Journal of Diversity in Higher Education

Faculty Women of Color: The Critical Nexus of Race and Gender

Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner, Juan Carlos Gonzlez, and Kathleen Wong (Lau) Online First Publication, August 15, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0024630

CITATION Turner, C. S. V., Gonzlez, J. C., & Wong (Lau), K. (2011, August 15). Faculty Women of Color: The Critical Nexus of Race and Gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0024630

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2011, Vol. , No. , 000 000

2011 National Association of Diversity Ofcers in Higher Education 1938-8926/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024630

Faculty Women of Color: The Critical Nexus of Race and Gender

Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner
California State University, Sacramento

Juan Carlos Gonzalez

California State University, Fresno

Kathleen Wong (Lau)

Western Michigan University This article examines the experiences of faculty women of color at predominately White public research extensive universities. In the wake of legal challenges to afrmative action, such as Gratz and Grutter, and the proliferation of antiafrmative action state Civil Rights Initiatives, these issues become critically important. This studys central questions were, What are the lived experiences of faculty women of color in predominately White institutions? and What are the implications of legal challenges to afrmative action, such as Gratz and Grutter, for faculty women of color and their institutions? Twelve 90-min focus groups were conducted with 51 faculty women of color from a wide range of academic elds and disciplines, from all regions of the United States, and occupying tenured/tenure track ranks (assistant, associate, and full professors) to further understand their experiences, feelings, and reactions in light of the afrmative action Supreme Court cases. Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Race Feminism (CRF) serve as frameworks to guide our analysis. One main nding is that faculty women of color across three disciplinary areas (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics [STEM], Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences [SBE], and Humanities/Arts) experience a knowledge gap on the impact of public policies on their everyday lives. Faculty women of color, along with experiencing the typically documented conditions of tokenism, also report that communication about diversity initiatives and resources on their own campuses was extremely uneven and idiosyncratic. Keywords: faculty of color, women of color, focus groups, tokenism, critical race theory, critical race feminism

This article examines the lived experiences of faculty women of color at predominantly White

Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner, College of Education, California State University, Sacramento; Juan Carlos Gonzalez, Department of Educational Research and Admin istration, Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno; Kathleen Wong (Lau), School of Communication, Western Michigan University. We thank the Ford Foundation for providing the generous grant that enabled the co-PIs, Kathleen Wong (Lau) and Caroline S. Turner, and their associate, Juan Carlos Gonzalez, to collaborate on this project. We also acknowl edge and thank the JDHE editors and reviewers for their invaluable suggestions and comments during the development of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner, College of Education, California State University, Sacramento, 222 Eureka Hall, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6079. E-mail: csturner@saclink.csus.edu 1

research extensive universities in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings on Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) to gain insight on how the racial and gender composition of university contexts inuence the work life of faculty women of color and to ascertain this Supreme Court decisions impact, if any, on their experiences as a faculty member. The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010) continues to document the underrepresentation of faculty women of color. For example, The Almanac reports that of all faculty positions held by women, American Indian women held 0.6%, Latinas held 4%, Asian American women held 6.7%, and African American women held 7% compared with 78.2% held by White women. Furthermore, as professorial rank increases, the representation of faculty women of color decreases.

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

This study explores two research questions: From their perspectives, what are the lived experiences of faculty women of color in predominately White public research extensive institutions? Within the context of antiafrmative action legislation, what do faculty women of color perceive as implications of legal challenges to afrmative action, such as Gratz and Grutter, for their work lives and for their institutions? Including the Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court cases, there was also Proposition 209 in California, Initiative 200 in Washington, Proposal 2 in Michigan, and the 2008 Civil Rights Initiatives in Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Arizona. Related Literature and Conceptual Framework Previous literature addressing the experience of faculty women of color in academe reports common themes such as feelings of isolation and marginalization, as well as documenting resistance to their presence by predominantly White faculty and White students (Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001; Turner, 2002; Wong, 2007). Information on the experiences of women of color in academe can be invisible, buried within studies that report results under categories such as faculty of color or women. Women of color t both racial/ethnic and gender categories, inhabit multiple social identities, experience multiple marginality, and their stories are often masked within these contexts (Turner, 2002, 2008). Many faculty women of color have spoken about being psychologically divided between home and career or between community and career (Townsend & Turner, 2000). Allen et al. (1991) noted that women from underrepresented populations face barriers attributable to historical, cultural, and social factors that have shaped their experience and development in American society. Pervasive racist and sexist attitudes continue to limit educational opportunities for women of color (p. 190). In a review of 20 years of literature, from 1988 to 2007, Turner, Gonzalez, and Wood (2008) address the sta tus of faculty to color in academe and document the lack of studies with a focus on the experience of faculty women of color.

