hispanic Research Center. Retrieved from http://
www.pewhispanic.org/2012/06/27/the-10-largest-hispanic-origin-groups-
characteristics-rankings-top-counties/
Moynihan, D. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing infor-
mation and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Murguia, E., Padilla, A., & Pavel, R. (1991). Ethnicity and the concept of social
integration in Tintos model of institutional departure. Journal of College Student
Development, 32(4), 433439.
Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and
culture. Social Problems, 41(1), 152176.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2011). Undocumented student tuition:
Overview. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-re
search/educ/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx
National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. (2012). National Lesbian and Gay
Journalists Association stylebook supplement on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
terminology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from
http://www.nlgja.org/resources/stylebook.
National Science Foundation. (2008). ADVANCE: Increasing the participation and
advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers (ADVANCE).
Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id5383
Nichols, A. (2011). Developing 20/20 vision on the 2020 degree attainment goal: The
threat of income-based inequality in education. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for
the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Obama, B. (2009). Remarks of President Barack ObamaAs prepared for delivery to the
Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24, 2009. Retrieved from http://www
.whitehouse.gov/the_press_ofce/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-
to-Joint-Session-of-Congress
Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives. (2012). Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.oami.umich.edu/about/index.html
Ogbar, J. (2005). Black power: Radical politics and African American identity. Balti-
more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 16(1), 145179.
Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (2001). Wealth and racial stratication. In N. Smelser,
W. J. Wilson, F. Mitchell (Eds), America becoming: Racial trends and their conse-
quences (Vol. 2., pp. 222251). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Olson, C. L, Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. F. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging
the gap between internationalization and multicultural education. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1989). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s
to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
ONeil, H. F. (1999). Designing and implementing an academic scorecard. Change,
31(6), 3240.
Oreld, G. (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of afrmative action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oreld, G., Marin, P., Flores, S. M., & Garces, L. M. (Eds.). (2007). Charting the
future of college afrmative action: Legal victories, continuing attacks, and new
research. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project at UCLA.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). The
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) proles by country/economy.
Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Proles/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Edu-
cation at a glance 2010: Indicators. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Ott, B., & Aoki, E. (2002). The politics of negotiating public tragedy: Media fram-
ing of the Matthew Shepard murder. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(3), 483505.
Pacelli, K. (2011). Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Navigating the narrows
between Grutter and parents involved. Maine Law Review, 63(2), 570592.
Paige, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, rms,
schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pamona College. (n.d.). Diversity statement. Retrieved from http://www.pamo
na.edu/about/diversity/committee-statement.aspx
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701
(2007).
Patton, C. (2002). National report on anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender vio-
lence in 2002. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
Patton, L. (2010). Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory,
and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Paul, M. J. (2003). Double-loop diversity: Applying adult learning theory to the
cultivation of diverse learning environments in higher education. Innovative
Higher Education, 28(1), 3547.
Peterson, M. W., Blackburn, R., Gamson, C., Arce, R., Davenport, W., Mingle, J.
(1978). Black students on White campuses: The impacts of increased Black enroll-
ments. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Peterson, M. W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environ-
ment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In M. W. Peterson, D. D.
Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment:
A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions (pp. 329). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
452 REFERENCES
Peterson, M. W., & Mets, L. A. (1987). An evolutionary perspective on academic

governance, management, and leadership. In M. W. Peterson & L. A. Mets
(Eds), Key resource on higher education governance management and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. New York: Harper Collins.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Piaget, J. (1975). The childs conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littleeld, Adams.
Pink, D. (2002). Free agent nation: The future of working for yourself. New York:
Warner Brothers Books.
Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual
age. New York: Riverhead Books.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Pope, R. L. (1993). Multicultural-organization development in student affairs: An
introduction. Journal of College Student Development, 34(3), 201206.
Prasnikar, J., Debeljak, Z., & Ahcan, A. (2005). Benchmarking as a tool for strategic
management. Total Quality Management, 16(2), 257275.
Quinn, R. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for sexual minorities: A national perspective. New
York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 312, 98 S. Ct. 2760 (1978).
Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behavior. New York: Prentice Hall.
Rodriguez, J. (2010, February 18). Pioneering initiative launched on equity, diversity
and inclusion, backed by Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. Retrieved August 1,
2011, from http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/02/18/haas_jr_fund
Rowley, D., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan
in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
San Jose State University. Inventory and mapping of diversity efforts and courses. San
Jose: Ofce of the President, San Jose State University. Retrieved from http://
www.sjsu.edu/diversityplan/ history/stages/mapping/
Scharmer, O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emergesThe social
technology of presencing. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning,
Inc.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlesinger, A. (1998). The disuniting of America: Reections on a multicultural society.
New York: Norton and Company.
Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report
on public education and Black males. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for
Public Education.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America:
Trends and interpretations (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
R EF E R EN CE S 453
Sellers, R., Rowley, S., & Chavous, T. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial
identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 1839.
Sen, R. (2006). A positive future for Black boys: Building the movement. Cambridge,
MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-
tion. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Roth, G., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1999). The
dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations.
New York: Doubleday Press.
Shapiro, A. (2003). Creating contagious commitment: Applying the tipping point to
organizational change. Hillsborough, NC: Strategy Perspective.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sears, D. (2008). The diversity challenge:
Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Simsek, H., & Louis, K. (1994). Organizational change as a paradigm shift: Analysis
of the change process in a large, public university. Journal of Higher Education,
65(6), 670695.
Smallwood, S. (2005, August 3). Columbia U. will spend $15-million to increase
the diversity of its faculty. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/article/Columbia-U-Will-Spend/120883/
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257273.
Smith, D. (2009). Diversitys promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S. V., Osei-Ko, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting
the usual: Successful strategies for diversifying the faculty. Journal of Higher Edu-
cation, 75(2), 133160.
Smith, D., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2005). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or
alienation in the academy? Association for the Study of Higher Education Higher
Education Report, 31(1).
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Soni, V. (2000). A twenty-rst-century reception for diversity in the public sector:
A case study. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 395408.
Springer, L., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., & Nora, A. (1996). Attitudes
toward campus diversity: Participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop.
Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 5368.
State of Michigan Attorney General. (2011, July). Attorney General Bill Schuette
launches legal ght to uphold MCRI. Retrieved from http://michigan.gov/ag/
0,4534,7-164-46849-259992,00.html
454 R EF ER E N CE S
Stevenson, A. J. (2004). Dreaming of an equal future for immigrant children: Fed-

