University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 1

PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AS PREDICTORS FOR
CROSS-RACE INTERACTION AT CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
DIFFERENCES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, SEX, AND RELIGIOSITY

by

Peter J. Hansen

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Peter J. Hansen
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 2
Acknowledgements
I began this program with the expectation that I would leave some monumental impact in
the field of diversity research in higher education. However, I had no idea that the monumental
impact would actually occur internally. This journey of exploration has indeed forever changed
my heart, mind, and practices related to issues of diversity. This learning would not be possible
without the support of family, friends, and the support of fellow students and faculty.
First, and foremost, I would like to those who have sacrificed the most in this journey.
To my soul mate, Linzi, you have been my sounding board, my shoulder to lean (cry) on, my
cheerleader, and my center. You have sacrificed more than I could possibly begin to articulate or
even understand. You have not only journeyed alongside with me, but you have actually steered
the ship. You have selflessly processed my learning, you have asked hard questions, and you
have sharpened my mind and my heart. I could double the length of my dissertation if I were to
list the immeasurable ways you have supported me in this journey. You have quite literally
carried our family for the last four years and you have done so with impeccable grace and
unwavering belief. I don’t deserve this kind of love, but I am forever thankful for it. I love you.
To my strong Hazel and my tender Shepherd, the pride that I have for you pales in comparison to
this project. Thank you for dancing with Daddy after long days of work and writing. Thank you
for reminding me that Hansens can do hard things. I love you.
This project would also literally not be possible without the consistent support, belief,
tutoring, ideation, strategy, and care shown to me by my friend, colleague, and co-researcher, Stu
Cleek. The 101 and 405 freeways will forever be marked with memories of processing research
questions, ideas to integrate our coursework with our daily work, and an overall sense of
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 3
gratitude for the lessons learned from time spent with Stu Cleek. Stu, you have forever marked
my learning. Thank you for doing so with such humility, grace, and companionship.
This journey would also not be possible without the constant support and mentorship of
my committee chair, Dr. Ruth Chung. Thank you for teaching me not only to believe in the
power of numbers, but also to believe in myself. I am forever thankful for your guidance and
your heartfelt commitment to my success as a researcher and a student. To my additional
committee members, Dr. Briana Hinga and Dr. Julie DeGraw, thank you for your investment,
feedback and insight into this project. The wealth of knowledge you possess, and the humble
ways in which you have shared it, will continue to inspire me throughout my career. I would
also like to thank members of my cohort, Stu, Steven, Dylan, Karen, Sue-Jean, and Lauren, for
motivating my progress and sharpening my thinking.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues at Westmont College for their flexibility and
support. To my fellow Residence Life team members: Shannon, Anna, Rachel, Lima, Liz,
Lyndsay, and Annie, thank you for demonstrating only grace through this process. To my friend
and colleague, Toya Cooper, your role in my time at Westmont has prompted this entire journey.
To my friend and mentor, Dr. Edee Schulze, your belief in me fuels my work and motivation on
a daily basis.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Table of Contents 4
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background 12
Framework for Understanding Campus Racial Climate 13
Campus Racial Climate Research 14
Cross-Race Interaction Research and Christian College Students 18
Importance and Purpose of Study 20
Key Terms and Definitions 21
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 23
Population Overview 23
Race and Ethnicity 24
Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education 24
Race/Ethnicity and Students at Christian Colleges 29
Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate 30
Sex/Gender 32
Sex/Gender in Higher Education 32
Sex/Gender and Students at Christian Colleges 33
Sex/Gender, Higher Education, and Campus Racial Climate 35
Religiosity 38
Religiosity and Higher Education 40
Religiosity and Students at Christian Colleges 44
Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate 45
Religiosity, Christian College Students, and Cross-Race Interaction 46
Summary of Literature Review 47
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses 48
Research Questions 48
Chapter Three: Methodology 50
Participants 50
Instruments 52
Procedure 55
Chapter Four: Results 56
Preliminary Analyses 56
Correlations 56
Analyses of Research Questions 58
Research Question 1 58
Research Question 2 62
Research Question 3 64
Chapter Five: Discussion 66
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings 66
Differences in perceptions of campus racial climate and cross-race interaction by
race/ethnicity and sex 66
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 5
Relationship Between Religiosity and Campus Racial Climate 69
Relationship Between Campus Racial Climate and Cross-Race Interaction 70
Implications for Practice 71
Limitations of Study 74
Recommendations for Future Research 76
Conclusion 77
References 79
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 92
Appendix B: Demographic Questions 94
Appendix C: Campus Attitudes And Climate Questionnaire (CACQ) 95
Appendix D: Cross-Race Interaction 105
Appendix E: Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) 106

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Participating Institutional Characteristics 51
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants (N = 1352) 51
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured
Variables Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4: Summary of Two-Way ANOVAs for Perceptions of CRC by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 59
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Racial
Pressure 60
Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Overall
Satisfaction 60
Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Lack of
Support 60
Table 8: Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for CRI 61
Table 9: Summary of Multiple Regression Results for Religiosity Predicting CRC 63
Table 10: Summary of Multiple Regression Results for CRC Subscales Predicting CRI 64