Numerical Tokens Structurally, institutions represent environments where women of color are numerical tokens. The negative sociological consequences of being in a numerical minority are well documented (Kanter, 1977; Turner, 2002). Harley (2008) found that African American women assume a heavy role in service, teaching, and research as a direct result of being highly tokenized numerical minorities in predominantly White institutions. In addition, Mitchell (1994), noted that the small numbers of faculty women of color compels them to serve simultaneously as role models for their profession, race, and gender. The importance, implications, and consequences of numerical underrepresentation within organizations are reected in Kanters theory of proportions (Kanter, 1977), which described the effects of marginality on social interactions and mobility in a corporate setting. Briey, Kanter stated that the numerical distribution of men and women in the upper reaches of the corporation provided different interaction contexts for those in the majority versus those in the minority. For example, women in the minority inhabit a context characterized by: being more visible and on display, feeling more pressure to conform, needing to make fewer mistakes, nding it harder to gain credibility, being more isolated and peripheral, having fewer opportunities to be sponsored, facing misperceptions about their identity and role in the organization, being stereotyped, and facing more stress. Those in the majority faced the opposite social context, such as being seen as one of the group, and being preferred for sponsorship by higher level colleagues. In her work, Kanter is primarily talking about White women as tokens. However, this work suggests that those who differ from the norm encounter a cycle of cumulative disadvantage, while those who t the norm experience a cycle of cumulative advantage. Kanters theories imply that the more ways in which one differs from the norm, the more social interactions will be negatively affected, and women of color because of their multiple marginality, are generally far from the norm among the ranks of the professoriate.

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

Critical Race Theory and Critical Race Feminism An analysis of the experiences of faculty women of color in predominantly White public research extensive institutions requires a conceptual framework that reects the inherent conditions of institutional tokenism and the intersections of race/ethnicity and gender. In addition to Kanters concept of tokenism, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Race Feminism (CRF) are used to theoretically ground the experiences of faculty women of color. The purpose of our dual framework is to integrate CRTs focus on race, racism, and power (Bell, 1988; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Gillborn, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1998) with CRFs focus on issues of concerns to women of color (Cho, 1997; Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1993; hooks, 1984; Montoya, 1994). Smith, Yosso, and Solorzano (2007) write of CRTs usefulness as a tool to understand how race and racism shape the educational pipeline (p. 562). Bonilla-Silva, Forman, Lewis, and Embrick (2003) describe a racism that exists in institutional structures and values, such as tenure criteria and teaching evaluations used to legitimize and make ordinary exclusionary practices based on race and gender. The system of tenure and promotion for faculty in academia is notorious for its ambiguity (Cooper & Stevens, 2002) and is well documented as having negative consequences for many faculty of color (Cho, 2002; Leap, 1995; Nakanishi, 1993; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Myers, 2000). The literature on teaching evaluations consistently shows that compared with men, women often receive lower teaching evaluations (Anderson & Miller, 1997; Arbuckle & Williams, 2003; Basow, 1995). In this same vein, scholars of color receive lower teaching evaluations scores than Whites (Anderson & Smith, 2005; Hendrix, 1998; Smith & Anderson, 2005). Structural inequality is shown to be the cause of these differences (DiPietro & Faye, 2005; Rubin, 1998). Kanters (1977) work also implies that one crucial component in producing a more inclusive and supportive environment is to increase the representation of women of color across the campusas students, staff, administrators, and faculty. This representation must also be reected across student (undergraduate and grad-

uate) and professorial ranks (from assistant to full). Research Design and Method This study used a qualitative methodological approach to collect data on the lived experience of faculty women of color. Qualitative research methods are most appropriate for examining the nuances of human behavior in its social context, capturing the complexity of the human experience (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For this study, focus groups with faculty women of color were conducted. As an effective method for determining participants perceptions, feelings, and thoughts about complex issues (Krueger & Casey, 2000), focus groups are used widely in academic and nonacademic settings, and their use continues to grow (see Grudens-Schuck, Allen, & Larson, 2004; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1993, 1997). In this study, as an attempt to maximize participants level of comfort, allowing participants to freely share their experiences, it was important that the three focus group moderators were women of color scholars. Strategies were also implemented to allow comparisons across focus groups. First, seating charts were drawn up by all focus group moderators, and these were made into digital les to be used when analyzing the data. Second, not only were transcripts analyzed, but so were the actual voice les so that it is possible to track the individual voice within each focus group. Third, all demographic characteristics spoken by focus group participants were mapped onto a spreadsheet so that demographic proles of individual participants can be matched to the narrative data. Fourth, curriculum vitas of the focus group participants were collected. All of the focus groups were conducted at public research extensive institutions: three on the east coast, three in the Midwest, three in the southwest, two on the west coast, and one in the south. The average length of each focus group was about 90 min. Participants were recruited by a representative within each of the study sites. A scripted invitation was sent to all faculty women of color designated on the institutions database and only those who responded that they would like to participate in the study were contacted. Focus group locations were ar-