eral and state initiatives to improve undocumented students access to post-
secondary education. In Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook, 20042005
(pp. 616636). Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Strober, M. (2005). Can Harvard ever play a positive role for women in higher
education? Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(43), B13.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orienta-
tion. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice.
New York: Wiley.
Symonds, W., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting
the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA:
Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social
psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In
W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 3347). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Takaki, R. (1989). A history of Asian Americans: Strangers for different shores. New
York: Little, Brown, and Company.
Tatum, B. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other
conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Thomas, D. A., and Ely, R. D. (1996, SeptemberOctober) Making Differences
Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review 74(5):
7990.
Thomas, D. A. (2004, September 1). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review,
82(9), 111.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. C. (2003). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global
business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Thomas, R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work-
force by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM Books of the American Man-
agement Association.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1991). Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a
critical agenda. New York: Praeger.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in col-
lege. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603618.
Tierney, W. G. (1997). The parameters of afrmative action: Equity and excellence
in the academy. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 165196.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high performance
colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89125.
R E F E R E N CE S 455
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trevino, J. (1992). Participation in ethnic/racial student organizations (doctoral dis-
sertation). Los Angeles: University of California.
Trickett, E., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives
on people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trower, C. A. & Smith, E. (2006). University of Oregon. A case study developed
for the Harvard Institutes of Higher Education at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe:
What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3),
39168.
Turner, J. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In J.
Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 66101). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberal
arts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1),
169192.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Educational attainment in the United States: 2008 [Data
le]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/
2008/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Metropolitan statistical area: Population by race and
Hispanic or Latino origin: 2009 [Data le]. Retrieved from http://www.census
.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projectionsstates_met
ropolitan_areas_cities.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Most children younger than age 1 are minorities, Census
Bureau Reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/
population/cb12-90.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012: Metropoli-
tan statistical area; population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin: 2009. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0023.pdf
U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Guidance on
the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity in post-secondary education. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Disability resources. Retrieved from http://
www.dol.gov/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2011, June 27). Facts about
discrimination based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and
political afliation. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation
_parent_marital_political.html
456 R EF ER EN CE S
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). Student and Exchange Visitor
Program, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Retrieved from http://
www.ice.gov/sevis/
University of Michigan Fortune 500 Amicus Brief. (1999). Brief of Amici Curiae
General Motors Corporation at 8, Grutter, No. 02241, 4.
University of WisconsinMadison Plan 2008 Diversity Oversight Committee.
(2002). Report of the Campus Diversity Plan (Plan 2008) Oversight Committee.
University of WisconsinMadison Faculty Document 1683. Madison: University
of WisconsinMadison Ofce of the Secretary of the Faculty. Retrieved from
www.secfac.wisc.edu/senate/2002/1202/1683.pdf
University of WisconsinMadison Plan 2008 Planning Committee. (1998). The Uni-
versity of WisconsinMadison Plan 2008: A blue-print for diversity. Madison: Uni-
versity of WisconsinMadison Ofce of the Chancellor.
University of WisconsinMadison Planning Committee. (1988). The Madison Plan.
Madison: University of WisconsinMadison Ofce of the Chancellor.
University of Wisconsin System. (n.d.). Design for diversity. Retrieved from http://
www.wisconsin.edu/edi/design/
University of WisconsinMadison Commitment Planning Committee. (1994). The
Madison commitment: A reafrmation of the university goals for minority programs.
Madison: University of WisconsinMadison Ofce of the Chancellor.
University of WisconsinMadison Ofce of the Secretary of the Faculty. (2012).
Faculty policies and procedures of the University of WisconsinMadison (as approved
by the Faculty Senate on 15 May 1978, with subsequent amendments as of 5 March
2012). Retrieved from http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/governance/fpp/Chapter_6
.htm627
Wade-Golden, K., & Matlock, J. (2010). Embracing our reality: Key ingredients for
fostering campus diversity success. Volume 1: Accountability and organizational lead-
ership. Retrieved from www.oami.umich.edu/images/KWG-JM_DIVERSITY
_ARTICLE.pdf
Washington, V., & Harvey, W. (1989). Afrmative rhetoric, negative action: African-
American and Hispanic faculty at predominantly White institutions. Report No. 2.
Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George
Washington University.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 289
322). New York: Agathon.
Williams, D. A. (2002). Cultural identity, student involvement, and academic achieve-
ment in three student of color populations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.
Williams, D. A. (2008). Beyond the diversity crisis model: Decentralized diversity
planning and implementation. Planning for Higher Education, 36(2), 2741.
Williams, D. A., Berger, J., & McClendon, S. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in higher education. Washington, DC: Association of Ameri-
can Colleges and Universities.
Williams, D. A., & Clowney, C. (2007). Strategic planning for diversity: A primer
for academic leaders. Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, 2(3), 116.
Williams, D. A., Kolb, K., & Waldo (2009). Tuition differential programs in higher
education: An exploratory report. Madison: University of WisconsinMadison
Ofce of the Vice Provost & CDO unpublished manuscript.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. (2008). The chief diversity ofcer: A primer for
college and university presidents. Washington, DC: American Council of
Education.
Wilson, R. (2005). Past their prime? After 35 years on campuses, Black-studies pro-
grams struggle to survive. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(33), A9.
Wood, P. (2004). Diversity: The invention of a concept. San Francisco: Encounter
Books.
INDEX
AAC&U. See Association of American diversity planning integrated in, 312

Colleges and Universities diversity planning systems for, 37179
AAPIs. See Asian Americans and Pacic diversity planning types of, 3089
Islanders diversity progress metrics developed by,
AASHE. See Association for the 284
Advancement of Sustainability in diversity stage model of, 19597
Higher Education dynamic diversity DNA and, 19294
academic excellence learning community, 335 ethnically and racially diverse students
academic institutions. See also college from, 5662
campus; community colleges; higher faculty senate of, 249
education; private institutions; public for-prot, 5153
institutions geographic location of, 21415
accountability required for, 2023 historical and strategic realities and, 1011
admissions ofce integration of, 23435 inclusion or exclusion of, 23236
admissions process selectivity of, 22931 intentionality and resource allocation of,
campus diversity units of, 22023 194200
centralized institutional diversity planning Learning, Diversity, and Research Model
used by, 306 broadening efforts of, 14851
change and pull strategies used in, 25253 majority and minority cultures, 23534
coalition building of, 24950 marketing campaigns of, 247
comprehensive strategic diversity multiple diversity committees deployed
framework goal of, 1819, 31314 by, 42021
decentralized diversity plans of, 33864 national survey of, 37173
diversity adaptation of, 305 perspectives of, 8485
diversity and goals of, 21920 progress indicators and capacity of,
diversity branding of, 24649 29091
diversity built in to, 5, 173, 245 public and private, 37376, 38284,
with diversity committees, 410 38889
diversity complexities in, 89 rationale of, 353
diversity concerns in, 10 relationships building in, 249
Diversity Crisis Model and response of, research ofces of, 178
167 resources of, 197200
diversity dened by, 11826 scorecard method measuring diversity of,
diversity efforts disjointed in, 13031 25760
diversity efforts linked with programs of, segregated outreach of, 233
14951 senior leadership for excellence of, 21719
diversity infrastructure of, 19799 size of, 37678, 38485, 38990, 39697,
diversity planning checklist for, 365 403404
459
460 I N D EX
special interest, 127n4 initiatives eliminating, 74

strategic diversity leadership and core minorities and women beneting from,
mission of, 251 1078
strategic relationships built in, 252 opponents to, 7273
students economic background and, special interest groups and, 30610
10910 Afrmative Action and Equity Model, 203
with symbolic leadership, 23941 diversity idea and, 202
academic plan, 367n1 limitations of, 13940
Academic Science and Engineering Careers organizational change and, 24
(ADVANCE) program, 184, 421 as organizational diversity models, 13031,
Access and Diversity Collaborative, 12021 13537
accountability organizational technologies of, 13738
academic institutions requiring, 202 programs within, 136
decentralized diversity planning review afrmative identity thesis, 8688
for, 36264 African Americans, 89, 95
Department of Educations process for, 53 athletes, 18081
diversity and process of, 220, 256, 29394 males, 45
diversity committees report on progress student life of racial insensitivity of, 1012
and, 424 womens self-identity as, 99
in diversity planning, 177 African Latino Asian Native American
diversity systems of, 37986 (ALANA), 238
nancial strategies and, 35455 Alfred, Richard, 311
national survey of diversity, 38082 Allen, Walter, 260
organizations diversity approach with, Alliance for Excellent Education, 56
1516, 25 alliances, 237, 238
overall sample in, 381 Allport, Gordon, 153
Plan 2008s efforts for, 33738 American Civil Rights Institute, 73
scorecard method used for, 25760 American Council of Education (ACE), 154
ACE. See American Council of Education amicus curiae briefs, 12, 59
activism, 304 APLU. See Association of Public and Land-
ad-hoc diversity committees, 425 Grant Universities
admissions Argyris, C., 211
academic institutions integrating, 23435 Asia, 44
academic institutions selectivity in, Asian Americans, 95
22930 Asian Americans and Pacic Islanders
Fisher v. University of Texas and policies of, (AAPIs), 4345, 47
6970 assessments
race and ethnicity in, 7172 diversity research systems with, 38691
Supreme Court and, 6768 diversity-themed, 275
of University of Michigan, 12 international studies, 28890
ADVANCE. See Academic Science and multicultural and international studies,
Engineering Careers program 28890
afrmative action national survey diversity research and,
diverse groups and programs of, 14647 38788
economic, 10910 overall sample on research and, 388
employment programs of, 138 qualitative, 387
INDEX 461
quantitative, 387 competitive, 298, 299

of SDLS, 389 external indicators in, 298300
360-degree diversity, 29495 internal, 298
assimilation, 86, 87 SDLS and competitive analysis with,
associate degrees, 49 297300
Association for the Advancement of Sustain- types of, 29899
ability in Higher Education (AASHE), Bensimon, Estella, 25960, 271, 272
42 Berger, Joe, 176, 260
Association of American Colleges and best-in-class benchmarking, 298
Universities (AAC&U), 120 best practices
diversity plan failure and, 17677 diversity implementation with, 361
essential learning outcomes of, 2, 150, of research, 31922
15253 for strategic diversity goals, 350
general education diversity survey of, 287 bias, 98, 103
Greater Expectations report of, 28586 Birnbaum, R., 242
Institute on High-Impact Practices and Black Action Movements (BAMs), 32627
Student Success of, 359 Blackburn, R., 183
Making Excellence Inclusive initiative by, body-count diversity, 200
118 Bollinger, Lee C., 245, 412
national survey of, 392 Bolman, L. G., 241
Association of Public and Land-Grant bonuses, 363
Universities (APLU), 118, 120 branding concepts, 24648, 356
Astin, A. W., 260, 287 Brown v. Board of Education, 72, 110
athletes, 18081 buy-in process, 29596, 351
At Home in the World initiative, 155
audit spending, 225 Campus Balkanization Theory, 14546
Campus Diversity and Climate Committee,
bachelors degree, 55 43031
Bakke, Allan, 65 Canada, Geoffrey, 46
Balanced Scorecard, 258 candidates, 432
Baldridge, J. V., 386 capstone courses, 278
ballot initiatives, 74 Carter, D., 88
BAMN. See Coalition to Defend Afrmative cascading buy-in process, 29596
Action, Integration, Immigrant Rights CDO. See chief diversity ofcer
and Fight of Equality By Any Means Center for African and African American
Necessary Studies, 327
BAMs. See Black Action Movements Center for Benet-Cost Studies of
Basri, Gibor, 22122 Education, 55
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (Chua), 44 Center for Equal Opportunity, 114
behavioral patterns Center for Individual Rights, 114
campus climate and, 28182 centralized funding source, 225
in organizational culture, 187 centralized institutional diversity planning,
benchmarking 308, 31423
benets of, 300 academic institutions using, 306
best-in-class, 298 diversity goals and, 305
collaborative, 298 features of, 317
462 INDEX
implementation cycles in, 32223 Chittipeddi, Kumar, 242