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 7
Abstract
This study explored differences in perceptions of campus racial climate and cross-race
interaction by race/ethnicity and sex at predominately White Christian Colleges and Universities.
This study also explored whether religiosity predicts perceptions of campus racial climate on
these campuses and whether perceptions predicted cross-race interaction. Students of Color have
been and will continue to increase in numbers on college campuses, yet a critical challenge for
institutions of higher learning is to better understand how to develop environments in which
those students persist in the same ways as their White peers. Understanding factors related to
students’ perceptions of the racial campus climate and opportunities for cross-race interaction
have emerged in the literature as promising avenues for success. While research suggests that
campus racial climate plays a significant role in the success and retention for Students of Color
in higher education, very few studies have focused on unique factors that may influence
perceptions of the campus racial climate for students at faith-based institutions, and, those that
do, lack any serious empirical examination of the role that religious commitment plays in these
perceptions of the campus racial climate or the role that these perceptions plays in cross-race
interaction. Participants included 1,352 students from six Christian colleges geographically
dispersed across the country who completed an online survey consisting of background
demographic information, perceptions of campus racial climate, levels of cross-race interaction,
and centrality of religiosity for the students.
Results from this study revealed that White students have a more positive perception of
campus racial climate on Christian college and university campuses than Students of Color.
Findings also suggest that Black/African American students demonstrate the most negative
perceptions of campus racial climate and the lowest levels of cross-race interaction at Christian
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 8
colleges and universities. Differences in perceptions of campus racial climate and levels of
cross-race interaction were much more salient by race/ethnicity than by sex. While overall levels
of espoused religiosity had a fairly week predictive relationship with perceptions of campus
racial climate for White students, strong predictions were determined for Black/African
American students. Finally, perceptions of campus racial climate were predictive for cross-race
interaction for White students but not for Students of Color. The results of this study underscore
the value of a multicultural education within the academic, religious, and social realms of the
student experience. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Though the Civil Rights movement and the desegregation laws of the 1950s played a
significant role in shaping racial interactions in America, various forms of racism continue to
shape our society (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010; Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal & Torino, 2007;). The
racialized history of the United States is apparent is many aspects of modern culture, particularly
in higher education. In higher education’s ongoing pursuit of equity for all persons,
race/ethnicity have been central variables to consider in campus diversity research (Milem,
Clayton-Pederson, Hurtado & Allen, 1998).
Issues of race and equity on college campuses have received heightened attention in the
last few decades. Policies and programs accounting for these issues related to admissions,
affirmative action, discrimination and harassment have been instituted on the national level at
most colleges and universities in the United States (Milem et al., 1998). However, few campuses
have taken the time or energy to evaluate how policies might be informed by the campus racial
climate (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Research indicates that critical analysis and comprehension
of the collegiate racial climate is a crucial component of evaluating college access, success, and
completion rates of Students of Color (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Harper & Hurtado,
2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
In an effort to synthesize recent research on campus racial climates, Harper and Hurtado
(2007) reviewed published campus climate studies from 1992-2007. The findings were
categorized into the three following themes regarding campus racial climate: “(1) differential
perceptions of campus climate by race, (2) racial/ethnic minority students reports of prejudicial
treatment and racist campus environments, and (3) benefits associated with campus climates that
facilitate cross-racial engagement” (Harper & Hurtado, 2007, p. 9).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 10
While this research provides a beneficial understanding of the complexities of the 35
published campus racial climate studies, there is a gap in the literature that specifically addresses
such inquiry at institutions within the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU)
(Paredes-Collins, 2009). The CCCU is a higher education association of 117 Christian Colleges
around the nation whose mission is “to advance the cause of Christ-centered higher education
and to help our institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and service to
biblical truth” (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, 2016). Each member institution
must ascribe to a “Christ-centered mission,” hire faculty and administrators who are committed
Christians, and demonstrate ethics and integrity in college practices (Council for Christian
Colleges and Universities, 2016). However, in relation to council membership, there is minimal
attention given to evaluating the institutional diversity as a priority (Paredes-Collins, 2009).
Additionally, many institutions within the CCCU do not invest in energies related to developing
resources, policies and practices that contribute to diverse learning environments (Paredes-
Collins, 2009, 2013, 2014).
Though religion is one of the most racially segregated aspects of culture, the effect of this
segregation is generally overlooked in collegiate diversity research (Park & Bowman, 2015).
Research of racial segregation at Christian colleges receives much less attention than non-faith
based institutions. Multiple reasons may exist for this phenomenon. One cause for this might be
that American evangelical theology does not emphasize corporate sin and shared responsibility
for injustices (Emerson & Smith, 2000), thus racism and ethnocentrism can feel distant to some
evangelicals; as such behavior would only be demonstrated by “corrupt individuals” (Lee,
Nieves, & Allen, 1991, p. 38). For many evangelicals, primary efforts are directed toward
evangelism and “saving souls”; therefore, social reform receives little attention (Lee et al., 1991).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 11
This individualistic perspective can also eliminate one’s ability to critically evaluate socially
structured injustices, therefore limiting one’s own understanding of advantage and privilege
(Emerson & Smith, 2000).
Additionally, evangelical college students tend to adopt a “colorblind” worldview when
considering issues of racial prejudice (Emerson & Smith, 2000; Lee et al., 1991). A colorblind
worldview ascribes to the notion that “all people are created equal” and that America is no longer
a racialized society (Emerson & Smith, 2000). In many interviews regarding race in America,
White evangelicals indicated that they “do not want a race problem”, that they “want to see
people get along,” and “have equal opportunity” (Emerson & Smith, 2000, p. 89). This dismissal
of color-conscious thinking and denial of inequitable outcomes for individuals based on skin
color will only perpetuate and maintain a racialized United States (Emerson & Smith, 2000, Lee
et al., 1991). In fact, color-conscious thinking is likely to increase when students are able to
interact with students of differing races and ethnicities (Park & Bowman, 2015).
A substantial amount of research suggests that campus racial climate is improved when
cross-racial interaction is encouraged and facilitated (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Harper &
Hurtado, 2007; Miller, Anderson, Cannon, Perez, & Moore, 1998; Park & Bowman, 2015).
Such cross-racial engagement is not possible unless institutional structural diversity has been
established as a priority (Paredes-Collins, 2009; Park & Bowman, 2015). Additionally, an
educational environment that closely reflects national racial demographics can better prepare
students for engagement in an increasingly diverse society and work force (Tinto, 1993).
However, simply increasing enrollment numbers of Students of Color without a well thought out
strategy for acclimation and adjustment to PWIs is “inherently dangerous” (Cabrera, Nora,
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999, p. 154).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 12
Christian higher education is clearly ripe not only for campus racial climate research but
also its impact on cross-race interaction. However, when conducting such research in any
context, one must also consider the differences of perception in racial climate across various
campus constituents (Ancis et al., 2000; Miller et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005;). Many
variables can alter students’ understanding of campus racial climate; however, this study will
focus on the following salient variables that contribute to the layered identities of students within
the CCCU. In particular, understanding the differences of the perceptions of campus racial
climate by race/ethnicity (Ancis et al., 2000; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005)
provides an institution with opportunities to understand potentially at-risk populations. In
addition to race/ethnicity, understanding these perceptions based on sex has also been
recommended by prior studies due to the sometimes inequitable experiences perceived by
students based on their combined gender and racial identities (Bryant, 2006; Singley & Sedlacek,
2009; Strayhorn, 2013; Vaccaro, 2010). Finally, as mentioned above, one’s espoused level of
religiosity and faith convictions can significantly affect the way they perceive issues of race and
equitable outcomes (Park & Bowman, 2015; Park, 2012a; Park, 2012b, Paredes-Collins, 2009).
Therefore, this study will explore perceptions of campus racial climate and cross-race interaction
by race/ethnicity and sex. Additionally, this study will examine whether religiosity predicts
perceptions of campus racial climate and whether perceptions of campus racial climate predict
cross-race interaction.
Background of the Study
In spite of extensive research on predictive factors for student retention and persistence,
graduation rates for college students are less than encouraging. Of the White students who began
college in the fall of 2003, 54% had a graduated by 2009, while Hispanic and African American
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 13
students’ graduation rates during that same period were much lower at 41% and 36%
respectively (United States Department of Education, 2013). Most research on student retention
and persistence in higher education focuses either on institutional characteristics (e.g. selectivity,
size, type), student characteristics (e.g. demographic, preparation, pre-college experiences, or
college experiences), or the “fit” between student and institutional characteristics (Bowman &
Denson, 2012). Tinto’s (1975, 1993) theory of student departure is a seminal work for retention
in higher education.
Early versions of Tinto’s work highlighted how misalignment between institutional
characteristics and student needs or expectations could result in a student’s departure from the
institution. However, critics (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Tierney, 1992) of Tinto have
suggested that Tinto’s views appear to place too much responsibility for student success with the
student’s ability to assimilate to the college environment. They suggest, rather than placing the
responsibility on the student to adapt and integrate into the college environment, institutions need
to better understand and address institutional shortcomings in supporting the success of those
students. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the campus racial climate that undoubtedly
contributes to either the departure of completion rates of Students of Color within higher
education.
Framework for Understanding Campus Racial Climate
Understanding an institution’s campus climate for diversity involves examining the
perceived and actual quality of interactions between individuals and groups within the
institutional context (Milem et al., 1998). Although the campus climate for diversity impacts all
members of the college community, students may view the campus climate for diversity in
various ways depending upon their background and experiences. Milem et al. (1998) have been
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 14
widely credited with developing a framework for understanding the range of institutional and
personal factors that contribute toward the campus climate for diversity. The authors’
framework originally involved four interconnected elements that constitute the campus climate
for diversity: structural diversity (diversity represented in members of the campus community),
behavioral dimensions (e.g. type and quality of social interactions within and between racial
groups, presence of diversity in the curricular and co-curricular experience), psychosocial
dimensions (e.g. perception of discrimination, prejudice, and racial tension), and the historical
legacy of inclusion/exclusion (e.g. history of discrimination at the institution). Milem, Chang,
and Antonio (2005) later refined the original framework through two adjustments. First, the
authors argued that changing the name from structural diversity to compositional diversity
would more accurately capture the intent of that dimension. Secondly, the authors argued the
original framework did not sufficiently incorporate elements related to institutional practices and
policies, and they offered a fifth dimension to the campus climate framework, which they named
organizational/structural diversity. This component recognizes that campus climate is impacted
by a myriad of institutional decisions reflected in things such as curriculum development, faculty
and staff hiring, admissions and financial aid decisions, and resource allocations.
Campus Racial Climate Research
Indeed, research is clear that different perceptions of campus racial climate exist between
students of differing racial/ethnic backgrounds (Ancis et al., 2000; Harper & Hurtado, 2007;
Miller et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005). African American students experienced higher
levels of racial/ethnic hostility, more intensified pressure to conform to racial stereotypes, and
less equitable treatment from staff and faculty than their White counterparts (Ancis et al. 2000).
Rankin and Reason (2005) validate this finding both from reflections of Students of Color and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 15
from White students, which viewed the classroom racial climate to be less welcoming for
underrepresented students. Additionally, a significantly higher number of Students of Color
reported that the campus climate was “racist,” “hostile,” and “disrespectful” when compared to
their White counterparts (Rankin & Reason, 2005, p. 52). Miller et al. (1998) suggest that a
“tremendous variation occurred in student descriptions of their college experiences with cross
cultural contact, multicultural practices and policy opinions” (p. 148). Specifically, African
American students indicated a greater perception of a negative campus climate, suggesting the
following reasons: feelings of resentment from White students, less cross-racial friendships, and
an overall sense of belief that they had been the target of racism (Miller et al., 1998). Though
other racial groups also reported variation of perceptions of campus racial climate, White
students reflected the most positive perceptions of campus racial climate than any other
population (Miller et al., 1998). Additionally, White students at universities can be blind to such
instances of prejudice and discrimination on campuses and think of diversity mostly in terms of
demographic numbers, whereas Students of Color may be more aware of prejudices and
microaggressions that influence climate and are inclined to perceive diversity in terms of the
quality of cross-race interactions (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Racial microaggressions can be
defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities,
whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial
slights and insults toward people of color” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271).
In their study of Latino students and sense of belonging Hurtado and Carter (1997) found
that sophomores who had perceptions of a hostile racial climate reported experiencing a lower
sense of belonging during their junior year. Gilliard’s (1996) study at six Midwestern
predominantly White institutions found that African American students’ perception of a
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 16
discriminatory climate (particularly from administrators) had a negative impact for those
students. This finding suggests that at least some Students of Color may be looking to campus
administrators to set a tone for the campus racial climate. Johnson, Wasserman, Yildirim, and
Yonai (2013) have argued that colleges can impact the negative psychological factors that
Students of Color face at predominately White institutions by paying attention to campus racial
climate factors. In fact, much of the research on campus climate indicates that institutional
decisions matter when it comes to creating a positive climate for diversity. In particular,
marginalized students benefit from experiencing institution recognition and tangible support
(Hausmann, Ye, Schofield, & Woods, 2009).
Experiences of prejudicial treatment and racist campus environments at PWIs are also
prevalent in campus racial climate research (Harwood, Huntt, Mendenhall, & Lewis, 2012;
Hausman et al., 2009). Such research vividly illustrates the extent to which Students of Color
have had to endure racial/ethnic insensitivities to survive at PWIs. One prominent study used
focus groups to gather narratives of racial microaggressions experienced by Students of Color in
the context of a residence hall at a PWI (Harwood et al., 2012). The following four themes
emerged within the context of residence halls: (1) “racial jokes and verbal comments,” (2) “racial
slurs written in shared spaces,” (3) “segregated spaces and unequal treatment,” and (4) “denial
and minimization of racism” (Harwood et al., 2012, p. 165–167). One Black male graduate
student reflected on a vivid experience of overt racism:
Someone wrote the [N-word] on the blackboard in one of the study rooms. We had a
meeting with the residence hall director... What came across from the residence hall guy
was that this was just a prank . . . whereas [the way] we students saw it, it wasn’t just a
prank. We were trying to speak to this larger issue of racism, not just within the
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 17
university, but more specifically within our dorm, how that affected us as Students of
Color, but the residence director saw otherwise (Harwood et al., 2012, p. 165).
Discriminatory stressors such as these can disturb the adjustment process for students
within their institutions (Cabrera et al., 1999). A longitudinal study of Latino/a college students’
transition to college indicated that similar instances of harassment and discrimination negatively
affected students’ sense of attachment to the institution (Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996).
Cabrera et al. (1999) suggest that such experiences will also negatively affect academic
performance.
Diverse experiences in the classrooms also play a significant role in enhancing the
campus racial climate. Promoting academic and social integration in the classroom can help
students to bridge and appreciate differences (Tinto, 1993). Perceptions of diversity represented
in faculty can have a substantial impact on students’ overall experience and satisfaction. Lee
(2010) found that non-Caucasian students felt that departments lacking faculty diversity
negatively affected their experiences as they did not have access to role models in the classroom.
As compared to Caucasian students, non-Caucasian students also reported less comfortable
interactions with Caucasian faculty. Rankin and Reason (2005) suggest that fiscal and
administrative actions should be considered that include recruiting and retaining faculty of color.
Astin (1993) reports that when faculty incorporated diversity into their curriculum, students
advanced in their multicultural competency and overall satisfaction with the university.
Limitations in campus racial climate research. Although campus climate research has
received extensive attention in the literature, very little attention has been given to exploring
campus climate for diversity at faith-based institutions (Paredes-Collins, 2009; 2013; 2014). One
recent study explored how a positive campus climate for diversity at 22 evangelical institutions
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 18
positively impacted the spiritual development of Students of Color at that institution (Paredes-
Collins & Collins, 2011). Most of the current research on diversity and Christian colleges tends
to focus on either effective approaches to supporting Students of Color within a faith-based
institutional context (Case & Hernandez, 2013), understanding constructs of race and diversity
within a religiously conservative context (Modica, 2012), or the ways in which diversity
contributes to the spiritual growth of students (Paredes-Collins & Collins, 2011; Paredes-Collins,
2014). Paredes-Collins (2013) argues that faith-based colleges should examine the religious
norms at their institutions that may be the result of the White majority norm for faith practice
rather than more racially inclusive norms. Additionally, little attention has been given to the role
that campus racial climate plays in opportunities for cross-race interaction.
Cross-Race Interaction Research and Christian College Students
College students arrive to campus with many years of socialization and engagement with
social institutions, such as schools, neighborhoods and places of worship. Despite religion being
a primary point of cultural socialization for college students, little research has been conducted
on how religion affects diversity engagement and cross-race interaction (Park, 2012a). Multiple
identities can both compliment and complicate such cross-racial interaction (Park, 2012b).
Complexities exist in cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship when students may share
the same religion, but differ in race (Park, 2012a; Park, 2012b, Park & Bowman, 2015).
Park (2012a) hypothesized that religious salience would be negatively linked to
interracial friendship. Religious salience is defined as, “a construct that captures self-rated
religiosity, frequency of religious service attendance, and self-rated religious observance” (Park,
2012a, p. 12). Indeed, her hypothesis was validated in that students with a higher religious
salience were less likely to engage in interracial friendship (Park, 2012a). Additionally, being
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 19
involved in a religious student organization also contributed to lower likelihood of interracial
friendship (Park, 2012a). Important to note is that all religion related variables were negatively
associated with interracial friendship. Additionally, even after all religious variables were
controlled, Asian American, Latino/a, and Black students all indicated a higher likelihood to
have close friends from another race over White students (Park, 2012a).
In a case study that analyzed how race and religion affect cross-race interaction for Black
students at a pubic, traditionally White institution, Park (2012b) interviewed six Black students'
experiences involved in a multiracial religious student organization, the InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship (IVCF). A prominent theme of isolation was realized as Black students began to
explain the tension that they felt between intentionality and tokenization (Park, 2012b). IVCF
was very intentional about encouraging students to make friends of another race, and as a result,
Black students felt that non-Black students were befriending them solely based on the fact that
they were of another race (Park, 2012b). Additionally, by being involved with IVCF, Black
students choose to be a minority in within the community, thus isolating them from same-race
peers and increasing their sense of isolation (Park, 2012b).
In contrast to the Park studies (2012a, 2012b), more recent research has indicated that
religiosity is actually linked with higher levels of cross-race interaction for White, Black, and
Asian American students (Park & Bowman, 2015). However, similar to the Park (2012a)
findings, students who identified as Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim showed higher levels of cross-
race interaction than their Protestant peers (Park & Bowman, 2015). This finding was consistent
with previous research that suggests that religious minorities show higher levels of cross-race
interaction than do Protestant students (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 20
Park and Bowman (2015) suggest a few reasons why religiosity may be linked with
higher cross-race interaction. Though Black and White students may worship separately, it is
possible that they connect on a secular campus due to a shared faith system. Additionally, due to
religious groups’ emphasis on unity and harmony, students may be encouraged to engage with
other areas of campus, which may provide further opportunities for interaction with cross-race
peers (Park & Bowman, 2015). Regardless of what links religiosity with higher levels of cross-
race interaction, an institution must first possess structural availability of diverse peers to even
make cross-race interaction a possibility (Paredes-Collins, 2009; Park & Bowman, 2015;).
In addition to the lack of research in this area, these inconsistent findings further
highlight the need for research on cross-race interaction among Christian colleges and
universities. However, regardless of an institution’s faith affiliations, or lack thereof, campus
educators at PWIs need to be mindful of the challenges that Students of Color face in multi-
ethnic organizations and their “inherent lack of equal status at such institutions” (Park, 2012b, p.
588). Park (2012b) calls for additional research that challenges the assumption that students
share equal status merely by admittance to the institution. Additionally, further understanding on
the overlap of multiple identities (i.e., race, sex, and religion) is also needed to understand how
these varying identities affect cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship (Park, 2012b).
Importance and Purpose of Study
Students of Color will continue to increase in numbers on college campuses, yet a critical
challenge for institutions of higher learning is better understanding how to develop environments
in which those students persist in the same ways as their White peers. Understanding factors
related to students’ perceptions of the campus racial climate and opportunities for cross-race
interaction have emerged in the literature as promising avenues for success in retention and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 21
completion rates. Existing literature demonstrates Students of Color perceive the campus racial
climate significantly more “chilly” than their White counterparts at PWIs (Ancis et al., 2000;
Rankin & Reason, 2005). This climate pays a significant role in the persistence rates of Students
of Color. Very few studies have focused on unique factors that may influence perceptions of the
campus racial climate for students within the CCCU (Paredes-Collins, 2009).
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how perceptions of campus racial
climate differ by the salient identities of race/ethnicity and sex. This study also explored whether
a student’s espoused level of religiosity was predictive of perceptions of campus racial climate.
Further, this study asked whether perceptions of campus racial climate predicted cross-race
interaction. Ideally, these findings will help inform campus administrators as they make