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

ranged by the ofce of the campus liaison for this project. Description of Focus Group Participants Fifty-one faculty women of color participated in the 12 focus groups. Collectively, these 51 women were very experienced as facultywith 8 years (average) as faculty at their institutions, and 13 years (average) as faculty in academe. These women were also diverse in rank and race/ethnicity. Twentyone were assistant, 16 associate, and 14 full professors. In terms of race and ethnicity, 21 self-identied as Black/African American, 13 Hispanic/Latina/Chicana, 11 as Asian/Asian Pacic American, 5 Native American/American Indian, and 1 Jewish. In addition to their diversity in rank and race/ ethnicity, our participants were from various disciplinary elds. From the Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences, there were 22 faculty women from Ethnic Studies, Anthropology, Business, Communication, Criminal Justice, Education, and Social Work. From the STEM elds, there were 21 women from the Agricultural Sciences, Biological Sciences, Computer Sciences, Engineering Sciences, Health Sciences, and Mathematics. And from the Arts and Humanities, there were 8 women from English, Fine Arts, Foreign Languages, Religious Studies, and Liberal Arts. Our participants also received their doctorates at some of the best institutions in the United States. These universities include the following: Cornell, Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Texas A&M, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin, and Vanderbilt University. Description of Focus Group Protocol After the moderators introduced themselves and explained the purpose of the study using a script, they moved through an interview protocol. First, participants were asked how long they had been in academia and at their present institution, they were then asked to describe the climate for faculty women of color on their campus. They were asked to talk about individual experiences and to provide an example of a specic event that would characterize that ex-

perience for the researcher. After listening to a statement about the Gratz and Grutter cases, participants were asked about their knowledge of the Supreme Court cases and to discuss how these decisions might affect their workplace experiences and their institutions efforts to diversify the faculty. The following statement was read to each focus group to provide a context when asking participants questions regarding Gratz and Grutter:
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered decisions on two cases involving afrmative action and admissions in higher education. In both cases, the defendant was the University of Michigan. In the Grutter case, the Supreme Court supported afrmative action in law school admissions by ruling that student diversity is a compelling interest in higher education, and that race is one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve the educational benets that ow from a diverse student body. In the Gratz case, the Supreme Court supported only narrowly tailored approaches to diversity in the context of undergraduate admissions. The Court held that while race is one of a number of factors that can be considered in admissions, the automatic distribution of points to students from underrepresented minority groups is not allowed. (http://www.umich.edu/ urel/admissions/)

Qualitative Data Analysis The 12 focus groups produced 426 pages of transcription. Upon transcribing the 12 focus groups, coding was done collaboratively and simultaneously with data collection. This process involved taking notes and debrieng after each focus group, reading and rereading each transcript, and then coding the transcript using a line by line analysis of the responses to questions posed in the focus group. This procedure involved identifying discrete parts in the data and then comparing this with other data looking for similarities and differences. This analytic framework is referred to as constant comparative (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Merriam, 2009) and is useful in the identication of patterns in the data. Data are then grouped together around similar dimensions, eventually leading to the creation of a list of codes. The coded narrative data were then imported into NVIVO, a qualitative data analysis computer software package produced by QSR International (see QSR International, 2008). NVIVO then allows the researchers the capability of quickly producing reports based on each question posed in the

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

focus group complete with all of the coded responses and/or demographic factor(s) of interest associated with each question. Given space constraints, this analysis can only be synthesized and summarized here. Table 1 provides an overview of some of the discrete data elements collected, analyzed, and summarized for this article. This table shows a code and the subcodes under each code. The codes are organized in macro (institutional, regional, and global) and micro (departmental, college, and discipline) supports and challenges described by the focus group participants. Forty subcodes are noted for support systems (25 macro and 15 micro), and 121 for challenges (52 macro and 69 micro). For example, a support system at the macro level is how the campus climate provides a feeling of belonging, and under this are 9 subcodes that deal with campus climate, such as the diversity of the campus, and diversity in the curriculum. Most faculty comments revolved around challenges related to recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of faculty of color at both the micro and macro levels. Findings: Quotations Offer Close Look at Faculty Women of Color Experiences While Table 1 provides a birds eye view of the many supports and challenges identied by focus group participants, this section of the article presents specic insights and interactions revealed through representative quotations emerging from the focus group interviews. Focus group interview results indicate that tenured/tenure track faculty women of color in predominantly White, public research extensive universities continue to encounter racial and gender bias in the workplace. Because this study focuses solely on the experience of faculty women of color, it was impossible to isolate ndings under the tenets of CRT alone. All of the narratives that address race/ethnicity issues are understandably interlaced with gendered experiences. As a result, all of the voices represented here explicate the intersectionality of gender and race/ethnicity. Findings will reect CRT and CRF simultaneouslysome quotations accenting CRT and others CRF more predominately. Concluding the ndings section will be a discussion on how the Gratz and