STEM and, 316 Chua, Amy, 44
University of Wisconsin-Madison focus CIC. See Committee on Institutional
of, 32325, 33238 Cooperation
centralized resource pool, 328 CIRP. See Cooperative Institutional
centric perspective, 106, 11213 Research Program
ceremonies, 24445 civic learning, 286
chairperson, 43234 civil rights challenge, 3839
change process. See also institutional change Civil Rights Movement, 108, 11415, 304, 326
academic institutions pull strategies in, Clayton-Pedersen, Alma, 202, 260
25354 climate indicators
college campus diversity, 293 of college campus, 28082
demographics in, 34, 3642 college campus data collecting and,
diversity idea and, 12526 283285
Eckel addressing initiatives in, 18182 psychological dimensions of, 28283
rst-order, 16 COACHE. See Collaborative on Academic
higher educations difculties in, 19192 Careers in Higher Education
organizational, 24 coalition building, 24950
organizational culture with, 18790 Coalition to Defend Afrmative Action,
organizations leadership driving struc- Integration, Immigrant Rights and
tural, 216 Fight of Equality By Any Means
organizations transformative, 16, 18790 Necessary (BAMN), 73
policys and, 291 Cohen, M., 177
political leadership resistance to, 23639 Coleman, A., 70
strategic diversity leadership in, 11, 1317, Coleman, Mary Sue, 331
216, 23639 collaborative benchmarking, 298
transformational, 16, 18184, 18790 Collaborative on Academic Careers in
charge letter, 343 Higher Education (COACHE), 268
cheetahs, 16365, 314, 317, 326, 407 collaborative strategic thinking, 357
Chesler, M., 195 college campus
Chicanos, 89 audit spending of, 225
chief diversity ofcer (CDO), 3, 78 behavioral dimensions of, 28182
building capacity by, 41213 centralized funding source on, 225
as chairperson, 434 climate data collected on, 283825
diversity committees and, 40910, 424 climate indicators for, 28082
diversity denition hindering, 121 completion disparities of, 4951
document overview for, 22 crisis incident on, 17274
general leadership position of, 329 degrees by country and, 37
higher education study informing, 2123 diversity change process of, 293
leadership planning involving, 34445 diversity plans of, 19192
organizational diversity model and, 13233 diversity principles integration strategies
retirement of, 180 for, 288
The Chief Diversity Ofcer: Strategy, diversitys multiple meanings on, 243
Structure, and Change Management diverting resources of, 226
(Williams, D. and Wade-Golden), 3, 5, faculty racial makeup of, 399
8, 159 identity and, 1012
INDEX 463
institutions diversity units on, 22023 conceptual perspective, 8485

international students on, 14445 connected network, 133
leaders ying blind on, 301 Connerly, Ward, 7273
LGBTQ community and, 147 conservatives, 7273
minority male students challenges Cooperative Institutional Research Program
attending, 4547 (CIRP), 268
minority stereotypes perpetuated at, 62 Cornwell, G., 290
multicultural experience of, 143 countries, college degrees by, 37
organizational diversity capabilities on, 131 Creating Contagious Commitment (Shapiro),
Plan 2008s accountability efforts for, 275, 357
33738 creative nancing plan, 328
political navigation strategies on, 23839 creative jobs, 3335
presidents of, 219 crisis
psychological dimensions of climate on, incident, 17274
28283 response, 17072
review teams of, 295 culture
strategic plans of, 310 college graduates competent in, 6063
University of Michigan diversity strategy identity and exclusion of, 1023
blueprint for, 33031 majority and minority, 235
U.S. losing degrees edge at, 36 organizational, 18790
college degrees of poverty, 45
associate, 51 cultural identity. See also multiculturalism;
bachelors, 55 organizational culture
by country, 37 diversity planning and shifting, 3034
U.S. losing edge of, 36 in dominant cultural environments, 146
college graduates in Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity
culturally competent, 6062 Model, 141
income disparity of, 35 students and, 8889
collegial leadership, 210 cultural integrity, xii
Collins, Jim, 237, 267, 358 cultural intelligence
Collins, Patricia Hill, 99 leadership developing, 8384
colorblind perspective, 106, 11517, 197, 237 organizational leadership with, 1617
Columbia University
diversity committees at, 41113 data
faculty leadership of, 433 college campus collecting climate indi-
Committee on Institutional Cooperation cator, 283825
(CIC), 299 disaggregating of, 26871
community colleges leadership generating reliable, 386
affordable education from, 49 multiple sources of, 26768
open enrollment at, 22930 secondary research generating, 268
competitive analysis, 297300 SJSUs analyzation of, 32021
competitive benchmarking, 298, 299 strategic diversity leaders using, 25759
competitive benets, 23 user friendly, 274
competitive grants, 253 database, 318
comprehensive strategic diversity framework, Deal, T. E., 241
1819, 31314 decennial census, 76n2
464 I N D EX
decentralized diversity planning, 309, 33537 discrimination, 98

of academic institutions, 33864 against LGBTQ community, 1023
accountability review in, 36263 of race, 110
basic criteria for, 347 reverse, 106, 11415, 274
critical questions in, 351 strategic diversity leadership awareness of,
diversity plan writing in, 35355 103
education for readiness in, 34850 of women and minorities, 1058
implementation evolution in, 362 in workplace, 13839
model for, 33940 diversity
planning process launch in, 34245 academic institutions adapting to, 305
plan review and implementation in, academic institutions branding with,
35560 24648
quality review of, 36062 academic institutions building in, 5, 173,
readiness activities changed in, 349 245
readiness activities established in, 34852 academic institutions complexities in
SDLS leveraged in, 352 achieving, 89
senior leaders determining level of, 342 academic institutions concerns of, 10
systematic challenges in, 35859 academic institutions dening, 11826
team selection for, 34547 academic institutions disjointed efforts in,
13031
three-year cycles in, 303, 33864
academic institutions goals for, 21920
timeline for, 340, 341
academic institutions infrastructure for,
decision making, 17980, 250
197
dedicated diversity programs, 13031
academic institutions linking programs of,
decit model, 8688
149
democratic outcomes, 186, 286
academic institutions planning checklist
demographics
of, 365
changing, 34, 3642 academic programs linking with, 149
LGBTQ shift in, 4142 accountability process for, 220, 256,
Department of Education, 53 29394
Development, Relief, and Education for accountability systems for, 37986
Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, 39 afnity groups, 420
digital response team, 173 afrmative action programs and, 14647
dimensions body-count, 200
behavioral, 28182 CDO hindered by denition of, 121
of diversity, 92, 9596, 9899 centralized institutional diversity planning
of dynamic diversity DNA, 196 and goals of, 303
of identity, 9293, 96 change process for, 293
ideological, 10418 cheetah approach to, 16364
primary, 9294, 9899 college campus strategies for integrating,
psychological, 28283 289
secondary, 94, 9899 competitive grants for, 253
social-historical, 96, 97 connected network of capabilities in, 133
of strategic diversity leadership, 210 conservative right attacking, 7273
disabilities, 103 crisis causing mobilization of, 205n1
disaggregating data, 26871 dening, 2324, 90, 243, 41417
I N D EX 465
detailed process dening, 12123 organizational goals of, 13334