decisions about campus structures and support systems for Students of Color; thereby, assisting
to close the gap in retention and graduation rates for these students who attend Christian colleges
and universities.
Key Terms and Definitions
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these
terms throughout the study. The researcher developed all definitions not accompanied by a
citation.
Campus racial climate (CRC). The campus racial climate is considered the overall feel
of an institution based on structure of the campus environments, institutional policies, services
provided for students and relationships and interactions with faculty, staff and administrators
(Milem et al., 1998).
Centrality of religiosity. Centrality of religiosity is the degree to which religious
meanings are important, salient, or central in personality (Huber & Huber, 2012).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 22
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). The Council for Christian
Colleges & Universities (CCCU) is a higher education association of 180 Christian institutions
around the world. The 117 member campuses in North America are all fully accredited,
comprehensive colleges and universities with curricula rooted in the arts and sciences. As
mentioned above, the stated mission of the CCCU is, “to advance the cause of Christ-centered
higher education and to help our institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and
service to biblical truth” (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, 2016).
Cross-race interaction (CRI). Cross-race interaction refers to interaction between
individuals who do not share the same race (Park & Bowman, 2015).
Evangelical. The word “evangelical” can have a variety of meanings and connotations in
varying theological, historical, sociological, and political spheres that can shift over time. For
the purposes of this review, evangelical refers to either individuals or institutions that identify as
devoutly Christian, but do not adhere to a particular stream or denominational stance of faith.
Sex/Gender. While the following review of literature uses the words, “sex” and “gender”
interchangeably, it is important to note that the actual research examined differences by sex,
rather than the nuanced social identity of gender.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter will provide a comprehensive review of literature related to the following
independent variables of this study: (a) race/ethnicity, (b) sex, and (c) religiosity as they relate to
understanding CRC and opportunities for CRI at Christian colleges and universities. The chapter
will begin with an examination of the unique population of this study. Following this
introduction will be a more thorough review of the literature related to the independent variables
of this study. The chapter will conclude by proposing research questions and corresponding
hypotheses that will be examined in an effort to fill a gap in literature that does not exist within
Christian higher education.
Population Overview
As previously mentioned, the Christian church in the United States has long neglected
conversations regarding the intersection of race and faith (Emerson & Smith, 2000). Whether
this stems from theological resistance to the notion of corporate sin and shared responsibility for
injustices (Lee et al., 1991) or an adoption of colorblind ideology (Emerson & Smith, 2000), the
effects of the racial divide within Christian communities manifest themselves in the lived
experiences of these community members. The theological and cultural tenets of the Christian
church in America not only affect those within its pews, but also affect religiously affiliated
organizations, such as institutions of Christian higher education (Emerson & Smith, 2000; Lee et
al., 1991).
By design, institutions within the CCCU are affiliated with some aspect of the Christian
church; therefore, racial dialogue and race-related experiences are layered with both social and
theological implications (Lee et al., 1991; Paredes-Collins, 2009). This combination of religion
and higher education can make it difficult to evaluate the effects of racism when religious texts
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 24
are used to validate normative systems of power and privilege (Kim, Edens, Parra & Lopez,
2015). Therefore, in order to assist Students of Color in degree attainment, a comprehensive
understanding of the interplay of faith and race in Christian higher education is imperative.
Although challenges facing Students of Color in higher education were framed and briefly
discussed in Chapter 1, the following section is included to give fuller treatment to this issue, and
understanding of the research relevant to the study.
Race and Ethnicity
Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education
Students of Color are attending U.S. colleges and universities in increasing numbers. In
the last two decades, the number of undergraduate Students of Color nearly tripled, and the
percentage of undergraduate Students of Color nearly doubled (U.S. Department of Education,
2013). The rapid growth of Students of Color on campuses is no accident and is due to more
than just shifting racial demographics. A growing body of research has shown the educational
value of diversity on campuses (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Rankin & Reason, 2005;
Harper & Hurtado, 2007), and many institutions of higher education have developed strategic
plans targeted to increase the diversity of their student body. However, while institutions of
higher education have been successful in developing the compositional diversity of their
campuses, a growing concern for educators is that Students of Color have not persisted through
college at the same rates as their White counterparts. Of the White students who began college
fall 2003, 54% had a graduated by 2009, while Hispanic and African American students’
graduation rates during that same period were much lower at 41% and 36% respectively (United
States Department of Education, 2013). These low graduation rates are costly to colleges and
universities who pay to recruit more students, to students who often leave institutions of higher
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 25
learning with mounting debts and little to show for their expenditure, and to a society that misses
out on the contributions of an educated citizenry (Bowman & Denson, 2014). Therefore, better
understanding factors that contribute to the retention and graduation of students in general and
Students of Color in particular has been the subject of much research in higher education (Bean
& Eaton, 2002; Reason, 2009; Rendon et al., 2000; Rodgers & Summers, 2008; Tinto, 1993). As
national demographics have shifted to include higher percentages of Students of Color in higher
education, research on the experiences of Students of Color at PWIs has also increased over the
last few decades (Cabrera et al., 1999; Cuyjet, 1998; Harper, Davis, Jones, McGowan, Ingram, &
Platt, 2011; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Helm, Sedlacek, & Prieto, 1998; Phillips, 2005; Rankin &
Reason, 2005). Although research has been extensive and far ranging on this topic, three main
veins of inquiry relevant to this study include identifying the overall educational benefits of more
racially/ethnically diverse student bodies (Gurin et al., 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin &
Reason, 2005), the impact of the educational environment on Students of Color (Harper et al.,
2011; Harwood et al., 2012; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Solorzano et al., 2000; Yosso, Smith, Ceja,
& Solorzano, 2009), and how institutional factors or administrative action can either enhance or
hinder these students’ perceptions of campus racial climate (Cuyjet, 1998; Harper et al., 2011;
Helm et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Racial diversity as educationally beneficial. Racial/ethnic diversity is believed to be
educationally beneficial for all students (Gurin et al., 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin &
Reason, 2005). Within more recent campus diversity research, students indicated a desire for
increased exposure to diversity education (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Based on survey results from students of differing racial groups from 10 campuses, Rankin and
Reason (2005) suggest that students desired more administrative emphasis on race both inside
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 26
and outside of the classroom. However, this desire is not a universal desire. Students of Color
suggested that more interventions, such as a required course on race, would greatly improve the
campus racial climate at a greater rate than their White counterparts (Rankin & Reason, 2005).
However, White students believed that such courses would worsen the campus climate (Rankin
& Reason, 2005). This tension showcases the resistance to administrative action often expressed
by White students (Cuyjet, 1998; Harper et al., 2011; Helm et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005)
and highlights a negative campus racial climate for Students of Color even in their desire to
discuss perceived and actual inequities.
Inequities experienced by Students of Color at PWIs. A review of the research on
experiences of Students of Color at PWIs reveals a discouraging pattern of inequity and
marginalization. Students of Color report high levels of overt and subtle experiences of racism at
these institutions (Harper et al., 2011; Harwood et al., 2012; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Solorzano
et al., 2000; Yosso et al., 2009). It is imperative to consider not only these racially charged
experiences of Students of Color but also the lasting harmful effects of those experiences, both
academically and emotionally (Harper et al., 2011; Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja & Sue, 2013;
Sue et al., 2007). Without a significant increase in academic performance and emotional health
among Students of Color in higher education, the very social and economic structures of our
society will be at greater risk (Maramba & Velasquez, 2012). Research has highlighted how the
negative experiences of Students of Color impact both their academic success and emotional
wellbeing.
Academic effects. Repeated exposure to discriminatory behavior can have a cascade of
negative effects on academic well-being (Gurin et al., 2002; Harper et al., 2011; Harper &
Hurtado, 2007; Ong et al., 2013; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sue et al., 2007). Solorzano et al.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 27
(2000) found that several students admitted to either dropping a class, changing their major, or,
in extreme cases, even withdrawing from the institution due to racial microaggressions related to
their academic abilities. Much of this was due to off-putting interactions with faculty that filled
students with a sense of self-doubt. Many students in the study mentioned the importance of
having other Students of Color in the classroom in order to minimize stereotype threat
(Solorzano et al., 2000). Additional data supports the notion that negative faculty relationships
can lead to overall academic dissatisfaction and an increase in dropout rates (Hughes, 2002).
When comparing the academic success of African American students at PWIs versus
historically Black colleges and universities, the data illustrates the impact of the campus
environment on educational outcomes. In a study of self-concept and academic achievement of
African American students at PWIs, Cokley (2003) found that African American students
attending PWIs entered college with higher grade point averages than those entering historically
Black colleges and universities. These same students attending PWIs, however, reported lower
academic performance and exhibited lower self-concept than those who attended HBCUs
(Cokley, 2003). Another study revealed that 47% of African Americans considered their overall
university environment to be “chilly” and “unwelcoming,” while only about 20% of White
students suggested that the climate was cold and/ or uncaring (Strayhorn, 2013, p. 124). Black
students who felt that the campus climate was unwelcoming and cold were also more likely to
have intentions to leave their current institution (Strayhorn, 2013).
Emotional effects. In addition to maintaining good academic standing, Students of Color
at PWIs are also forced to negotiate both external and internal emotional conflicts that result
from perceptions and assumptions made about their personhood and their group of origin
(Harper et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2013; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Solorzano et al., 2000).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 28
Microaggressions, harassment, and stereotypes. Daily experiences of microaggressions,
harassment, and stereotype continue to negatively influence the wellbeing of Students of Color at
PWIs (Harper et al., 2011; Harwood, et al., 2012; Ong et al., 2013; Solorzano et al., 2000). The
data analysis in a study of the Asian American experience suggests that the how ‘angry,’
‘irritated,’ ‘disgusted,’ ‘sad,’ and ‘hostile’ they felt as a result of daily racial microaggressions”
(Ong et al., 2013, p.189). The often subtle nature of these experiences are typically invisible to
perpetrators, and this is further complicated by the public beliefs that Asian Americans represent
a “model minority” who are expected to be immune from these discriminatory effects (Ng, Lee
& Pak, 2007).
Twenty-five percent of undergraduate respondents in Rankin and Reason’s (2005) study
indicated that they had personally experienced harassing behavior resulting in negative
emotional effects. After reviewing these results based on racial backgrounds, 33% were
Students of Color while 22% were White students (Rankin & Reason, 2005). When asked to
indicate the focus of received harassment, White students suggested that the driving force of the
experienced harassment was based on their sex/gender while Students of Color suggested that
the harassment was a result of their race (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Important to note is the
seemingly limited understanding of White students’ perceptions of the campus racial climate for
Students of Color.
Emotional exhaustion for a focus groups of Black male Resident Assistants came as a
result of (a) responding to racist stereotypes in productive ways; (b) negotiating relationships in
social and academic spaces where leadership positions are held by primarily White professionals;
and (c) serving as primary representatives for their racial/ethnic group (Harper et al., 2011). One
Black RA responded “If you’re White you can get away with a lot more. I have done some of the
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 29
same things they have done, but I got called on it and they didn’t (Harper et al., 2011, p.192).”
Moreover, in the Ong et al. (2013) study, such racism experienced by Students of Color
highlights the interconnected relationship between chronic discrimination and depressive mental
health symptoms.
The narratives of these Students of Color at PWIs highlight the fact that racially charged
experiences make them feel less supported and welcomed by the campus community. These
counter narratives offer a racially varied perspective and challenge the single-story assumptions
made by those in power—stories that are inaccurately assumed to be shared by racial/ethnic
minorities alike (Parker, 1998). The above findings highlight the extent to which Students of
Color have had to endure racial/ethnic insensitivities to survive at PWIs and how those
experiences have shaped their perceptions of the campus racial climate. They also underscore
the importance of understanding how institutional action and practice can either enhance or
hinder these students’ experiences.
Race/Ethnicity and Students at Christian Colleges
Although there has been little research at Christian institutions of higher education
regarding race/ethnicity, what research exists suggests those institutions are certainly not
immune from such phenomena described in the previous section, particularly related to
perceptions of CRC and sense of belonging (Bohus, Woods, & Chan, 2005; Joeckel & Chesnes,
2012; Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2014;). In fact, research suggests a unique set of
challenges may exist as compared to non-faith based institutions. Many researchers have
suggested the unique environment of Christian colleges with lower enrollment rates of Students
of Color, combined with the conservative theological convictions that can often minimize the
importance of racial/ethnic identities, can create an environment that is counterproductive to the
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 30
success of Students of Color (Emerson & Smith, 2000; Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012; Lee et al.,
1991; Paredes-Collins, 2009).
In an effort to explore the relationship between institutional priority for diversity and
minority enrollment at four schools within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
(CCCU), Paredes-Collins (2009) concluded these institutions showed an overall “weak
institutional commitment to campus diversity, doing little to promote a multicultural learning
experience for students” (Paredes-Collins, 2009, p. 298). Only one of the four institutions
exhibited efforts to expand educational opportunities among students of culturally diverse
backgrounds. This same institution showed the highest level of commitment to diversity and
also had the highest level of enrollment for Students of Color (Paredes-Collins, 2009). The
remaining three institutions’ enrollments of Students of Color “were drastically lower than the
racial/ethnic demographics of the surrounding region” (Paredes-Collins, 2009, p. 298).
Unfortunately, this study only compared level of enrollment and did not examine student
experiences at those institutions.
Though higher education institutions have seen incremental growth in student of color
enrollment over the past few decades, Christian colleges and universities are essentially 20 years
behind the national average of minority student enrollment (Paredes-Collins, 2009). However,
CCCU member institutions experienced an increase of minority enrollments, on average, from
7.24% in 1983 to 13.27% in 2003 and 13.32% in 2007 (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 201).
Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate
While the vast amount of campus racial climate research exists from non faith-based
institutions, there is a significant gap in the availability of such research within the CCCU
(Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012; Lee et al., 1991; Paredes-Collins, 2013). However, research
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 31
conducted among Christian college students at non-faith based institutions expose distinct
characteristics related to theological convictions that significantly influence Christian students’
perceptions of CRC (Park, 2012a; Park & Bowman, 2015). As mentioned in the previous
chapter, colorblind ideologies that exist in many Christian sub-cultures can minimize the very
real experiences of Students of Color.
In one of the few published studies within the CCCU that examines campus diversity,
one faculty member suggests, “Christian colleges tend to be way behind on issues of ethnic and
cultural diversity” (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 206). In the same study, a faculty member of
color added, “Being a minority from a ‘third world country’ I believe that missionary discourse
constructs a false and negative image of other countries on campus. My students’ papers contain
stereotypes that I never saw at secular universities (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 206).” These
findings highlight the unique cultural influences that can significantly shape the CRC within
Christian higher education. Such rhetoric highlights the need for inquiry regarding the effects of
such “White religious norms” as articulated by Paredes-Collins (2013). However, previous CRC
research on campus diversity or CRC has not utilized validated measurement instruments to
examine student perceptions of CRC. Therefore, results from previous studies on CRC at
Christian institutions lack the academic rigor to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the
relationship between race/ethnicity and CRC. CRC research is clearly needed within the CCCU
to determine the impact of such religious norms on these campuses.
The above portion of the literature review highlighted research that suggests Students of
Color face different challenges and often more disparaging outcomes than their White
counterparts at PWIs. This phenomenon is not only evident within Christian higher education,
but it is also layered with further challenges due to the presence of colorblind ideologies and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 32
theological convictions that subtly deny racial tensions (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012; Lee et al.,
1991; Paredes-Collins, 2013). Similarly, the next portion will evaluate literature that discusses
the varying experiences and inequities of college students based on sex and how further
disadvantages associated with differences by sex might influence perceptions of CRC and
opportunities for CRI.
Sex/Gender
As demonstrated above, the campus climate of any institution is perceived differently
based on the power differentials that exist within them. Marginalization in the United States
extends well beyond color lines and is also evident in the differential treatment of college
students based on sex/gender (Bryant, 2006; Kelly & Torres, 2006; Singley & Sedlacek, 2009;
Vaccaro, 2010). Therefore, when assessing CRC, one must recognize the layers of identities
represented within an individual that may affect such perceptions (Bryant, 2006; Vaccaro, 2010).
Aside from race or ethnicity, one of the most salient identities for college students is their
sex/gender.
Sex/Gender in Higher Education
The battle for sex/gender equity in the United States has been long standing for centuries.
Whether in seeking voting rights or equal pay, women are still navigating societal disadvantages
(Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012). Though women have been given access to degree attainment in
higher education, the challenges that exist within the academy are still very much apparent
(Bryant, 2006; Kelly & Torres, 2006; Vaccaro, 2010).
Campus climates have long been described as “chilly” for women (Kelly & Torres, 2006;
Morris & Daniel, 2008). Some suggest that higher education faculty convey different
expectations for their students based on their sex/gender (Kelly & Torres, 2006). Strayhorn
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 33
(2013) suggests that such marginalization can lead to women feeling less confident in their
abilities and worth. This will undoubtedly negatively affect their self-efficacy and sense of
belonging (Strayhorn, 2013). Morris and Daniel (2008) discovered that women find the campus
climate chillier than men. Important to note is that students in traditionally female-dominated
majors perceived the climate chillier than students in traditionally male-dominated majors
(Morris & Daniel, 2008). These experiences are couched within a complex history of the male-
dominated academy. Joeckel and Chesnes (2012) note, “the academic structure of tenure,
promotion, and university duties was initially constructed on the basis of men’s careers and life
cycles” (p. 235). While significant attention has been given to understanding sex/gender equality
in higher education in the last few decades, it is also important to consider what opportunities
may exist for further progress, especially within the CCCU.
Sex/Gender and Students at Christian Colleges
This male-dominated tradition of leadership is not only represented within the academy
but is also apparent in the evangelical church (Bryant, 2006, 2009). While one cannot assume
that all evangelical Christians espouse similar gender role ideology, research consistently
suggests that these conservative branches of Christianity are more conservative in their
understanding of gender roles than the general population (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 238).
“The ways that gender roles and norms are constructed and perpetuated by religious subcultures
have far-reaching consequences for individual student lives” (Bryant, 2009, p. 562). This
phenomenon, therefore, is also reflected within member institutions of the CCCU.
Understanding perceptions of student gender equity at CCCU institutions is an imperative
step in assessing the general campus climate. CCCU faculty members were surveyed regarding
their perceptions of student sex/gender equality within their institutions (Joeckel & Chesnes,
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 34
2012). Nearly 63% of male faculty strongly agree that male and female students are treated
equally, while 37% of female faculty strongly agree that students are treated equally based on
sex/gender (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 279). Additionally, nearly three times the amount of
female as male faculty strongly disagree on the equitable treatment of students based on
sex/gender (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 279).
Student respondents also indicated varying perceptions of treatment and opportunity,
based on sex/gender, within the CCCU (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012). Nearly 63% of male students
strongly agree that men and women are treated equally, while 52% of female students strongly
agree (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 279). Interesting to note is that female faculty had
significantly stronger perceptions of differentiated treatment. Female students are also less likely
to strongly agree to having a faculty mentor. The lack of representation of women in the
academy is not only problematic in terms of equal representation but can also negatively impact
female students’ access to role models, thereby perpetuating the gap in equitable treatment
(Bryant, 2006; Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012).
While research regarding campus climate based on sex/gender within the CCCU is
limited, Bryant (2006) explored the gendered experiences of student members of an evangelical
Christian community at a non-faith based university, referred to as “Sharing the Faith
Fellowship” (p. 617). Her findings indicated distinct themes that fostered a sex/gendered
environment for members of this student population (Bryant, 2006). Those themes include: “(a)
the masculine assumptions ingrained in leadership, language and images of God; (b) beliefs
about essential sex/gender differences; and (c) the ways in which beliefs about sex/gender
structured leadership, modesty, and attitudes toward marriage and dating” (Bryant, 2006, p. 620).
Bryant concludes with the assertion that, though the organization did not necessarily display a
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 35
“chilly climate”, the potential consequences of such attitudes and norms for women can be
“chilling indeed” (Bryant, 2006, p. 631).
Sex/Gender, Higher Education, and Campus Racial Climate
Research in the area of perceptions of CRC based on sex/gender within the CCCU is very
limited: thus, emphasizing the importance of this study. The following review of research
conducted at non-faith based institutions below (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009; Vaccaro, 2010;
Strayhorn, 2013) highlight the importance of understanding how sex/gender might affect one’s
perceptions of CRC, especially when influenced by traditional gender roles espoused by
conservative Christian thought (Bryant, 2006, 2009; Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012). Literature
reveals that not only do men and women perceive the CRC differently (Strayhorn, 2013;
Vaccaro, 2010; Bryant, 2009; Springer, Pascarella, Palmer, Terenzini, & Nora, 1996; Morris &
Daniel, 2008) but they also tend to engage with conversations around diversity with significantly
different levels of interest (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009; Springer et al., 1996).
Strayhorn (2013) conducted a study at a PWI that measured whether White and Black
undergraduate students’ perceptions of campus climate varied by race and whether those
perceptions were conditional based on gender. Accounting for race and gender, this study also
measured intentions to leave college (Strayhorn, 2013). Gender differentiations played a
significant role in these findings. Black males in this study indicated higher intentions of leaving
college than Black females. This was attributed to higher levels of dissatisfaction with class size.