Grutter Supreme Court decisions added hostility, a climate of fear, and ammunition for supporters of a status quo ideologically hostile to the inclusion of faculty women of color, thereby adding to an already unwelcoming, negative campus climate. Encountering White Superiority One consistent theme is an awareness of living within contexts promoting the socially constructed, multiple myths of White male superiority. Faculty women of color described their frustrations with the often invisible racial and gendered assumptions of intellectual and professional competency and superiority automatically assigned to White men and women. For example, one African American full professor in the arts and humanities says that The idea that the best faculty is always a White man is so engrained in womens and mens brains . . . there are a lot of mediocre White guys here and that doesnt seem to bother anybody. Faculty women of color describe how their competence is questioned, reecting what scholars have termed multiple scrutinies or multiple jeopardy (see Collins, 1989; Crenshaw, 1993; Wing, 1997, 2000). In everyday conversation, the term double standard is often used to describe how women and women of color are held to unfair and different standards than their male counterparts. In a back and forth conversation this Latina assistant professor and a Chicana full professor in the Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences reect on their experience: The Latina assistant professor says, I was appalled early on when I came here [and] one [White] faculty told me, If you are a minority person, and . . . you do research in bilingual education, then youre suspect because youre not likely to be able to be totally unbiased. And I thought, Geez, thank you very much. To which a Chicana full professor remarked: But if youre White and monolingual you can be totally unbiased. With her statement, the Chicana faculty member unpacks and deconstructs Whiteness as the invisible unquestioned standard of unbiased expertise. These quotations of the Latina and Chicana faculty demonstrate the methodological power of focus groups, whereby the participants trigger common and shared experiences

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

Table 1 Codes and Subcodes for Supportive and Challenging Macro and Micro Institutional Structures
Codes (# subcodes) Support systems (macro) Recruit, hire, retain (12) Subcodes Faculty of color hiring; university faculty hiring commitment; faculty recruitment; students of color recruitment; staff diversity; champions for women faculty; diverse urban settings; diversication initiatives; key people making case for diversity; mentoring programs; support for faculty activities; women support groups Asians not discrimination targets; diverse campus activities; diverse campuses; diversity curriculum; diversity key to faculty recruitment; faculty of color treated equally at PWI; campus is safe havens for people of color; climate is supportive; symbols of diversity exist Existing student diversity; positive perception of diverse students; students friendly to faculty of color; students want faculty of color Consciousness about diverse faculty hires; unbiased employment; support to hire faculty of color; promotion of faculty of color positive; being in ethnic-cultural studies; collegial support; in environment with talented faculty; freedom to be creative; freedom to do minority-based research and service; support for faculty mothers; champions; connections with students; existence of critical mass; supportive colleagues; whites controlling themselves White women hiring; employment based on race/gender; hiring biases; hiring faculty of color will lower institutional standards; lack of nancial incentives for faculty of color; lack of proactive hiring; minorities not seen as the best faculty; no accountability for faculty of color hiring; problems with hiring committees; problems with minority opportunity hires; targets of opportunity hires; spousal hires; whites create hiring roadblocks; PWI recruitment; faculty of color recruitment; need recruitment of students of color; only a select few students of color are recruited; faculty of color not being retained; lack of diversity in the city; lack of mentoring; nonexistent retention systems Gender-bias; lack of social support for women; ole boys networks in operation; race/ethnicity bias; tokenism; we need minority faculty association; racial and gender demographics; being person of color and privileged can work against you; class bias and elitism Campus diversity needed; chilly campus climate; racism; institutional racism; lack of critical mass; minority advocates powerless; reverse discrimination; segregated places and spaces Need more student diversity; existence of student underpreparedness bias; students complain about lack of diversity Brown-on-brown research; minority research bias; publish or perish Discouraged to take job; faculty diversity bias; hiring bias; non-proactive hiring; nightmare hiring experiences; bias in faculty hiring; opportunity hires; white search committees; spousal hires; interview processes; gender promotion bias; teaching evaluations; research bias; service bias; lack of job security; personality gets you tenure; race/ethnic promotion bias; recruitment bias; recruitment not diversity-centered; nancial disparities; lack of retention Ageism; sexism; gender bias; language/accent bias; Asian stereotypes; Eurocentric bias; institutional racism; undervaluing faculty; minority stigma; racial/ethnic bias; subtle racism; sexuality discrimination; marginalization Lack of student support; racially biased; hostility toward faculty of color; exam culture hurting students of color; higher expectations for students of color; lack of critical mass of students of color; lack of funding for students of color; racial/ethnic diversity unimportant (table continues)

Campus climate (9)

Student related (4) Support systems (micro) Recruit, hire, retain, promote (15)

Challenges (macro) Recruit, hire, retain (21)

Racism, sexism, classism (9)

Campus climate (8)

Student related (3) Research related (3) Challenges (micro) Recruit, hire, retain, promote (22)

Discrimination (13)

Student related (8)

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

Table 1 (continued)
Codes (# subcodes) Research, Teaching, Service (9) Subcodes Doing too much research; lack of research support; ethnic research underrespected; research requirements unfair; undervaluing ethnic journals; service burdens; whites and service; teaching evaluation emphasis; teaching scrutiny Little support; lack of survival; no voice; isolation; lack of voice; gender bias; over-teaching; tenure process stressful Art; Business; disciplinary bias; Education; Engineering; English Chilly departmental climate; lack of collegial support; micro-aggressions; low expectations; highly scrutinized Department politics; institutional involvement can lead to departmental punishment; political conservative bias Mentorship burdens; lack of mentoring; no teaching mentorship