dimensions of, 92, 9596, 9899 organizational models of, 158
as economic asset, 31 through organizational technologies, 134
education program promoting, 359 organizations approach with account-
evolving concept of, 8486 ability for, 1516, 25
faculty systems for, 399405 organizations mission fulllment
nancial support for, 22324 through, 1415
funding new initiatives of, 35152 potential risks of, 4
global economy and social imperative progress metrics, 284
of, 12 progress report on, 36061
in higher education, 3 race-neutral alternatives in, 3079
higher educations capabilities in, 13334, research and assessment systems for,
36871 38691
higher educations comprehensive picture resources applied to, 200
of, 2526 scorecard method measuring performance
higher educations growth in, 4749 in, 25760
higher educations policy organizations single-identity, 41921
dening, 119 SJSUs efforts in, 318
human capacity and, 18990 social identity committees and, 41721
ideologies of, 1057 strategic core of, 1213, 37273
implementation best practices for, 361 strategic pressures on higher education,
informal interactions in, 288 3435
institutional case of, 24143 strategic priority of, 33
institutional context rationale for, 353 students competence in, 186
institutional denitions of, 11826 students learning about issues of, 39899
institutional goals and, 21920 symbolic event anchoring, 244
institutions brand advancing, 24648 terms of, 8991
institutions infrastructure for, 197 360-degree assessment process in, 29495
institutions missions in, 313 traditions and stories of, 24445
intellectual and competitive benets from, training and education initiatives on,
23 39199
interconnected contexts of, 82 training programs, 18990
isomorphic forces of, 10 transformative, 18485
keywords for, 8283 unit goals for, 35253
leadership promoting, 35960, 407 university presidents and, 294
learning context from, 2 U.S. military and, 27n6
learning environment inuenced by, 59 UW-Madisons rst wave impacts and,
learning perspectives and, 28589 336
legal and political shifting landscape of, wolves long-term success approach and,
6265 16466
legal guidance framework on, 6465 in workplace, 41417
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity Diversity Action Plan 2002, 322
Model and, 15 diversity committees
multi-dimensional model of, 97 academic institutions deploying, 410, 421
national policy guidance dening, 126 ad-hoc, 42526
organizational, 131, 26267 candidate consideration criteria for, 432
466 I N D EX
categories of, 425 plan implementation and delays in,

CDO and, 40910, 423 17577
chairperson of, 43234 planning committees formed in, 17475
at Columbia University, 41113 response and demand in, 170
composition of, 432 strategic diversity planning and, 408
criteria and pitfalls developing, 432 support declarations in, 17274
denitions of, 41417 Diversity/Equity Scorecard, 258
design contingencies for, 414 diversity idea, 4, 23
Diversity Crisis Model and, 17475 Afrmative Action and Equity Model and,
empowering, 424 202
executive diversity councils and, 42728 conceptual model of, 84
faculty and, 42122 dening, 8182
focus benets of, 421 in higher education, 12627, 13132
focus needed by, 42122 ideological dimensions of, 10418
framework organization for, 41314 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model
in higher education, 40913 and, 202
high-prole conferences of, 424 Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity
issues challenging, 411 Model and, 202
leadership and membership recruitment perspectives of, 85
symbolic changes and, 12526
for, 436
terminology of, 8889
leadership determining responsibilities of,
diversity identity
422
primary dimensions of, 9294, 9899
localized, 42526
secondary dimensions of, 94, 9899
member effectiveness enhanced in, 43334
diversity leadership commitment perspec-
membership selection of, 42934
tives, 292
planning by, 17475
diversity planning. See also centralized insti-
Pomona College, 41819 tutional diversity planning;
power and politics balanced in, 43132 decentralized diversity planning
private university with, 41617 academic institutions checklist for, 365
progress and accountability reports of, academic institutions integrating, 31213
42324 academic institutions systems of, 37179
reasons for dissolving, 42829 academic institution types of, 3089
recommendations for, 43436 accountability in, 177
role responsibilities of, 42223 centralized institutional, 306, 308, 31423
size of, 43132 checklist for, 365
social identity and, 41721 college campuses with, 19192
strategic thinking from, 42324 crisis response in, 17072
subcommittees in, 41617 cultural shifts inuencing, 3034
types and functions of, 424 decentralized, 309
diversity coordinating council, 34344 decentralized diversity plan writing in,
Diversity Crisis Model, 21213 35355
confrontation and tensions in, 170 Duderstadts comments on draft in,
incident occurrences in, 16669 32628
institutional response in, 167 failure reasons in, 17677
phases of, 16869 nancial approaches to, 22426
INDEX 467
Harvard Universitys process of, 17172 Duderstadt, James

higher education process of, 17779 centralized resource pool created by, 328
implementation activities, 341 diversity plan draft comments of, 32728
institutional audit conducted in, 31718 Michigan Mandate for Diversity and, 253
institutional mission integrated with, minority employee hiring comments of,
31213 32930
integrated approach in, 87, 306, 308, multicultural university goal of, 321, 324
31014 Society of College and University
integrated approach limitations in, 314 Planning speech of, 33
key elements in, 366 university presidents role statement of, 217
leaders committed to, 309 Duncan, Arne, 2
leaderships approach in, 178 Duster, Troy, 118, 145
leadership tested with, 174 dynamic diversity DNA, 19294
modern-day implementation of, 30610 building blocks of, 19697
public and private sector grants in, 22627 dimensions of, 194
strategic diversity leaderships checklist diversity stage models compared to,
for, 365 19596
strategic systems for, 37475, 37579, 408 inclusive excellence stage of, 2034
strategies in, 21920, 307 mature implementation stage of, 2013
three-year decentralized process of, 303, model of, 193
33864 stages model of, 196
of University of Wisconsin-Madison, start up in, 197200
31516 transitional stage of, 200201
diversity point leadership council, 42527
Diversity Scorecard, 258 Eckel, Peter
diversity stage model change initiatives addressed by, 18182
of institutions, 197 college campus presidents ndings of, 218
overview of, 19899 college campus strategic plan and, 310
diversity stage models, 19597 diversity and institutions missions noted
diversity-themed assessments, 275 by, 313
Division of Information Technology sense-making process ndings of, 235
(DoIT), 339340 transformational change dened by, 183
documents, 22 university presidents and diversity ndings
Doing Diversity in Higher Education: Faculty of, 294
Leaders Share Challenges and Strategies, Economic Access Model, 134, 135
408 economics
DoIT. See Division of Information diversity asset to, 31
Technology educational inequality due to, 5455
domestic partners, 108 education inuenced by, 229
dominant cultural environments, 146 perspective, 106, 10810
Dont Ask, Dont Tell, 27n6 status in, 271
double-loop learning, 21213 students background and, 10910
DREAM. See Development, Relief, and education
Education for Alien Minors Act community colleges providing affordable,
Du Bois, W. E. B., xi 49
468 INDEX
decentralized diversity planning readiness equity

through, 34850 dening, 90
diverse learning environment inuencing, in gender, 330
60 higher education access perspectives and,
diversity and training initiatives with, 27579
39193 organizations mission fulllment
diversity goals in, 75 through, 1415
diversity promoted through, 359 perspectives on, 1048
diversity training and, 394 scorecard, 259
economically vulnerable families and, of strategic diversity leadership, 273
5456 Equity Index, 27172
economic situation inuencing, 229 essential learning outcomes, 150, 15253
females outperforming males in, 5354 ethnic populations
internationalization in, 155 academic institutions training, 5663
investments in, 2 admission policies inuencing, 7172
leaderships diversity training and, 394 afrmative identity thesis and, 8688
minority students raising levels of, 55 decennial census and, 76n2
multicultural, 154, 155 disaggregate information relating to,
national survey on training and, 39294 26970
in metropolitan areas, 40
opportunity disparities in, 36
not-for-prot institution graduation rates
overall sample of training and, 393
of, 52
population reaching levels of, 77n7
salary disparities and, 57
primary and secondary school disparities
undergraduate enrollment by, 48, 50
in, 43
unequal treatments of, 1046
private and public institutions training
exclusion, 46
and, 39496
of academic institution, 23236
salary disparities and, 57 culture and, 1023
secondary, 3233 racial, 111
strategic diversity goals and, 20 by white male society, 100101
triple-loop learning in, 21316 executive diversity councils, 42728
U.S. cuts in, 2 executive diversity leadership council, 426
education diversity survey, 287 executive initiatives, 74
EEO. See equal employment opportunity executive position line leadership, 427
emotional intelligence (EI), 16 external benchmarking, 298300
employment, 138
empowerment, 11213 Facebook, 248
engagement map, 31822 facially neutral policies, 77n8
equal employment opportunity (EEO), faculty
13536 campus racial makeup of, 399
equality Columbia Universitys leadership of, 433
economic and educational, 5456 diversication systems, 399405
Learning, Diversity, and Research Model diversity committees and, 42122
promoting, 15354 national survey on diversication of, 400
organizational systems for, 15 public and private institutions diversi-
society fracturing and lack of, 4245 cation of, 40003
INDEX 469
recruitment and retention of, 4012 Gioia, Dennis, 242