Black males who perceived the class as “so large that [they] feel like just one in a number” were
more likely to leave the college than their female counterparts (Strayhorn, 2013, p. 127). These
findings were consistent with the Morris and Daniel (2008) study, which indicated that non-
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 36
White students found the climate to be much chillier than White students, with women indicating
further levels of marginalization than men.
A qualitative study was conducted at a PWI that aimed at measuring the differences of
perceptions, based on gender, of a “seemingly positive” campus climate (Vaccaro, 2010).
Validating Singley and Sedlacek’s (2009) findings, the results of this study indicate that women
were more open to diversity issues than men (Vaccaro, 2010). Most women articulated a
longing for diversity conversations that moved beyond tolerance toward increased levels of
appreciation and acceptance. Adversely, male respondents (mostly White) indicated that the
absence of dialogue and lack of discussion related to diversity attributed to a more positive
climate (Vaccaro, 2010). She suggested that female perspectives as possessing themes “dialogue
and depth”, while she referred to the male perspectives as possessing themes of “avoidance,
hostility, resentment, and symbolic racism” (Vaccaro, 2010, p. 206).
Validating the findings of Singley and Sedlacek (2009) and Strayhorn (2013) such value
for diversity was not reflected in the findings from the male respondents (Vaccaro, 2010). Men
seemed to believe that diversity discussions were “sufficient” or “too frequent” (Vaccaro, 2010,
p. 206). One undergraduate male shared,
The only time race comes up is when White people are complaining about minorities
getting paid [scholarships] through the diversity program; I think the program sucks and
it is one of the reasons I will never give the school money after I graduate. (Vaccaro,
2010, p. 207)
In reflecting on the diversity conversation, another male undergraduate shared that those
who could not “make it” in college was because they were lazy.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 37
As a White male from an urban public high school, I made it out cause I busted my ass
got involved and stayed away from trouble. I am against affirmative action. I grew up in
the hood and I’m not fu**ing whining! (Vaccaro, 2010, p. 208)
Overall, there was a rejection of diversity related programs from White male respondents.
This focus on merit as the belief that people of color are not working as hard can be categorized
as systemic racism (Vaccaro, 2010).
Similar to Vaccaro (2010), Singley and Sedlacek (2009) suggest that women in the
United States are typically more sensitive to multiculturalism due to their feelings and
experiences of marginalization in a White, male-dominated society. Based on this, Singley and
Sedlacek (2009) decided to address how men and women from differing racial-ethnic groups
experience diversity at a large, eastern university.
Anglo-American men were less oriented to engage in diversity than any of the groups of
Students of Color. Additionally, Students of Color were comparable in their orientation toward
diversity (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009). These findings indicate that women and men may need to
be approached differently in conversations around diversity. College men may need more
convincing that such discussions are worthwhile, while college women are more likely to
appreciate these conversations, regardless of their race or ethnicity (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009).
Based on the above findings, some recommendations are made for college personnel
(Singley & Sedlacek, 2009). As Anglo-American students and employees are often the ethnic
majority in higher education, and diversity conversations can often be “off the radar,”
educational interventions supporting diversity efforts must be a priority for any institution.
Interventions aimed to educate the privileged majority groups, such as Anglo-American males,
could be incredibly beneficial as this demographic can “stereotypically perpetuate the
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 38
marginalization of women and Students of Color” (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009, p. 408). Overall,
such findings suggest that women believed understanding and appreciation for others could only
be achieved through rich and intentional dialogue (Vaccaro, 2010). Turning scholarly attention
to causes of persistence between differences by sex, yet of the same race, would be very
beneficial to those seeking equity for their students in each component of their college
experience.
The above portion of the literature review demonstrated the important role that
sex/gender plays in understanding perceptions of CRC. While women can often identify
heightened feelings of marginalization on their campuses, they also demonstrate higher levels of
engagement with diversity. However, research does not conclusively suggest differences in CRI
based on sex. One cannot fully understand the complexities of perceptions of CRC without also
understanding the role that sex plays in shaping these perceptions. If one’s theological
convictions might determine their understanding of race and sex/gender, what role, then, does
student religiosity play in a student’s perception of the CRC and their engagement with CRI at a
Christian college or university? The next portion will evaluate literature that discusses the
crucial role that religiosity plays in CRC and CRI research.
Religiosity
Perhaps one of the biggest challenges researchers who study religion face is agreeing
upon common terms and constructs for religion. These differences have often resulted in
research with findings that appear to contradict each other, but may simply suffer from a lack of
clarity regarding what is being measured. Two terms that appear to present problems for
researchers in particular are the words religious and spiritual. There was a time when the term
religious referred to both an individual and corporate construct (Hill & Pargament,
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 39
2003). However, more recently, religious has come to be identified with a more formalized,
institutional, and doctrinal construct, and spiritual has emerged to signify a more personal,
subjective, and individualistic, and emotive expression (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001).
Hill and Pargament (2003) argue this division of terms, while a helpful distinction with some
utility, is ultimately problematic. First, assigning the religious experience to two distinct and
dichotomous spheres of personal and institutional disregards the notion that, “all forms of
spiritual expression unfold in a social context and that virtually all organized faith traditions are
interested in the ordering of personal affairs (p. 64).” Second, the authors argue that evolving
views on the two terms often places a value on religion as being “bad” and spiritual as being
“good,” which could lead some to ignore both the beneficial and destructive aspects of each
construct. Lastly, religion and spirituality are more related than they are different. While much
is debatable regarding the specific constructs, they both involve the search for the sacred,
whether individualistic or corporate, and this is what distinguishes them from other human
experiences (Hill & Pargament, 2003).
Another challenge for the researcher is how to measure the religious phenomena. One
review of available measurements (Hill & Hood, 1999) found at least 125 measures of religion
and spirituality including up to 17 domains. Many studies use very rudimentary measures such
as religious affiliation or global self-assessments of religiousness (Hill & Pargament, 2003). As
a result, conclusions from many studies examining religiosity as either an actor on other
outcomes or as an outcome itself vary widely. Research on religiosity in higher education is no
exception.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 40
Religiosity and Higher Education
In the last few decades there has been renewed and sustained interest in understanding a
multiplicity of intersections between student spirituality and higher education
institutions. Research in this area can generally be placed in three main veins of inquiry: 1)
spiritual development in the college years (Fowler, 1981; Parks, 1986; 2000) including the
impact the college environment has (either positively or negatively) on a student’s religious
belief and practice (Hartley, 2004; Mayhew, Bowman, & Rockenbach, 2014; Rockenbach &
Mayhew, 2013; Paredes-Collins, 2014); 2) spirituality as a resource students draw upon for
success and persistence in college (Ackermann & Morrow, 2008; Bowman, Felix, & Ortis, 2014;
Ceglie, 2013; Dancy, 2010; Watt, 2003); and 3) the relationship between spirituality and certain
educational or developmental outcomes (Bohus et al., 2005; Mayhew & Bryant, 2011; Park
2012a, 2012b; Park & Bowman; 2015; Rennick, Smedley, Fisher, Wallace, & Young, 2013;).
Spiritual development of college students. Parks’ (1986, 2000) theory of faith
development has been the most widely utilized theory of spiritual development in the field of
student affairs (Long, 2012). Parks built on the work of James Fowler’s (1981) stages of faith,
her theory has made several significant contributions to our understanding of the faith
development of college students. In particular, Parks demonstrated how cognitive development,
affective states, interpersonal and cultural influences are interrelated strands of spiritual
development that impact each other in ways that theorist before her did not. While Fowler
(1981) focused his stages of faith primarily on the cognitive elements of faith development,
Parks drew from a range of psychosocial and cognitive-structural theorists to construct a
multilayered and multifaceted view of faith development that examines the interplay between
cognitive, affective, and social domains of development.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 41
While Parks (2000) argues that higher education institutions play a critical role in shaping
the faith development of students, researchers disagree on whether the higher education climate
has the effect of strengthening or weakening the religious beliefs and behaviors of students.
Early research into this question seemed to support a view that campuses, in general, were
hostile toward religious development and contributed to the liberalizing and secularization of
students (Hartley, 2004). However, more recent research suggests that, at least for mainline
faiths, the college environment can support and nurture students’ faith (Mayhew & Bryant,
2013).
Spirituality as a resource. Researchers have also shown how spirituality is used by
students (particularly Students of Color) as a resource to be more successful in college. One
study (Ceglie, 2013) found that the religious beliefs of Latina and African-American women
enrolled in science majors played a significant role in their persistence in a STEM field. Watt
(2003) identified how African American women use spirituality as both a coping mechanism to
the challenges of the higher education environment, and as empowerment to resist negative
societal messages. African American women in the study saw embracing spirituality as a
positive coping mechanism alternative to other perceived common coping mechanisms such as
overeating or engaging in unhealthy relationships (Watt, 2003). Other studies (Dancy, 2010;
Herndon, 2003) have noted similar reliance on spirituality for African American males to be
successful in college.
Role of spirituality on outcomes. Parks’ theory suggests that faith development can
impact student development in other domains, and researchers have investigated the role
spirituality plays in college student success. Generally, the research on academic and personal
outcomes fall into one of three categories: academic achievement; personal and emotional
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 42
wellbeing; and social activities. While it appears religion has a positive relationship with student
satisfaction, the impact of religion on other outcomes such as academic achievement and
emotional well-being are less conclusive (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009).
Although there are studies citing correlations between religion and academic success,
many of them require some sort of qualification. An often-cited study (Mooney, 2010) analyzes
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshman, which includes over 4,000 students
from 28 selective colleges and universities. The study found students had a higher GPA in
college if they regularly attended religious services during their senior year of high school.
However, the study did not include a measurement for religious service attendance while in
college; therefore, religiosity in college cannot be correlated to academic achievement through
the study. Other studies that correlate religious belief or participation to academic achievement
(Walker & Dixon, 2002; Zern, 1989) rely on small samples that lack generalizability, and are
limited by their lack of controlling variables. Bryant (2007) was able to establish a minimal
correlation between religiosity and academic success, but it was unclear whether the success was
more linked to previous academic preparedness rather than religious involvement.
Research on the link between religiosity and emotional wellbeing is even more mixed.
Bryant (2008) found a negative correlation between participation in campus religious groups and
emotional wellbeing, which would have been even more pronounced if the negative impacts
were not mediated by the strong friendship networks these students developed. While some
studies have found that students who are religious generally manage stress better than those who
are not religious (Pollard & Bates, 2004), other studies show spiritually involved students tended
to report higher levels of stress (Carlozzi, Thomason, Worth, Harrist, & Winterowd, 2005).
Alternatively, a large national study utilizing data from the National College Alcohol study
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 43
found religious students exhibited fewer signs of depression than students who identified as not
religious (Phillips & Henderson, 2006). On the whole, it seems the best that can be said
regarding the impacts of religiosity on student emotional wellbeing is that it is moderate yet
contradictory.
What seems more clear is the positive impact of religiosity on other types of affective or
social outcomes such as student satisfaction with college. In their landmark study of nearly
150,000 college students from over 450 institutions, Gonyea and Kuh (2006) found that students
who regularly engaged in spiritual practices were, “more satisfied with college, and view the out-
of-class experience more positively” (p. 44). Mooney (2010) also found that college students
who had regularly attended religious services in high school were significantly more satisfied
with college. More recent studies suggest a link between religiosity and non-cognitive or social
outcomes that go beyond student satisfaction.
A study investigating the effects of religious engagement on students’ affective outcomes
such as leadership skills, social satisfaction, and sense of belonging examined data from the 2008
University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, which included 63,528
undergraduate respondents from all nine of the University of California campuses (Rennick et
al., 2013). The authors found religious engagement generally had a positive impact on several
affective factors, including interpersonal skills, social satisfaction, and sense of belonging.
However, there were significant differences in results by race. For Latino students, religious
engagement was not correlated with any of the outcomes except for interpersonal skills, while all
the outcomes were observed in White, Asian American students, and highly correlated for
African American student. These findings suggest religious engagement may have differing
impacts by race on affective outcomes such as sense of belonging. More specifically, it appears
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 44
African Americans may benefit more from religious engagement than other races (in particular
Latino students).
Religiosity and Students at Christian Colleges
While there has been recent renewed interest in studying religion in college students,
most of the research conducted to date, including research examining students who identify as
Christian, has taken place at secular rather than Christian institutions (Astin, Astin & Lindholm,
2011; Hartley, 2004). Most of the research religiosity at Christian institutions does so through
means of comparison to students at secular institutions (Foster & LaForce, 1999; Gonyea & Kuh,
2006; Small & Bowman, 2012). For example, a quantitative study by Gonyea and Kuh (2006)
found students at faith-based schools were most engaged in spiritual activities while their
counterparts at private secular or public schools were least engaged and students at Protestant
and Catholic schools fell somewhere in the middle regarding their engagement in spiritual
activities. The authors point out these differences in spiritual engagement by institution are most
likely an indicator that students who chose to attend a faith-based institution are pre-disposed to
be interested in spiritual activities. Foster and LaForce (1999) found students who persisted
through their senior year at a Christian liberal arts college had greater gains in religious
development than their non-persisting peers. However, the non-persisting peers had greater
gains in intrinsic religiosity, which suggests a secular environment may encourage more personal
ownership for beliefs and practices.
Small and Bowman (2012) summarized their research utilizing data from the Spirituality
in Higher Education project conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute, which
includes over 14,500 students from 136 institutions. The authors found that students attending
Christian colleges had that greatest gains in religious commitment, spiritual identification, and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 45
spiritual quest. Furthermore, the study found students at Christian institutions had greater gains
in well-being, but those gains were consistent with students at secular institutions who reported
similar levels of spiritual engagement and support. These findings suggest well-being may have
more to do with individual disposition rather than institutional characteristics. While it seems
clear that students, regardless of religious affiliation, benefit spiritually from attending Christian
institutions, very little research has been conducted exploring outcomes such as sense of
belonging or CRC for students attending Christian colleges and universities may be
experienced.
Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate
Despite religion being a primary point of cultural socialization for college students, little
research has been conducted on how religion affects diversity engagement (Park, 2012a). There
is even less research regarding the intersection of religiosity and diversity engagement for
students at Christian Colleges. Only one study was found that examined the relationship
between religiosity and CRC at Christian colleges and universities. Paredes-Collins (2014) used
structural equation modeling to examine data from 2,86 senior undergraduate students from 21
CCCU institutions who participated in the CCCU’s Comprehensive Assessment Project, which
utilizes data from the College Senior Survey (CSS), a component of the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education Research Institute at University of California,
Los Angeles. The author was able to establish that the campus climate for diversity is a predictor
of spirituality for all students, and has even stronger predictive qualities for Students of Color.
Paredes-Collins (2013) also argues that White religious norms should be examined and modified
at Christian colleges in order to improve the campus climate for SOC. However, while Paredes-
Collins offers some theoretical grounding for this argument, the author does not provide
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 46
empirical evidence to show how the religious norms at the institution (White or otherwise),
impact students’ perceptions of the CRC. Therefore, more study is needed to understand the
unique role religiosity plays in perceptions of CRC for students on Christian campuses.
Religiosity, Christian College Students, and Cross-Race Interaction
Few studies have explored the role religious identification has as a mediator of cross-race
relationships (CRR) and cross-race interactions (CRI) at secular institutions (Park, 2012b; Park
& Bowman, 2015). As noted above, Park (2012a) found that being Protestant, religious salience,
and membership in a campus religious organization were all negatively correlated with
likelihood of having cross-racial friendships. This finding could suggest that religion (at least
Protestantism) is a barrier to CRR. However, in contrast, a study examining CRI by Park and
Bowman (2015) found evidence to suggest religiosity could be linked with higher levels of CRI
for White, Black, and Asian American students. Using data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Freshmen (NLSF), the authors explored the experiences of 3,924 first-year students
from 28 academically selective institutions, and examined whether higher levels of CRI was
linked with “religious observance, religious worldview identification, and participation in
religious student organization” during college (Park & Bowman, 2015, p.20). While evidence
was found indicating religiosity could be positively associated with CRI, there was an even
stronger relationship for those who identified with minority religions and this finding was
consistent with previous similar research (Park, 2012a). Bowman and Park (2015) note that
terminology may be to blame for the seemingly mixed results between the studies in that cross
race friendship is understood to have a different and deeper meaning than simple interaction
across race. They hypothesize religion may play a part in facilitating more surface interaction,
but not in developing deeper friendships. These mixed results on religiosity and CRI may also
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 47
illustrate that multiple identities, such as race and religion, can both complement and complicate
cross-racial interaction (Park, 2012b).
Summary of Literature Review
The literature review above served to further emphasize the importance of considering
the independent variables of race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity in this study. In summary, an
obvious variable to consider in both CRC and CRI research is one’s racial/ ethnic identity.
Countless studies indicate inequitable experiences between Students of Color and White students
at PWIs (Ancis et al., 2000; Cabrera et al., 1999; Cuyjet, 1998; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Miller
et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005). However, as mentioned above, colorblind ideologies
combined with statistically lower enrollment rates for Students of Color, can complicate issues of
equity and access for Students of Color at faith-based, PWIs (Lee et al., 1991; Paredes-Collins,
2009).
Sex/gender is also a crucial independent variable in understanding perceptions of CRC.
Research suggests that female college students perceive the campus climate to be less welcoming
than their male counterparts (Bryant, 2006; Morris & Daniel, 2008). Additionally, women and
men tend to differ in their comfort levels and engagement with issues of diversity (Bryant, 2006;
Singley & Sedlacek, 2009; Strayhorn, 2013; Vaccaro, 2010). When specifically assessing
climate by sex/gender within the evangelical worldview, traditional differences by sex/gender are
often emphasized that may attribute to ever further levels of marginalization (Bryant, 2006).
Important to note is the lack of research in the area of sex/gender as it relates to CRI, further
validating the need for this study.
Religiosity was the third independent variable addressed. Research has shown there to be
a relationship between spirituality and certain educational or developmental outcomes (Bohus et
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 48
al., 2005; Mayhew & Bryant, 2011; Park & Bowman; 2015; Rennick et al., 2013). Due to the
nature of religious influence on institutions within the CCCU, it is imperative to understand how
this variable might influence the outcome of a CRC, especially as that climate relates to
opportunities for CRI.
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to (a) explore how perceptions of CRC
differentiate by race/ethnicity and sex, (b) assess whether religiosity predicts perceptions of
CRC, and (c) assess whether perceptions of CRC predict CRI. To further explore the
relationship between these variables, the study begins with a preliminary research question,
which asks if differences exist in perceptions of CRC by race/ethnicity, and sex/gender. If
differences exist, then subsequent research will explore whether religiosity will predict CRC and
whether perceptions of CRC predict CRI.
Research Questions
The following research questions are asked in this study:
Preliminary Research Question 1:
Are there differences in perceptions of campus racial climate (CRC) and levels of cross-race
interaction (CRI) by race/ethnicity and sex at Christian Colleges and Universities?
Hypothesis 1a: Differences will exist by race/ethnicity and sex in perceptions of CRC
and in levels of CRI by race/ethnicity at Christian Colleges and Universities.
Hypothesis 1b: Differences will exist by race/ethnicity and sex in perceptions of CRC
and in levels of CRI by sex at Christian Colleges and Universities.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 49
Research Question 2:
Does religiosity predict perceptions of campus racial climate (CRC) at Christian Colleges and
Universities?
Hypothesis 2: Religiosity will predict perceptions of CRC at Christian Colleges and
Universities.
Research Question 3:
Do perceptions of campus racial climate (CRC) predict cross-race interaction (CRI) at Christian
Colleges and Universities?
Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of CRC will predict CRI.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter will review the methods utilized in conducting this study. First, relevant
demographic characteristics of participants will be discussed. Second, the instruments used to
operationalize constructs and collect data will be examined. Finally, recruitment and data
collection procedures will be explained.
Participants
Undergraduate students from six predominately White, Christian Colleges and
Universities across the U.S. were recruited for participation in the study during a one-month
period in the fall semester of 2016. A total of 1451 students volunteered to participate in the
study. Of the 1451 surveys, 99 could not be included in the study due to incomplete responses or
missing data resulting in a total of 1,352 usable responses for the final data
analysis. Participating institutions represented a wide range of geographic locations including
the West, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the country. Additionally, three
of the institutions were denominationally affiliated and three had no current denominational
affiliation (see Table 1 for institutional descriptions). The surveys were all completed during the
months of November and December of 2016. Important to note is that the survey was
administered immediately following the presidential election of Donald Trump. Due to national
dialogue on race relations at the time of the election, it is important to recognize how these
contextual and cultural factors might have played a role in students’ perceptions of CRC at the
time of completion.
As shown in Table 2 below, the respondents were equally distributed by class
year. Distribution of female undergraduate students comprised 66% (n = 892) of the sample,
while male undergraduate students comprised 34% (n = 455) of the sample. This distribution is
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 51
fairly consistent with the distribution of sex in the population of the participating
institutions. The largest represented race/ethnicity was White (n = 1049, 77.8%) with the next
largest racial/ethnic categories being Multi-racial (n = 98, 7.3%) and Asian or Asian American (n
=71, 5.3%). Students’ race/ethnicity for the current study are presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Participating Institutional Characteristics
West PacWest Mid A Mid B South East Avg
Institutional Size 1,000-
1,500
Under
1000
Under
1000
2,000-
2,500
1,500-
2,000
Under
1000
N/A