Untenured faculty (8) Discipline specic (6) Climate related (5) Unfair politics (3) Mentoring (3)

of marginalization reecting the epistemological assumptions of CRF which emphasized that the generation of knowledge is communal, collective, and experiential (Narayan, 1989). Faculty Women of Color in Administration An African American full professor in the Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences serving as a Vice Provost described this experience through the multilayered lens of race and gender: [W]hen I became Vice Provost . . . I had a White male faculty member say to me that he had been interested in being nominated for the position that I had just gotten. But he hadnt put his name in because the scuttlebutt around campus was that this was the position was gonna go to an underrepresented minority, and he knew that he, as a White male, didnt have a chance, but he thought Id do an okay job. So there was this sense that I had gotten selected solely on the basis of my identity and not on any talents or skills or background . . . The subtleness of how institutional racism operated for this African American female professor shows why it is so difcult to challenge the notions that Whites are superior to people of color as, when people of color are promoted, it must be because of some type of afrmative action. The White professor is able to draw upon the discourses of afrmative action that have permeated everyday discussions about race and qualications in higher education settings (Bonilla-Silva et al., 2003). While the African American woman faculty (now Vice Provost) is a highly talented and skilled professor, the White male professor is able to reduce her to

a race and a gender afrmative action stereotype. Faculty Women of Color and the Classroom Faculty women of color mentioned hostile, racist, sexist classroom experiences despite their eld of study, types of institutions, and faculty ranks. For example, the contrast between how college students treat White and male faculty as opposed to female and of color faculty is highlighted in this quotation by an American Indian associate professor in the Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences: Ive been visiting other professors classes . . . and students treat me differently than they treat them. I went into these White professors classrooms. Theyre respectful to them, theyre not in their face . . . Ive had students stand up and say, What are your credentials? They dont talk while these [White] professors are trying to talk, they dont jump up and argue. I mean, they may disagree, but they dont get in an argument. [If you are a woman of color] they confront you. Its very surprising to me . . . Not until this focus group participant began observing her White and male counterparts did she realize how her classroom experiences were qualitatively different. Tenure and Merit: Who Decides? In addition to the everyday experience in the classroom, faculty women of color describe the racial hierarchy related to who decides what

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

constitutes meritorious work to be considered in tenure decisions. This faculty member recounts her experience with a chairman who devalues her work, indicating that her diversity work does not count for tenure: When I came up for tenure I had a service list that was long, that was largely devoted to minority issues. . . My chairman told me, You cannot discuss any of those things, and I said, [it is in the] University mission statement . . . to increase diversity, and I was specically told you cannot discuss that because you will not want to be placed as a known Afrmative Action [supporter] . . . I was forbidden from [including] that part [in my tenure and promotion le]. This faculty member felt extreme pressure to conform to the established norms of Whiteness. However, even while meeting her commitments to the department, this faculty member was accused of trying to game the system when she asked for a tenure clock extension because of her husbands illness. During a focus group interview, however, she nds that when White men experienced life challenges an immediate response was made to come to their aid. An Asian American associate professor in the Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences, notes the following: A year . . . before I was going for tenure . . . my husband developed chronic fatigue syndrome and it was totally debilitating and so I asked for an extension of tenure clock . . . My committee laughed at me when I said my husband is extremely tired . . . Eventually, one colleague said if I got a letter from my husbands doctor, he would believe me, so I did, and he told me that he thought I was just trying to game the system. This was after I had been in the department for seven years and had been teaching multiple preps and doing all kinds of service and publishing, he thought I was trying to game the system. Well not too long after, not many years after, we had male colleagues who they wanted to keep and right away they were saying, oh lets give them an extension of tenure clock, you know, this person is going through a hard time in his marriage, lets ask for an extension of tenure clock. This comment prompted a response from another Asian American associate professor in STEM: We have two male faculty who were extended based on their newborn kids.

These inconsistencies in the practices for extending the tenure clock reect discriminatory and arbitrary decisions which can serve to derail faculty careers. Faculty Women of Color Voices Through a More Predominate CRF Lens The salience of the gendered realities described by faculty women of color, along with the realities of racism, is inextricably linked to the work life experiences of these women. Faculty women of color describe culture conicts between their communities of origin and the accepted traditions of their profession. As these professors indicate, conicting life priorities contribute to the already stressful life of a tenure-track faculty member: The expectations are much higher now for tenure and then on top of that, youre also a person of color and a female. Most of the faculty of color that I know, came here from out of state, like myself and my husband, we didnt know anyone . . . we decided to have a child and the child is 2 years old now, and there were faculty who were like, oh you need to wait and Im sitting here going, I am 33 years old, I cannot have a child at 40. Its a different issue about family, family is very much more important in my [African American] culture in terms of how I was brought up. Another faculty member noted that a Chicana who was pregnant was told by her chair, You chose to be pregnant, you dont get lab space for the summer . . . Such unfortunate experiences create unwelcoming and challenging work environments for faculty women of color, interfering with and presenting unnecessary barriers to their career progression. Expressing Frustration One observation in this analysis is that comments provided by Asian American women serve to dispel the myth of the model minority. In addition to other comments by Asian American faculty women, this comment underscores the fact that years of microaggressions (Pierce, 1970; Solorzano, 1998) can divert ones energy making it more difcult to be a productive scholar: Just being a woman, regardless being a woman of color, its really hard sometimes to explain to people who dont understand because

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

if you start mentioning specic instances, theyll say you over reacted or youre oversensitive and they dont realize, its the combination of all these things over many years, that begins to wear away and demoralize and make it harder to feel happy and valued, and therefore harder to be productive and feel like youre a part of the community of scholars. Communication Gap Faculty women of color, along with experiencing the typically documented conditions of tokenism, also report that communication about diversity initiatives and resources on their own campuses was extremely uneven and idiosyncratic. One of the most stunning, consistent ndings from the focus groups across campuses were the numerous faculty women of color who reported utter surprise upon hearing other faculty women of color from their campuses describe a program, funding initiative or opportunity on their own campus. Through these discussions faculty realized that each had only a small partial snapshot of campus initiatives that could support their efforts. Though universities are decentralized institutions with complex governance systems that create disciplinary silos and unclear lines of communication for all faculty, for faculty women of color the impact of poor communication has an even more dire impact. As extreme tokens, faculty women of color have few opportunities to connect with each other to tap the institutional memory and experiences of other faculty women of color and they are reliant on learning about support initiatives from others. While faculty and administrators directing such initiatives may be highly supportive and care deeply about the retention of faculty of color, they may reinforce and participate in segregated communication networks which exclude faculty women of color through their everyday practices. One example representing this uneven knowledge of resources among faculty women of color on one campus is presented here:
Focus Group Participant 1: You havent applied for a Multicultural [support fund]? Ill send you the stuff. Its every semester, so the next round wont come up until the fall. (African American, Assistant Professor, STEM)

Interviewer: And how much do you get, can I ask? Focus Group Participant 2: [Over 10 thousand dollars]. (African American, Assistant Professor, SocialBehavioral and Economic Sciences) Focus Group Participant 3: [Over 10 thousand dollars] and I dont know about this? (African American, Assistant Professor, Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences) Focus Group Participant 4: You need to meet [man of color administrator] and [White woman administrator], Ill ask [her] to put you on the list to make sure you get [the information]. (American Indian, Associate Professor, Social-Behavioral and Economic Sciences)

These comments highlight the problems of isolation and a lack of connectedness in the everyday lives of faculty women of color. Turner et al. (2008) underscore the importance of mentoring and networking for the persistence of faculty of color. Comments by faculty women of color in this study suggest that resources and career opportunities for leadership circulate among a small group of scholars, creating networks of institutional power. In the above passage, some faculty women of color did report learning about faculty support initiatives from colleagues and supervisors but they almost always pointed out that the circumstances were idiosyncratic, because they happened to be sitting in the administrators ofce when the e-mail came in or they happened to run into an administrator on campus. Faculty women of color comments primarily described challenges encountered on their campuses, however, some comments were made on the supports for diversity encountered on campus. They stressed the importance of campus leadership (In my college, we had [over 20 faculty] lines last year, and the president really was very strong in his language to the deans to recruit minority faculty) and departmental commitment (There was one woman of color who came in as a visiting lecturer, and [my department] said, shes really good, and we have to have her. So [the department] went out of their way to get her on a tenure track position). Post-Gratz and Grutter: Little Impact on Everyday Lives and Adding Fuel to the Fire? While the experiences of faculty women of color present insights into their campus life, this

10

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

study also wanted to examine participant perceptions on the Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court decisions and how they impact their experience. Researchers found that, despite any of the legal ramications of the Supreme Court decisions, it appears that faculty women of color in this study continue to experience an alienating, isolating, and discouraging environment as previously documented (Turner, 2006; Turner & Myers, 2000). They report little awareness of institutional efforts to diversify student populations or the faculty and say that nothing much has changed for them since the Gratz and Grutter decisions. There is a perception that once search committees have made attempts to diversify the applicant pool that no further efforts are required to hire and retain diverse faculty. Faculty women of color also experience a lack of resources to support their

research, or to facilitate collaborative research and mentoring opportunities. And even if resources do exist, they are not made aware of these nor is there a central clearinghouse that disseminates information regarding such initiatives. Table 2 provides an overview of all the comments expressed by the 51 faculty in 12 focus groups that were conducted. The comments were coded into the three areas that expressed the general faculty sentiment in terms of how the Gratz and Grutter decisions affected the campus climate for diversity at their respective institutions: (a) improved the climate; faculty felt that the decisions would positively affect students of color which would then improve the overall campus climate (37 responses), (b) worsened the climate; faculty felt that decisions added hostility, a climate of fear, and ammuni-

Table 2 Effect of Gratz and Grutter Cases on Campus Climate for Diversity, by Individual Responses From 12 Focus Groups (and 51 Faculty)
Code Improved campus climate (37 total responses) Good ruling for students of color Positive psychological impact Afrmative action friendly Good ruling for faculty of color Afrmed my positive belief in justice Perhaps positive affect for faculty of color hiring Better ruling than in the Bakke case Race is no longer a factor in admissions Worsened campus climate (108 total responses) Completely negative impact Created uncertainty for people of color Decisions were business as usual Just one of many afrmative action battles Created climate of fear Cases are part of the White privilege movement Race only one of many admissions factors Institutions say race is no longer a factor They began the end of afrmative action Institutional fear of litigation Need better arguments to advance afrmative action Added scrutiny to the work of faculty of color Protests followed on my campus Had little to no effect (31 total responses) Effect cases will have depends on the institution Afrmative action dismantlement began before (e.g., in Bakke and Hopwood) No effect on representation of students of color Not an issue at my predominately White institution Already diverse and/or diversity conscious University purposefully hush hush about cases # of responses 13 7 6 5 2 2 1 1 26 15 14 11 10 9 8 5 4 2 2 1 1 8 7 7 4 3 2

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

11

tion for supporters of a status quo ideologically hostile to the inclusion of faculty women of color (108 responses), and (c) has little to no effect on the climate (31 responses). Regardless of how faculty viewed the decisions, most noted that campus responses would likely differ for each department and college. Table 2 shows that most comments made by faculty women of color indicated negative consequences of the Gratz and Grutter decisions for their work life experiences. Presented here are some of their words used to more fully describe their perceptions. Focus group participants comment on the existence of more overt racism on campus and a movement away from commitment to diversify the campus as a result of these Supreme Court decisions saying, Well, my husband talked about [Gratz and Grutter], and we agreed that universities nationwide are going backward as far as Afrmative Action and diversity and its getting harder to be a person of color on campus. Im hearing that as well from students and from other faculty that they are perceiving more and more overt and open racism; Im not privy to any of the centralized decision making . . . but some of the direction that I see, policies and mandates [campus administrators are] making, its hard to believe that [diversity was] considered. The direction at this university, as I experience it, is moving quickly and directly into the conservative arena and I see my classes, I see my advising, I see all the students with whom I work increasingly Caucasian; and [After the Gratz and Grutter decision] there seemed to be a lot of confusion among people in the university because I have been on . . . search committees for faculty and everybody said oh no, no, were an equal opportunity employer, were not an afrmative action employer. Finally, fear of litigation on campus prompted many to inquire as to the anonymity of their participation in this study. Participants spoke about potential litigation as threatening to the maintenance and development of initiatives that support diverse populations on campus. The words of one Chicana full professor portray this situation well: One of the negative impacts . . . is institutions fear of litigation . . . Everyone knows that there are people out there that are waiting to nd a violation or a perceived violation to take the case. Well resourced individuals and groups who would love to have a reversal on [afrmative action].

And so . . . admissions ofcers and university administrators are erring in the direction of caution because they dont wanna go over on that line. However welcome the Gratz and Grutter decisions were on college campuses, because they upheld the merits of a diverse student body as a national compelling interest, many faculty women of color participating in study focus groups expressed little prior knowledge of the Supreme Court decisions, and several felt that no change regarding their status or further institutional efforts to diversify the faculty had occurred as a result. Those who were familiar with the Gratz and Grutter decisions expressed concern about their negative impact on the commitment of campuses to support diverse student and faculty bodies and the climate of fear created on campuses. Conclusion On predominately White research extensive universities participating in this study, ndings demonstrate that very little has changed for faculty women of color post Gratz and Grutter. As reected in the literature, the researchers heard faculty women of color describe experiences of marginalization, subtle discrimination, racism and institutional racism, gender-bias and institutional sexism, and difculties with students who do not expect to be taught by women of color. The CRT and CRF frameworks enabled the researchers to make visible the complicated discourses that women of color faculty negotiated with White faculty, discourses that normalized Whiteness as an invisible norm and standard. By virtue of conducting focus groups, the researchers unknowingly created a venue for faculty women of color to come together, sometimes meeting each other for the very rst time after years of working on the same campus. The focus group dialogues also provided a space to share information about campus initiatives, funding sources, and support programs some faculty members were well-informed of these campus resources, while others on the same campus had little or no information. By carrying out these focus groups, the researchers inadvertently provided institutional interventions, which may help to support faculty participants as they pursue their careers by creating social and informational networks. Researchers also found how much faculty women of color

12

TURNER, GONZALEZ, AND WONG (LAU)

desired to build community and support each other within their respective campuses. Implications for Higher Education Findings emerging from this study add to higher educations collective understanding about how university contexts and the affects of antiafrmative action movements, while providing some supports, continue to pose barriers to the professional growth and development of faculty women of color. Participants in this study underscore the need for higher education institutions to renew and expand their commitment to faculty diversity. Faculty women of color point to the importance of presidential as well as departmental level leadership to promote a welcoming, diverse campus climate through their support of interventions addressing ethnic/racial/gender inequities reected by participants in their descriptions of lack of resources, lack of information, lack of support, lack of respect for their talents and contributions, lack of consistent policies and practices around tenure/promotion, and the lack of a collegial community for them. References
Allen, W., Epps, E., Guillory, E., Suh, S., BonusHammarth, M., & Stassen, M. (1991). Outsiders within: Race, gender, and faculty status in U.S. higher education. In P. Altbach & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education (pp. 189 220). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Anderson, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30, 216 219. Anderson, K. J., & Smith, G. (2005). Students preconceptions of professors: Benets and barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 184 201. Arbuckle, J., & Williams, B. D. (2003). Students perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teaching evaluations. Sex Roles, 49, 507 516. Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 656 665. Bell, D. A. (1988). White superiority in America: Its legal legacy, its economic costs. Villanova Law Review, 33, 767779. Bonilla-Silva, E., Foreman, T. A., Lewis, A. E., & Embrick, D. G. (2003). It wasnt me!: How will

race and racism work in 21st century America. Research in Political Sociology, 12, 111134. Cho, S. (1997). Converging stereotypes in racialized sexual harassment: Where the model minority meets Suzie Wong. Gender, Race & Justice, 1, 177212. Cho, S. (2002). Confronting the myths: Asian Pacic American faculty in higher education. In C. S. Turner, a. l. antonio, M. Garcia, B. Laden, A. Nora, & C. Presley (Eds.), Racial & ethnic diversity in higher education: ASHE reader series (2nd ed., pp. 169 184). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Collins, P. H. (1989). The social construction of Black feminist thought. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11, 745773. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Cooper, J. E., & Stevens, D. D. (Eds.). (2002). Tenure in the sacred grove: Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 12411299. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press. DiPietro, M., & Faye, A. (2005, October). Online student-ratings-of-instruction (SRI) mechanisms for maximal feedback to instructors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Milwaukee, WI. Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 485505. Gratz v. Bollinger. (2003). 539 U.S. 244. Grudens-Schuck, N., Allen, B. L., & Larson, K. (2004). Focus group fundamentals. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension. Retrieved from http:// www.extenison.iastate.edu/publications/ PM1969B.pdf Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003). 123 U.S. 2325. Harley, D. A. (2008). Maids of academe: African American women faculty at predominantly white institutions. Journal of African American Studies, 12, 19 36. Hendrix, K. G. (1998). Student perceptions of the inuence of race on professor credibility. Journal of Black Studies, 28, 738 764. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

FACULTY WOMEN OF COLOR

13

Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical theory and whats it doing in a nice eld like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 11, 724. Leap, T. L. (1995). Tenure, discrimination and the courts. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, J. (1994). Visible, vulnerable, and viable: Emerging perspectives of a minority professor. In K. Feldman, & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the college classroom (pp. 383390). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing. Montoya, M. E. (1994). Mascaras, trenzas, y grenas: Un/masking the self while un/braiding Latina stories and legal discourse. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 17, 185217. Morgan, D. L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nakanishi, D. T. (1993). Asian Pacic Americans in higher education: Faculty and administrative representation and tenure. In J. Gainen, & R. Boice (Eds.), Building a diverse faculty (pp. 5159). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Narayan, U. (1989). The project of feminist epistemology. In S. Bordo & A. Jaggar (Eds.), Gender/ body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing (pp. 256 272). Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In F. Barbour (Ed.), The Black seventies (pp. 265282). Boston: Porter Sargent. QSR International. (2008). Software for qualitative research: From academic and social research to market research. Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational .com/ Rubin, D. L. (1998). Help! My professor (or doctor or boss) doesnt talk English. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 149 160). Mountain View, CA: Mayeld Publishing Company. Smith, G., & Anderson, K. J. (2005). Students ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4, 115136. Smith, W., Yosso, T., & Solorzano, D. (2007). Racial primes and black misandry on historically white campuses: Toward critical race accountability in

educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 559 585. Solorzano, D. (1998). Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and the experiences of Chicana and Chicano scholars. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121136. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010). Almanac of Higher Education 2010 2011. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57, 20. Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The coping strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty members at a research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70 166 175. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Townsend, B., & Turner, C. (2000, March). Reshaping the academy to accommodate conicts of commitment: Then what? Paper presented at the Shaping a National Agenda for Women in Higher Education conference, Minneapolis, MN. Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of Higher Education 73, 74 93. Turner, C. S. V. (2006, November 6). Report on preliminary ndings: Diversication of the academy post-Grutter for the Women of Color Research Collective (WoCRC) Advisory Board Meeting at the American Council on Education Third Summit for Women of Color in Higher Education: Making our Mark, Making a Difference, Long Beach, CA. Turner, C. S. V. (2008). Women of color in academe: Experiences of the often invisible. In J. Glazer-Raymo (Ed.), Unnished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges in higher education (pp. 230252). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What twenty years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 139 168. Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Wing, A. K. (Ed.). (1997). Critical race feminism: A reader. New York, NY: New York University Press. Wing, A. K. (Ed.). (2000). Global critical race feminism: An international reader. New York, NY: New York University Press. Wong, K. (2007). Emotional labor of diversity work: Woman of color faculty in predominantly white institutions. Unpublished dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Received October 18, 2009 Revision received June 2, 2011 Accepted June 3, 2011