senate, 248 Gladwell, Malcolm, 356
strategic diversity goals and, 253n4 global economy
family income, 55 diversity as social imperative in, 12
Feagin, Joe, 102 knowledge-based, 2, 3236
feedback, 294, 355, 360 U.S. advantages in, 2
feminist movements, 1078 global learning, 151, 278, 286
nancial aid Gluckman, A., 60
for diversity, 22324 Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make
students getting scholarships and, 1089 the Leap, and Others Dont (Collins),
nancial strategies, 35152 237
accountability in, 354 Good to Great and the Social Sector (Collins),
diversity planning with, 22426 267, 358
Finding Common Ground, 356 Gould, Stephen Jay, 86
rst-order changes, 16 graduation rates, 52
scal stability strategies, 224 grants, public and private sector, 227
Fisher, Abigail, 69 Gratz v. Bollinger, 27, 6566, 149, 331
Fisher v. University of Texas Greater Expectations report, 28586
admissions policies and, 6970 Great Recession, 32, 76n1, 224, 227
Economic Access Model and, 135 Green, M., 181
Grutter v. Bollinger decision and, 7072 group identity
race-conscious admissions issue of, 27n7, perspective, 8485
124 socially constructed concept of, 1034
Supreme Court ruling of, 4, 27n4, 213 social unity threatened by, 116
focus groups, 247 themes of, 9192
Ford Foundation, 227 Grutter v. Bollinger
for-prot institutions constitutionality of, 7072
graduation rates of, 52 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model
low-income students attending, 5153 and, 150
Fourteenth Amendment, 104 militarys social policies and, 27n6
fundraising, xixii, 22429 OConnor cited in, 1213
minority sensitivity and, 22728 Proposition 2 and, 331
private, 22829 student preparation and, 387
Supreme Court and, 387
Gamson, C., 183 University of Michigan law school chal-
garbage can model, 17980 lenged in, 6569
Garza, Emilio, 70 Gurin, P., 286
Gates, Robert, 27n6
gateway courses, 279 Haas, Evelyn, 221
gender. See also men; women Haas, Robert D., 221
equity in, 330 Haas, Walter, Jr., 221
institutional change and, 184 Haas Gift, 222
issues, 171 Haas Scholarship Challenge, 22223
genetic factors, 86 Hale, Frank, Jr., 223
geographic location, 21415 halo effect, 248
GI Bill, 94 Halualani, Rona, 318
470 I N D EX
Harlem Childrens Zone, 46 Hip-Hop Performance Theater, 335

Hart, Peter D., 59, 394 Hispanics, 89, 95
Harvard University, 205n1 historical context, 1011
diversity planning process of, 17172 Hollander, Edwin, 237
promise program of, 135 Holvino, E., 195
higher education Hopwood v. Texas, 69, 213
access and equity perspectives in, 27579 House Bill 588, 213
CDO study in, 2123 Howard, Jean, 413
change difculties in, 19192 Hubbard, E., 259, 260, 291
cultural intelligence developed for, 8384 human capacity, 18990
dedicated diversity programs in, 13031 Humphreys, D., 151
diversity and strategic pressures on, 3435 Hurtado, Sylvia, 88, 111, 260, 280
diversity capabilities in, 13334, 36871
diversity committees in, 40913
identity. See also self-identity
diversity denitions of, 119
afrmative thesis of, 8688
diversity growing in, 4749
college campus and, 1012
diversity idea in, 12627, 13132
culture and, 8889, 1023, 141, 146, 3034
diversity in, 3
developmental theories of, 127n2
diversity planning process in, 17779
dimensions of, 9293
diversitys comprehensive picture in,
diversity, 9294, 9899
2526
group, 8485, 9192, 95, 1034, 116
Equity Index for, 27172
single-, 41920
facially neutral policies in, 77n8
social committees of, 41721
integration in, 87
minority male students challenges in, social-historical dimension of, 96
4547 ideological perspectives, 8485
multicultural and inclusive campus of diversity idea, 10418
climate perspective in, 27985 strategic diversity leadership approaches
organizational diversity models in, 158 with, 11718
policy organizations, 119 IHEP. See Institute for Higher Education
promise programs, 135 Policy
race-conscious policies in, 6569 immigration
salary disparities from, 56 policies, 156
strategic diversity goals in, 1719 trends in, 39
strategic diversity planning systems in, implementation activities
37475 best practices for diversity, 361
transformational change in, 18384, in centralized institutional diversity
19192 planning, 32223
undergraduate enrollment in, 4850 decentralized diversity planning evolving,
undocumented students in, 3839 362
higher-status groups, 9698 decentralized diversity planning review
high-impact learning experiences, 27678 and, 35560
high-level generalists, 58 diversity planning, 341
high-prole conferences, 424 of leadership, 2034
high school graduates, 35 performance score in, 36364
Hill, B., 181 strategic theme for, 35456
I N D EX 471
inclusion intelligence quotient (IQ), 16

academic institution with, 23236 intentionality, 19495
dening, 9091 inter and intragroup differences, 28384
organizations mission fulllment intercollegiate athletics, 180
through, 1415 internal benchmarking, 297
in workplace, 13839 internal communication system, 173
inclusive excellence, 2034, 356 international and domestic diversity research
Inclusive Excellence Scorecard, 258 perspectives, 28891
income disparity, 35 internationalization, 155
individuals international students, 14445
layering processes of, 99100 international studies assessments, 289
rights and achievements of, 115 internet, 3335
self-identity and, 9394 internships, 278
SIT of, 92 IQ. See intelligence quotient
inferiority, 86 Irvine Foundation, 227
infographic, 318 isomorphic diversity forces, 10, 27n5
informal interactions, 288 Iverson, S., 177
inquiry learning, 151, 286
insensitive remarks, 169 Jackson, B., 195
Institute for Higher Education Policy judicial system, 11012
(IHEP), 51, 53 Julius, D. J., 386
Institute for Research on Women and
Gender, 413 Kagan, Elena, 27n4, 72
Institute on High-Impact Practices and Kahlenberg, Richard, 10910
Student Success, 359 Kelly, 77n7
institutional change Kennedy, Anthony, 70, 72
categories of, 181 keynote lectures, 291
democratic outcomes in, 18888 keywords, 8283
gender-based, 184 Kezar, Adrianna
minor adjustments in, 182 college campus presidents ndings of, 218
strategic diversity leadership and, 18182 diversity and institutions missions noted
strategies in, 18485 by, 313
transformational, 18184, 18789 sense-making process ndings of, 235
types of, 18082 transformational change dened by, 183
institutional diversity audit university presidents and diversity ndings
challenges and opportunities illustrated of, 294
by, 31718 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 110, 145, 329
database and engagement map for, 31822 knowledge-based global economy, 2, 3236
institutional diversity movement, 194204 Kotter, J. P., 340, 355
integrated diversity planning, 306, 308, Kuh, George, 276
301014 Ku Klux Klan, 246
features of, 311
in higher education, 87 labor force
limitations of, 314 jobs lost in, 76n1
integrative learning, 151 new minority growth of, 3842
intellectual benets, 23 lactation spaces, 144
472 INDEX
Latino community, 89, 95 theories of, 1112

Latino Faculty and Staff Associations, 282 transitional stages and, 200201
Latino males, 45 learning
Lawrence, P., 427 AAC&U outcomes of, 15253
layering processes, 99100 academic excellence community for, 335
leadership. See also strategic diversity centered approach, 355
leadership civic, 286
CDO and planning of, 34445 communities, 277
CDO general position of, 32930 diversity and students, 39899
collegial, 210 diversity perspectives and, 28588
Columbia Universitys faculty, 433 diversitys context for, 2
commitment perspectives of, 291 double-loop, 21213
councils of, 42628 elements of, 189
cultural intelligence developed for, 8384 environment, 58
data generated by, 386 global, 151, 278, 286
decentralized diversity planning levels high-impact experiences in, 27678
determined by, 33942 inquiry, 151, 284
diversity capacity building of, 407 integrative, 151
diversity committee recruitment and, 436 organizational, 20911, 330
diversity committee responsibilities from, single-loop, 21112
422 structured forums for, 29798
diversity denitions claried by, 41427 triple-loop, 213156
diversity development efforts promoted types of, 286
by, 35960 Learning, Diversity, and Research Model,
diversity planning implementation 203
approach of, 178 diversity idea and, 202
diversity planning testing, 174 dynamics of, 150
diversity point council for, 42527 equality promoted through, 15354
diversity training and education programs Grutter v. Bollinger and, 149
for, 394 institutions diversity efforts broadened by,
executive diversity council for, 425 14851
executive position line, 427 limitations of, 15657
scal stability strategies of, 224 multicultural education and, 154, 155
implementation activities of, 203 organizational change from, 24
management of meaning in, 241 as organizational diversity model, 13031
new economy requiring skills in, 58 organizational technologies in, 15154
organizations cultural intelligence in, legal landscape
1617 diversity and shifting, 63
political, 210, 23139 diversity framework with guidance in,
presidents role in, 21819 6465
race-conscious policy guidance for, 6667 lesbian, gay
senior, 21719 bi-, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ), 5,
structural, 210, 216 9596 (See also gender)
symbolic, 210, 23948 college campus community and, 147
team development and, 18990 demographic shifts of, 4142
I N D EX 473
disaggregate information relating to, merit pay, 363

269 merit reviews, 380
discrimination against, 1023 metropolitan areas, 40
domestic partner benets and, 108 Miami University, 246
Haas Gift and, 222 Michigan Agenda for Women, 330
Levi Strauss Foundation, 221 Michigan mandate for diversity, 32331
LGBTQ. See lesbian, gay, bi-, transgender, creative nancing plan for, 32728
and queer organizational learning focus from, 33031
Lilly Foundation, 227 Michigan Mandate for Diversity, 253
Lipper, K., 70 Michigan State, 135
Lipson, D., 12 microaggressive moments, 9899
Living with Racism: The Black Middle Class Middle East studies programs, 15556
Experience (Feagin and Sikes), 102 Milem, Jeffrey, 260
localized diversity committees, 42627 military, social policies of, 27n6
Loden, Marilyn, 92, 96, 134, 313 minorities
Lorsch, J., 427 academic institutions and, 235
low-income students, 5153 afrmative action beneting, 1078
Madison Plan for Diversity, 322 colleges perpetuating stereotypes of, 63
majority cultures, 235 discrimination of, 1058
Making Excellence Inclusive initiative, 118 as employees, 331
Malcolm, L., 260 fundraising sensitive to, 22829
Mallon, W., 181 perspectives disregarded of, 116
management of meaning, 241 population growth of, 3842
March, J., 177 protecting rights of, 136
marketing social contexts inuencing, 99100
of academic institutions, 247 social identities among, 92
multicultural strategies in, 228 STEM representation of, 4
Matlock, J., 379 unequal treatment of, 16566
mature implementation stage, 2013 minority scholarship program, 233
McClendon, S., 176, 260 minority students
McKenny, Justine, 207 associate degree attainment of, 49
membership college attendance challenges for, 4547
of Campus Diversity and Climate education levels raised for, 56
Committee, 42931 high-impact learning of, 27778
diversity committees enhancing effec- salary disparities and, 56
tiveness of, 433 University of Michigan increasing, 326
diversity committees selections of, 42934 white students graduation gap with,
leaderships recruitment of, 436 27879
multiple, 14144 The Mismeasure of Man (Gould), 86
men mission statements, 37172
African American, 45 MLK Symposium, 329
females outperformed in education by, model minority myth, 4345
5354 Moreno, J., 202
higher-status groups of, 9698 Morgan, 242
Latino, 45 Moynihan, D., 297
white society of, 100101 Mullen, Mike, 27n6
474 I N D EX
Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity diversity research and assessment systems

Model, 203 in, 38687
cultural identity in, 141 of diversity training and education,
diversity engagement through, 15 38294
diversity idea and, 202 education diversity and, 287
dynamics of, 142 on faculty diversication, 400
limitations of, 14748 National Survey of Student Engagement
multiple memberships in, 14144 (NSSE), 268
organizational change and, 24 Native Americans, 123
organizational technologies of, 14445 NCORE. See National Conference on Race
philosophy and rationale of, 14041 and Ethnicity in American Higher
multicultural and inclusive campus climate Education
perspective, 27985 new economy, 58
multiculturalism, 91 new minority, 3842, 77n3
college campus experiences in, 143 9/11 terrorist attacks, 156
Duderstadts university goal of, 323, 326 not-for-prot institutions, 52
education and, 154, 155 Now is the Time report, 11819, 356, 366n3
higher education and inclusive climate of, NSF. See National Science Foundation
27985 NSSE. See National Survey of Student
marketing rms strategies in, 228 Engagement
studies assessments and, 28890
multi-dimensional model, 97 OAMI. See Ofce of Academic Multicul-
multi-dimensional reality, 10, 209 tural Initiatives
multiple memberships, 14144 Obama, Barack, 1, 3133, 230
multi-racial society, 76n2 Obama, Michelle, 115
objectives, goals tactics, and indicators
NASPA. See National Association of Student (OGTIs), 26162
Personnel Administrators OConnor, Sandra Day, 1213, 6869, 71
National Assessment for Educational Ofce Afrmative Action, 263
Progress, 43 Ofce of Academic Multicultural Initiatives
National Association of Student Personnel (OAMI), 32829
Administrators (NASPA), 90 Ofce of Minority Affairs, 233
National Conference on Race and Ethnicity Ofce of Multicultural Arts Initiatives, 335
in American Higher Education OGTIs. See objectives, goals tactics, and
(NCORE), 218 indicators
National Governors Award for the Arts, 335 Olsen, J., 177
national policy guidance, 126 Omi, M., 111
National Science Foundation (NSF), 183 open enrollment, 230
National Society of Black Engineers, 282 oppression, 99
National Study of Chief Diversity Ofcers, organizations
268 cultural intelligence leadership in, 1617
national survey diversity, equity and inclusion in, 1415
of AAC&U, 392 diversity approach with accountability in,
of academic institutions, 37173 1516, 25
diversity accountability systems in, 38082 higher education policy, 119
INDEX 475
leadership driving structural change of, perfect storm, 10, 23, 217, 242
216 demographic changes in, 34, 3642
structural equality systems built in to, 15 diversity emerging from, 33
transformative change in, 16, 18789 pressure systems inuencing, 32
White supremacist, 232 performance
Organizational Behavior (Robbins), 252 in implementation, 36263
organizational change, 24 progress measures of, 26366
organizational culture scorecard method measuring, 25760
behavioral patterns in, 187 perspectives, 260
change in, 18789 of academic institutions, 8485
models of, 188 access and equity, 27579
organizational diversity centric, 106, 11213
CDO and models in, 13233 color blind, 106, 11517, 197, 237
champions needed for, 2089 conceptual, 8485
college campuses and, 131 of diversity idea, 85
goals in, 13334 diversity leadership commitment, 292
models, 158 economics, 106, 10810
problem planning and decision making in, on equity, 1048
17980 group identity, 8485
SDLS indicators of, 26267 ideological, 8485, 10418, 11718
organizational diversity models international and domestic diversity
Afrmative Action and Equity Model as, research, 29091
24, 13031, 13537 learning and diversity, 28589
CDO and, 13233 minority, 116
higher education with, 158 multicultural and inclusive campus
Learning, Diversity, and Research Model climate, 27985
as, 24, 13031, 13537 progress performance measures of, 26366
organizational learning, 20911, 328 racialized, 106, 11012
organizational technologies reverse discrimination, 106, 11415, 274
in Afrmative Action and Equity Model,
universal, 106, 11315
13738
Peterson, M. W., 88, 183
diversity through, 134
Pfeffer, J., 386
in Learning, Diversity, and Research
philanthropic afnity group, 225
Model, 15154
Piaget, Jean, 285
in Multicultural and Inclusion Diversity
Pink, Daniel, 35
Model, 14445
Plan 2008, 323, 33234
parents, Asian, 44 campus accountability efforts of, 33738
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. as living document, 333
Seattle School District No. 1, 72 planning committees, 17475
Parker, S., 202 planning process launch, 34245
pedagogical practices, 212 Plyler v. Doe, 38
Pell Grant, 271 policy changes, 291
Penn State University, 420 political leadership, 210
PEOPLE. See Pre-College Enrichment change resistance and, 23639
Opportunity Program for Learning inclusion or exclusion of, 23236
Excellence strategic diversity leadership and, 23139
476 I N D EX
politics faculty diversication in, 40002

capital in, 238 training and education programs in,
college campus strategies for, 239 39496
diversity and shifting in, 62 public sector grants, 227
diversity committees balancing power pull strategies, 25253
with, 43132
Pomona College, 41819 qualitative assessments, 386
Pope, Raechele, 82 qualitative interview criteria, 2223
populations, 77n7 qualitative investigation, 2122
poverty, 45 qualitative measures, 267
Powell, Lewis, 149 quantitative assessments, 386
power sources, 23839 quantitative measures, 267
Pre-College Enrichment Opportunity quota systems, 68
Program for Learning Excellence
race. See also African Americans; Asian
(PEOPLE), 31516, 337
Americans; Latino community
precollege-to-college pipeline program, 332
academic institution training and, 5662
Presidential Advisory Committee, 41819
in admission policies, 7172
presidents
afrmative identity thesis and, 8688
college campus, 218
African American students and insensi-
leadership role of, 21819
tivity of, 1012
university, 217, 294
balancing, 274
primary schools, 43
disaggregate information relating to,
Princeton University, 135 26970
private fundraising, 22729 discrimination by, 110
private institutions, 41617 exclusionary policies of, 111
diversity accountability systems of, 38284 in metropolitan areas, 40
diversity planning systems of, 37073 not-for-prot institution graduation rates
diversity research and assessment systems by, 52
of, 38889 salary disparities and, 57
faculty diversication in, 40002 students of color integration and, 143
training and education programs in, Supreme Court policy decisions on,
39496 12425
private sector grants, 22627 undergraduate enrollment by, 48, 50
problem-solving, 59, 17980 unequal treatments of, 1046
progress performance measures, 26366 race-conscious policies, 27n7
progress report, 358 educational diversity goals and, 75
projectitis, 212 Fisher v. University of Texas issue of, 27n7,
Project on Fair Representation, 72 124
promise program, 135 in higher education, 6769
Proposition 2, 330 leaderships strategic guidance and, 6667
psychological dimensions, 28283 Supreme Courts, 6569
public institutions race-neutral alternatives, 3079
diversity accountability systems of, 38284 racialized perspective, 106, 11012
diversity planning systems of, 37376 racism, 46
diversity research and assessment systems judicial system and, 11012
of, 38889 reverse, 1012
INDEX 477
Rainbow Student Alliance, 282 San Jose State University (SJSU), 31822,
Rankin, Sue, 102, 269 35657
RDT. See resource dependence theory data analysis of, 32022
readiness activities, 34852 diversity effort of, 319
recruitment, faculty, 40102 Scharmer, Otto, 189
Reed, B., 60 Schein, Edgar, 188
Regents of the University of California v. scholarships, 20, 289
Bakke, 65, 149 minority programs for, 233
relationships, 248 students getting nancial aid and, 1089
research. See also Learning, Diversity, and Schon, D., 211
Research Model Schott Foundation for Public Education, 45
academic institutions ofces of, 178 Schuette, Bill, 73
assessment systems and, 38889 science, technology
diversity assessment systems with, 38691 engineering, and math (STEM), 267, 272
inter and intragroup differences and, centralized diversity plans and, 316
28384 pedagogical practices in, 212
international and domestic diversity, transformational change and, 183
28890 women and minority representation
methodology best practices of, 31822 in, 4
national survey on diversity assessment scorecard method
and, 38788 diversity performance measured by,
overall sample on assessment systems and, 25760
388 strategy clarity attained by, 25960
secondary, 268 SDLS. See strategic diversity leadership
strategic diversity goals and, 20 scorecard
undergraduate, 277 SDS. See strategic diversity scorecard
resource allocation secondary education/schools, 3233, 43
institutional diversity and, 200 secondary research, 268
of institutions, 19295, 197200 segregated outreach, 234
resource dependence theory (RDT), 236
segregation, 11011
responsibilities, 42223
self-identity
retention, faculty, 40102
of African American women, 99
retirement, of CDO, 180
multi-racial society and, 76n2
reverse discrimination perspective, 106,
sexual orientation inuencing, 96
11415, 274
strategic diversity leadership and, 9394
reverse racism, 1012
Senge, P. M., 212
review teams, 295
senior leadership, 21719
rights, 3839, 115, 136. See also Civil Rights
Movement sense-making process, 235
risks, 4 service-sector jobs, 58
Robbins, Stephen, 252 sexual harassment, 138
Roberts, John, 71, 72 sexual orientation, 92, 96, 269
Rowe, Donald Dee, 245 Shalala, Donna, 332
Shapiro, Andrea, 275, 357
salary disparities shared governance process, 333, 334
minority students and, 56 Shepard, Matthew, 102
race, ethnicity and education with, 57 Sikes, Melvin, 102
478 INDEX
single-identity diversity, 41920 strategic diversity initiatives, 253

single-loop learning, 21112 strategic diversity leadership
SIT. See social identity theory academic institutions core mission with,
size 251
of academic institutions, 37678, 38485, access and equity of, 273
38990, 39697, 40304 alliances needed by, 238
of diversity committees, 43132 challenges in, 4
sizzle wheel, 248 change process with, 11, 1317, 216, 23639
SJSU. See San Jose State University change resistance and, 23639
Smircich, 242 collegial leadership and, 24953
Smith, D., 202 Columbia University committees and,
Smith, Daryl, 260 41113
social groups compass for, 208
empowerment and, 11213 data used by, 25759
group identity and context of, 1034 dening, 2425
militarys policies of, 27n6 dimensions of, 210
minority identities and, 99100 discrimination awareness of, 103
social-historical dimension, 96, 97 diversity planning checklist for, 365
social identity committees, 41721 double-loop learning in, 21213
social identity theory (SIT), 92 equity of, 273
social media, 17274 ve key frames of, 209
social networking, 248 general conversations and, 25052
social policies, 27n6 goals of, 1819
social unity, 116 ideological approaches in, 11718
society, 4245 institutional transformation and, 18182
Society of College and University institutions inclusion or exclusion and,
Planning, 33 23236
socioeconomic status, 271 institutions planning and implemen-
The Souls of Black Folk (Du Bois), xi tation and, 19294
special interest groups, 30610 isomorphic forces in, 27n5
special interest institutions, 127n4 major issues in, 2325
Spectrum Magazine, 215 model for, 810
stages model, 196 multi-dimensional reality in, 10, 209
stakeholders, 351 organizational learning in, 2099
STARS. See Sustainability Tracking, organizations structural change by, 216
Assessment and Rating System political leadership and, 23132
STEM. See science, technology, engineering, power sources for, 238
and math principles of, 1417
Stoddard, E. W., 290 public and private sector grants and,
strategic diversity goals 22627
best practices for, 350 pull strategies used in, 25253
Diversity Crisis Model and, 408 qualitative interview criteria of, 2223
education and research in, 20 requirements for, 78
faculty staff and, 255n4 self-identity and, 9394
in higher education, 1719 single-loop learning in, 21112
model for, 1921 strategies of symbolic, 239
I N D EX 479
students fees and, 229 in diversity planning, 21920, 307

target goals set by, 27274 diversity principles integration, 288
terms used in, 26n3 diversitys core, 1213, 37273
toolkit developed for, 2079 diversitys priority of, 33
top-level support for, 21719 nancial, 22426, 35152, 35455
triple-loop learning in, 21316 scal stability, 224
tuition and student fees and, 229 framework of, 311
vital agenda demonstrated by, 242 higher education pressures for, 3435
Strategic Diversity Leadership: Inspiring in institutional change, 18485
Change and Transformation in Higher marketing rms multicultural, 228
Education (Williams, D.), 3, 5, 8 planning of, 311, 313, 366n1
strategic diversity leadership scorecard race-conscious policy and guidance for,
(SDLS), 26068 6667
access and equity perspectives in, 27579 realities of, 1011
assessment measurements of, 389 relationships in, 252
benchmarking and competitive analysis scorecard method giving clarity to,
of, 297300 25960
cascading buy-in process of, 29596 of social media, 17274
concerns regarding, 27475 for student survey response improve-
credible climate indicators for, 28082
ments, 28485
data disaggregating for, 26871
of symbolic leadership, 24041
data sources for, 26768
vision of, 35556, 369
decentralized diversity planning lever-
structural diversity, 157
aging, 352
structural leadership, 210, 216
graduation gap indicator in, 27879
structured learning forums, 29697
multicultural and international studies
Student Nonviolent Coordinating
assessments and, 28890
OGTIs progress tracked in, 26162 Committee, 326
organizational diversity indicators in, students. See also minority students
26267 academic institutions and economic back-
policy changes guided by, 291 ground of, 10910
progress performance measures of, 26366 African American racial insensitivity of,
quantitative and qualitative measures in, 1012
267 of color, 143
strategic planning guided by, 313 cultural identity and, 8889
structured learning forums and, 29697 diversity competence of, 186
strategic diversity planning systems, 37475, diversity issues learned by, 39899
37779, 408 ethnically and racially diverse, 5662
strategic diversity scorecard (SDS), 6 nancial aid and scholarships to, 1089
strategies, xixii gateway courses and, 279
accountability and nancial, 35455 high-impact learning experiences of,
campus politics with, 239 27678
change and pull, 25253 international, 14445
collaborative thinking of, 357 low-income, 5153
college campus diversity, 288 minority male, 4547, 55
diversity committees thinking of, 412223 preparation, 387
480 INDEX
strategic diversity leadership and fees of, 360-degree diversity assessment process,
229 29495
survey response improvement strategies three-year decentralized diversity planning,
and, 28485 303, 33864
ten-point platform of, 3045 Tierney, William, 100
undergraduate enrollment and, 50 timeline, 340, 341
undocumented, 3839 Tinto, Vincent, xii, 87
University of Michigan minority, 326 Tipping Point (Gladwell), 356
University of Michigan white neighbor- Tolland, Raphael, 242
hoods and, 61 toolkit, for strategic diversity leadership,
white, 27879 2079
subcommittees, 41617 top-down approach, 178
subgroup diversity identication, 95 top-level support, 21719
Summers, Lawrence, 17071 Top Ten Percent law, 213
support declarations, 17274 Toward Afrmative Action for Economic
Supreme Court. See also Specic case Diversity (Kahlenberg), 110
admission policies and, 6768 Towson University, 35658
Michigans legal defense in, 330 training
race and ethnicity policy decisions of, academic institutions, 5663
12425 diversity and education initiatives with,
race-conscious policy and, 6569 39199
Regents of the University of California v. ethnic populations academic, 5663
Bakke and, 65, 149 national survey on education and, 39294
surveys. See national survey
overall sample of education and, 393
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and
private and public institutions, 39496
Rating System (STARS), 42
programs for diversity, 18990
symbolic event, 244
transformational change, 16, 18184, 18794
symbolic leadership, 210, 23948
transformative diversity, 18485
academic institutions with, 23941
transitional stage, 200201
campus diversitys multiple meanings and,
triangulate, 267
243
triple-loop model, 211, 21316
institutional case for diversity and, 24143
tuition, 229
strategies of, 24041
systematic challenges, 35859 tuition differential project, 226
Turner, C. S. V., 399
Turner, John, 92
tactics, 26466
Twitter, 248
Tajfel, Henri, 92
target goals, 27274
Tatum, Beverly Daniel, 101, 141 undergraduate enrollment, 4850
team development, 18990 undergraduate research, 277
team selection, 34548 undocumented students, 3839
ten-point platform, 3045 unequal treatment, 16566
Teraguchi, D., 202 United Coalition Against Racism, 327
terminology, 8889 United States (U.S.)
terrorist attacks, 156 college degree edge lost by, 36
Thomas, David, 134 diversity in military of, 27n6
I N D EX 481
education cuts of, 2 university presidents role, 217

global economy advantages of, 2 U.S. See United States
unit goals, 35354 user friendly data, 274
unit meetings, 361
universal perspective, 106, 11315
Virginia Tech, 191
University of California-Berkeley, 22123
University of Connecticut, 60, 245 volunteer diversity champions, 200
University of Michigan, 33
admission policies of, 12 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 227
BAMs of, 32627 Wade-Golden, Katrina, 3, 5, 8, 159, 379
Bollingers role and, 412 white male society, 100101
campus-wide diversity strategy blueprint white neighborhoods, 61
of, 33031 white students, 27879
centralized diversity plans focus of, 32325 White supremacist organizations, 232
Grutter v. Bollinger challenging, 6569 Why Are All of the Black Kids Sitting Together
Michigan mandate for diversity from,
in the Cafeteria (Tatum), 141
32632
Williams, Damon, xixii, 3, 5, 8, 159, 176, 258
minority student increase by, 326
students growing up in white neighbor- Winant, H., 111
hoods at, 61 wolves, 16466
University of Oregon, 19192 women
University of Wisconsin, 225 afrmative action beneting, 1078
University of Wisconsin-Madison discrimination of, 1058
Campus Diversity and Climate males outperformed in education by,
Committee membership of, 42931 5354
centralized and decentralized plans of, self-identity of African American, 99
33537 STEM representation of, 4
centralized diversity plans focus of, workplace
32326, 33238 discrimination in, 13839
diversity and rst wave impacts of, 335 diversity in, 41415
diversity planning of, 31516
inclusion in, 13839
PEOPLE program of, 31516
writing courses, 277
precollege-to-college pipeline program of,
332
shared governance process of, 332, 333 YouTube, 248
Also available from Stylus
Confronting Equity Issues on Campus
http://stylus.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=285455
Implementing the Equity Scorecard in Theory and Practice
Edited by Estela Mara Bensimon and Lindsey Malcom
Foreword by David Longanecker
This volume examines how colleges and universities are using the Center for
Urban Educations Equity Scorecard to create racial equity on campus. With in-depth
examinations of the Equity Scorecard process as well as reections from practitioner
teams and researchers, the book is a testament to the role thoughtful data assessment
can play in generating more racially equitable outcomes for students. The book calls
educators and administrators to take personal responsibility for their roles in mov-
ing from decit model to an equity model, and provides helpful context for anyone currently using or consid-
ering the scorecard as a tool for change.Diversity & Democracy
Driving Change Through Diversity and Globalization

Transformative Leadership in the Academy
James A. Anderson
Foreword by Ronald A. Crutcher
On rare occasions one nds a book that reframes prior visions. Such books one does
not merely read, but one returns to study. Andersons Driving Change is such a book.
The rst three chapters provide a framework for understanding diversity and glob-
alization, which moves beyond the limits of afrmative action, ethnic studies, and
overseas study tours. The theoretical discussion is rooted in the premise that univer-
sities (read also societys) ability to work with diversity and globalization will deter-
mine the nature of their futures. Following a discussion of principles, Anderson moves from theory to practice,
giving illustrations of campuses that have embraced some facet of this new vision applying it either in terms
of teaching strategies and methods, curricular organization, and/or student development. The fact that
Anderson is able to draw on working applications gives credence to his theoretical propositions.Irene Hecht,
Director, Department Leadership Programs, ACE
Culture Centers in Higher Education

Perspectives on Identity, Theory, and Practice
Edited by Lori D. Patton
Foreword by Gloria Ladson-Billings
Culture Centers in Higher Education documents in one volume how ethnic and cul-
tural centers have served as places and spaces where those who have been under-
represented in higher education have survived and ourished at predominantly white
institutions. As our nation becomes increasingly diverse, these centers serve as models
of social justice and thus this book is a must read for all who want to ensure that
their institution provides environments that exude academic success and achieve
graduation for all students with their soul and identity whole.Mildred Garca, President, California State
University, Dominguez Hills
22883 Quicksilver Drive

Sterling, VA 20166-2102 Subscribe to our e-mail alerts: www.Styluspub.com

Strategic Diversity Leadership

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Strategic Diversity Leadership

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

STRATEGIC DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP

THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-819-4 (cloth)

Printed in the United States of America

All rst editions printed on acid free paper

First Edition, 2013

PART ONE: WHY IS DIVERSITY IMPORTANT IN THE

1. DIVERSITY IN THE NEW ECONOMY 31

PART TWO: WHAT IS DIVERSITY?

2. TOWARD A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DEFINITION

3. HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY

PART THREE: WHAT IS STRATEGIC DIVERSITY

4. WHY DIVERSITY EFFORTS FAIL 163

5. THE ARTFUL SCIENCE OF STRATEGIC DIVERSITY

6. BEING ACCOUNTABLE 256

7. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCCESSFUL

8. ACTIVATING THE DIVERSITY CHANGE JOURNEY 368

9. DIVERSITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND

Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and

to the admission of African American and Latino students to selective under-

individual chapters that follow, it is worth enumerating the practical objec-

Helping institutional leaders develop a diversity rationale and institu-

Chapter 8 offers an overview of a major survey project the author undertook

Adriana Kezar, Jonathan Alger, Jeffrey Milem, James Anderson, Gary

Becoming a Strategic Diversity Leader

Whether one is going to lead campus diversity planning efforts, start a

The Strategic Diversity Leadership Model

interlocking dynamics, including environmental realities, scal constraints,

than offer a framework for micromanagement, the strategic diversity leader-

The External Environment

The Institutional Context

These issues are addressed throughout Strategic Diversity Leadership, but

The Strategic Diversity Core

The perspective embodied by Justice OConnor suggests that we must proac-

Diversity Leadership as Artful Science

emphasis on hiring, retaining, and leveraging the contributions of diverse

The third principle of strategic diversity leadership is that leadership must

Learning, Diversity, and Research Modelmust be aligned and synchro-

The strategic diversity leadership philosophy inherently focuses on inten-

Cultural intelligence is a fairly new idea that builds on earlier concepts

involved in a dynamic and interactive process in which cultural challenges

Strategic Diversity Goals in Higher Education

mission. As an associate vice provost at a large research university in the

Body count diversity, or improving the number of minorities that we

College and university leaders must move from a narrow understanding of

1. Achieving access and equity for historically underrepresented groups

In our conversations with dozens of campus diversity committees and hun-

The Strategic Diversity Goals Pyramid

women-owned companies are treated fairly in an institutions procurement

The Chief Diversity Ofcer Study in Higher Education

Diversity Plans Plans outlining a comprehensive 87

Diversity Reports Progress reports, updates, annual reports, 52

Dedicated Diversity Position descriptions outlining the strategy, 109

Diversity Websites Websites describing campus diversity units 137

Concept Papers for Concept papers delineating new diversity 7

Newspaper Articles Articles announcing new diversity positions, 150

Academic and Academic and strategic plans with at least 22

recently begun to emerge as a means of identifying and empowering in one

Part One: Why Is Diversity Important in the New Millennium?

Part Two: What Is Diversity?

Part Three: What Is Strategic Diversity Leadership?

to change and advance the campus diversity agenda: organizational learning,