Sex Percentages
Male 39.8 57.5 52.4 46.0 36.4 36.4 44.4
Female 60.2 42.5 47.6 54.0 64.6 64.6 55.6

Race/Ethnicity Percentages
African American/Black 2 2 5 6 20 2 6.2
Asian or Asian American 7 7 1 3 2 2 3.7
Latino/a or Hispanic 13 1 3 5 2 2 4.5
Multi-racial 8 6 2 2 1 4 3.8
White 65 67 86 59 65 79 70.2
Other/Unknown 5 16 3 25 10 11 11.8

Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants (N = 1352)
N Percentage

Sex
Male 455 33.8
Female 892 66.2

Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 52 3.9
Asian or Asian American 71 5.3
Latino/a or Hispanic 51 3.8
Multi-racial 98 7.3
White 1049 77.8
Other 27 1.9
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 52
Table 2, continued
Year in School
First-Year 336 24.9
Sophomore 309 22.9
Junior 341 25.3
Senior 361 26.8
Institutions
West Coast 243 18.0
Midwest A 236 17.5
Midwest B 458 33.9
Pacific Northwest 152 11.2
East Coast 101 7.5
Southern 162 12.0

Instruments
As shown in Appendix A, students were provided an informed consent form prior to
participating in the survey and were notified that all survey responses would remain
confidential. The survey itself was divided into five sections, including: 1) demographic and
background information (Appendix B), 2) campus racial climate (Appendix C), 3) cross-race
interaction (Appendix D), and 4) religiosity (Appendix E). Detailed information on the
instruments used for this study is described below.
Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity is a nominal measurement. The instrument included a
number of categories from which the respondent was able to choose a response including:
Hispanic/Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, and Two or more races. These seven categories are
the adopted standard of the Department of Education for collecting and reporting of data on race
and ethnicity (United States Department of Education, 2008). The data collected was eventually
grouped into five categories labeled White, Black, Asian/American, Hispanic/Latino/a, and
Multiracial. This grouping process was utilized in subsequent analyses as the populations of
each group were independently large enough to assess group differences.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 53
Campus racial climate. The Campus Attitudes and Climate Questionnaire (CACQ) was
used to measure the CRC for this study. The CACQ was developed by Helm et al. (1998) and
consists of 43 statements surrounding the CRC. In most instances, students were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with those statements using a 5 point Likert-type scale. The
CACQ measures the following eleven factors: (1) racial tension, (2) cross-cultural comfort, (3)
diversity awareness, (4) racial pressures, (5) residence hall tension, (6) fair treatment, (7) faculty
racism, (8) respect for other cultures, (9) lack of support, (10) comfort with own culture, (11)
overall satisfaction (Ancis et al., 2000). These factors were identified using principal axis factor
analysis and varimax rotation, which accounts for 48% of the total variance (Ancis et al., 2000,
p. 181). Some sample statements from this instrument are as follows: “I feel I need to minimize
various characteristics of my racial/ ethnic culture (e.g. language, dress) to be able to fit in here”
and “The school provides an environment for the free and open expression of ideas, opinions,
and beliefs” (Helm et al., 1998, p. 120).
The CACQ is proven to be high in reliability and validity. The coefficient alpha
reliability of the CACQ was .81, which signifies that it is reliable (Helm et al., 1998). The
CACQ also has face validity in that it appears to measure what it intends to measure.
Additionally, the CACQ has been used in countless national surveys, and has been cited by
Harper and Hurtado (2007) as one of the measures that has significantly contributed to CRC
research. As such, the CACQ was a logical instrument to examine perceptions of CRC. For this
study the internal reliability on the eleven subscales ranged between .59 and .84. Important to
note is that the comfort with own culture subscale indicated the lowest reliability score at .59 and
residence hall tension was also relatively low at .61. All other CACQ subscales’ reliability
scores were above .71.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 54
Cross-Race interaction. The CRI scales measures the frequency of interpersonal
interaction during college with the following four racial/ethnic groups: White, Black/African
American, Asian/Asian American, Hispanic/Latino. The four-item scale asks respondent the
following question: “How much interaction have you had over the past four years with members
of the following groups?” (0 = no interaction at all, to 10 = a great deal of interaction). CRI is
indicated via the average frequency of interaction with the racial/ethnic groups other than one’s
own. This measure for CRI has been used in numerous other studies (Bowman & Denson 2012;
Bowman & Park 2014, 2015), and has been used and validated in the Nelson Laird (2005) study
of CRI.
Centrality of religiosity. The Centrality of Religiosity Scale was first validated in 1999
with a random sample of 806 students studying at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland
(Huber, 2007), and showed strong psychometric properties. The reliability was very high with a
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.93. Additionally, the construct-validity was shown by strong correlations
with religious self-concept (“Overall, how religious would you describe yourself?”), and daily
consequences of religiosity (operationalized through a scale identifying impact of personal
religious beliefs on various aspects of life such as family, politics, friendships, etc.). The
correlations were 0.87 and 0.84 respectively, and both were significantly correlated at the p <
0.001 level. In three different studies, the reliabilities of each of the five dimensions ranged from
0.80 to 0.93 (Huber & Huber, 2012). Since it was first validated, over 100 studies in 25 different
countries with over 100,000 total participants have utilized the CRS to examine the sociology of
religion, psychology of religion, and religious studies. Although no studies were found which
included students in higher education in the United States, the instrument’s high reliability and
validity across a range of populations, combined with its interreligious generalizability and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 55
multidimensional approach to understanding the salience of personal religiosity make the CRS
an appropriate instrument to measure the centrality of religiosity.
Procedure
The researcher initially contacted 29 Christian Colleges and Universities across the U.S.
to request their participation in the study. Each of the institutions were predominantly White,
and the researcher selected each of the institutions based upon their current or recent membership
in the CCCU. Additionally, the researcher was careful to select institutions that represented a
range of geographic locations across the country. A brief description of the survey, a link to the
survey, and a notice of confidentiality were included in the email to each contact. Six
institutions representing geographic areas from across the country eventually agreed to
participate in the study. Three of the institutions were denominationally based and three of the
institutions were non-denominational (see Table 1). All undergraduate grade levels were
sampled with the intent of providing a representative data sample. Students participating in the
online survey were provided with an informed consent form notifying them of the purpose of the
study, procedures for completion, potential of risks and benefits, confidentiality and rights as
participants. To maintain confidentiality of the participants, only the primary investigators were
granted access to the dataset. All identifying information from the survey was kept in a separate
location from the survey responses. The average time to complete the survey was approximately
13 minutes. A raffle drawing for Visa gift cards was used as an incentive for survey completion.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the results of the study,
including preliminary analyses, analyses of the research questions, as well as post-hoc analyses.
Preliminary Analyses
Correlations
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships
between the variables of campus racial climate (CRC), cross-race interaction (CRI) and
religiosity (CRS). Results are summarized in Table 3.
For this study, seven of the eleven CRC subscales were statistically significantly
correlated with CRI with respect for other cultures (r = .24, p = .00) and overall satisfaction (r =
.21, p = .00) having the strongest positive correlations, and residence hall tension (r = -.28, p =
.00) having the strongest inverse correlation. The following CRC subscales were not
significantly correlated with CRI: racial pressure, racial tension, lack of support, and faculty
racism. Six of the eleven CRC subscales: diversity awareness, cross-cultural comfort, overall
satisfaction, respect for other cultures, fair treatment, and comfort with own culture were
statistically significantly correlated positively with all five of the religiosity subscales.
Residence hall tension was inversely associated with all five CRS subscales. There was no
significant association between religiosity and racial pressure or lack of support.
CRI was statistically significantly correlated with all five religiosity subscales with public
practice (r = .25, p = .00) having the strongest positive correlation, and religious experience
having the weakest positive correlation (r = .20, p = .00).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 57
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Note. All scores are scaled scores. CRI = Cross-Race Interaction; CRC = Campus Racial Climate; CRS = Centrality of Religiosity Scale
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17
CRC
1. DIVERSITY AWARENESS 2.08 .36 -- -.03 .21** .05 .29** .08** -.29** .18** -.02 -.04 .15** .19** .25** .16** .23** .18** .19**
2. RACIAL PRESSURE 2.29 .78 -- -.31** .42** -.35** -.34** .22** -.34** .20** .29** -.29** .02 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.00 .04
3. CROSS-CULTRUAL COMFORT 3.85 .63 -- -.29** .43** .37** -.35** .41** -.20** -24** .86** .18** .17** .11** .14** .12** .12**
4. RACIAL TENSION 1.85 .63 -- -.44** -.62** .39** -.42** .30** .59** -.27** -.06 .06* -.04 .00 .02 .02
5. OVERALL SATISFACTION 3.99 .75 -- .53** -.55* .57** -.33** -.36** .33** .21** .28** .26** .34** .28** .25**
6. RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES 3.11 .66 -- -.51** .47** -.28** -.43** .30** .24** .12* .15* .14** .12** .11**
7. RESIDENCE HALL TENSION 2.25 .59 -- -.61** .29** .26** -.27** -.28** -.23** -.18** -.23** -.19** -.18**
8. FAIR TREATMENT 4.32 .69 -- -.41** -.36** .31** .18** .22** .19** .22** .18** .14**
9. LACK OF SUPPORT 1.81 .71 -- .27** -.15** -.01 -.01 -.05 -.03 -.03 -.05
10. FACTULTY RACISM 1.32 .60 --- -.19** -.05 -.02 -.08** -.03 .02 .06*
11. COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE 3.65 .87 -- .15** .11** .10** .11** .11* .09**
12. CRI 6.43 2.16 -- .24** .20** .25** .23** .20**
CRS
13. INTELLECTUAL 4.03 .88 -- .54** .68** .60** .59**
14. IDEOLOGY 4.72 .66 -- .73** .71** .55**
15. PUBLIC PRACTICE 4.44 .88 -- .78** .59**
16. PRIVATE PRACTICE 4.28 .92 -- .69**
17. RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 3.77 1.00 --

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 58
Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1
Are there differences in perceptions of campus racial climate (CRC) and levels of cross-race
interaction (CRI) by race/ethnicity and sex at Christian Colleges and Universities?
Hypothesis 1a: There are group differences by race/ethnicity in perceptions of the CRC
and in levels of CRI by race/ethnicity at Christian Colleges and Universities.
Hypothesis 1b: There are group differences by sex in perceptions of the CRC and in
levels of CRI at Christian Colleges and Universities.
A two-way MANOVA was conducted for the independent variables of race/ethnicity and
sex/gender and the 11 subscales of dependent variables of CRC. The overall model was
significant (F(44, 3843) = 1.513, p = .016, Wilks Lambda = .936). The main effects for
race/ethnicity were significant for ten of the eleven subscales with racial pressure, racial tension,
residence hall tension, and fair treatment indicating the highest level of significance. The main
effect for sex was significant for overall satisfaction. However, the remaining ten subscales were
not significant for sex. Therefore, results support hypothesis 1a for overall differences by
race/ethnicity but do not support hypothesis 1a for overall differences by sex. In subsequent
follow-up ANOVAs for the significant subscales, both race/ethnicity and sex as well as some
interactions were significant. The results of the 2-way ANOVA analyses are presented in Table
4.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 59
Table 4
Summary of Two-Way ANOVAs for Perceptions of CRC by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Variable Test Statistic Df Sig

CRC SUBSCALES

1 DIVERSITY AWARENESS
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
.518
.1.005
.002
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.399
.097
.902
2 RACIAL PRESSURE
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
4.958*
97.919**
.008
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.042
.001
.898
3 CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
.185
4.813*
.106
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.977
.017
.606
4 RACIAL TENSION
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
.217
8.112**
.684
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.966
.001
.180
5 OVERALL SATISFACTION
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
5.373*
9.519*
2.897*
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.042
.002
.021
6 RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
3.204
4.630*
2.903*
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.100
.024
.008
7 RESIDENCE HALL TENSION
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
1.891
6.570**
.925
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.230
.001
.097
8 FAIR TREATMENT
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
3.397
12.397**
.093
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.107
.001
.647
9 LACK OF SUPPORT
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
6.893*
4.716*
.031
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.007
.048
.800
10 FACULTY RACISM
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
.399
3.384*
.361
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.884
.044
.306
11 COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE
Race/Ethnicity
Sex
.549
10.000*
1.154
4, 1014
4, 1014
1, 1014
.948
.010
.216

To determine the exact nature of racial/ethnic group differences, post-hoc analyses were
run for the significant subscales of CRC. For the racial pressure subscale, White students were
identified as the least pressured racial category and Asian/Asian American students were
identified as the most pressured. For the overall satisfaction subscale, White students indicated
the highest level of satisfaction and Black/African American students indicated the lowest level
of satisfaction. For the lack of support subscale, White and Black/African American students
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 60
were the least affected by lack of support and Asian/Asian American students were the most
affected. The results of the post hoc analyses for racial pressure, overall satisfaction, and lack of
support are in presented in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7.
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Racial Pressure
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Significantly
Higher Than
1 White 2.11 .66

2
Black or African American
3.06 .91 1, 5
3
Asian or Asian American
3.15 .69 1, 4, 5
4
Hispanic/Latino/a
2.90 .97 1, 5
5
Multi-racial
2.68 .78 1

Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Overall Satisfaction
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Significantly
Higher Than
1 White 4.06 .70 2, 3, 4, 5
2
Black or African American
3.47 1.02

3
Asian or Asian American
3.75 .70 2
4
Hispanic/Latino/a
4.01 .73 2, 3, 4
5
Multi-racial
3.76 .85 2

Table 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for Lack of Support
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Significantly
Higher Than
1 White 1.78 .68

2
Black or African American
1.79 .79 1
3
Asian or Asian American
1.99 .78 1, 2, 4, 5
4
Hispanic/Latino/a
1.81 .74 1, 2
5
Multi-racial
1.85 .77 1, 2, 4
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 61
A two-way ANOVA was conducted for the independent variables of race/ethnicity and
sex and the single scale measure of CRI. There was no significant interaction between
race/ethnicity or sex for the CRI score, F(3,1020) = 1.035, p = .376. However, the main effect
for race/ethnicity for the CRI score was significant, F(3,1020) = 4.716, p = .003. The main
effect for sex for the CRI score was not significant.
Post-hoc analyses were run for to determine the exact nature of racial/ethnic group
differences for CRI. Due to the fact that CRI is indicated via the average frequency of
interaction with the racial/ethnic groups of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino, this
analysis did not include students who identified as multi-racial. The results for the post-hoc
analyses are presented in Table 8. Significant findings indicate the highest levels of CRI for
Hispanic or Latino/a students and the lowest level of CRI for Black/African American students.
Table 8
Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Contrasts by Race/Ethnicity for CRI
Race/Ethnicity Mean
Standard
Deviation sig
1 White 6.36 2.17

Black or African American 1.00
Asian or Asian American .041
Hispanic or Latino/a .008
2 Black or African American 6.13 2.21
White 1.00
Asian or Asian American .100
Hispanic or Latino/a .022
3 Asian or Asian American 7.14 1.67
White .041
Black or African American .100
Hispanic or Latino/a 1.00
4
Hispanic or Latino/a
7.49 2.16

White

.008

Black or African American

.022

Asian or Asian American
1.00
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 62
Since group differences were established by race/ethnicity and sex in perceptions of
CRC, the analysis for subsequent research questions related to CRC will be conducted by
race/ethnicity and sex. However, since there were no group differences established by sex for
cross-race interaction, subsequent research questions related to CRI will simply be conducted by
race/ethnicity. Therefore, the above analysis confirms hypothesis 1a, which states that group
differences would exist by race/ethnicity for CRC and CRI. However, due to the fact that group
differences did not exist by sex for CRI, hypothesis 1b was only partially supported.
Research Question 2
Does religiosity predict perceptions of CRC at Christian Colleges and Universities?
Hypothesis 2: Religiosity will predict perceptions of CRC at Christian Colleges and
Universities.
For each of the 11 subscales of the dependent variable of CRC, a multiple regression
analysis was conducted to determine if religiosity predicted perceptions of CRC. Due to the
results of racial/ethnic and sex/gender differences in CRC noted in RQ1, the data were
disaggregated and run separately. Because the pattern of significance for males and females
were nearly identical for RQ2 (except for Overall Satisfaction), the data were collapsed across
sex. However, there were notable variations in pattern of results by race/ethnicity; therefore,
they are analyzed separately for each group. Religiosity was significantly predictive of CRC for
White students in four of the eleven subscales of CRC: diversity awareness, cross-cultural
comfort, overall satisfaction, and fair treatment. Among the remaining racial categories,
religiosity statistically significantly predicted two of the eleven subscales for Black students:
cross-cultural comfort (R
2
= .44, p = .001) and fair treatment (R
2
= .25, p = .043). Important to
note is that the relationship between religiosity and cross-cultural comfort for Black students was
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 63
the highest level of predictive value between all racial categories and CRC subscales. For
Hispanic/Latino/a students, the only subscale indicating statistical significance was fair treatment
(R
2
= .31, p = .037). For multi-racial students, the only subscale indicating statistical
significance was overall satisfaction (R
2
= .18, p = .010). Also important to note is that no
statistically significant predictive relationships were established between religiosity and CRC for
Asian/Asian-American students. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. Results
of the multiple linear regression analyses for the four significant subscales are presented in Table
9.
Table 9
Summary of Multiple Regression Results for Religiosity Predicting CRC
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 64
Research Question 3
Do perceptions of CRC predict cross-race interaction (CRI) at Christian Colleges and
Universities?
Hypothesis 3a: Perceptions of CRC predict CRI.
For the dependent variable of CRI, a multiple linear regression was run to determine if
perceptions of CRC predicted CRI. The only racial group for which there were significance in
the overall model was for White students (R
2
= .15, p = .000).
However, though non-significant, the notably high R-squares for the other racial/ethnic
groups merit consideration and thus, results for all racial/ethnic groups are included in Table 10.
The data for the overall model for these groups are as follows: Black or African American
students (R
2
= .41, p = .096), Hispanic or Latino/a students (R
2
= .41, p = .058), and Asian or
Asian American students (R
2
= .23, p = .361). As mentioned earlier, due to the fact that CRI is
indicated via the average frequency of interaction with the racial/ethnic groups of White, Black,
Asian, and Hispanic/Latino, this analysis did not include students who identified as multi-racial.
Table 10
Summary of Multiple Regression Results for CRC Subscales Predicting CRI

White Black Asian Latino/a

R
2
p R
2
p R
2
p R
2
p
CRC .15

.001

.41

.096

.23

.361

.50

.058
DA

.101 .004

.147 .446

-.038 .829

.100 .615
RP

.076 .035

.041 .854

-.047 .808

-.552 .058
CCC

-.018 .781

.012 .976

.321 .352

.278 .561
RT

.113 .016

.022 .959

.184 .527

-.058 .827
OSAT .086 .054

.192 .538

-.179 .384

.032 .892
ROC

.238 .001

.123 .659

.076 .708

.083 .798
RHT

-.158 .001

-.346 .175

.123 .624

-.023 .917
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 65
Table 10, continued
FT

-.007 .876

.201 .543

.436 .068

.319 .219
LS

.095 .009

.148 .592

-.058 .724

-.123 .491
FR

.004 .915

.245 .404

.260 .196

.320 .238
COC .098 .120 .070 .854 -.453 .206 -.62 .161
CRC (Campus Racial Climate); CRI (Cross-race Interaction); DA = Diversity Awareness, RP = Racial Pressures, CCC = Cross-
Cultural Comfort, RT = Racial Tension, OSAT = Overall Satisfaction, ROC = Respect for Other Cultures, RHT = Residence Hall
Tension, FT = Fair Treatment, LS = Lack of Support, FR = Faculty Racism, COC = Comfort with Own Culture

Therefore, this analysis shows a rejection of hypothesis 3a for Students of Color;
however, this analysis supports hypothesis 3a for White students. Perceptions of CRC do predict
CRI for White students. Implications for these results will be discussed in depth in the following
chapter.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 66
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to explore differences in perceptions of CRC and CRI
by race/ethnicity and sex at predominately White Christian Colleges and Universities. This
study also explored whether religiosity predicts perceptions of CRC on these campuses. Finally,
this study explored whether perceptions of CRC predicts cross-race interaction. Results
indicated that significant differences existed in perceptions of CRC by race/ethnicity; however
perceptions were not as significant by sex. However, findings related predictive relationships
between religiosity, CRC, and CRI were limited. The following chapter provides a summary and
discussion of the results as well as theoretical and applied implications. Limitations of this study
and possible directions for future research will also be discussed.
Summary and Discussion of Main Findings
Differences in perceptions of campus racial climate and cross-race interaction by race/ethnicity
and sex
This study explored differences in perceptions of CRC and CRI by race/ethnicity and sex
at predominately White, Christian colleges and universities. It was hypothesized that significant
differences would exist by race/ethnicity and sex in both of these independent variables.
Differences by race/ethnicity were indeed established in ten of the eleven CRC subscales,
signifying statistical significance in differences in overall perceptions of CRC; however overall
differences by sex in perceptions of CRC were not significant. While this study was unique in
that the each of the participating institutions identified explicitly as a Christian institution, the
findings were consistent with similar studies at non-faith based institutions (Harper & Hurtado,
2007l; Helm et al., 1998; Phillips, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005). African American students
consistently reported more negative CRC when compared to White, Asian American, and
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 67
Latino/a students, specifically in constructs related to racial tension, residence hall tension, fair
treatment, faculty racism, and comfort with their own culture. Hurtado (1992) also found that
White students were less likely than their peers of color to perceive racial tension on their
campuses, citing that most White students believed racism was no longer a societal problem.
Ancis et al. (2000), which used the same CRC scale used in the current study, also found that
White students indicated the highest level of overall satisfaction with the CRC citing that White
students often fail to recognize interracial tensions that exist for their cross-race peers. White
students also indicated the highest level of comfort with their own culture. This was consistent
with the Helm et al. (1998) study, which suggests that this level of cultural comfort might be true
for White students as they often “do not see the relevance of their culture to diversity because the
overall culture on campus has been, and continues to be, designed for them” (Helm et al., 1998,
p. 115).
Asian/Asian American students expressed the highest levels of racial pressure. As
described by Ng et al. (2007), this racial pressure is embedded in the model minority rhetoric
often expressed by Asian students in American higher education. Additionally, stereotype threat
related to academic performance may play a role in these feelings of heightened racial pressure
(Ng et al., 2007). These findings validate the importance of understanding the specific
differences that exist not only in the overall perceptions of CRC surveys, but also the differences
that exist between racial categories of each subscale.
An additional compelling finding is that the only significant perception of CRC
established by sex was in the overall satisfaction subscale. As no major differences were
established by sex in the remaining subscales, these findings bring into question prior research,
which suggests that not only do men and women perceive the CRC differently (Bryant, 2009;
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 68
Springer et al., 1996; Strayhorn, 2013; Vaccaro, 2010) but they also tend to engage with
conversations around diversity with significantly varied levels of interest (Singley & Sedlacek,
2009; Springer et al., 1996). Prior research also suggests that women in the United States are
typically more sensitive to multiculturalism (Singley & Sedlacek, 2009; Vaccaro, 2010). More
research is needed to understand the nature of these distinctions of perceptions by sex.
Concerning CRI, significant differences were established by race/ethnicity. Overall,
Black students indicated the lowest levels of CRI, with White students indicating the second
lowest levels of CRI. This finding is also consistent with Park’s (2012a) findings in that Asian
American and Latino/a students indicated higher levels of CRI and cross-racial friendships from
another race over White students (Park, 2012a). This finding was to be expected as Students of
Color clearly have higher levels of opportunities to interact with cross-race peers within a
predominately White institution. Also, according to Park (2012a) affluent White students have
lower levels of CRI as they tend socialize in racially homogeneous environments. However, the
fact that Black students also indicated low levels of CRI at PWI institutions was of significant
interest to the researcher. This finding for Black students is contrary to the findings of Park
(2012a) and Saenz, Ning Ngai, and Hurtado (2007) who both found that lowest levels of CRI
were for White students. This finding suggests that, even in predominately White settings, Black
students are still more likely to interact with same race peers more than any other racial category.
However, this finding validates the Solorzano et al. (2000) observation that Black students often
create “counter-spaces” or safe spaces where they can interact with same-race peers who
encounter similar social challenges in a predominately White setting.
Overall, findings related to differences in CRC and CRI underscore the need for faith-
based, PWIs to increase the population of Students of Color as suggested by Paredes-Collins
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 69
(2009; 2013; 2014) and Park and Bowman (2015), thereby enhancing opportunities for CRI and
advancing the learning that is fostered within a diverse student population. Also important to
note is that no significance was established in differences of CRI by sex. This did not come as a
surprise to the researcher as prior research has not conclusively suggested differences in CRI
based on sex (Park, 2012a).
Relationship Between Religiosity and Campus Racial Climate
The present study also explored if religiosity predicted perceptions of CRC at
predominately White Christian colleges and universities. It was hypothesized that religiosity
would predict perceptions of CRC; however, the overall findings did not support this hypothesis.
As mentioned above, no significant differences were determined by sex and only four of
the eleven subscales were significant by race/ethnicity. As this research was conducted at
Christian colleges and universities, this finding was especially surprising to the researcher based
on research that suggests that the evangelical faith can often hinder one’s understanding of issues
race related issues (Emerson & Smith, 2000; Lee et al., 1991). However, the centrality of
religiosity scale was designed to assess the salience of personal religiosity, not necessarily the
salience of one specific faith tradition (Huber, 2007).
The most significant of all findings related to this research question was that, for Black
students, religiosity predicted cross-cultural comfort by 44% and fair treatment by 25%. Park
(2012b) also found that religiosity for Black students was helpful for students working through
race related conflicts with cross-race peers. Additionally, in the Rennick et al. (2013) study,
researchers found that African Americans may reap more educational benefits from religious
engagement over other races. These findings are also consistent with prior research that suggests
that African American students who express salient levels of religiosity experience more
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 70
successful student outcomes (Dancy, 2010; Herndon, 2003; Watt, 2003). While no overall
statistical significance was established for RQ2, it is indeed worthwhile to note that religiosity is
not as salient in relation to CRC as hypothesized by prior research (Paredes-Collins, 2014; Park
& Bowman, 2015).
Relationship Between Campus Racial Climate and Cross-Race Interaction
This study also explored whether or not perceptions of CRC would predict CRI. It was
hypothesized that perceptions of CRC would predict CRI. While no significant relationship was
established for Students of Color, there was a significant predictive relationship established
between CRC and CRI for White students. The subscales of diversity awareness, respect for
other cultures, residence hall tension, and lack of support were indeed significantly predictive of
CRI for White students. Because Students of Color are less represented at PWIs, one would
assume that CRI is more likely to occur for Students of Color than for White students (Park &
Bowman, 2015).
The finding related to higher levels diversity awareness predicting CRI is especially
important to note as it validates the importance of color-conscious ideology. As noted by Ford’s
(2012) study, diversity awareness and multicultural competence is a pivotal step in
understanding the dangers of colorblind ideology when engaging in cross-race relationships. As
mentioned above, past research suggests that White evangelicals have historically indicated
colorblind ideology, in that they “do not want a race problem”, that they “want to see people get
along,” and “have equal opportunity” (Emerson & Smith, 2000, p. 89). This dismissal of color-
conscious thinking can either promote or enhance one’s level of cross-race interaction. In fact,
this color-blind ideology might indeed hinder one from recognizing or acknowledging
opportunities for CRI. Because such little research has been conducted on race-relations at
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 71
Christian colleges and universities (Emerson & Smith, 2000), it is difficult to hypothesize what
role CRC plays in CRI for Students of Color.
This finding for White students is also important to note because research suggests that
CRC is improved when CRI is encouraged and facilitated (Ancis et al., 2000; Denson & Chang,
2009; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Lee, 2010; Miller et al., 1998; Park & Bowman, 2015).
However, such cross-racial engagement is not possible unless institutional structural diversity
has been established as a priority (Paredes-Collins, 2009; Park & Bowman, 2015). This finding
validates the findings of Saenz et al. (2007), who found that racially diverse institutions affect
White students more prominently than non-White students, “offering additional evidence for the
efficacy of diverse college environments in facilitating greater student interactions” (p. 31).
Implications for Practice
The results of this study indicate a number of important implications for researchers,
administrators, and educators in their efforts to gain a better understanding of the relationship
between race/ethnicity, sex, religiosity as the relate CRC and opportunities for CRI at Christian
colleges and universities. The following implications for practice will be discussed in relation to
the findings of this study: (1) educators and administrators need to understand their role in the
overall CRC; (2) institutions need to focus attention and support strategies specifically on
Black/African American students; and (3) institutions should prioritize education regarding
ethnic identity development for White students.
The first implication for practice to be discussed is that educators and administrators need
to better understand their role in the CRC. Based on the varying perceptions of CRC across
race/ethnicity that were discovered in this study, it is critical of any institution to examine and
understand the variance in perspectives of the CRC represented on their campus. An institution
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 72
cannot claim that they offer inclusive multicultural environments if students’ lived experiences
with racism and oppression remain “unexplored, undisclosed, and unaddressed” (Harper et al.,
2011, p.195). In cases where institutional commitment to diversity is underdeveloped, students
will either find alternative spaces that will positively contribute to the ethnic identity
development, or will be subjected to the oversight of multiple layers of oppression as represented
in the afore mentioned narratives in the review of literature (Harper et al., 2011; Harwood et al.,
2012).
Given this study’s significant findings related to low overall satisfaction and lack of
support and high racial pressure expressed by Students of Color, educators must understand their
own role in either helping or hindering such student experiences. Educators and administrators
must critically examine their own ethnic identity development and, therefore, be able to
recognize harmful assumptions and racial biases within themselves and within the student
population at large, especially on their predominately White campuses. White professionals who
seek change and equity for Students of Color at PWIs, must ask themselves the question “What
does it mean to be White?” and, therefore recognize how their own White racial identity may be
impacting the lived experiences of Students of Color (Helms, 1997).
Positive racial climates at PWIs have increased opportunities for enhanced diversity
awareness and CRI by addressing the following: the recruitment of staff, faculty, and Students of
Color; (2) the development of curriculum that reflects the history and perspectives of people of
color; (3) an enhancement of programs that promote recruitment, retention, and graduation of
Students of Color; and (4) an institutional commitment to diversity reflected in a
college/university mission statement (Solorzano et al., 2000).
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 73
A second implication for practice is that Christian college and university administrators
would benefit from focusing specifically on understanding the Black/African American student
experience at their institutions. Negative perceptions of CRC coupled with the lowest levels of
CRI across all racial categories indicate that the campus experience is less equitable for
Black/African American than for their cross-race peers students at Christian colleges and
universities. These low levels of CRI and negative perceptions of CRC are consistent with the
findings of Saenz et al. (2007); however, they suggest that Black students who feel more
supported by their faculty and who feel less racial tension on their campus are likely to have
higher levels of positive interactions with diverse peers.
Also important to note is the significant role that religiosity plays in cross-cultural
comfort for Black students. Considering the finding that religiosity predicts cross-cultural
comfort by 44% for Black students, administrators would also be wise to consider what role faith
development and religious practice should play in supporting Black students on their overall
integration, success, and retention on their predominately White campuses.
The final implication for practice from this study is that administrators and educators
need to focus attention on enhancing racial identity development multicultural competencies
among their White student populations. The findings that White students indicated the most
positive perceptions of CRC coupled with the finding that they were the only racial category
whose perceptions of CRC predicted CRI indicates that there is a significant opportunity to
further educate this population of the differing experiences of their cross-race peers. Prior
research suggests that White students believed that the campus environment was sensitive to
difference both for themselves and for African-American students (Phillips, 2005). Additionally,
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 74
White students had a false understanding of how their African American counterparts
experienced the campus climate (Phillips, 2005).
Any educator who is desiring lasting effects in their diversity efforts should consider the
following elements: (a) helping students develop an awareness of the roles of power and
privilege in systems of inequality, and (b) helping students develop a language in which to
dialogue around said issues, therefore learning to communicate differences and learn from
various perspectives (Sorensen, Nagda, Gurin, & Maxwell, 2009). Research also suggests that
biculturalism and ethnic identity development are integral parts of the education process of
White students and of the retention process for Students of Color (Rodgers & Summers, 2008).
Each of the above implications for practice should not only minimize negative
perceptions of CRC but should also enhance a sense of institutional multicultural competence,
which has been defined as “a recognition of the individual that he or she has a view of the world
that is not universally shared and that differs profoundly from that held by many members of
different nations and ethnic groups” (Bennett, 2001, p.191). Any interventions made to enhance
the CRC and overall institutional multicultural competence must not only consider how to make
students increase their sense of community membership, but must also consider how the
administration conveys that these individuals make the institutions a much more valuable and
enriched learning environment (Cuyjet, 1998).
Limitations of the Study
A number of limitations must be taken into account regarding this study including issues
of measurement, instrumentation, and generalizability. The first limitation is the obvious
disproportionate number of respondents across racial categories. Due to the relatively low
number of respondents from racial/ethnic groups other than White, the sample sizes for
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 75
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino/a, Asian/Asian American and Multiracial students are
disproportionate in comparison. While the representation of Students of Color was relatively
low, the samples did closely resemble the overall campus populations. However, in order to
understand the broader strokes of difference across White students and Students of Color, future
studies might decide to group all non-White racial categories and run analyses based on group
difference between White students and Students of Color. Combining non-White racial
categories would account for the disparity in sample size between White students and other
race/ethnicities.
A second limitation is the instrumentation used in this study. The survey instrument
utilized self-report measures for each measured construct, which relied on the subjective
interpretations of each respondent. The respondents voluntarily participated in the study and,
therefore, do not account for a majority of students at each campus. Additionally, the instrument
did not account for pre-existing perceptions of racial/ethnic group differences, nor did the
instrument account for students’ predispositions of their own ethnic/racial identity development.
These pre-existing ideals, beliefs, and self-awareness can significantly affect one’s interpretation
of an instrument (Saenz et al., 2007).
Finally, the generalizability of this study is clearly limited to Christian colleges and
universities. Even then, it should be noted that only six colleges and universities were sampled
in this study representing a range of geographic locations including the West, Pacific Northwest,
Northeast, and Midwest regions of the country. Additionally, some participating institutions
require students to affirm statements of faith prior to enrolling and some of them do not have the
same requirement. The fact that this pre-requisite is not required at each institution clearly
affects pre-existing faith systems that may or may not affect responses related to the salience of
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 76
religiosity. Therefore, caution should be exercised before generalizing the findings to all
Christian colleges and universities.
Recommendations for Future Research
Campus racial climate research is quite extensive across U.S. higher education (Harper &
Hurtado, 2007); however, this line of inquiry is significantly lacking in the field of Christian
higher education. While this study has added needed texture to understanding the intersection of
perceptions of CRC, religiosity, and CRI at Christian colleges and universities, more research is
needed to understand these critical areas of student development. The following
recommendations for future research at Christian colleges and universities will be explained
below: (1) explore staff/faculty’s multicultural competence in relation to student perceptions of
CRC; (2) explore inter and intra-racial dialogues role in perceptions of CRC and CRI; and (3)
explore how the intersectionality of additional identities (i.e. socioeconomic status, year in
school, etc.) might influence perceptions of CRC and CRI.
As mentioned above, a positive CRC is dependent upon all institutional members,
including faculty and staff. In order to fully understand the institutional nuances of the student
experience, more research is needed to explore the levels of multicultural competence
represented across faculty and staff at Christian colleges and universities. As most Christian
colleges and universities require staff and faculty to agree to a statement of faith, there is much
room to further explore the interactions of religiosity and racial/ethnic diversity of staff/faculty in
relation to student perceptions of CRC. The generational span of representation amongst faculty
and staff would also add a rich layer to the nuance of research. As staff and faculty are primary
contributors to campus cultures, such research will only advance an administrator’s ability to
positively address CRC concerns.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 77
A second recommendation for future research would be to explore how inter and intra-
racial dialogue might enhance perceptions of CRC and levels of CRI at Christian colleges and
universities. Prior research (Ford, 2012) at non-faith based institutions suggests that focused
curricular dialogue amongst same-race peers, and then amongst cross-race peers, can assist
students make sense of their own racial group membership and help them navigate cross-racial
interactions and friendships in college. This research has proven to be helpful at non-faith based
institutions and would, likewise, be beneficial for faith-based institutions to explore qualitative
research through this inter and intra-racial focus group model.
The final recommendation for future research would be to explore how the interaction of
additional identities, such as socioeconomic status and year in school, might influence a
student’s perception of CRC and level of CRI. Additional studies have explored the relationship
between these identities (Harper & Hurtado, 2007) and have found significant variance in the
relationships of these additional categories in relationship to perceptions of CRC. Additionally,
due to the overall lack of significance in findings related to sex in perceptions of CRC and CRI,
it would be worthwhile to conduct research that analyzes sex/gender differences within the same
racial/ethnic group. Sample sizes of Students of Color for this study were not large enough to
divide the sample by sex to analyze such differences.
Conclusion
This study sought to explore differences in perceptions of CRC and CRI by race/ethnicity
and sex at predominately White Christian Colleges and Universities. This study also explored
whether religiosity predicts perceptions of CRC on these campuses and whether perceptions of
CRC predicted cross-race interaction. Results from this study revealed that White students have
a more positive perception of CRC on Christian college and university campuses than Students
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 78
of Color. Findings also suggest that Black/African American students demonstrate the most
negative perceptions of CRC and the lowest levels of CRI at Christian colleges and universities.
Differences in perceptions of CRC and levels of CRI were much more salient by race/ethnicity
than by sex. While overall levels of espoused religiosity had a fairly week predictive
relationship with perceptions of CRC for White students, strong predictions were determined for
Black/African American students. Finally, perceptions of CRC were predictive for CRI for
White students but not for Students of Color. The above summation of findings has practical
implications for any educator seeking equity for increasingly diverse student populations.
The overall findings of this study underscore the value of a multicultural education with
in the academic, religious, and social realms of the student experience. These findings will
ideally inform administrators as they make policy and programming decisions around the
varying perceptions and interactions regarding racial diversity on their college campuses. This
research should serve to advance and inform campus structures and support systems for Students
of Color as well as White students; thereby, enhancing the overall student experience while
closing the gap in retention and graduation rates for Students of Color who attend Christian
colleges and universities.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 79
References
Ackermann, M. E., & Morrow, J. A. (2008). A principal components analysis and validation of
the coping with the college environment scale (CWCES). Journal of College Student
Retention, 9(2), 133–148.
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural
climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 180–185.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can
enhance students' inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2002). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 73-89.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.
Bohus, S., Woods, R. H., & Chan, K. C. (2005). Psychological sense of community among
students on religious collegiate campuses in the Christian evangelical tradition. Christian
Higher Education, 4(1), 19–40. doi:10.1080/153637590507423
Bowman, N. A., & Denson, N. (2012). What's past is prologue: How precollege exposure to
racial diversity shapes the impact of college interracial interactions. Research in Higher
Education, 53(4), 406–425.
Bowman, N., Felix, V., & Ortis, L. (2014). Religious/Worldview identification and college
student success. Religion & Education, 41(2), 117–133.
Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing and
contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship. Journal of
Higher Education, 85(5), 660–690.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 80
Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2015). Not all diversity interactions are created equal: Cross-racial
interaction, close interracial friendship, and college student outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 56(6), 601–621.
Bryant, A. N. (2006). Assessing the sex/gender climate of an evangelical student subculture in
the United States. Sex/gender and Education, 18(6), 613–634.
Bryant, A. N. (2007). The effects of involvement in campus religious communities on college
student adjustment and development. Journal of College and Character, 8(3), 8.
doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1178
Bryant, A. N., & Astin, H. S. (2008). The correlates of spiritual struggle during the college years.
The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 1-27. doi:10.1353/jhe.2008.0000
Bryant, A. N. (2009). Negotiating –the complementarian sex/gender ideology of an evangelical
student subculture: Further evidence from women's narratives. Sex/gender and Education,
21(5), 549–565.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between White
students and African-American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134–
160.
Carlozzi, B., Thomason, N., Worth, S., Harrist, S., & Winterowd, C. (2005). The relationship of
spiritual beliefs and involvement with the experience of anger and stress in college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 515-529.
doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0057

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 81
Case, K. F., & Hernandez, R. (2013). "But still, I'm Latino and I'm proud": Ethnic identity
exploration in the context of a collegiate cohort program. Christian Higher Education,
12(1), 19.
Ceglie, R. (2013). Religion as a support factor for women of color pursuing science degrees:
Implications for science teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1),
37–65.
Cokley, K. (2003). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic
achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2),
148–164.
Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim
students' experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 121–139.
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. (2016). Our mission. Retrieved from
http://www.cccu.org/
Cuyjet, M. C. (1998). Recognizing and addressing marginalization among African American
college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 64–71.
Dancy, E. T. (2010). Faith in the unseen: The intersection(s) of spirituality and identity among
African American males in college. Journal of Negro Education, 79(3), 416–432.
Emerson, M. O., & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by faith: Evangelical religion and the problem of
race in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ford, K. A. (2012). Shifting White ideological scripts: The education benefits of inter and intra-
racial curricular dialogues on the experiences of White college students. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education. 5(3), 138–158.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 82
Foster, J. D., & LaForce, B. (1999). A longitudinal study of moral, religious, and identity
development in a Christian liberal arts environment. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 27(1), 52–68.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for
meaning. New York: Harper Collins.
Gilliard, M. D. (1996). Racial climate and institutional support factors affecting success in
predominantly White institutions: An examination of African-American and White
student experiences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(04), 1515A.
Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Independent colleges and student engagement: Do
religious affiliation and institution type matter? Bloomington, IN: Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.
Harper, S. R., Davis, R. J., Jones, D. E., McGowan, B. L., Ingram, T. N., & Platt, C. S. (2011).
Race and racism in the experiences of Black male resident assistants at predominantly
White universities. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 180–200.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, (120), 7–24.
Hartley, H. V. (2004). How college affects students' religious faith and practice: A review of
research. College Student Affairs Journal, 23(2), 111–129.
Harwood, S. A., Huntt, M. B., Mendenhall, R., & Lewis, J. A. (2012). Racial microaggressions
in the residence halls: Experiences of Students of Color at a predominantly White
university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(3), 159–173.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 83
Hausmann, L. R., Ye, F., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging and
persistence in White and African American first-year students. Research in Higher
Education, 50(7), 649–669.
Helm, E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Prieto, D. O. (1998). The relationship between attitudes toward
diversity and overall satisfaction of university students by race. Journal of College
Counseling, 1(2), 111–120.
Helms, J. (1997). Toward a model of White racial identity development. In K. Arnold
& I. Carreiro King (Eds.), College student development and academic life (pp.
207-224). New York & London: Garland.
Herndon, M. (2003). Expressions of spirituality among African-American college males. The
Journal of Men’s Studies, 12, 75–84.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of
religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American
Psychologist, 58(1), 64–74. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64
Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3),
710–724. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3390/rel3030710
Hughes, R. (2002). Understanding the context of the “Other” education: Black and White
students talk about their experiences at Lone Star University, a predominantly White
institution of higher education in the south. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 84
Hurtado, S. (1992) The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher Education.
63(5), 539-569.
Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college: Assessing
difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in Higher Education.
379(2), 135–157.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–
345.
Joeckel, S., & Chesnes, T. (2012). The Christian college phenomenon: Inside America's fastest
growing institutions of higher learning. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.
Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2013). Examining the effects of
stress and campus climate on the persistence of Students of Color and White students: An
application of Bean and Eaton's psychological model of retention. Research in Higher
Education, 55(1), 75-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9304-9
Kelly, B. T., & Torres, A. (2006). Campus safety: Perceptions and experiences of women
students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 20-36.
Kim, Y. K., Edens, D., Parra, O. E., & Lopez, K. M. (2015). Sense of belonging in religious-
based colleges and universities: Predictors and patterns among Students of Color and
White students. In Glimps, B. J., & Ford, T., Eds. Sex/gender and diversity issues in
religious-based institutions and organizations (pp. 269-290). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health.
New York: Oxford University Press.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 85
Lee, D. J., Nieves, A. L., & Allen, H. L. (1991). Ethnic-minorities and evangelical Christian
colleges. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L. J. Hinchliffe & M. A. Wong
(Eds.), Environments for student growth and development; Librarians and student affairs
in collaboration (pp. 41-55). Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries
Maramba, D. C., & Velasquez, P. (2012). Influences of the campus experience on the ethnic
identity development of Students of Color. Education and Urban Society, 44(3), 294–317.
Mayhew, M. J., Bowman, N. A., & Rockenbach, A. B. (2014). Silencing whom? linking campus
climates for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity to student worldviews. Journal
of Higher Education, 85(2), 219–245.
Mayhew, M. J., & Bryant, A. N. (2013). Achievement or arrest? the influence of the collegiate
religious and spiritual climate on students' worldview commitment. Research in Higher
Education, 54(1), 63–84. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11162-012-
9262-7
Mayrl, D. & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions
for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 260–275.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01446.x
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J. & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Retrieved from http//:www.aacu.or/inclusive_excellence/
pdfs/Milem_Final.pdf
Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Hurtado, S., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for Racial/Ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 86
Miller, M. H., Anderson, R., Cannon, J. H., Perez, E., & Moore, H. A. (1998). Campus racial
climate policies: The view from the bottom up. Race, Sex/gender & Class, 5(2), 139–157.
Modica, M. (2012). Constructions of race among religiously conservative college students.
Multicultural Perspectives, 14(1), 38–43.
Mooney, M. (2010). Religion, college grades, and satisfaction among students at elite colleges
and universities. Sociology of Religion, 71(2), 197-215. doi:10.1093/socrel/srq035
Morris, L. K., & Daniel, L. G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate: Differences in traditional
and non-traditional majors for women. Research in Higher Education, 49(3), 256–273.
Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.
Research in Higher Education, 46, 365–387.
Ng, J. C., Lee, S. S., & Pak, Y. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Contesting the model minority and
perpetual foreigner stereotypes--A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in
education Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D. W. (2013). Racial
microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60(2), 188–199.
Paredes-Collins, K. (2009). Institutional priority for diversity at Christian institutions. Christian
Higher Education, 8(4), 280–303.
Paredes-Collins, K., & Collins, C. S. (2011). The intersection of race and spirituality:
Underrepresented students' spiritual development at predominantly White evangelical
colleges. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20(1), 73–100.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 87
Paredes-Collins, K. (2013). Cultivating diversity and spirituality: A compelling interest for
institutional priority. Christian Higher Education, 12(1/2), 122–137.
doi:10.1080/15363759.2013.739436
Paredes-Collins, K. (2014). Campus climate for diversity as a predictor of spiritual development
at Christian colleges. Religion and Education, 41(2), 171–193.
Park, J. J. (2012a). When race and religion collide: The effect of religion on interracial friendship
during college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 8–21.
Park, J. J. (2012b). "Man, this is hard": A case study of how race and religion affect cross-racial
interaction for black students. Review of Higher Education, 35(4), 567–593.
Park, J. J., & Bowman, N. A. (2015). Religion as bridging or bonding social capital: Race,
religion, and cross-racial interaction for college students. Sociology of Education, 88(1),
20.
Parker, L. (1998). “Race is . . . race ain’t”: An exploration of the utility of critical race theory in
qualitative research in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11, 43–55.
Parks, S. D. (1986). The critical years: Young adults and the search for meaning, faith, and
commitment. New York: Harper Collins.
Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for
meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, C. D. (2005). A comparison between African American and White students enrolled in
an equal opportunity program on predominantly White college campuses: Perceptions of
the campus environment. College Student Journal, 39(2), 298.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 88
Phillips, R., & Henderson, A. (2006). Religion and depression among U.S. college students.
International Social Science Review, 81(3/4), 166–172.
Pollard, L. J., & Bates, L. W. (2004). Religion and perceived stress among undergraduates
during fall 2001 final examinations. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 999–1007.
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How Students of Color and White
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(1), 43–61.
Reason, R. D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a
comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),
659-682.
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the
student departure puzzle (pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rennick, L. A., Smedley, C. T., Fisher, D., Wallace, E., & Young, K. (2013). The effects of
Spiritual/Religious engagement on college students' affective outcomes: Differences by
sex/gender and race. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 22(3), 301–322.
Rodgers, K. A., & Summers, J. J. (2008). African American students at predominantly White
institutions: A motivational and self-systems approach to understanding retention.
Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 171–190.
Rockenbach, A. B., & Mayhew, M. J. (2013). How the collegiate religious and spiritual climate
shapes students' ecumenical orientation. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 461–479.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 89
Saenz, V. B., Hoi, N. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across
race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1-38.
Small, J. L., & Bowman, N. A. (2012). Religious affiliation and college student development: A
literature review and synthesis. Religion & Education, 39(1), 64–75.
doi:10.1080/15507394.2012.648586
Singley, D. B., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2009). Differences in universal-diverse orientation by race-
ethnicity and sex/gender. Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD, 87(4), 404–411.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
Sorensen, N., Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., & Maxwell, K. E. (2009). Taking a “hands on” approach
to diversity in higher education: A critical-dialogic model for effective intergroup
interaction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 3–35.
Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Attitudes toward
campus diversity: Participation in a racial or cultural awareness workshop. The Review of
Higher Education, 20(1), 53-68. doi:10.1353/rhe.1996.0003
Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Measuring race and sex/gender differences in undergraduate students'
perceptions of campus climate and intentions to leave college: An analysis in black and
White. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 115–132.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
13, 72–81.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 90
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603–618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.2307/1170024
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2
nd
ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
United States Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for
Educational Statistics. (2008). Defining race and ethnicity data: NCES standard 1-5.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std1_5.asp
United States Department of Education. (2013). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and
race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2012. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.go/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_306.10.asp
Vaccaro, A. (2010). What lies beneath seemingly positive campus climate results: Institutional
sexism, racism, and male hostility toward equity initiatives and liberal bias. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 43(2), 202–215.
Walker, K. L., & Dixon, V. (2002). Spirituality and academic performance among african
american college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 107-121.
doi:10.1177/0095798402028002003
Watt, S. K. (2003). Come to the river: Using spirituality to cope, resist, and develop identity.
New Directions for Student Services, (104), 29–40.
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 91
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solorzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690.
Zern, D. S. (1989). Some connection between increasing religiousness and academic
accomplishment in a college population. Adolescence, 24(93), 141.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 92
Appendix A
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AS PREDICTORS FOR CROSS-RACE
INTERACTION AT CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
DIFFERENCES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, SEX, AND RELIGIOSITY
and
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AND SENSE OF BELONGING AT CHRISTIAN
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: DIFFERENCES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, RELIGIOSITY AND
FAITH FIT.

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Stu Cleek and Peter Hansen under the
supervision of Dr. Ruth Chung at the University of Southern California. You are eligible to participate
because you are an undergraduate student aged 18 and up. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask
questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in the current literature on how perceptions of campus racial
climate differentiate by the salient identities of race/ethnicity, sex, and centrality of religiosity and how
these perceptions predict cross-race interaction. The study also fills a gap in the current literature on the
role faith identity plays in the sense of belonging for Students of Color at Christian colleges and
universities. Additionally, the study specifically attempts to understand the relationship between a
student’s centrality of religiosity, faith fit, and their sense of belonging at the institution. Lastly, the study
explores whether or not faith fit with an institution results in a more positive view of the campus racial
climate. Ideally, these findings will help inform campus administrators as they make decisions about
campus structures and support systems for Students of Color; thereby, assisting to close the gap in
retention and graduation rates for these students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey, which is anticipated
to take about 10-15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, click “next” or
“N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

INFORMATION SHEET FOR RESEARCH
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 93
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your school will not be affected whether you
participate or not in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Each research participant will be entered in a random drawing for the possibility of receiving a $25.00
Amazon gift card. Participation in the survey is voluntary and all participants will be entered in the
drawing whether or not they complete the survey.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your survey responses are anonymous and will not be linked to your name, email address, or any other
identifier. For purposes of entering the raffle, we will provide a link at the end of the survey that will take
the respondents to a separate survey where they can enter your contact information. Those identifiers
from the second survey will not be linked to your survey responses and will be deleted once the raffles are
completed. The anonymous data will be stored on a secure computer and retained at the discretion of the
investigators. At the completion of the study, the anonymous data may be used for future research
studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

The results of this research may be made public, shared with participating sites and quoted in professional
journals and meetings, but results from this study will only be reported as a group such that no individual
respondents can be identified. No identifiable information will be included.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
• Co-Principal Investigator, Peter Hansen via email at pjhansen@usc.edu or phone at (805) 565-
6358
• Co-Principal Investigator, Stu Cleek via email at cleek@usc.edu or phone at (805) 565-6029
• Faculty Advisor, Dr. Ruth Chung via email at rchung@usc.edu or (213) 740-3258

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South
Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 94
Appendix B
Demographic Questions
Q2. What is your sex?
 Male (1)
 Female (2)
Q3. What is your year in school?
 First year (1)
 Sophomore (2)
 Junior (3)
 Senior (4)
Q4. What best describes your race/ethnicity?
 African American / Black (2)
 Asian or Asian American (3)
 Latino/a or Hispanic (4)
 Middle Eastern (5)
 Multi-racial (Please specify which races) (6) ____________________
 Native American (7)
 Pacific Islander (8)
 White (1)
 Other (Please indicate below) (9) ____________________

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 95
Appendix C
Campus Attitudes and Climate Questionnaire (CACQ)
Helm, Sedlacek, & Prieto (1998)
Q5. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q5.1. My experiences since coming to school here have
led me to become more understanding of
racial/ethnic differences
    
Q5.2. Getting to know people with racial/ethnic
backgrounds different from my own has been easy
on this campus
    
Q5.3. My social interactions on this campus are largely
confined to students of my race/ethnicity
    
Q5.4. I feel there are expectations about my academic
performance because of my race/ethnicity
    
Q5.5. I feel pressured to participate in ethnic activities at
this school
    
Q5.6. I feel I need to minimize various characteristics of
my racial/ethnic culture (e.g. language, dress) to be
able to fit in here
    
Q5.7. My experiences since coming to this school have
strengthened my own sense of ethnic identity
    
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 96
Q6. Think about the faculty whose courses you have taken here. How many of them would you
describe as:

None
(1)
Few
(2)
Some
(3)
Most
(4)
All
(5)
Q6.1. Approachable outside of the classroom     
Q6.2. Fair to all students regardless of their racial
or ethnic backgrounds
    

Q7. Think about your experiences in the classroom. Please indicate to what degree you agree with
the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q7.1. In my experience, students of different racial/ethnic
backgrounds participate equally in classroom
discussion and learning
    
Q7.2. I feel I am expected to represent my race or ethnic
group in discussion in class
    
Q7.3. Faculty use examples relevant to people of my
race/ethic group in their lectures
    
Q7.4. In my classes I feel that my professors ignore my
comments or questions
    
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 97
Q8. Please indicate how comfortable you feel in the following situations at this school:

VU
(1)
U
(2)
N
(3)
C
(4)
VC
(5)
Q8.1. Going to see a faculty member of my own
race/ethnicity
    
Q8.2. Speaking with others about my race/ethnicity     
Q8.3. Being in situations where I am the only person of
my racial/ethnic group
    
Q8.4. Saying what I think about racial/ethnic issues     
Q8.5. Being with people whose racial/ethnic backgrounds
are different from my own
    
Q8.6. Participating in class     
Q8.7. Going to see a faculty member of a different
race/ethnicity than my own
    
Q8.8. Being with people whose racial/ethnic backgrounds
are the same as my own
    
Note. VU = Very Uncomfortable; U = Uncomfortable; N = Neutral; C = Comfortable; VC = Very Comfortable

Q9. The effort made by your school to improve relations and understanding between people of
different racial/ethnic backgrounds is:
 Too little (1)
 About right (2)
 Too much (3)
 Don't know (4)

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 98
Q10. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q10.1. The campus has done a good job providing
programs and activities that promote
multicultural understanding
    
Q10.2. At this school students are resentful of others
whose race/ethnicity is different from their own
    
Q10.3. There should have to be a requirement for
graduation that students take at least one course
on the role of ethnicity and race in society
    
Q10.4. This school does not promote respect for diversity     
Q10.5. The student newspaper’s coverage of racial/ethnic
events and issues is balanced
    
Q10.6. Diversity is/was one of the reasons why I chose to
come here
    
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 99
Q11. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q11.1. The school provides an environment for the free
and open expression of ideas, opinions and
beliefs
    
Q11.2. Overall my educational experience here has been a
rewarding one
    
Q11.3. The atmosphere in my classes does not make me
feel like I belong
    
Q11.4. I would recommend this school to sibling or
friends as a good place to go to college
    
Q11.5. The overall quality of academic programs here is
excellent
    
Q11.6. I feel as though I belong in the campus community     
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 100
Q12. Please use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you believe each of the following is
present at your school:

Little or
none (1)
Some (2)
Quite a
bit (3)
A great
deal (4)
Q12.1. A racial conflict on campus    
Q12.2. Respect by faculty for students of
different racial and ethnic groups
   
Q12.3. Respect by students for other students of
different racial and ethnic groups
   
Q12.4. Racial/ethnic separation on campus    
Q12.5. School commitment to the success of
students of different racial and ethnic
groups
   
Q12.6. Friendship between students of different
racial and ethnic groups
   
Q12.7. Interracial tensions in the residence halls    
Q12.8. Interracial tensions in the classroom    

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 101
Q13. How fairly do you believe you have been treated by the following:

Very
unfairly (1)
Unfairly
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Fairly
(4)
Very
fairly (5)
Q13.1. University Police or
Campus Safety
    
Q13.2. Residence hall personnel     
Q13.3. Faculty     
Q13.4. Teaching assistants     
Q13.5. Students     

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 102
Q14. In each of these setting to what extent have you been exposed to information about the
history, culture, and/or social issues of racial and ethnic groups other than Whites?

Not at
all (1)
A little
(2)
Some
(3)
Quite a
bit (4)
A great
deal (5)
Q14.1. In course readings, lectures and
discussions
    
Q14.2. In activities and programs in the
residence halls
    
Q14.3. In other school programs or activities     
Q14.4. In informal interactions and
conversations with friends
    

Q15. How often do you have difficulty getting help or support from:

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q15.1. Faculty    
Q15.2. Students    
Q15.3. Teaching Assistants    

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 103
Q16. How often have you been exposed to a racist atmosphere created by the faculty?

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q16.1. In the classroom    
Q16.2. Outside the classroom    

Q17. How often have you been exposed to a racist atmosphere created by other students?

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q17.1. In the classroom    
Q17.2. Outside the classroom    

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 104
Q18. Please indicate whether your experience here has changed your behavior in any of the
following ways:

Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Q18.1. I now recognize culturally-biased behavior I had not previously identified  
Q18.2. I now discuss topics related to cultural awareness with friends  
Q18.3. I now stop myself from using language that may be offensive to others  
Q18.4. I now handle negative language used by another in such a way as to try to
educate the other person
 
Q18.5. I now initiate contact with people who are not of my culture or ethnic
background
 

Q19. Have you attended or participated in any diversity programs on campus this year?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 Don't know (3)

Q20. To what degree do you agree that attending programs on diversity contributes to the goal of
building community?
 Strongly disagree (1)
 Disagree (2)
 Neutral (3)
 Agree (4)
 Strongly agree (5)

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 105
Appendix D
Cross-Race Interaction
Q21. How much interaction have you had during your time at the institution with members of the
following groups?

No
interaction
at all
0 (1)

1
(2)

2
(3)

3
(4)

4
(5)

5
(6)

6
(7)

7
(8)

8
(9)

9
(10)
A great
deal of
interaction
10 (11)
Q21.1. White           
Q21.2. Black or African
American
          
Q21.3. Latino           
Q21.4. Asian American           

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 106
Appendix E
Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS)
HUBER AND HUBER (2012)
Note: “A” questions display for Abrahamic faiths or no faith; “B” questions display for Non-Abrahamic
faiths

Q27. How often do you:

N
(1)
R
(2)
Occ.
(3)
O
(4)
VO
(5)
Q27.1. Think about religious issues?    
Q27.2.A. Experience situations in which you have the feeling that
God or something divine intervenes in your life?
    
Q27.2.B. Experience situations in which you have the feeling that
you are one with all?
    
Q27.3.A. Experience situations in which you have the feeling that
God or something divine wants to communicate or to
reveal something to you?
    
Q27.3.B. Experience situations in which you have the feeling that
you are touched by a divine power?
    
Q27.4. Keep yourself informed about religious questions through
radio, television, internet, newspapers, or books?
    
Q27.5.A. Pray spontaneously when inspired by daily situations?     
Q27.5.B. Try to connect to the divine spontaneously when inspired
by daily situations?
    
Q27.6. Experience situations in which you have the feeling that
God or something divine is present?
    
Note. N = Never; R = Rarely; Occ. = Occasionally; O = Often; VO = Very Often
CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 107
Q28. How often do you take part in religious services?
 Never (1)
 Less often (2)
 A few times a year (3)
 One or more times a month (4)
 Once a week (5)
 More than once a week (6)
Q29.A. How often do you pray?
 Never (1)
 Less often (2)
 A few times a year (3)
 One to three times a month (4)
 Once a week (5)
 More than once a week (6)
 Once a day (7)
 Several times a day (8)
Q29.B. How often do you meditate?
 Never (1)
 Less often (2)
 A few times a year (3)
 One to three times a month (4)
 Once a week (5)
 More than once a week (6)
 Once a day (7)
 Several times a day (8)

CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS 108
Q30. Choose the statement below that best reflects your answer to the following questions:

Not
at all
(1)
Not very
much
(2)

Moderately
(3)
Quite
a bit
(4)
Very
much
so (5)
Q30.1. To what extent do you believe that God or
something divine exists?
    
Q30.2. How interested are you in learning more
about religious topics?
    
Q30.3. To what extent do you believe in an
afterlife—e.g. immortality of the soul,
resurrection of the dead or reincarnation?
    
Q30.4. How important is it to take part in religious
services?
    
Q30.5.A. How important is personal prayer for you?     
Q30.5.B. How important is meditation for you?     
Q30.6. In your opinion, how probable is it that a
higher power really exists?
    
Q30.7. How important is it for you to be connected
to a religious community?
    

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

The relationship of spirituality and academic engagement to undergraduate student persistence at Christian colleges

PDF

Into the wildfire: campus racial climate and the Trump presidency

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Recognizing whiteness: the journey of White educators to unpack racial identity and heighten racial consciousness

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

Relationships between academic and psychosocial skills of community college students

PDF

“Mismatched”: matching Latino/as from API 1-2 high schools to an elite public university

PDF

The impact of school racial climate on the retention of teachers of color

PDF

Does the colorline still exist in the 21st century: examining racial climate on the campus of a University with a Diverse Student Body (UDSB) as perceived by a group of African American college s...

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

PDF

The racialized experiences of Black students in online master’s degree programs at a Predominately White Institution

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

Asset Metadata

Creator Hansen, Peter J., Jr. (author)

Core Title Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/14/2017

Defense Date 03/06/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag campus racial climate,Christian,college,cross-race interaction,Ethnicity,Faith,gender,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,religiosity,sense of belonging,Sex

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), DeGraw, Julie (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email peter.james.hansen@gmail.com,pjhansen@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-353727

Unique identifier UC11258092

Identifier etd-HansenPete-5182.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-353727 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HansenPete-5182.pdf

Dmrecord 353727

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hansen, Peter J., Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA