University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

(USC Thesis Other)

Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

1

Chief Diversity Officers and
their Impact on Campus Climate for Students of Color

By: Mary Ho

Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Degree conferred date: May 2017
Degree conferred: Doctor of Education

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

2
Acknowledgement
I would first like to thank my family - to mom and dad: thank you for always supporting
me through whatever endeavors I wanted to explore in life. To my siblings, Kelly, Lland and
Bianca: thank you for supporting me throughout this entire process and for the good eats. To
Little Nepal, what can I say except you helped me push through when I most needed that push.
You were there to listen, support and always offered the most encouraging words. Thank you
and I am forever grateful for you three! To my dear friends and colleagues who supported,
encouraged and inspired me throughout my Ed.D education. Much gratitude and thank you! Of
course to T.N. thank you so much for always being there.
I would like to give a special thanks to my dissertation committee, Dr. Alan Lee and Dr.
Sunny Lee for offering critical feedback which enhanced my research. To the Chief Diversity
Officers, Student Life staff and student leaders who were a part of the study, thank you for
letting me into your “life” and sharing your experiences with me. In particular, I want to thank
the staff at both universities who give their hearts and souls to the students on a daily basis. Last
but not least a big thank you to my chair, Dr. Tracy Tambascia for your feedback, patience and
helping me get through this. I’ve learned so much from you.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of Study 9
Introduction 9
Background of Study 12
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations 13
Delimitations 14
Assumptions 14
Definition of Terms 14
Conclusion 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 17
Introduction 17
Background 17
Racial Diversity and U.S. Population 17
Higher Education and Students of Color 18
Historical Exclusion and Inclusion Policies: Campus Climate 20
Exclusion and Inclusion Policies 22
Campus Climate 24
Microaggressions 26
Sense of Belonging 30
Diversity Structures 31
Student Affairs 31
Academic Affairs 33
Campus Policies 36
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 36
Accountability and Equity Scorecards and 37
Chief Diversity Officers 39
Diversity Leadership 39
Leadership Approaches 40
Chief Diversity Officer Organizational Structures 40
Critical Race Theory 42
History 42
Tenets 43
Reframing Students of Color Narratives 45
Conclusion 47
Chapter Three: Methodology 49
Purpose 49
Research Questions 49
Qualitative Research Methods 50
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

4
Overview of Methodology 51
Site Selection 52
Population and Sample 54
Instrumentation and Source of Evidence 56
Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 58
Validity and Credibility 59
Role of Researcher 59
Conclusion 60
Chapter Four: Findings 61
Introduction 61
Participants 61
Southwest University Organizational Chart 61
Southwest University Participants Profiles 62
Northwest University Organizational Chart 63
Northwest University Participants Profiles 64
Themes 65
Symbolic Diversity Figurehead 65
Voice for Student Issues and Concerns 69
The Go-To-Expert 71
Facilitating Communities to Serve Diversity 74
Fostering Informal Accountability 77
Diversity Organizational Challenges 80
Summary 83
Conclusion 84
Chapter Five: Discussion 85
Introduction 85
Analysis of Findings 85
How do CDO shape campus climate and intergroup relations
for students of color? 85
How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Life? 87
How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students? 89
How does the type of organizational structure affect how
campus climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed? 89
Summary 91
Chief Diversity Officers and Critical Race Theory 91
Centrality of Race and Racism 92
Commitment to Social Justice 93
Challenge the Dominant Ideology 93
Centrality of Experiential Knowledge 93
Interdisciplinary Perspectives 94
Implication for Practice 94
Recommendations for Practice 95
Power to Transform through Accountability and Policy 96
New Diversity Organizational Framework 97
Future Research 98
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

5
Limitations 99
Conclusion 100
Appendix A: IRB Information Sheet 102
Appendix B: Recruitment Email to Chief Diversity Officer 104
Appendix C: Recruitment Email to Student Life Staff 105
Appendix D: Chief Diversity Officer Interview Protocol 106
Appendix E: Student Life Staff Interview Protocol 109
Appendix F: Student Leader Interview Protocol 112
References 115

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

6
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentage of faculty by academic rank, by race/ethnicity: Selected year, 2013 34

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of 25 - to 29-years old who completed bachelor’s or higher degree
by, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2014 20

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

8
Abstract
This study examined the impact of Chief Diversity Officers on campus climate. In the
last decade, Chief Diversity Officer positions are increasing in order to address issues of equity,
diversity and inclusion as universities are becoming more diverse (Census, 2015; NCES, 2012;
NCES, 2015; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). While there is growing research on Chief
Diversity Officers, studies on their specific role in shaping campus climate for students of color
is limited (Barceló, 2007; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). This study explored how Chief
Diversity Officers shape campus climate for students of color and intergroup relations, how they
collaborate with the Division of Student Life, how they influence university policy development,
and how the type of diversity organizational structures affects how campus climate and
intergroup relations are being addressed. Qualitative and semi-structured interviews were
conducted with Chief Diversity Officers, Student Life staff members and students at two
different universities. Additional data was collected from university documents and university
websites. Critical Race Theory (CRT) was the theoretical framework used for this study. The six
themes that emerged from this study are symbolic diversity figurehead, voice for student issues
and concerns, the go-to-expert, facilitating communities to serve diversity, fostering informal
accountability and diversity organizational challenges.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction

In the last several decades, there has been an increase in racial diversity in the United
States and in higher education. Campuses have responded through the creation of support
services and programs, including Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) who help shape campus
climate for students of color and foster positive intergroup relations. However, little is known
about their contributions and impact on campus climate for students of color.
Creating a positive campus climate for students of color is important because students of
color are more likely to experience racial microaggressions than White college students, putting
them at risk for academic success and college attainment. According to a National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) report, Black and Hispanic/Latino college students are not
completing college at the same rate as White college students (NCES, 2015). The data indicate
there is a 13 to 18 percent gap for Black students as compared to White students for college
completion, and an 18 to 26 percent gap for Hispanic/Latinos compared to Whites for college
completion (NCES, 2015). The college attainment of students of colors has long-term effect on
their socio-economic mobility and social capital. The higher the level of education obtained by
an individual, the greater the increase in earning capacity (Moretenson, 2000; Stanton-Salazar,
1997).
Background of the Study
Increasing Diversity
U.S. Census (2015) reported that the Millennial generation is more racially diverse than
previous generations. In 2014, the Asian Americans, Blacks and Hispanic/Latino population
increased by 10% from 2010. The Hispanic/Latinos population grew from 50.4 to 55.4 million,
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

10
the Black population grew from 40.2 to 45.7 million, and the Asian American population grew
from 15.1 to 20.3 million (Census, 2015). This growth in racial diversity is also reflected at
universities and colleges across the nation. According to the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES), from the mid 1970s to 2012, data indicate an 11% growth for Hispanic/Latino
college students, 4% growth for Asian American college students and 5% growth for Black
college students (NCES, 2012). Most of the racial diversity growth in higher education is due to
an increase in Hispanic/Latino and Asian American college students.
Racial Microaggressions and College Degree Attainment
Racial microaggressions experienced by students of color impact their academic success
and college degree attainment (Hurtado et al., 1998; Solorzano & Yasso, 2001). Degree
attainment is defined as college completion with an earned bachelor’s degree or higher (NCES,
2015). The long-term effects of racial microaggressions not only impact their ability to succeed
in college academically, but also impact their social and emotional adjustment (Hurtado et al.,
1998; Solorzano et al., 2007; Sue et al., 2007). Racial microaggressions targeted at Black college
students include being stereotyped as academically inferior or lazy, and peers assuming they are
admitted due to special circumstances (Allen & Solorzano, 2001). Similar to Black college
students, racial microaggressions toward Hispanic/Latino college students include being labeled
as academically unfit for college, peers assuming they are admitted due to affirmative action, and
being stereotyped as not being proficient in the English language (Solorzano et al., 2000; Yasso
et al., 2009). Racial microaggressions directed at Asian American students include being a
“perpetual foreigner.” The “perpetual foreigner” stereotype defines Asian Americans as never
truly belonging in the U.S. regardless of how long they have lived in the United States. The other
common racial microaggression directed at Asian American students is the model minority
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

11
stereotype, which makes the assumption that all Asian American students are academically
successful. This stereotype is problematic in that Asian American students may internalize this
assumption, creating feelings of inadequateness leading to mental health issues (Hune, 2002;
Wu, 2002). Other forms of racial microaggressions targeted at students of color include racial
theme parties mocking their race, which has become all too common on college campuses
(Allen, 1992).
Diversity Structures and Support
To assist in addressing racial microaggressions and campus climate issues, diversity
structures such as cultural and multicultural centers have been created to provide safe spaces for
students of color in a Predominantly White Institution (PWIs). These institutional structures are
spaces where students of color can find support and community. These centers also serve as a
diversity education space for students of color and White students (Patton, 2010). Other
institutional outlets that support students of color include cultural clubs and organizations. These
student-facilitated spaces not only provide a sense of community but also racial identity
development for students of color (Museus, 2008).
In addition to diversity structures, other types of institutional support for students of color
come from faculty of color. Faculty of color are more likely to interact with this population with
cultural sensitivity and more likely to provide the mentorship that is needed (Antonio 2002;
Umbach, 2006). Additional entities of support include senior administrators, who engage with
campus climate for students of color more indirectly through policy areas. Chief Diversity
Officer positions are becoming more common as the key senior administrator to address issues of
campus climate. These positions vary in responsibilities depending on institutional priorities and
diversity organizational structures (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

12
Statement of the Problem

Chief Diversity Officer positions have been emerging in the last 10 years to address
issues of diversity, equity and inclusion; however little is known about how they shape campus
climate for students of color (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Students of color
are dealing with campus climate issues in the form of racism, discrimination and racial
microaggressions. These factors impact their college experience, which leads to psychological
issues and socio-emotional adjustment consequently affecting their academic success and college
attainment (Hurtado et al., 1998; Poon, 2011; Yosso et al., 2009).
Purpose of the Study
This study will explore the role of a Chief Diversity Officer and how they shape campus
climate for students of color. The main research question to guide this study is: How do Chief
Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for students of color?
The three emerging questions are:
(1) How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Life?
(2) How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
(3) How does the type of diversity organizational structure affect how campus

climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed?

Critical Race Theory (CRT) served as the guiding theoretical framework in this study.
CRT analyzes racial injustice, racism, bias and discrimination through a systemic lens using five
tenets (Delgado & Stefanic, 2006; Solorzano, 1997). The five tenets are (1) centrality of race &
racism; (2) challenge the dominant ideology; (3) commitment to social justice; (4) centrality of
experiential knowledge and (5) interdisciplinary perspectives (Solorzano, 1997; Solorzano &
Yasso, 2001).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

13
Significance of the Study

This study adds to growing research on Chief Diversity Officers and how they shape
campus climate for students of color. This study is of interest to senior administrators because
campus climate has been in the forefront of the national landscape for decades but racially
charged campus climate issues have been a consistent presence in the social and political
landscape in higher education more recently. This study also informs student affairs
practitioners on how to work directly with Chief Diversity Officers on diversity programs to
improve intergroup relations for students of color.
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions
Limitations
The first limitation may be that responses during the interview may be filtered due to the
political nature of the position. The second limitation may be the number of Chief Diversity
Officers being interviewed in this research study. According to Williams and Wade-Golden
(2013), three models of Chief Diversity Officers reporting or diversity organizational structures
are commonly used and they are unit-based, collaborative and portfolio (Leon, 2014; Stanley,
2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). However, this study focuses on two Chief Diversity
Officer diversity organizational structures.
The third limitation may be researcher bias (Merriam, 2009). The professional
background of the researcher includes over ten years of experience in diversity affairs and
education and currently the researcher’s professional position reports directly to a Chief
Diversity Officer in an academic unit. The researcher will need to be intentional in reflecting on
the professional and personal biases going in to the research study (Maxwell, 2013).

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

14
Delimitations
This research study does not include interviews with students who are not affiliated with
diversity programs and initiatives. The intentional choice of sampling student leaders directly
involved in diversity programs is due to the limited time frame of the campus visits. In addition,
this research study does not include interviews with faculty who are important stakeholders in
creating classroom climate and diversity curriculum (Antonio 2002; Solorzano & Yasso, 2001;
Umbach, 2006). However, interview questions posed to the Chief Diversity Officer will include
their direct involvement with faculty on diversity initiatives.
Assumptions
This research study makes three assumptions. The first assumption is that qualitative
research is the best methodological approach for this research study. This approach is best
because the respondents can interpret their experiences in their specific university settings. The
second assumption is that the interviews conducted from two universities and with two Chief
Diversity Officers are sufficient in understanding how campus climate and intergroup relations
are shaped for students of color. The third assumption is that the student leaders interviews and
student event document analysis are sufficient in capturing the student narratives.
Definition of Terms
The following terms will be used throughout the dissertation:

Affirmative Action: Policy designed to end discrimination in hiring, college admissions

and the awarding of contracts. Affirmative action is one part of an effort to remedy past

and present discrimination (Stein, 1995).

Asian Americans: refers to a person having origins in any of the original

peoples of Far East, Southeast Asia, or Indian subcontinent (Census, 2015).

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

15
Blacks: refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial

groups of Africa (Census, 2015).

Campus Climate: is focused on the current perceptions, attitudes, feelings and expectations of
the campus (Peterson & Spencer, 1990).
Cultural Competency: is defined as understanding oneself racially in order to create an

inclusive and affirming environment (Pope et al., 2009).

Culture: is focused on values and beliefs of a campus (Peterson & Spencer, 1990).
Equity: creating systems that address unequal education and resources for students of

color due to institutional discrimination, racism and bias (Bensimon, 2005).

Equity Framework: a paradigm that moves the conversation away from the deficient

framework to analyzing systems that create barriers for students of color (Bensimon, 2005).

Equity Scorecard: developed by the Center for Urban Education at the University

of Southern California (USC); addresses institutional change for students of color by

assessing the institution through an equity framework (Bensimon, 2005).

Historically Black Colleges and Universities: A minority-serving institution that was

created prior to 1964 to serve Blacks/African Americans and may receive Title III funds

of the Higher Education Act (Gasman, Baez & Turner, 2008).

Latino/Hispanic: refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central

American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (Census, 2015).

Model Minority: a stereotype placed on Asian Pacific Americans that suggest their

successful economic, academic transition and assimilation to the White dominant culture

despite coming as immigrants to the United States (Hune, 2002; Wu, 2002).

Racial Microaggression: daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities,

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

16
whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative

racial slights and insults toward people of color (Sue, 2007).

Perpetual Foreigner: a stereotype of “otherness” that creates an image that Asian/Asian

Pacific Americans are non-Americans regardless of how long they have been in the

United States (Ng, Lee & Pak, 2007).

Students of Color: Black, Latino/Hispanic and Asian Pacific American college students.

Conclusion
In conclusion, research on Chief Diversity Officers is a growing area of study and in
particular the last five years saw an increase in Chief Diversity Officer positions in higher
education (Williams and Wade-Golden, 2013). The research on Chief Diversity Officers is
growing but the research study on their specific role in shaping campus climate for students of
color is limited. As the universities and colleges are becoming more diverse, racial
microaggressions directed at students of color are more common and campus climate issues are
becoming an even more pressing issue (Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado et al., 2008). This research
study provided additional qualitative research on Chief Diversity Officers and specifically their
direct impact on campus climate for students of color. The next chapter focused on the literature
review and the subsequent chapter will focus on the methodological approach used for the
research study.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter examined the leadership that is in place to support diversity, equity and
inclusion for students of color and campus climate. The main research question guiding this
study was: How does a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup
relations for students of color? The three emerging questions were: How does a CDO
collaborate with the Division of Student Affairs? How does a CDO influence and shape diversity
policy for students? And how does the type of diversity organization structure affect how campus
climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed?
This literature review is divided into five main sections. The first section provides
background information on racial demographics and context for the history of racial
discrimination in the United States and in higher education. The second section examines
campus climate issues and microaggressions that students of color experience in higher
education. The third section will explore various diversity organizational structures. The fourth
section dives into the role of leaders and Chief Diversity Officers in higher education and the last
section focuses on the critical race theory.
Background
Racial Diversity and U.S. Population
Millennials, which is the generation of youth born between 1982 and 2000, are more
diverse than previous generations and represents a quarter of the U.S. population (Census Report,
2015). In addition, the Hispanic/Latino, Black and Asian American populations are growing
rapidly. In 2014, the population of Hispanic/Latino increased from 50.4 million in 2010 to 55.4
million, the population of Blacks increased from 40.2 million in 2010 to 45.7 million and the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

18
population of Asian Americans increased from 15.1 million in 2010 to 20.3 million (Census,
2015).
As demonstrated in the Census data, racial diversity is growing in the United States
(Census, 2015). Additionally, data also indicates an increase in racial diversity in higher
education in the last decade (NCES, 2012). Racial diversity in higher education is important
because there is a correlation between college attainment and one’s socioeconomic status. The
higher the level of education one attains the higher the wage and a capacity for salary increase
(Buddin, 2012). Education essentially provides an individual with the cultural and social capital
for upward mobility (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The level of education attainment is tied to
socioeconomic mobility and data shows that a substantial earning gap exist depending on
education level. Since 1970, the Census data, consistently demonstrates the higher the level of
education the better for one’s standard of living and socioeconomic status (Buddin, 2012;
Moretenson, 2000). In 2010, unemployment rates was 23% for high school dropouts compared to
15% unemployment for those who have a high school diploma and 6% unemployment for those
who have a bachelor’s degree. Consequently, those who have a college degree earn more than
those who have a high school degree and those who have a high school degree earn more than
those who dropped out of high school. Furthermore, in addition to the benefits of wages,
education also provides social benefits in health and wellness, community participation and
citizenship (Buddin, 2012).
Higher Education and Students of Color
Colleges and universities are experiencing a racial demographic shift. According to
Anderson (2003), this shift in racial demographic was reflected as early as the 1970s, where from
“1976 to 1999, number of students of color rose by 2.3 million, two times greater than the rise in
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

19
number of white students” (p.4). The growing population of students of color in higher education
is primarily due to the growing number of Asian Pacific and Hispanic/Latino students
(Anderson, 2003).
The data from National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (NCES, 2012) show
that from 1976 to 2012, Hispanic/Latino college student enrollment at four year institutions
increased from four percent to 15%, Asian American college students increased from two
percent to six percent and Black college students increased from 10% to 15%, while the percent
of enrollment of White college students decreased from 84% to 60%. However, according to a
NCES report (2015), the college degree completion attainment gap grew between White, Black
college students and Hispanic/Latino college students. College attainment in this case is defined
as college completion with an earned bachelor’s degree or higher. In 1990, 26% of Whites, 13%
of Blacks, 8% of Hispanic/Latinos earned a bachelor’s degree, while in 2014, 41% of Whites,
22% of Blacks and 15% of Hispanics/Latino received a bachelor’s degree. The graph below
charts the percent of 25- to 29-year olds who received a bachelor degree or higher from 1990-
2014.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

20
Figure 1: Percentage of 25 - to 29-years old who completed bachelor’s or higher degree by, by
race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2014

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Digest of
Education Statistics 2014.

These data demonstrate that from 1990 to 2014, there is a 13 to 18 percentage point gap
between White college students and Black college students and 18 to 26 percentage point gap
between White college students and Hispanics/Latino college students who received a bachelor’s
degree or higher (NCES, 2015).
Historical Inclusion and Exclusion: Campus Climate
The data from the Census and NCES are evidence that both the nation and higher
education are becoming more diverse. Improving the campus climate for students of color is an
important area to address due to the increasing racial and ethnic diversity and the university’s
obligation to ensure the success of all students. Campus climate for students of color is centered
on the inclusion and exclusion of their identities and communities. The inclusion and exclusion
of their racial identities and communities are based on a long history of systematic oppression by
the White dominant majority, which stemmed from a long history of racist policies and
legislations (Aiken, Salmon & Hanges, 2013; Hurtado et al., 2008). The racist policies and
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
White
Black
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

21
legislation serve to create a narrative that communities of color are excluded from the social,
political and mainstream landscape of the United States (Yosso et al., 2009). These exclusionary
practices create an unhealthy environment for students of color to succeed in college (Hurtado et
al., 1998).
Campus climate issues for students of color in higher education have historical roots in
the contentious race relations between Whites and people of color (Hurtado et al, 1998; Gasman,
Baez, & Turner, 2008). White racial dominance and privilege dates back to early slavery in the
1700s. The Civil War in 1860 emancipated enslaved Blacks; however, overt segregation and
discriminatory policies continued to exist in American society (Aiken, Salmon & Hanges, 2013;
Stein, 1995). From the onset of slavery and throughout history, policies and legislations
emerged to sustain the White power construct. The 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v.
Ferguson, institutionalized segregation after the emancipation of Black slaves (Aiken, 2013;
Stein, 1995). The Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882 barred Chinese from immigrating to the
United States. Furthermore, the Chinese Exclusionary Act did not enable American born
Chinese to become United States citizens (Wu, 2002). These laws signaled that people of color
were not part of the United States and that they do not have power in the racial U.S. landscape
(Hurtado et al., 1998; Stein, 1995).
Racism moved from a more overt form to a more subtle form after the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Sue et al., 2007). The Civil Right Movement of the 1960s was a defining moment in
history that was marked by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which eliminated discriminatory practices
based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin (Aiken, Salmon & Hanges, 2013; Stein,
1995). This movement sought equality for those communities that were traditionally
marginalized. This era marked a visible and active dismantling of White dominance (Aiken,
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

22
Salmon & Hanges, 2013). However, the passing of the Civil Rights Act moved racism,
discrimination, exclusion of people of color to a more subtle approach which is more prevalent in
today’s racial landscape (Sue et al., 2007). Higher education is an example of an institutional
system where students of color experience subtle forms of discrimination and racism (Hurtado et
al., 1998; Sue et al., 2007). Subtle forms of racism include unconscious remarks on stereotypical
characteristics of students of color such as the level of intelligence exhibited from Black student
(Solorzano & Yasso, 2001; Steele, 1997; Sue et al., 2007). Hence, these racial experiences
contribute to the climate of the campus.
Exclusion and Inclusion Policies
The formation of campus climate is related to the exclusion and inclusion of individuals
on college campuses (Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado et al., 1999). Exclusionary education policies
and legislation have institutionalized White dominance and institutionalized the exclusion of
communities of color in higher education. Minority Serving Institutions, such as Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), are an example of what emerged from exclusionary
practices in education. Black colleges and universities date as far back as the1860s, at the end of
the Civil War. The federal government provided education for four million enslaved Blacks who
were set free, but excluded from established universities. Although the antebellum federal
government supported higher education for Blacks, Black colleges primarily benefited an
economy that needed trained tradesmen such as serving as seamstresses, cooks and shoemakers.
This was known as a form of industrial education. Whites had more options in the type of
education they were receiving during that time. The education system that segregated Blacks
and Whites served to preserve White wealth and dominance in U.S. society (Gasman, Baez &
Turner, 2008).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

23
The 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson, continued to further exclusionary
practices in education and in public spaces. This legislation made segregation between Blacks
and Whites legal as long as it was “separate but equal” (Stein, 1995). However Black colleges
and universities were unfunded, and lacked proper facilities and infrastructure compared to
White colleges and universities (Gasman, Baez & Turner, 2008).
Later legislation and policies surfaced to rectify past racism and discriminatory practices.
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education legislation overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and the race-
based policy of Affirmative Action was implemented in higher education thereafter, banning
discrimination based on race color, religion, sex or national origin (Downing et al., 2002; Stein,
1995).
Affirmation Action in higher education supports race-based programs and admission for
underrepresented students of color. These programs include outreach programs, scholarships,
financial aid and admission practices for particular underserved and underrepresented
communities (Downing et al., 2002). The most controversial part of the policy has been the
adjustment to admissions criteria based on race (Rubenfeld; 1997). Although Affirmative Action
includes underrepresented minorities populations, the impetus of Affirmative Action was to undo
institutionalized racism that excluded Blacks (Chrisman; 2013; Hurtado et al., 1998; Stein,
1995). However, these inclusionary policies have not always served students of color positively.
Opponents of Affirmative Action argue that the policy is harmful to students of color because it
“inadvertently entrenches racial thinking” thus creating a climate that is not positive for students
of color to learn (Rubenfeld; 1997, p.428). In addition, the discussion around Affirmative Action
focuses on increasing the number of racially underrepresented minorities, however, creating a
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

24
positive campus climate for students of color is beyond increasing enrollment (Downing et al.,
2002; Hurtado et al., 1998).
This next section will define campus climate, explore racial microggressions on college
campuses and examine the impact that campus climate and racial microaggressions have on
students of color.
Campus Climate
There is no clear consensus on how to define campus climate in the literature. Campus
climate tends to be broad and has been used interchangeably with the concept of culture in
understanding the environment of a university (Hart & Fellabaum, 2008). However, according to
Peterson and Spencer (1990), climate is focused on the current perceptions, attitudes, feelings
and expectations of the campus while culture is focused on values and beliefs of a campus. Cress
(2002) further asserted that climate is focused on the interactions in the university.
Hart and Fellabaum (2008), conducted a study on campus climate studies from 118
universities and found that there were no standardized approach on conducting campus climate
research. Each university used their own research design and the population of study mainly
focused on faculty. In some studies, they included both faculty and students, and in others they
included faculty, staff and students. In addition, fifty percent of the campus climate studies
focused on either gender or race/ethnicity, with a majority focusing on gender. Most of the
climate studies did not consider the intersectionality of identities.
Climate frameworks developed by research scholars such as Peterson and Spencer and
Hurtado range from being broad to being specifically focused on a population and/or identity.
Regardless of the various approach to campus climate from these framework, most are flexible
and allow universities to develop their own understanding of campus climate within the context
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

25
of their institutions (Hart & Fellabaum, 2008). For example, Peterson and Spencer’s climate
framework (1990) is more broad and defines climate based on a set of dimensions with no one
specific focus on any one identity (Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Peterson & Spencer, 1990).
However, Hurtado, Milem, Clayton and Allen (1998) developed a student based, racial campus
climate framework and study. They found that campus climate is influenced by the
demographics of the student population, the interactions of the student population and structural
support for the study body (Hurtado et al., 1998).
Hurtado et al., (2008) identified three dimensions that contribute to campus climate and
they are structural, physiological and behavioral. The physiological dimension focuses on cross-
cultural interactions of the students. The interactions shape the students of color’s perception of
discrimination, racism and bias (Hurtado et al., 2008). Structural dimension is defined by the
visible presence of underrepresented students on campus. A lack of critical mass for students of
color makes it difficult to feel a sense of belonging at predominantly White institutions (PWI)
(Patton, 2010). Critical mass and presence play a role in college academic success and social
adjustment for underrepresented students. Black students are traditionally more academically
successful and more well-adjusted at HBCUs than at PWIs due to the academic support they
receive. The academic support is more tailored to their needs. In addition, the social environment
contributes to a more positive self-image. Consequently, having a critical mass relieves some of
the racial stressors that Black students have to deal with at PWIs (Allen, 1992; Downing et al.,
2002).
The final dimension focuses on institutional structures and programs that foster student
development related to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. The behavioral dimension
includes opportunities for students to engage in diversity dialogue, both formally and informally
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

26
(Hurtado et al., 2008). Ethnic specific centers and cross-cultural centers on college campuses are
forms of institutional structure, which support cross-cultural education and social justice
programs for both students of color and White students (Patton, 2010). These spaces allow
students to engage and learn about diversity from one another. The interactions that students
have with one another, the curricular and co-curricular spaces they are engaged in and the
experiences they have with faculty and staff all lend to the climate of the campus (Bensimon,
2004).
Microaggression
Microaggressions are a form of racism that surfaced after the passing of the Civil Rights
Act and exists in both subtle and overt forms (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Sue et al., 2007).
Racial microaggresions are common occurrences on college campuses. They can be found in the
structural, physiological and the behavioral dimensions of campus climate (Hurtado et al., 2008).
In a study by Rankin and Reason (2005), with over 1,800 respondents, 33% of students of color
who responded to the survey experienced racial harassment as compared to 22% of White
students. Most of the experiences of racial harassment came from the actions of peers. The study
also reported that students of color found the campus environment to be less accepting and more
racist as compared to reports from White students.
According to Sue et al. (2007), “racial microagressions are 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”
(p. 271). The three forms of microaggressions are microassault, microinsult and
microinvalidation. Microassaults can be verbal and non-verbal, and are derogatory and explicit in
nature. Microinsults are unconsciously and unintentionally delivered. They are insensitive
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

27
remarks that demean the students’ race, culture and heritage. Students of colors commonly face
this form of microaggression on college campuses (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Sue et al., 2007).
Microinvalidation is an unconscious and unintentional form of microaggression where
communities of colors’ experiences, reality, feelings and thoughts are not validated (Sue et al.,
2007).
Microaggression experienced by students of color due to stereotypical assumptions from
the dominant group are common at college campuses (Allen & Solorzano, 2001; Poon, 2011;
Solorzano & Yosso; 2001). The stereotypical narratives about Blacks and Hispanic/Latino
students characterized them as not hard working and academically inferior. These types of
stereotypes lead to racial microaggressions on Blacks and Hispanic/Latino students both inside
and outside of the classroom (Allen & Solorzano, 2001). Racial microaggressions can reduce
sense of belonging for Black and Hispanic/Latino students, leading to low academic performance
and placing them at risk for retention. Racial microaggressions in the classroom includes faculty
having low expectations of the student, being tokenized as the only Blacks or Hispanic/Latino in
the class and not having their racial experiences validated (Hurtado, 1997; Solorzano et al., 2000;
Yosso et al., 2009). In co-curricular activities, Black and Hispanic/Latino students deal with both
overt and covert forms of racial microaggressions to varying degrees. Subtle forms of racism,
including directed remarks on the level of language proficiency of Hispanic/Latinos, to overt
racism such as racist theme parties thrown by their peers, occur frequently (Allen, 1992; Yosso
et al., 2009).
In addition, the recent national and local discourse on Affirmative Action also contribute
to the physiological dimension of campus climate through racial microaggressions. Blacks and
Hispanic/Latino students are made to feel they were admitted due to special circumstances and
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

28
unqualified to be at the university (Allen, 1992; Stein, 1995). In a campus climate study
conducted by Allen and Solorzano (2001), Black and Hispanic/Latino students expressed how
assumptions were made that they were admitted based on Affirmative Action and they are made
to feel like they do not belong at the University of Michigan.
Asian Americans narratives in the United States include problematic stereotypes such as
being the perpetual foreigner and the model minority. These two common stereotypes were
formed during their immigration history and reinforced in the White dominant culture. The
perpetual foreigner stereotype creates an image that Asian Americans are non-Americans,
regardless of how long they have been in the United States. This stereotype creates an
“otherness” image of the Asian American community, which leads to a lack of sense of
belonging in the United States (Ng, Lee & Pak, 2007). The other common stereotype is the
model minority myth, which places Asian Americans on the other end of the spectrum. This
stereotype suggests that Asian Americans have successfully transitioned in the U.S. despite
coming to the U.S as immigrants. The successful transition includes economic achievement,
educational accomplishments and assimilation into the White dominant culture. This stereotype
is harmful because Asian American students may feel inadequate if they are not academically
fulfilling the model minority stereotype which may lead to mental health issues. (Hune, 2002;
Wu, 2002).
Similar to Black and Hispanic/Latino students, these stereotypical narratives of Asian
Americans contribute to the physiological and the behavioral climate of the campus (Sue et al.,
2007). The racial microaggressions faced by Asian American students demonstrate that
regardless of the size of the population, microaggressions continue to be an experience for non-
White students (Poon, 2011). Based on a case study conducted by Poon (2011), interviews were
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

29
conducted with 25 Asian American students at the University of California, Los Angeles. Four
categories of stereotypes surfaced that were expressed in the form of racial microaggressions
from other peers. The four categories are (1) exclusion, (2) alien in own land, (3) gendered racial
microaggressions and (4) ascription of intelligence. All four categories are shaped and
perpetuated by the dominant White society and created stereotypical narratives of Asian
Americans. Thus, these forms of microaggressions often lead to mental health issues in the Asian
American community (Poon, 2011 & Sue et al., 2007).
Racial microaggressions can be found in the structural, physiological and the behaviorial
dimensions of campus climate. Microaggressions are a new form of racism that surfaced after the
passing of the Civil Rights Act and exists in both subtle and overt forms (Huber & Solorzano,
2015; Hurtado et al., 2008; Sue et al., 2007). According to Sue (2007), the three forms of
microaggressions are microassault, microinsult and microinvalidation. Microassaults can be
verbal, nonverbal and environmental. Microassaults can come in the form of both be verbal and
non-verbal, and are derogatory and explicit in nature. Microinsults are unconsciously and
unintentionally delivered. They are insensitive remarks that demean the students’ race, culture
and heritage. Students of colors commonly face this form of microaggression on college
campuses (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Sue et al., 2007). Microinvalidation is an unconscious and
unintentional form of microaggression where communities of colors’ experiences, reality,
feelings and thoughts are not validated (Sue et al., 2007).
Over time, the accumulation of microaggressions can be detrimental to students of color
(Sue et al., 2007). Asian American students experience low self-esteem and mental health issues.
Hispanic/Latino students feel a sense of alienation from their respective campuses and Black
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

30
students’ academic success are impacted by racial microaggressions and discrimination
(Hurtado et al., 1998; Sue et al., 2007).
Sense of Belonging
Students of color who face racial microaggressions may not feel integrated into the
campus environment and lack a sense of belonging (Hurtado et al., 1998; Tinto, 1993).
According to Tinto (1993), if the student does not feel integrated on campus there is the
likelihood of dropping out. In the third revision of the model, Tinto defined two types of student
engagement on campus. The first is the social and academic systems. Participation is defined as
the physical act of participating in those academic and co-curricular programs. The second type
of student engagement is integration into the social and academic systems, which is defined by
the degree of how integrated the student feels to these systems (Tinto, 1993). Tinto’s model was
criticized for not taking into account the racial identities of students of color and what integration
means to them, hence the term integration was replaced with membership. The term integration
can mean something different to marginalized students. Students of color may have membership
in different academic and social organizations and each may bring a varying degree of sense of
belonging (Hurtado & Carter; 1997).
The next section focused on programs, structures and accountability. The structures
include student affairs, academic affairs and campus policies. The programs include cultural
student organizations and diversity educational programs (Allen & Solorzano, 2001; Rankin &
Reason, 2005). These institutional programs and structures are important because systems in
place for students of color may assist them socially, emotionally and academically. Structures
with intentional diversity, equity and inclusion integration may contribute to a more positive
campus climate for students of color (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

31
Furthermore, a system of accountability should be considered when embedding diversity
structures and programs. Accountability assists in understanding the impact these structures and
programs have on campus climate and students of color (Bensimon, 2005).
Diversity Structures
The justices in the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of UC vs. Bakke, agreed that a
diverse student body improves the quality of education for students (Gurin et al., 2002).
However, improving the experiences for students of color goes beyond diversifying the student
body (Hurtado et al, 2008; Poon, 2011). Institutional diversity structures need to be in place on
college campuses to support the engagement, learning and development of the student body
(Hurtado et al., 1999; Hurtado et al., 2008). Furthermore, research findings also indicate that a
diverse racial demographic increases student learning through both formal and informal peer
interactions (Hurtado et al, 1999). Formal and informal peer interactions take place inside
classrooms and in co-curricular spaces and activities. These types of formal and informal
interactions are situated in both student affairs and academic affairs units (Hurtado et al, 2008;
Patton, 2010; Williams & Wade, 2013).
Student Affairs
In the division of student affairs, the institutional structures that traditionally support the
area of diversity, equity and inclusion include cultural, multicultural and/or ethnic centers and
campus activities (Kezar, 2012; Patton, 2010). The responsibilities of the staff in these student
affair structures include supporting students socially, emotionally and educationally. Programs
may include student diversity training, campus bias protocol, cultural clubs and organizations
and cross-cultural education programs (Patton, 2010; Pope et al., 2009).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

32
According to Patton, cultural and multicultural centers may contribute to a student’s
racial ethnic identity development, assist in fostering relationships with others and add to their
experience navigating the university’s racial landscape. These centers also provide a student a
sense of community and a space safe for their racial and ethnic identity to be validated and
recognized (Patton, 2010). Cultural clubs and organizations are also institutional outlets for
students of color to engage in their racial ethnic identity development (Inkelas, 2004; Museus,
2008). Students’ participation in cultural clubs and organizations demonstrate a commitment in
engaging in their racial identities and ethnic communities. According to Museus (2008), cultural
clubs and organizations serve three functions: provide a cultural familiarity for the students;
provide a space for students to express, represent and advocate for their ethnic community; and
validate their racial and ethnic identity. Therefore, it is important that students are empowered to
create subcultures in the campus environment in order to validate their identity (Allen &
Solorzano, 2001; Museus, 2008).
Staff who work in cultural centers are regarded as diversity change agents for the students
and institution (Barceló, 2007; Patton, 2010). Student affairs practitioners who support students
in these diversity structures and programs need cultural competencies to be effective in their
roles. Cultural competency is defined as understanding oneself racially in order to create an
inclusive and affirming environment (Pope et al, 2009). Staff who are culturally competent may
assist in creating a positive campus climate for students of color. Staff should also be competent
and equipped to develop intentional learning outcomes needed for genuine diversity engagement
to take shape in students (Hurtado et al., 1999; Milem, et al., 2004). Educational outcomes are
important measuring tools to consider when developing diversity engagement programs
(Bensimon, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2007).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

33
Academic Affairs
Faculty have considerable impact on the experiences of students and students of color in
the classroom. A study by Goff-Crew (2014) found that students of color may come to college
academically prepared but perform poorly due to assumptions that faculty make about their lack
of academic preparation. Faculty may lack the knowledge to use affirming language to show
support, to teach and to convey expectations specific to students of color, and this can create an
unwelcoming environment. In addition, faculty in this study came with a set of biases about
students of color. Faculty biases and stereotyping of students of color take the form of racial
microaggressions in the classroom. When faculty are not culturally sensitive or competent they
create an unsafe space for learning to take place for students of color. Black and Hispanic/Latino
students are stereotyped as being academically unprepared and Asian American students are
stereotyped as being high achievers (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001; Yosso et al., 2009; Wu, 2002). In
addition, the lack of diversity at predominantly White institutions places students of color in
situations where they are seen as representing their entire racial community in a classroom when
responding to questions about their race or ethnicity. This sense of responsibility to speak on
behalf of their entire racial community creates a mental burden on the student. Hence, students of
color do not have the privilege to be seen as individuals but rather a representation of their
collective racial community (Smith et al., 2004).
Having a critical mass of faculty of color is important in a university. Faculty of color
play a vital role in undergraduate education because they add value to students and to the
university. According to Umbach (2006) faculty of color or more likely to interact with students
than their White counterparts, and faculty of color bring a richer experience to the classroom
through their contributions of diverse perspectives and pedagogical approaches (Antonio 2002;
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

34
Umbach, 2006). Faculty of color also apply more interactive and collaborative teaching with the
students and integrate diversity exercises and activities in their courses when compared to White
faculty (Umbach, 2006). Although the student body is increasing in diversity over the last 30
years, the faculty of color population has reflected insignificant changes (Antonio, 2002;
Umbach, 2006).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in fall 2013, 78% of
full-time faculty were White, 10% were Asian/Pacific Islander, six percent were Black and five
percent were Latino (NCES, 2013). The chart below provides a more comprehensive overview
of faculty demographics according to academic rank.
Table 1: Percentage of faculty by academic rank, by race/ethnicity: Selected year, 2013
Academic Rank White Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black Latino
Total 78% 10% 6% 5%
Professors 84% 9% 4% 3%
Associate Professors 74% 11% 6% 4%
Assistant Professors 74% 12% 7% 5%
Instructors 78% 7% 6% 5%
Lecturers 81% 7% 6% 5%
Source: National Center for Education Statistics faculty data (2013)
The data demonstrate that nationally, faculty of color are underrepresented across all
academic ranks in higher education. African American faculty are significantly
underrepresented, followed by Latino and Asian American faculty. The number of Asian
American faculty also tends to be conflated with Asian international faculty, which leads to a
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

35
misrepresentation of the number (Smith et al., 2004). The lack of diverse faculty impacts a
student of color’s sense of belonging. Students of color find that faculty of color tend to
understand them better than White faculty, and faculty of color provide a type of support that
encourages academic success (Umbach, 2006). In addition, faculty of color often take on the
informal role of mentorship for students of color, participate in diversity initiatives and
programs, and are more likely to be culturally competent in the classrooms (Antonio, 2002;
Smith et al., 2004). Diverse faculty at a university also delivers a message to the university
community that the senior level administration values diversity (Rankin & Reason, 2005;
Umbach, 2006).
The curriculum is another important aspect in addressing diversity and inclusion at the
university. The core curriculum in higher education tends to focus on White dominant histories
and narratives and told through a majority lens. The lack of the narratives and histories of people
of color in the academic curriculum creates an educational void for all students. People of color
and their stories in the curriculum are narrow and limited. The lack of breadth reinforces
stereotypical notions about people of color. Affirming the identities of students of color through
the sharing of their histories and narratives in the curriculum promotes a positive self-identity
(Bennett, 2001; Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado et al., 1999).
Curriculum and the classroom environment are institutional programs and initiatives that
can shape campus climate for students of color in academic affairs. The number of faculty of
color, the types of diversity policies that are or not in place and how diversity is integrated into
the curriculum will contribute to how students of color will transition, succeed and find a sense
of belonging on a college campus (Hale, 2004; Hurtado et al., 1998; Hurtado et al., 1999).

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

36
Campus Policies
Administration and student affairs senior leadership may also provide institutional
support through diversity policies such as the campus bias protocol and other initiatives to
promote inclusion. These policies deliver a message that racism and discrimination will not be
tolerated on campus, thus reinforcing a safe space for students of color. However, diversity
policies and programs generally surface from bottom up leadership. Those include staff of color
and White allies who work in the area of student affairs and who want to create change for
students of color on campus (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Furthermore, university policies and
statements related to areas of diversity may also support or hinder success for students of color
(Kezar, 2012). A study conducted by Rankin and Reason (2005) indicated that when students of
color do not see diversity embedded in the mission or when there is no visible diversity statement
it may create negative environment for learning. However, a diversity mission needs to be further
enhanced by stating clear priorities and increasing the racial demographics on campus (Rankin &
Reason, 2005; Worthington et al., 2014).
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
The discourse on diversity, equity and inclusion is complex in the higher education
setting. Equity in education is focused on creating systems that address unequal education and
resources for students of color due to institutional discrimination, racism and bias. The equity
framework is a new paradigm, which moves the conversation away from the deficient framework
to analyzing systems that create barriers for students of color (Bensimon, 2005). The discourse
on inclusion is focused on creating a climate for students of color by creating a sense of
belonging. A sense of belonging includes aspects of having a critical mass of their racial identity
represented on campus, having their marginalized history and identity narratives central on
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

37
campus, and having students of color be included in all aspect of campus life (Hurtado, 2008;
Lopez, 2003).
Accountability and Equity Scorecard

Accountability is a critical aspect for any institutional change to occur on a college
campus because accountability holds the institution responsible for any actions or lack thereof at
the university. Accountability can be political, bureaucratic, market, professional and moral.
Political accountability is the responsibility a leader has to all constituents and stakeholders in
the system; bureaucratic accountability focuses on accountability within reporting structures;
market accountability is the ability to maintain competitive in the education market economy;
professional accountability looks at holding the individual or campus to a certain set of external
standards and moral accountability focuses on integrity, ethics, social justice, personal and
communal values. The accountability systems that are in place can be in conflict with one
another because of various demands from multiple stakeholders (Firestone & Shipps, 2006).
Chief Diversity Officers should place accountability and responsibility on the
institutional structures and themselves instead of responsibility on students of color to foster a
diverse and inclusive environment (Bensimon, 2005; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The
Equity Scorecard is an important tool that reflects this perspective of institutional accountability
for diversity, equity and inclusion. The Equity Scorecard, developed by the Center for Urban
Education at the University of Southern California (USC), addresses institutional change for
students of color by assessing the institution through an equity framework. The Equity Scorecard
assesses conditions that create barriers for institutional change to take place in areas of diversity,
equity and inclusion. There are four dimensions in this framework. The first dimension is access
perspective which looks at conditions of how students of color gain access to resources,
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

38
programs, scholarships and services. The second dimension is the retention perspective which
looks at retention of students of color. The third dimension is institutional receptivity in which
the scorecard measures institutional support for students of color. The fourth dimension is
excellence, which integrates components of access and achievement to understand how they may
prevent students of color from getting the best education possible (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon,
2005).
Creating change through assessment may shift the university to a culture of institutional
responsibility and removing the responsibility from the students. Thus, this cultural shift may
lead to an increase in the student of color population and diversity initiatives to address access
and opportunity gaps for students of color (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, 2005). According to Luo
and Jamieson-Drake (2009), a diverse population and the creation of institutional diversity
structures and programs will enhance student learning; foster understanding and openness to
others; increase critical thinking and lead to higher satisfaction with their college experience. In
addition, institutional diversity programs need to be integrated for intentional diversity learning
outcomes to take shape (Gurin et al., 2002). Therefore, diversity structures, programs and
services must be carefully measured and approached from an equity framework in order to
understand how these initiatives best support the needs of students of color and how these
initiatives create institutional change.
In this next section, diversity leadership, leadership approaches and the role of the Chief
Diversity Officers and various Chief Diversity Officer models will be examined. The role of a
Chief Diversity Officer is challenging because of the nature of the position and the need to
navigate among different stakeholders to address issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. A
Chief Diversity Officer needs to be adequately resourced both in terms of fiscal and personnel
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

39
resources in order to achieve diversity goals for the campus. In addition, the CDO needs a
credible level of authoritative power across the university in order be effective (Nixon, 2013).
Chief Diversity Officers
Diversity Leadership
While diversity leadership roles at American universities have been in existence for over
40 years, Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) positions have only been emerging on college campuses
across the nation in the last decade to address issues of diversity, equity and inclusion and given
more stature at the university (Barceló, 2007; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). According to
Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), a Chief Diversity Officer is the highest-ranking diversity
administrator and reports directly to the president and/or provost. CDOs come from a range of
academic backgrounds and experiences in higher education. They coordinate, enhance and guide
diversity initiatives and efforts at the executive level of the university. Seventy-two percent of
CDO positions were created less than 5 years ago (Barceló, 2007; Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013; Wilson, 2013). Chief Diversity Officer positions were created to respond to challenges; to
coordinate opportunities, to create partnerships between academic and student affairs and to
engage the campus and external community on issues of diversity (Barceló, 2007; Nixon, 2015)
The Chief Diversity Officer position varies depending on resource availability, campus-
wide commitment to diversity and the type of experience the CDO brings (Nixon, 2013;
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013). In addition, the CDO may have a dual role at
the university. The CDO may also hold a joint position as a faculty member or hold other
administrative positions (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The role and leadership provided
from a Chief Diversity Officer is complex because diversity, equity and inclusion require the
involvement of the entire campus. The CDO works university-wide to enhance diversity, equity
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

40
and inclusion on campus. However, they should not serve as the sole individual responsible for
diversity initiatives (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013). The president can also
help create institutional commitment for diversity by making it a priority, placing it on the
agenda and by supporting institutional leadership for diversity (Kezar, 2008). The social
identities for which CDOs are responsible include race/ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation,
disability status, religion, national and geographic origin, socioeconomic status, first generation
college status, veteran and military status and political ideology (Worthington et al., 2014).
Leadership Approaches
The responsibilities and role that a Chief Diversity Officer assumes is dependent on
campus culture, mission and goals (Nixon, 2013; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). No two
CDO positions are the same because each campus has varying priorities, missions and goals as it
pertains to their own diversity initiatives (Harvey, 2014). Leadership approaches are important
to consider when analyzing the impact and effectiveness of a Chief Diversity Officer. Until 2007,
there was no specialized training or professionalization of a Chief Diversity Officer position.
The National Association for Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) established
eleven standards to assist in professionalizing the position (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013;
Worthington et al., 2014). The standards include addressing campus climate, articulating a
diversity vision, setting diversity curriculum, understanding impact of diversity programming,
conducting assessment, and reviewing policy and promoting research (Worthington et al, 2014).
Chief Diversity Officer Organizational Structures
The reporting structure, resources and scope of control and influence are dependent on
the type of diversity structures in place (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). Williams and Wade-
Golden (2013) conducted interviews with over 110 CDOs and collected over 700 survey
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

41
responses from CDOs nationally. They found that Chief Diversity Officers generally use
symbolic and transformative leadership to create dialogue around diversity, equity and inclusion.
Though symbolic, transformative leadership can inspire and motivate others to enact change, the
structure in which the CDOs work have posed a challenge. The three common types of structure
or model for a Chief Diversity Officer are the Unit-Based model, Collaborative Officer model
and Portfolio Divisional model (Leon, 2014). The Collaborative model, though most widely used
is, usually a “one-person” shop. The CDO in this structure has the least administrative support
and does not formally supervise staff to support the area. The Chief Diversity Officer relies on
building relationships and working laterally with individuals and units to achieve goals (Stanley,
2014; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Both the Unit-Based model and Portfolio Division model have vertical authority and
oversight of office(s) and unit(s) in their area. Vertical authority is defined as a diversity
infrastructure in which the CDO’s formal power crosses various units that work in areas of
diversity and inclusion. For example, these units may include Multicultural Affairs, Office of
Affirmative Action and Ethnic Studies. Although the Unit-Based model and Portfolio Division
model rely on strategic partnerships to meet their diversity mission and goals, these two models
have more power and authority than the Collaborative Officer model. The Unit-Based model has
larger budgets, space and institutional structure to enhance diversity on the campus. The
Portfolio Divisional Model incorporates both aspects of the Collaborative Officer model and the
Unit-Based model (Stanley, 2014). This model is the most vertically integrative compared to the
other two models because the CDO works to integrate diversity laterally across units with
institutional staff support. The CDO in the Portfolio Divisional Model may also assign diversity
officers in various units to oversee diversity initiatives in their areas (Leon, 2014; Williams &
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

42
Wade-Golden, 2013). According to Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), 40% of CDOs function
in the Collaborative Officer model, 31% operate in the Unit-Based model and 28% operate in a
Portfolio Division model.
Regardless of the type of models or structures in place, diversity, equity and inclusion
should be the responsibility of the entire university. All stakeholders need to be a part of the
diversity process in order for a cultural shift to take place (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Institutions are complex, vague, unpredictable, political and difficult to manage and how the
Chief Diversity Officer approaches her or his role is important (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Nixon,
2013).
The next section focused on the five tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Critical Race
Theory is an activist movement that focuses on dismantling an institutional system rooted in
oppression and inequity of those communities on the margins. The foundation of the movement
began in legal studies and radical feminism. Since then, CRT has been adopted and adapted in
the field of education (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). In the area of higher education in particular,
Critical Race Theory places the responsibility of addressing diversity, equity and inclusion on the
university (Bensimon, 2005).
Critical Race Theory
History
The Critical Race Theory framework was first rooted in legal studies and radical
feminism in the 1980s to bring a critical lens to racial injustice in society. Derrick Bell, a
principle figure and a legal scholar, brought the critical race discourse to the forefront by
analyzing racial injustice, racism, bias and discrimination through a systemic lens (Delgado &
Stefanic, 2012; Solorzano, 1997). In 1994, Critical Race Theory evolved from legal and feminist
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

43
studies to include systems of education. The notion of “color blind” and “race neutral” policies
was dismantled and critically evaluated through the framework of CRT (Iverson, 2007; Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Lopez, 2003; Solorzano, 1997). In the education setting, Critical Race Theory
can be applied to classroom spaces and in co-curricular spaces. Methods and pedagogies were
provided to “identify, analyze and transform” White dominant structures and culture that were
institutionally created to keep people of color on the margins (Iverson, 2007; Solorzano,1997;
Yosso et al., 2009, p 662).
Tenets
The Critical Race Theory framework uses five tenets to dismantle the White dominant
power structure. The five tenets are (1) centrality of race & racism; (2) challenge the dominant
ideology; (3) commitment to social justice; (4) centrality of experiential knowledge and (5)
interdisciplinary perspectives (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Solorzano, 1997; Solorzano & Yasso,
2001).
At the core of the first tenet is the centrality of race & racism. In this tenet, race and
racism is central to the education discourse, structures and systems. In addition, the education
system must also be analyzed through sexism and classism and to recognize how meritocracy
and teaching reinforces and normalizes White dominant structures (Degaldo & Stefanic, 2001;
Yosso et al., 2009). This tenet also recognizes that individuals own and exist under multiple
identities; therefore, no one person is only defined by their race or gender (Delgado & Stefanic,
2001).
The second tenet is to challenge the dominant ideology. In this tenet, the narratives of
people of color (POC) in the U.S. are based on assumptions and stereotypes (Solorzano et al.
1995). According to Solorzano and Yasso (2001), Gordon Allport’s model defined three
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

44
categories of stereotypes of Blacks and Latinos. The three categories are intelligence and
education, personality, and physical traits. These stereotypes are reproduced in the education
setting and create a belief that Black and Latino students are not capable and not intelligent. In
addition, these stereotypes reinforce deficit thinking about Black and Latino students. Deficit
thinking in an educational setting places the burden of learning on students of color without
looking at institutional systems that prevent academic success (Bensimon, 2005).
The third tenet is a commitment to social justice. The social justice framework is used to
transform, empower and eliminate racism, sexism and classism in the higher education.
(Solorzano, 1997; Solorzano & Yasso, 2001). The Critical Race Theory social justice movement
is robust and on-going in the transformative process of dismantling power structures (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001).
The fourth tenet is the centrality of experiential knowledge. This idea provides a space
and opportunity for students of color to break down assumptions and stereotypes through
counter-narratives (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). The counter-narratives of students of color are
brought to the center of the discourse where their identities are affirmed (Iverson, 2007;
Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). This tenet also encourages writers of color and authors to share the
voice and narratives of people of color. These counter-narratives are the authentic stories of the
people of color histories and experiences and are also known as “legal storytelling” (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001).
The fifth tenet is the interdisciplinary perspectives. This tenet grounds race and racism
research and education in both “historical and contemporary context using interdisciplinary
methods” (Solorzano & Yasso, p. 3, 2001). Race and racism are understood through crossing
different academic disciplines. A more recent development in the CRT movement includes law
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

45
and social sciences bringing awareness of the racialization of people of color. The stereotypical
depictions of communities of color in the U.S. landscape are dependent on current issues in
society. For example, Asian American males were once seen as a nuisance in society in the late
1800s and in the 1980s, the stereotype of Asian American males shifted to them being the model
minority. These stereotypes were created to benefit and maintain the White dominant power
structure (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Wu, 2002).
Reframing the Students of Color Narratives
The five tenets of Critical Race Theory are not static principles use to reframe and
resituate the conversation on race and racism (Solorzano, 1997; Iverson, 2007). CRT is a
dynamic framework that serves as a tool for administrators, staff, faculty and students of color to
shift the cultural and structural landscape to be a more inclusive space for communities of color
and more specifically, students of color. Institutional policies and structures in higher education
are created through a White racial lens and the White middle-class male identity is at the center
of the dominant power structure (Lopez, 2003). The current narratives on students of color are
based on problematic stereotypes and assumptions that reinforce White dominance and continue
to place students of color on the margins on college campuses and in higher education
(Solorzano & Yosso, 2001; Yosso et al., 2009).
African American and Latino students have their own distinct histories in their race
relations with the White dominant power construct. However, both African American and
Latino students experience similar stereotypical racial narratives when it comes to educational
attainment and achievement. African American and Latino students are stereotyped as
academically incapable, not intelligent and culturally unfit to succeed in education due to their
racial background (Solorzano et al., 2000; Yasso et al., 2009). These problematic narratives
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

46
reinforce their identities in higher education as being less than within the White dominant power
structure.
Furthermore, the race-based policies of Affirmative Action further creates an assumption
that African American and Latino students received admissions at elite institutions due to their
race and not due to their academic credential (Stein, 1995). African American students at elite
universities have a looming sense of “stereotype threat.” Steele defines “stereotype threat” as a
social-psychological predicament where the African American student facing these negative
stereotypes may internalize these stereotypes, leading the student to live out the stereotype in
their immediate situation (Goff-Crew, 2014; Steele, 1997). The dominant White culture views
the lived out actions as a confirmation of the African American students’ inability to succeed
(Allen & Solorzano, 2001 & Steele, 1997). These stereotypes become central in defining the
African American community.
Critical Race Theory is a framework for students of color to resituate the narrative
created by the White dominant structure by empowering students to share their counter
narratives. These counter narratives need to reside in the center of the academic discourse
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Iverson, 2007). In addition, counter spaces such as ethnic studies
programs, cultural centers, ethnic clubs and organizations may also be used as an outlet to affirm
identities and experiences of students of color thus creating a space for these counter-narratives
to exist (Liu, Cuyjet & Lee, 2010; Patton, 2010; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
The next section focuses on programs, structures and accountability. The structures
include student affairs, academic affairs and campus policies. The programs include cultural
student organizations and diversity educational programs (Allen & Solorzano, 2001; Rankin &
Reason, 2005). These institutional programs and structures are important because systems in
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

47
place for students of color may assist them socially, emotionally and academically. Structures
with intentional diversity, equity and inclusion integration may contribute to a more positive
campus climate for students of color (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Furthermore, a system of accountability should be considered when embedding diversity
structures and programs. Accountability will assist in understanding the impact these structures
and programs have on campus climate and students of color (Bensimon, 2005).
The curriculum is another important aspect in addressing diversity and inclusion at the
university. The core curriculum in higher education tends to focus on White dominant histories
and narratives and told through a majority lens. The lack of the narratives and histories of people
of color in the academic curriculum creates an educational void for all students. People of color
and their stories in the curriculum are narrow and limited. The lack of breadth reinforces
stereotypical notions about people of color. Affirming the identities of students of color through
the sharing of their histories and narratives in the curriculum promotes a positive self-identity
(Bennett, 2001; Hurtado et al., 2001).
Curriculum and the classroom environment are institutional programs and initiatives that
can shape campus climate for students of color in the academic affairs. The number of faculty of
color, the types of diversity policies that are or not in place and how diversity is integrated into
the curriculum will contribute to how students of color will transition, succeed and find a sense
of belonging on a college campus (Hurtado et al., 2001, Hale, 2004).
Conclusion
Understanding issues of diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education through the
lens of Chief Diversity Officer is important as we become a more diverse nation (Barceló, 2007).
In particular, understanding how the Chief Diversity Officer contributes to positive campus
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

48
climate for students of color and intergroup relations is critical since universities are becoming
more diverse (NCES, 2012). The following chapter provided the methodological approach for
this study.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences of Chief Diversity Officers and
how they shape campus climate and intergroup relations for students of color. Research indicates
that students of color are dealing with campus climate issues in the form of racism,
discrimination and microaggressions. These factors impact their college experience, which leads
to academic challenges, socio-emotional adjustment and a lack of a sense of belonging (Hurtado
et al, 1999; Hurtado et. al., 2008). It is important to conduct research on campus climate for this
population because colleges and universities are enrolling more students of color and university
administrators have an obligation to ensure academic success of this population (NCES, 2015).
The theoretical lens used to frame this study is Critical Race Theory (CRT). Critical Race
Theory analyzes racial injustice, racism, bias and discrimination through a systemic lens
(Delgado & Stefanic, 2012; Huber & Solorzano, 2015). The methods and pedagogy used in
CRT “identify, analyze and transform” White dominant structures and culture that were
institutionally created to keep people of color on the margins (Iverson, 2007; Yosso et. al, 2009,
p 662).
Research Questions
The main research question to guide this study was: How do Chief Diversity Officers
(CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for students of color?
The three emerging questions were:
(1) How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Life?
(2) How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

50
(3) How does the type of diversity organization structure affect how campus
climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed?
Qualitative Research Method

A qualitative research method was used in this study. The choice of this research design
was due to four main characteristics in qualitative research. The first component of qualitative
research focused on exploring and understanding how individuals interpret their experience in a
specific context and settings. This design allowed the researcher to understand the experience
from the individual’s perspective and worldview. The interviews with the Chief Diversity
Officer, the student affairs staff and student leaders provided multiple worldviews of their
experiences at the universities. The second component was the researcher as the primary
instrument. The researcher collected and analyzed the data in order to bring meaning to the
phenomena. The researcher was cognizant of any biases that may surface due to the researcher’s
background. The third component was the inductive process in qualitative research. The
inductive process built up to the concept and themes from the collected data. The rich data from
the Chief Diversity Officers, the student affairs staff and student leaders were coded and
analyzed for themes. The fourth component was that qualitative research design provided rich,
deep and descriptive narratives that helped the researcher understand the experience of the
respondents. In this study, rich data were captured from the Chief Diversity Officers, the student
affairs staff and student leaders (Merriam, 2009). In addition, qualitative research design is
emergent, which allows the researcher flexibility to change the approach based on what
information may surface during the data collection process (Creswell, 2014).

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

51
Overview of Methodology
The research design used multiple methods to collect data to assist in answering the
research questions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Chief Diversity Officers
at two private, four-year residential universities. Each university had a different diversity
organizational structure. The semi-structured interviews produced rich and descriptive narratives
from the Chief Diversity Officers. The semi-structured interview had a set of pre-determined
questions to help answer the research questions, but the interviews were flexible in nature to
allow for emergent themes to surface. The semi-structured interviews were conducted on their
respective campuses at an office location of the respondents’ choice for approximately one hour.
In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with at least one student affairs
staff person who worked directly on diversity programs for students at the university. A
minimum of one staff person was needed in order to collect adequate data on the relationship
between student affairs staff and the CDO in shaping campus climate for students of color. The
student affairs staff were interviewed at their respective universities at their office location of the
respondents’ choice for approximately one hour. Allowing the Chief Diversity Officers and
student affair staff to select their own interview locations provided a level of comfort during the
interview process. Interviews was conducted with at least two student leader during the on-
campus visit in a quiet location selected by the student. Allowing the student leaders to select
their interview location was to assist in alleviating the stress of being interviewed.
Lastly, university and diversity documents were analyzed in order to collect further data
on diversity initiatives at the respective universities. The documents included university annual
reports, diversity websites and diversity annual reports. The researcher looked for diversity
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

52
statements, biased related reports, university organization charts, diversity organization charts,
university and student responses to racist incidents.
In depth and rich narratives from the Chief Diversity Officers provided details of their
work on campus climate for students of color. The inside perspectives from the student affairs
staff further gave insight on diversity impact from the Chief Diversity Officer as it related to
campus climate for students of color and student leader interviews provided insight of the student
experience. Finally, the university and diversity documents gave an overview of campus
initiatives and support for students (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
The interview data from the Chief Diversity Officers, student affairs practitioners and
interviews with student leaders and university and diversity documents analysis were
triangulated. This use of multiple methods of inquiry was critical for internal validation
(Maxwell, 2013).
Site Selection
The study took place at two universities, Southwest University and Northwest University.
They were chosen because the universities have two different diversity organizational structures
and the Chief Diversity Officers have different years of experiences in their positions at their
respective universities. The two different types of diversity organizational structures offered
different insights on how they shape campus climate and intergroup relations for students of
color. The universities were also chosen because both universities are four-year private
residential universities in California and the mission of the universities centered on providing a
liberal education. According the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), a
liberal education includes a development of values, ethics and civic engagement. The locations
of the universities also differ. One university was situated in an urban setting and one was
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

53
situated in a suburban setting (AACU, 2015).
According to the Carnegie Mellon classification, Southwest University (SU) is a private
four-year university that is highly residential, more selective, low transfer in rate and mid-sized,
located in a Southwest suburban region in the California. Southwest University’s mission
statement emphasized “diverse religious, ethnic, national and socioeconomic backgrounds” and
“seeks to develop responsible citizenship.” The academic programs included Arts and Sciences,
professional programs and graduate degrees. The class sizes were small, with a ratio of 14:1
faculty to student. The university was a Predominantly White Institution (PWI) with an
undergraduate student population of 3,779. Less than one percent of the undergraduate student
population identified as Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander, five percent identified as Asian, four
percent identified as Black and or African American, 27% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and
46% identified as White. The diversity programs and structures included four separate offices.
Those offices were the Multicultural Center, the Pride Center, Women’s Center and International
Student Services. The four diversity offices reported to the Chief Diversity Office in the office of
Campus Diversity and Inclusion. The campus’ chief diversity officer and staff from the
Multicultural Center and the Residence Life were interviewed. The Chief Diversity Officer was
part of the senior leadership team and reported directly to the Vice President and Dean of Student
Life, which resided under the structure of Student Affairs.
According to Carnegie classification, Northwest University is a private, four-year
university that is primarily residential, more selective, mid-sized, high transfer in rate and located
in a Northwest urban region in California. Northwest University’s mission statement stated “The
university will distinguish itself as a diverse, socially responsible learning community of high
quality scholarship and academic rigor sustained by a faith that does justice.” The academic
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

54
programs included Arts and Sciences, professional programs and graduate degrees. The class
sizes were small, with a ratio of 15:1 faculty to student. Northwestern University had an
undergraduate student population of 3,641. One percent identified as Native Hawaiian Pacific
Islander, 19% identified as Latino/Hispanic, 24% identified as Asian American and 29%
identified as White. The diversity structures included the Office for Diversity Engagement and
Community Outreach, the Intercultural Center and the University Council for Diversity and
Inclusion. The Chief Diversity Officer created the University Council for Diversity but did not
currently chair the council. The Intercultural Center did not directly report to the Chief Diversity
Officer. The CDO is part of the senior leadership team and reports directly to the Provost.
Population and Sample
The population for the study were staff and student leaders at private four- year
residential universities who worked in the area of diversity. Specifically, the sample comprised
of Chief Diversity Officers, student affairs staff and student leaders. Studying this population
allowed for in depth exploration, insight and discovery of Chief Diversity Officers at private
residential universities and how they shaped campus climate for students of color.
The approach to identify the Chief Diversity Officers was through purposeful network
sampling. A list of Chief Diversity Officers and universities were drawn from a regional
organization of diversity affairs administrators. Informational conversations through email was
conducted with Chief Diversity Officers to gauge interest and to gather recommendations for
potential Chief Diversity Officers and universities (Merriam, 1997).
The first Chief Diversity Officer had over ten years of experience. The position was in
the Student Affairs/Student Life structure and reported to the Vice President of Student
Affairs/Student Life. The second Chief Diversity Officer had over five years of experience. The
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

55
position was part of University Administration and reported directly to the Provost. The
difference in years of experience and the difference in diversity organizational structures
provided a lens on how these factors influenced how they were able to create, coordinate and
lead diversity initiatives for students of color at their respective universities. According to
Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), Chief Diversity Officer administrators vary in professional
credentials and the number of years of experience they have in their role may influence how they
are able to engage the university community on diversity initiatives. In addition, the diversity
organizational structures also influence how they were able to navigate the political landscape of
the university in relations to diversity goals and initiatives (Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2013). The age, race, ethnicity and gender of the Chief Diversity Officers were not
considered because these factors did not have a direct relationship to the research questions.
The criteria for the selection of the student affairs staff was concentrated on those who
work directly on diversity programs and initiatives. The student affairs staff’s direct relationship
with diversity programs and initiatives were critical in understanding the connection between
diversity organizational structures and programs and their effectiveness in shaping campus
climate and intergroup relations for students of color. Select student affairs staff were
interviewed at each campus. The researcher asked the Chief Diversity Officers for
recommendations of student affairs staff to interview. The researcher selected the staff based on
the criteria of how directly involved they were with diversity programs for students. Semi-
structured interviews were conducted with each of the staff (Creswell, 2009). The staff had
minimum of two years of experience at the university. The minimum of two years of experience
was adequate time for a staff member to gain of sense of the campus climate experience for
students through the direct diversity program oversight. Since the study focused on campus
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

56
climate particularly for students of color, interviews were conducted with student leaders during
the campus visit to gain additional knowledge and information on campus climate and intergroup
relations.
Instrumentation and Source of Evidence
The primary tool for data collection was semi-structured interviews with the Chief
Diversity Officers, student affairs staff and student leaders. The semi-structured interviews were
audio-taped and transcribed. The 10-12 questions was a mix of structured and unstructured
questions. The length of time for the interviews varied depending on the participant but was
approximately one hour. Clarifications on any interview data collected and any additional
information was collected via phone call and/or email. The questions were crafted to assist in
answering the research questions and was formulated through the theoretical lens of the Critical
Race Theory (CRT). However the interviews were flexible in order to go where the respondents
chooses to take the researcher as themes emerged from the interviews. The respondents received
the interview questions prior to the interviews in order for organic conversations to emerge
(Merriam, 2009).
The steps to guide the interview process with the respondent were (1) explained the
“motives and intentions” of the research study, (2) set the tone of the interview by informing
respondent that they can ask questions at any time and that the interview can end at any time if
the respondent choses to, (3) shared the interview outline sheet with the respondent and (4)
explained the confidentiality with the information shared (Merriam, 2009).
University documents and diversity documents were collected, analyzed and reviewed
prior, during and after the campus visit. The university and diversity documents collected and
analyzed included the university annual reports, diversity websites and diversity reports. From
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

57
the university and documents, diversity statements, university organization charts, diversity
organization charts, strategic plan documents, diversity programs, campus climate reports and/or
any diversity assessments conducted by the university were reviewed and analyzed. These
documents added richness to the interview data through the process of triangulation and provided
additional context to the campus climate experience for students of color.
Data Collection
According to Maxwell (2013), the method of data collection not only depends on the
research questions but also context of the research situation in order to effectively collect the
type of the data that is needed. Multiple methods of data collection was used in this research
study including interview data from the Chief Diversity Officers, interview data from student
affairs staff, interview data from student leaders and university documents and diversity
documents analysis.
Once this study was approved by the USC IRB, the researcher contacted Southwest
University and Northwest University to request IRB approval. Upon receiving IRB approval
from the universities, the researcher traveled to the universities for a one-day visit. The
interviews of the Chief Diversity Officers and the student affair staff took place in an office of
the respondents’ choice. Interviews with the student leaders took place in a quiet room. The
researcher offered the participants a copy of the Information sheet and encourage them to ask
questions. The researcher informed the respondents that they had an opportunity to withdraw at
anytime and their identity would be kept confidential. The researcher asked for permission to
audio-tape the interviews from the respondents. The researcher offered an incentive to the
respondents.
In addition to being audio-taped, the researcher also took hand-written quick observation
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

58
notes to document non-verbal responses from the respondents that helped support the narratives
being shared (Merriam, 2009). The audio recording from the interviews were transcribed by
professional services but the researcher followed up for accuracy.
All data was stored in the researcher’s personal computer. The personal computer was
password protected. In addition, the audio files and transcriptions were secured in a software-
protected file. Only the researcher had access to the personal computer. Respondents’ identities
were protected through the use of pseudonyms. All files are expected to deleted three years after
this study.
Data Analysis
The raw data were analyzed simultaneously along with data collection in order for a
manageable process for the researcher (Bodgen & Bilken, 1998; Merriam; 2009). According to
Merriam (2009), data analysis assisted in answering the research questions, hence the focus of
the analysis centered on the Chief Diversity Officers and campus climate and intergroup
relations for students of color. Data analysis included developing categories in the form of codes
to assist in organizing the data into themes that were central to the research study (Harding,
2013; Merriam, 2008). The organization process of coding was critical in a qualitative research
study because coding organized raw data in order for the data to make sense (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). The researcher applied two cycles of coding (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña,
2013). The researcher applied open coding in the first cycle by writing down words connected to
the raw data from the Chief Diversity Officers, student affairs staff and student leaders (Merriam,
2009). The researcher interpreted and made meaning of the opening coding during the second
cycle through the process of axial coding or pattern coding where open codes were grouped
together based on emergent themes (Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

59
The researcher also conducted initial qualitative analysis of the data at the conclusion of
each day of the campus visit by listening to the audio recording and reviewing researcher notes
and comments (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam; 2009). Intensive analysis of the data was conducted
when the researcher completed all collection of raw data (Harding, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Analysis of the documents was conducted prior to the campus visit, during the campus
visit and after the campus visit. The on-going process of document analysis during the collection
data phase of the research study provided the researcher information and context for interviews
with the respondents (Merriman, 2009). The documents were printed and coded. The documents
were coded in two cycles with the first cycle as open coding and the second cycle as axial or
pattern coding (Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2013).
Validity and Credibility
According to Merriman (2009), the concept of validity was that findings were congruent
with reality. The researcher tested for validity in the following manner: rich data was collected
through intensive interviews with the CDOs, student affairs staff and student leaders; respondent
validation or member check was conducted with the CDOs, student affairs staff and student
leaders that ensured there were no researcher bias and misinterpretation of data and triangulation
was used on the interviews with the CDOs, student affairs staff and student leaders and diversity
documents (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Role of the Researcher
In qualitative research, the primary instrument in this qualitative study is the researcher.
Hence, research bias can surface which threatens the validity of the research. The researcher
acknowledged and reflected on the personal ties to this research study to avoid any research bias.
The researcher provided written reflections on both the personal and professional goals for the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

60
research study. The personal goal was related to the work around social justice in higher
education and the professional goal was related to an interest in diversity in higher education.
The researcher referred to the written reflection throughout the research study and prevented any
professional biases from influencing the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter provided the purpose of the study, overview of the
methodology, site selection, population and sample, instrumentation and source of evidence, data
collection and analysis, validity and credibility and role of the researcher. Chapter four presented
the research findings and chapter five discussed the findings, implication for practice,
limitations, recommendations and future research.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

61
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
The focus of this study was to understand how Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) impact
campus climate for students of color. Chief Diversity Officers, the staff and student leaders were
selected from two universities to participate in the study. Qualitative methodology was used to
conduct the research at Southwest University and Northwest University. The main research
question guiding this study is: How do Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate
and intergroup relations for students of color? The three emerging questions are: (1) How do
CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Life? (2) How do CDOs influence and shape
diversity policy for students? (3) How does the type of diversity organizational structure affect
how campus climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed? Semi-structure interviews
were conducted with 11 participants from both universities. The participants included the Chief
Diversity Officers, student life staff and student leaders.
Participants
Five participants from Southwest University and six participants from Northwest
University were involved in semi-structured interviews. One Chief Diversity Officer, two student
life staff and two students were interviewed from Southwest University and one Chief Diversity
Officer, three student life staff and two students were interviewed from Northwest University.
Pseudonyms were used to keep their identities confidential. Generic titles and names of offices
and departments were used to further protect the identity of the individuals and the universities.
Southwest University Organizational Chart
The diversity organizational structure was situated in the Division of Student Life. The
diversity portfolio of the university was under the charge of the Chief Diversity Officer. The
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

62
Chief Diversity Officer’s title was Associate Dean and reported directly to the Assistant Vice
Provost for Student Life but also served as the Special Advisor to the President with a reporting
line to him. The Chief Diversity Officer supervised the Campus Diversity structure. The Campus
Diversity structure included the Cultural Center, Pride Center and the Women Center and
programs included International Student Programs, First Generation Student Programs, Native
American Student Programs and diversity and inclusion programs in Residence Life.
Southwest University Participant Profiles
The participants from Southwest University for this study included the Chief Diversity
Officer, two student life staff who reported to the CDO and two student leaders. The number of
years of working experience at Southwest University ranged from over 13 years to two years of
experience from the staff participants. The student participants included one sophomore and one
senior. Both were active leaders in the Campus Diversity structure, which served as the central
hub for diversity programs at Southwest University.
Sara was the Chief Diversity Officer and reported to the Assistant Vice Provost for
Student Life, but also had a reporting line to the President. She worked at the university for over
13 years starting first as the Director of the Diversity Office and then as the Chief Diversity
Officer. In her 13 years at Southwest University, the Diversity Office, the Women Center, the
International Center, the Pride Center, First Generation College student initiatives and Native
American student programs were created under her supervision. Sara started her professional
career as an anthropologist. In addition to her role managing campus diversity, she also taught a
course in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies. She identifies as an Asian Indian woman.
Peter was the Associate Director for Diversity. He managed the Cultural Center,
Women’s Center and Pride LGBT Center and was in the role for two years. He received his
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

63
Ph.D. in History and also taught a social justice course at Southwest University. Prior to this
position, he held a student services position at another university.
Gil was a Resident Director and managed a first-year undergraduate residence life
building. The position also reported to the Chief Diversity Officer, dedicating 20 hours of the
time to diversity and inclusion. This collateral position with Residence Life was in its fourth
year.
David was a senior Integrative Studies major. He identified as a first generation college
student and identified racially as Mexican American. He was a commuter student and lived 20
minutes from campus. David was the editor-in-chief for the school newspaper, and tutored first
generation low-income college students. He and another student leader spear-headed a social
activism movement to bring change to campus when he discovered the theatre arts department
sold sombreros for Halloween. His activism led to a forum on race in the fall semester.
Patricia was a sophomore Race and Ethnic Studies major. She identified as Mexican
American and was involved in the Campus Diversity programs and was a part of the
multicultural sorority and an Asian American cultural club. She participated in a first generation
college bridge program prior to coming to Southwest University.
Northwest University Organizational Chart
The diversity organizational structure reported to the Provost. The Chief Diversity
Officer reported directly to the Provost. Under the Provost model, the Division of Student Life
also had oversight of the Cultural Centers, which included diversity education programs that
were specific to student engagement. The Cultural Centers included the Intercultural Center and
the Gender and Sexuality Center. The co-directors of the centers reported to the Assistant Vice
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

64
Provost for Student Life. The co-directors did not have a direct reporting relationship to the
Chief Diversity Officer but met with her monthly.
Northwest University Participant Profiles
Kelly was the Chief Diversity Officer and her title was Vice Provost for Diversity. She
was also an Associate Professor at Northwest University. She worked in the Diversity Office for
five years and prior to this position, she served as the Associate Vice President and Dean of
Students at Northwest University. She supervised one program manager and a team of graduate
student assistants from the School of Education and reported directly to the Provost. She
identified as an African American woman.
John served as the co-director of the Cultural Centers at Northwest University and was at
Northwest University for five years. He managed the Intercultural Center which coordinated
programs on race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality. He was in the field of higher education
for over ten years. John reported to the Assistant Vice Provost for Student Life. The Cultural
Centers were situated in the Division of Student Life. He was at Northwest University for five
years and started as an Assistant Director. He met monthly with the Chief Diversity Officer.
Christine was the Student Conduct Officer and taught NU 101, a first-year course for
freshmen at Northwest University. Student Conduct was situated in the Division of Student Life
and she was in her role for one year. Christine attended Northwest University as a graduate
student and prior to her role at Northwest University, she was in a student conduct role at another
university.
Dan was the Assistant Vice Provost for Student Life in the Division of Student Life. He
had oversight of the Cultural Centers, new student programs and a first year seminar course at
Northwest University. Dan was at Northwest University for over ten years and was in the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

65
capacity of Assistant Vice Provost for five years. He reported directly to the Vice Provost for
Student Life.
Lisa was a sophomore in majoring in Communication Studies and double minoring in
Public Service and Community Engagement & Asian Pacific American Studies. She identified as
Filipina American and grew up a predominantly Asian community in Southern California. She
is student leader in the Cultural Centers and held a leadership position in a cultural organization.
Kate was a senior majoring in Critical Diversity Studies and identified as African
American. She was active in the Cultural Centers and held multiple leadership positions in the
Black student community including serving as the Vice President for the Black Student Union.
She grew up in a predominantly Black community in the South.
Themes
The following six themes emerged from the interviews with the 11
participants: symbolic diversity figurehead, voice for students, go-to expert, facilitate
communities to serve diversity, fostering informal accountability and diversity organizational
challenges.
Symbolic Diversity Figurehead
The role of the Chief Diversity Officers as the symbolic diversity figurehead was a theme
that emerged in the daily work of Chief Diversity Officers. In their role as the symbolic diversity
figurehead the CDOs’ inspired, gave meaning and created a culture of diversity. The Chief
Diversity Officers had a symbolic impact at the ground level for staff, faculty and students. The
following interview data from staff, students and the CDOs particularly revealed that the
symbolic nature of their work in diversity constituted how university stakeholders utilized them,
how the Chief Diversity Officers were perceived and how they understood their role to be.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

66
Southwest University. Sara, the Chief Diversity Officer’s symbolic diversity figurehead
role with faculty was primarily rooted in creating a culture that affirmed the value of diversity in
academia. The faculty went to her for resources and she was the diversity staff representative in
many of their academic committees. She discussed her role in being the diversity resource
person for faculty and being the representative diversity voice in academic diversity committees,
“I just try and be that person along their side (faculty), being there as a resource in terms of
curriculum issues and any other number of issues” and Sara added that aside from being the
diversity resource person, she also “sits on a lot of different faculty committees as well”
including being “a part of the advisory committees for Race and Ethnic Studies and Women
Gender and Sexuality Studies.”
The symbolic impact that Sara had with students was seen through the campus climate
she created for student activism and student empowerment around diversity issues. She shared
the following in her interview, “I felt my role for the students was to make them effective activist
and advocates.” Peter, the Associate Director for Diversity and Sara’s direct report gave an
example of how David, a student activist at Southwest University created a “Don’t Appropriate”
campaign when a cultural appropriation incident happened on campus from the Theatre
Department. According to Peter, Sara set a “climate or culture of speaking out” at Southwest
University which influenced David’s decision to create this campaign. Peter shared, that Sara
spear-headed many “cultural appropriation campaigns at Halloween,”, thus she “helped to set the
tone for student empowerment.” David echoed the climate that Sara created for student activism,
“she’s created an environment that really empowers us.”
In addition, insights provided by both Peter and Gil demonstrated the impact Sara had on
students in her role as the Chief Diversity Officer. Gil who had a collateral assignment with the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

67
Campus Diversity structure and reported directly to Sara said the following about her service to
students, she “always works on making students or students of color lives as easy as possible,
while they’re here and addressing every issue that comes to her office non-stop.” Peter praised
Sara with the following comparison, “she’s like the Margaret Thatcher character. She’s very
strong. They look to her as a leader, as a mentor and as a strong person who will fight for them.”
Sara’s actions on behalf of creating change for students of color symbolized the values that she
held and diversity culture she wanted to create.
Northwest University. The student leaders at Northwest University also saw Kelly as a
symbolic and empowering leader, both in how she supported them and also in her identity as a
woman of color at a high-level leadership position. Kate, a student leader in the Black Student
Union and the Diversity Office appreciated Kelly in the following ways:
She is an administrator that we can count on for support and presence in a lot of
things that we do here as students of color. It’s very empowering personally to see
a women of color in her position and not just in her position as a figurehead, but
in her position actually doing work with students of color here.

Lisa, a student leader also in the Cultural Centers and an active student in the Asian Pacific
Islander student community echoed similar sentiments about Kelly’s role, identity and position at
the university. Lisa shared how she met Kelly at a woman of color conference and regardless of
the power position Kelly held at Northwest University, she came to student events and “showed
that support and helped students realize that she is on our side and that she is not above us.” The
student leaders, Lisa and Kate appreciated Kelly removal of any hierarchy that existed and being
at the ground level with the students. Her interactions and presence with the student leaders were
valuable in affirming their lived experiences regarding issues of diversity.
Staff also acknowledged that Kelly’s presence and accessibility to students had symbolic
meaning for them. Dan, an Associate Vice Provost and a senior staff in student life reflected on
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

68
the importance of her presence at student events.
I think she does a good job of showing up at events and just being present when
students are in different spaces talking about their experiences. That’s important
to see a high level administrator in the room at a student-focused program or at
the BSU sit-in.

Christine from student conduct, whose office is connected to Kelly’s areas for complaints related

to racial bias related incidents, was critical of the Diversity Office for not doing enough to

address campus climate issues. However, she did recognized Kelly and her office for being

accessible to students. Christine said, “you can get a meeting, you can get a conversation, you

feel like you’re heard.”

As the Chief Diversity Officer at Northwest for five years, Kelly was well
aware of the complexity of being in a position that symbolized diversity efforts for the
university. She reflected with the following sentiments:
I’m keenly aware of the power that I have whether it’s real or perceived. Even if
it’s perceived, it becomes real to certain communities and I know that I have a
responsibility and duty to carry it. Even though I may believe that it’s all
symbolic and there are some days where I would be foolish to think institutions
with the history such as the one that I’m in is not co-opting me as an individual
for the purposes of symbolism, as it relates to we’re doing the right thing around
diversity, equity and inclusion.

Kelly felt the title of chief diversity officer may not be fitting because she

considered herself an “aspirational officer.” She brought to light the following when working
with deans and faculty at Northwest University:
I do get involved in really helping people clarify where they want to be in their
strategic diversity work. And so many times, people say, you know, I see the
literature and the actual role is Chief Diversity Officer, but the true actual role is
that I am an aspirational officer.

Therefore, she felt one of her roles at the university was to motivate and support units to reach
their diversity goals.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

69
Voice for Student Issues and Concerns
The findings from the interview data demonstrated the Chief Diversity Officers were a
voice for student issues and concerns at the university. The Chief Diversity Officers had access
to senior level administrators and faculty that other stakeholders such as students or staff did not
have access to and attended meetings that other students and staff were not part of. Their ground
level connection to students and staff enabled them understand campus climate issues and
concerns and allowed them to advocate for students of color accordingly.
Southwest University. Sara was the senior staff member who gave voice to student
diversity concerns to high-level administrators and the board of trustees. Sara said that she felt
this was a key part of her job. She was “the voice that’s out there constantly saying, you have to
think about this, you have to” as diversity related issues surfaced. A particular example she
shared was her revealing racial microaggressions issues to administration prior to the November
Race Forum on racial campus climate, which was hosted by the university. She said, “what our
students are complaining about are racial microaggression. I kept saying obviously this is an
issue to people (students).” Sara, similar to Kelly, was also the staff who was contacted about
bias related incidents and “depending on what the incident is, then I’m contacted and we work
out where we want to go with it and if it’s a student conduct issue, we’ll go through (the) student
conduct process.”
David, the student activist, was a frequent presence in the Diversity Office and was
familiar with the programs and staff. He entrusted Sara with being the voice for diversity. He
described the following meeting with the Board of Trustees in which he wanted Sara to be there
to share her history and knowledge on racial campus climate for students at Southwest
University after the occurrence of a racial incident on campus.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

70
It was the Board of Trustees…mostly White males, and it’s a panel of myself and
Jane and another student. Then Sara talked about what’s going on with race on
campus.

David also shared how Sara discussed how much has “actually improved” and “hasn’t improved
in the 15 years” around issues of diversity. He acknowledged multiple times during the
interview that Sara and the Diversity Office staff, “are administrative representative of students
of color voices.” He further elaborated that Sara and the staff “have the knowledge” because the
students talk to them about their concerns and issues. They were at the ground level with the
students and are “not removed” from students “like administrator(s are) removed” when
explaining high-level administration separation from students.
Peter who worked closely with Sara, voiced the following: I think she’s always
fighting in meetings for students of color to get whatever it may be, more
access…She meets with admissions and talks about access. She talks to student
life, “how do we retain more students of color on campus?”

It was evident from the interviews with David and Peter that Sara consistently served as the
voice for student issues and concerns.
Northwest University. Kelly, the Chief Diversity Officer, was cognizant of the role she
had in being a voice for students of color as the senior diversity staff at Northwest University.
Similar to Sara, she reflected on what she considered to be a key part in her position with the
following:
But the biggest thing is, I think is facilitating the transference or sharing of their
narratives, whatever that is. It could be the experience that they were having in
the dorms. But whatever it is, as it relates to Northwest University, other people
have got to know about it.

Kelly also recognized that her position at the university gave her access to senior administrators
and the space to voice student issues and concerns. The meetings in which she participated in
included Provost Council meetings, Diversity Council meetings, faculty meetings and meetings
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

71
with a cross-section of administrators. Her goal was to create change for students of color by
communicating, “the narratives, the experiences” to “individuals who essentially run the
institution that make all administrative decisions around budget, around resources, everything.”
Furthermore, Kelly understood how senior administrators were disconnected from students and
her role was to ensure that student voices are heard.
A chief information officer may not ever go and talk to any of these students. But
he’s gonna hear it from me. General Counsel may or may not ever talk to these
students but she’s gonna hear it from me.

John, co-director of the Cultural Centers, which was situated in the Student Life structure,
recalled students’ desire to create an online microaggression training for faculty and staff in
which Kelly served as a voice and advocate. According to John, “Kelly has been a big advocate
and has really talked to the President and the Provost to really fight on a systematic level.” In
addition, John shared how Kelly also pushed for diverse hiring practices to be reflective of the
student population. John shared the following, “she’s beginning to use her voice and her position
in a more overt way” and asking higher administrators if they are “looking for faculty and staff
who reflect our students because it doesn’t seem that way.” Dan, who is in a more senior level
position than John, recounted how when Black students came forward with specific request, she
was “definitely the voice for that at the table, and I know she continues to advocate in that way”
in reference to voicing student concerns to senior level administrators.
The Go-To-Expert
This role of the go-to-expert defined the Chief Diversity Officer as possessing the highest
level of competency and knowledge on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion at the university.
The theme of the Chief Diversity Officer serving as the go-to-expert was evident in the
university documents and in the interview data with staff, students and the CDOs. The Chief
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

72
Diversity Officers discussed ways that students, staff and faculty would turn to them for expert
diversity advice, particularly in times of critical issues that arose. In addition, the university
documents also reaffirmed their role as being the university diversity experts.
Southwest University. The organizational chart revealed that Sara was the most senior
staff for diversity and reported directly to the Vice President and Dean of Student Life in her role
as Associate Dean for Diversity and served as the Special Advisor to the President
(Organizational Chart, 2016).
Early on in the interview, Sara’s was very vocal about her thoughts and feelings
regarding her official title at the university. Sara expressed “the title (Special Advisor) doesn’t
make sense in terms of hierarchy” she would have preferred to be called the “Chief Diversity
Officer” or “Assistant Provost.” However, she discussed the following as a benefit for being the
Special Advisor:
It is handy sometimes to be able to call up the president and say, “As your
advisor, I think you should consider this,” which I don’t now if that would be the
same thing if I was a chief diversity officer reporting to the provost for example.

The particular campus climate issue in which she provided her expertise to both student leaders
and administrators was in the fall semester when racial issues surfaced at many college and
universities across the nation. David recalled when the cultural appropriation racial incident from
the Theatre department occurred, Sara “was one of the first persons he talked to” and guided him
on how to be strategic but also providing “support emotionally.”
According to Sara, students were “making demands of the university and a lot of
meetings took place in our spaces. She spent “a lot of time going around and talking to others in
the university” about campus climate. Peter, who worked closely with her in Campus Diversity,
acknowledged her level of expertise and skills with the following: “Everyone already knows that
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

73
she gets it done in race, class, gender, you name it. She’s the person to go to. Her reputation
precedes her.”
Sara also discussed her relationship with faculty and how they came to her for advice on
a range of “diversity issues” and “they’d call about race and things that happen in the classroom”
asking “what do they do?” She further shared that her connection to some faculty who she also
considered her “friends” created a comfort zone for faculty to go to her where “faculty know
there’s someone who they can ask questions to and not be judged.”
Northwest University. The Diversity Council was visibility marketed on the Northwest
University website and showed Kelly’s CDO role as being the expert on diversity. The charge of
the Diversity Council “brings together representatives from faculty, staff, students, and alumni
across campus departments, schools and colleges. By having all these areas of campus working
together we strive to create an inclusive campus community and culture.” Although Kelly does
not chair the Diversity Council, she is noted as the staff person to whom the co-chairs work with
to “provide advice, support, input, and recommendations on all aspects of diversity
implementation at Northwest University” (Diversity website, 2016). In her interview, Kelly also
described her role working with Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts and Deans as an “internal
consultant at the highest level to leaders.”
In addition, similar to Southwest University, Kelly also served as the individual for
students and administrators at Northwest University when racial campus climate issues gained
visibility nationally and at the university. According to Dan, Kelly gave advice to the President
and shared campus climate concerns with him.
I know she’s given a lot of counsel to our President, who is relatively new in his
tenure. Working with him on the response from the President’s Office…The
BSU demands were very formalized and well thought out, well constructed.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

74
Kate, the student activist who was involved with formulating the list of demands, revealed how
Kelly was “very pivotal in helping” to “phrase the demands and write the demands” that were
eventually presented to the President. The students went to Kelly when they needed guidance on
how to verbalize their campus climate concerns on the list. She provided the expertise in her role
and during her tenure as Chief Diversity Officer, she felt like she’s spent the five years
“elevating the consciousness to large groups of primarily White identified administrators.”
Facilitating Communities to Serve Diversity
A constant topic that arose was the Chief Diversity Officers’ task in bringing
communities together on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. Hence the theme of facilitating
communities to serve diversity emerged from this topic. Sara and Kelly facilitated these
communities to serve diversity by giving visibility to a particular community, bringing
stakeholders together to engage in dialogue and discussion and coordinating diversity
committees.
Southwest University. In the Campus Diversity Department 2015-2016 annual report
produced by Sara, the mission of the Campus Diversity Department “is to collaborate with units
across campus to intentionally design a comprehensive, university-wide approach to diversity,
facilitate equity, access, and inclusion and empower students, faculty, and staff to build a diverse
and inclusive campus community” (CD Annual Report, 2015). Her role in facilitating
communities to serve diversity was formalized in the report. Peter, who supervised the Cultural
Center in the Campus Diversity structure, reflected how Sara worked across student life areas
and with faculty to foster a community of diversity allies:
Sara has her domain here. She works with Residential Life. She works with
Student Life and Admissions as well. She does everything on campus with
different allies on campus, even stuff with faculty.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

75
Gil served in a collateral position in Campus Diversity and Residence Life, and said that Sara
was “always in meetings for us (Campus Diversity). She is always finding ways of how we can
partner with others.”
Sara also facilitated communities to serve diversity for students. David, the active
student leader, shared the following regarding the Diwali Dinner for Indian students that took
place during Thanksgiving in which the program created community for Indian students.
Furthermore, the social justice residence hall that Sara created was brought up on numerous
occasions from the staff interviews. Although the social justice residence hall was part of
Residence Life, Peter felt that “Sara basically owns the social justice dorm” and the social justice
dorm “carved out spaces for diversity to happen.” Gil shared a particular example from the
diversity retreat geared for residents of social justice residence hall:
We both met several times in order to do the curriculum for it. And the goal of it
all was to start discussions and start conversations around a lot of issues that have
been going on within the university, which were microaggressions within the
classrooms and students neglecting that there is institutionalized racism within
some areas around campus.

Gil also shared that Sara was involved in actively presenting and conducting the workshops for
students at the retreat.
Sara also facilitated educational spaces for training and dialogue for faculty. The
program that was brought up in both the 2015-2016 annual report and in interviews with the
CDO and staff was the faculty and staff diversity training program. The training certificate
program had six identity modules and one of the modules included race. Gil who was familiar
with the training gave the specifics on the program.
There’s like ten different topics that she has individual workshops for and she has
three different courses… the sessions run for about forty five minutes.

Sara said that she had “50 people in this 13 hour diversity series” upon the completion of the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

76
training and they can be allies and advocates. Sara also mentioned “teaching lunches” that she
was involved in that engaged faculty on how to create an “inclusive classroom.”
Northwest University. Kelly, the Chief Diversity Officer, created formal spaces for
faculty to engage in diversity dialogue. She understood one of her roles was to build community
of allies through programs. Kelly said, “I would create programs in ways that I thought would
help bring in allies to the conversation.” Her plan in the fall was to do a program on Whiteness
and was “targeting faculty and staff and administration” for this program.
John, Director of the Diversity Office confirmed that she coordinated spaces for “faculty
to come together and talk about their experiences across race” and she “created a dialogue series
around Whiteness” and how it was “impacting our institution.” Although most of her programs
were focused on faculty she hoped the learning will trickle down to students where they will felt
the effect from faculty they engaged with. John also shared the value of having Kelly as the
senior level diversity staff at Northwest University and in particular her ability to bring the right
people to the table. One particular event on police brutality led him to reflect on her contribution
in facilitating communities around diversity.
It was her ability to bring folks together and find the right faculty, the right
speakers and get the President in the room and to do that really created and
shifted the discourse from like a talk about racial others, outside of
Northwest University to let’s talk about race on campus.

Dan from Student Life discussed a task force in which Kelly helped created to support
the undocumented student population at Northwest University. He noted that Kelly “was
instrumental in appointing the undocumented student task force here and finding faculty who
would be willing to support that effort.” Dan felt the undocumented student task force was the
“impetus” for undocumented students to share their issues and concerns.
In addition, Kelly also brought communities of staff and faculty together around policy
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

77
because her office initiatives many policies due to work that the Diversity Office has engaged in.
The Campus Diversity staff “pay attention to what the issues are” and “bring the right people”
together to have the university look at a particular diversity issue.
Fostering Informal Accountability
The theme of fostering informal accountability on diversity, equity and inclusion surfaced
from the interview data. The Chief Diversity Officer fostered a culture of accountability
informally in hopes that change will be institutionalized since there were no institutionalized
university-wide systems of accountability in place. The Chief Diversity Officers fostered
informal accountability through pushing for diverse hiring practices, moving the campus climate
survey procedure along and collecting data.
Southwest University. Three out of the five participants interviewed discussed the issue
of accountability at the university. The participants who discussed issues of accountability
included the Chief Diversity Officer, staff from Campus Diversity and the student activist.
Peter, the Associate Director expressed his frustration with the limited authority that Sara
had in holding units across the university accountable since her position is primarily situated in
Student Life and reported to the Vice Provost in Student Life. He further explained the need for
her to have more authority:
The President’s Council says that every department should do its own diversity
stuff. It’s everyone’s job to do diversity stuff not just CDD (Campus Diversity
Department). As you know, I’m sure you’ve worked in student affairs stuff or
know about it, everyone is super busy and they don’t have time to make diversity
their priority.

David, the student activist also recognized the issue with accountability on campus
climate. The racial incident that led to the race forum in November was instrumental in letting
him see how “there’s a lack of accountability” and “things happen here and they (administration)
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

78
are like, ‘well I didn’t know’.”
In her limited power as the most senior diversity staff member, Sara tried to foster
accountability through data collecting, developing programs, sharing narratives and having
conversations with staff and administration when issues arose. Sara understood the importance
of collecting data for institutional change and accountability. She recognized her role was not
directed related to policy but in her position she ensured that the counter-narratives were shared
and programs are created which can have an indirect effect on policy. Sara acknowledged “the
need for a proper climate survey and be able to then use that as baseline data” for what needs to
be done in terms of diversity. In addition, the first generation college student program, which
was largely comprised of low-income students of color was the one initiative that collected data,
reporting and involving conversations with faculty and staff to ensure the success of the
program. Sara gave an example connected to first generation college students and the student life
area. She questioned why students of color and first generation college students were
not using outdoor programs at Southwest University.
There’s a whole lot of literature around why do people of color not do outdoor
stuff like use national parks and the like. We started conversations about that we
started setting up some very deliberate programming…

Sara explained at times holding Student Life accountable for diversity, equity and inclusion can
be difficult. She voiced the following:
Then there’s some other people in student life who’ve been here a really long time
and they’re very uncomfortable with issues around race, mostly around race…It’s
actually made it a real issue for us as to how we can hold people accountable.

She described an incident in which there were many barriers to get a multicultural sorority off
the ground in which she said it can only be “ascribed to race.”
Northwest University. Similar to Southwest University, the interview data
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

79
demonstrated that at Northwest University there was no system-wide accountability on diversity,
equity and inclusion from the university. Therefore, accountability was approached informally
from Kelly through discussions with staff and administration, sharing of data and coordinating
processes to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Kelly acknowledged that she was
“not a compliance officer and I’m not working toward any type of mandated engagement of
diversity, equity and inclusion.” However, Kelly did assist departments with addressing issues of
diversity, equity and inclusion by putting in place and pushing for diversity processes.
Dan recalled that a few years ago she “started working with HR to talk about how do we
reflect cultural competency” in the appraisal process for tenured faculty but he was not sure how
far along she was able to push that along. Both John and Dan discussed the microaggression
training for faculty and staff that Kelly was involved in. According to John, “Kelly is a big
advocate and has really talked to the President and the Provost to really fight for that
(microaggression policy).” Dan said it would be “an online tool that faculty and staff would
participate in.”
Although accountability and diverse hiring of faculty had not been institutionalized at the
university, John shared that Kelly was pushing the university to look at hiring faculty that was
more reflective of the student population. According to Kelly, in Board of Trustee meetings, she
would share information on retention and recruitment of faculty, staff and students and campus
climate information. Kelly said that “I’m raising visibility,” and bringing “some analysis of what
I think is going on.” In addition, Kelly used data to understand “representational opportunities
and challenges on the campus community.” She recognized the importance of getting the
campus climate survey off the ground because the data can be used for “improving campus
climate and culture, programs, initiatives, or whatever else we end up doing.”
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

80
Christine, the student conduct officer, was the most vocal in expressing her frustration
with accountability and lack of movement from both the university and Kelly’s area. In
particular, she lamented the lack of action from senior administration when a list of demands was
produced by Black students in regards campus climate issues. She expressed that the demands
were “put in place December, November” and still no response. The President and Kelly’s area
should “respond quickly” because according to Christine, “I look at other universities and they
have responded. I look at our students and they say, like you (senior administration) could do
more, you (senior administration) could advocate more.” Christine also added that, campus
climate and microaggression issues were not being addressed at the university, although she
thought there were efforts being made. Kate, a student activist who had high regards for Kelly
addressed her frustration with response to critical incident noting that, “I think it’s very covered
up. It’s not transparent. There’s definitely not a lot of transparency within those issues.”
Diversity Organizational Challenges
Diversity organizational challenges was a theme that emerged in the interviews with the
Chief Diversity Officers, the staff and the students. The diversity organizational structure at
Southwest University and Northwest University had two different diversity organizational
structures, which brought unique diversity challenges.
Southwest University. At Southwest University, the Chief Diversity Officer reported
directly to the Vice President and Dean of Student Life and was a Special Assistant to the
President. Campus Diversity was situated in the Division of Student Life and the CDO had direct
supervision of the Diversity Office. Sara cannot hold units across the university accountable as it
related to diversity because her position and work were primarily situated in Student Life.
Although Sara was the most senior staff person in diversity, Peter, Associate Director of Campus
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

81
Diversity confirmed Sara’s desire to be “elevated to a Vice Provost of Diversity” and recognized
the potential reach and authority that Sara would have if that were the case. She could create a
scorecard for the university and “hold people accountable for hiring practices” and coordination
of workshops about diversity. According to Peter, diversity efforts only came from Campus
Diversity under Sara’s supervision in the existing diversity organizational structure at Southwest
University. He suggested that diversity appointments should be situated in each department and
that “it’s everybody’s problem.” He further elaborated that:
“It’s not just Sara’s problem to deal with diversity and inclusion issues,
which is often discrimination issues, microaggression issues,
misunderstandings, ignorance.

David, the student activist, reaffirmed Peter’s frustration and said, “I honestly think it’s not about
Sara doing more or Campus Diversity doing more” but rather from higher level administration.
Peter and David’s insights demonstrated the complexity related to accountability and diversity
organizational structure.
Although Sara’s diversity portfolio included the Diversity Office, Native American
programs, Women’s Center, LGBT Center, First Generation College Student Programs and the
social justice residence hall in Residence Life, it did not include the academic side of the
university. She expressed that having good connection with faculty helped move diversity
efforts to the academic side. She found faculty to be some of her biggest allies however, through
her relationship building efforts and not structurally. However, organizational challenges as it
related to the work with Campus Diversity seemed to be from Student Life. Peter mentioned
units in Student Life were more protective of their “fiefdoms, their little kingdoms” and
prevented diversity progress to take place.
Northwest University. At Northwest University, the Chief Diversity Office reported to
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

82
the Provost and had no direct supervision of the Cultural Centers. Diversity Deans at the Deans
or Associate Dean level also had a role in implementing diversity in their respective areas.
Diversity program efforts were decentralized. The diversity reporting structure also played a role
in accountability challenges. Kelly, Chief Diversity Officer, described the challenges in a
decentralized diversity organizational structure that lacked accountability with the following
reflection:
The problematic piece here is that there’s little accountability in the situation
around what then are the agreed upon diversity goals. What is the agreed upon
institutional strategic plan? And what then, if you don’t agree upon a set of goals
broadly, then each manager or each executive is then not held responsible for any
equity and inclusion goals…It’s very complicated.

Kelly also acknowledged in this type of diversity structure she worked across units to “build
capacity” for diversity.
Northwest University’s Provost model structure had both the Diversity Office and
Cultural Centers coordinating diversity efforts for the university. The diversity student
development and programs were coordinated by the Cultural Center and supervised by John. He
explained that “Kelly takes care of staff and faculty and that community engagement outside
stuff, and the Cultural Centers took care of student stuff, so we’re like student focus” and any
“institutional level like change that students are bringing up”, the Cultural Centers would connect
to Kelly’s area. Kelly acknowledged that many of her programs were for faculty and staff and
the programs that were coordinated aligned with student life. She discussed an intersectionality
program on “race, gender, sexuality, for students” from Cultural Centers in which the Diversity
Office will be coordinating that same type of education program for women of color faculty.
In this diversity structure, the student reach was more limited and narrow. Christine, the
student conduct officer was vocal about the lack of direct support for students of color from the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

83
Diversity Office and stated that “I honestly don’t know if students know about the Diversity
Office.” Although, Lisa the student leader recognized Kelly’s leadership around diversity, she
wished more students knew her. According to Lisa, it’s important for students of color to “who
they can reach out to.”
John, co-director of the Cultural Centers who met with Kelly a few times a month
expressed that the Diversity Office “can be disconnected from students in lots of ways”. The
Diversity Office “do a lot of high level work” but “there’s a disconnect between what students
are experiencing” because they rely on the Cultural Centers and other staff to share information
regarding student issues and concerns. However, he acknowledged that it may be due to “lack of
staffing” in her area to coordinate diversity work across the university.
Summary
The six themes in this chapter included symbolic diversity figurehead, voice for student
issues and concerns, go-to-expert, facilitating communities to serve diversity, fostering informal
accountability and diversity organizational challenges. The Chief Diversity Officers served as the
symbolic diversity figurehead through inspiring, bringing meaning and creating a culture for
diversity. Their role as being the voice for student issues and concerns was prominent in their
day-to-day work on issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. The theme of the Chief Diversity
Officers as the go-to-expert recognized them as the most senior diversity staff at the university
and gave them credibility in their role. Facilitate communities to serve diversity encompassed
multiple layers in their work as the Chief Diversity Officer. They created communities to serve
diversity through multiple outlets with a range of stakeholders. The CDOs also moved diversity,
equity and inclusion by fostering informal accountability through data, processes and programs
since both university lacked university-wide accountability systems. Finally, diversity
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

84
organizational challenges emerged as a theme to help further understand the complexity the
Chief Diversity Officers had in navigating their roles as it related to reporting structure and direct
oversight of diversity initiatives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the 11 participant interviews and documents from the diversity website
and annual reports provided insight, experiences, information and examples that identified six
themes. In chapter 5, the themes and findings were analyzed and discussed; the Critical Race
Theory was discussed in relations to the themes and findings; implication for practice and
recommendations were made.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

85
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
Many students of color are facing microaggressions, racism and discrimination on their
campuses, which affect campus climate. These factors are barriers for academic success and
college attainment (Hurtado et al., 1998; Poon, 2011; Solorzano et al., 2007). Research on Chief
Diversity Officers and their impact on campus climate is important to unearth in order to
improve the experiences for students of color in higher education. The purpose of this chapter is
to provide a critical analysis of how the Chief Diversity impacts campus climate for students of
color through findings from the diversity documents, websites, and interviews from participants
at Southwest University and Northwest University.
Four research questions were used to understand how the CDO impacts campus climate
and intergroup relations for students of color. The main research question is: How do Chief
Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for students of color?
The three emerging research questions are: How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of
Student Affairs? How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students? How does the
type of diversity organizational structure affect how campus climate issues and intergroup
relations are addressed? Finally, Critical Race Theory (CRT), implication for practice,
limitations, recommendations for practice and future research will be discussed.
Analysis of Findings
How do Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for
students of color?
The interview data from both Southwest University and Northwest University
demonstrated that the Chief Diversity Officers was the voice of diversity in order to help shape
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

86
campus climate for students of color and intergroup relations. The specific impact on campus
climate for students of color was dependent how they used their diversity voice, in which
university space they used their diversity voice, and with which stakeholders.
The CDOs’ engagement with faculty and staff included educating them on how to be
better allies and advocates for students of color through providing diversity education and
training programs. In addition, the Chief Diversity Officer also educated faculty on racial
microaggressions and creating opportunities to dialogue about diversity curriculum. Research
showed that racial microaggressions from the faculty caused a harmful space for learning to take
place in the classroom; therefore, these trainings assisted in creating a more inclusive campus
climate (Solorzano et al., 2000; Yosso et al., 2009; Wu, 2004). In addition, the research also
indicted that having culturally competent staff who were charged with developing educational
programs for students was also vital in creating spaces of inclusion (Hurtado et al., 1999; Milem,
et al., 2004). The research acknowledged that both the academic and social systems contributed
a student’s integration at the university (Tinto, 1993).
The Chief Diversity Officers’ use of voice on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion
with senior administration provided visibility to student needs and concerns. The needs and
concerns expressed by the CDOs included climate issues, student programmatic support and
retention and recruitment of diverse populations. The Chief Diversity Officers were aware of
their positionality and leveraged opportunities to voice student concerns when they were in
meetings with senior level decision makers. The CDOs also connected with students, staff and
faculty to keep them abreast of student diversity issues and concerns in order to be the resource,
educator, advisor and advocate for diversity.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

87
The Chief Diversity Officer’s diversity voice was both symbolic and real for students.
There was symbolism in having the CDO be the voice for diversity but the diversity voice also
brought real change and impacted campus climate for students of color. The connection of the
diversity voice as symbolic was evident in the student leaders acknowledging and appreciating
that a staff was in place doing the diversity work at the university even if many diversity issues
remained unchanged at the university. In addition, the Chief Diversity Officers’ voice also
resulted in real change through their meetings with the students, supporting them and creating
forums and educational opportunities for the university.
The Chief Diversity Officers in their diversity efforts added to the structural,
physiological and the behavioral dimensions of campus climate by using voice to bring about
change programmatically, with individuals and symbolically for the university (Hurtado et al.,
2008). However, the Chief Diversity Officers diversity voice was limited in scope and power.
The Chief Diversity Officers had a desire to infuse a university-wide culture of diversity, equity
and inclusion throughout the university but confronted difficulties. The challenge the Chief
Diversity Officers had in shaping campus climate for students of color was primarily due to the
lack of being able to hold units accountable.
How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Life?
Integration can best describe the Chief Diversity Officers’ engagement with the Division
of Student Life. The CDO’s level of collaboration and type of work with Student Life was based
on how well integrated they were with the staff in the division. In addition, how the Chief
Diversity Officers were integrated with Student Life was based on the diversity organizational
structure and/or the relationships they had with the staff in the division. The more oversight or
span of control the CDO had over diversity initiatives, the less collaboration was required;
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

88
however, relationship building continued to be vital in order to achieve diversity goals. In this
study, the CDO at Southwest University had more direct supervision over diversity programs and
also supervised the social justice residence hall, but had to also build relationships with
department heads in Student Life. The diversity structure at Southwest University based on
research on Chief Diversity Officers was more in line with the Unit-Based model (Leon, 2014;
Stanley, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). At Northwest University, the CDO relied more
on collaboration, which would be considered a Collaborative Officer model (Leon, 2014;
Stanley, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). The Chief Diversity Officer at Northwest
University co-sponsored programs in Student Life and also created programs to compliment
programs from the Cultural Centers.
Interview data showed that addressing campus racial bias and microaggression reporting
were both natural and strategic components in the role of the Chief Diversity Officer in their
work with Student Life. The Chief Diversity Officers work on campus racial bias and
microaggression reporting gave them a pulse and provided real data on campus climate issues
that existed at the university. The CDO involvements in bias reporting were important in
shaping campus climate because they can be better informed on the barriers that hindered
academic progression and success (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, 2005). Thus, they used this
information to serve as the voice for students of color who experienced racial microaggresssions
and was also a support system for the students.
However, the complexity with the involvement the CDO had on racial microaggressions
and bias reporting was that there were no clearly defined approaches. The steps with how they
worked with Student Life and the larger university community to address these issues that
surfaced were vague and undefined. The vagueness of addressing racial and bias reporting
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

89
systematically and institutionally served as a challenge to ensure a more inclusive campus.
Therefore, most of CDO’s impact was felt at the ground level through listening to student
experiences and educating the university community.
How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
Chief Diversity Officers’ interactions with policy was limited, and to some degree this
was related to the diversity structure of the university. The Chief Diversity Officers did not
make direct policy decisions; however, they helped drive and influence policy decisions by
advocating for students, presenting student narratives to senior administration, coordinating
programs and sharing and pushing for more data in order to have more accountable actions on
issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. Therefore, much of the policy changes from the
university were rooted in the CDOs’ work in understanding campus climate issues at the ground
level and pushing for change. Their work to influence policy change and new policy was
grassroots in approach, therefore any change or new diversity policy was not necessarily directly
linked back to Chief Diversity Officer as being the person who led that policy decision. This
grassroots approach from the CDO in influencing policy was aligned with the research.
Diversity policies for students of color often surfaced from the bottom up and generally came
from grassroots action from staff and faculty (Rankin & Reason, 2005).
How does the type of diversity organizational structure affect how campus climate issues
and intergroup relations are addressed?
The Chief Diversity Officers were limited in on how they conducted their work due to the
diversity organizational structures in which they were situated. Relationship building was critical
in their efforts to move diversity, equity and inclusion and was used strategically from both
CDOs.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

90
The CDO at Southwest University diversity structure was aligned with the Unit-based
model and had oversight of diversity programs and initiatives in her department. The Southwest
University was reflective of a Unit-based model because the CDO’s has oversight of the
institutional diversity structure which included the Diversity Office, the Women’s Center,
International Center, Pride Center, First Generation College Student Initiatives and the Social
Justice Residence Hall but the CDO had not other areas of oversight at the university to meet
diversity goals and mission. However she built strategic partnerships as a means of shaping
campus climate in units that she did not oversight over (Stanley, 2014; Leon, 2014; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013). She met with faculty, administrators and the larger Student Life Division
to educate and advise on diversity matters so they can be more competent in supporting and
developing students of color and to foster diversity allies (Pope et al, 2009). Northwest
University’s diversity structure was more in line with Collaborative Officer model because the
CDO diversity oversight did not cross multiple departments. The CDO relied on building critical
relationships to assist units and departments in how to achieve their diversity mission, goals and
assisted with capacity building (Stanley, 2014; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
In addition, the diversity organizational structures impacted how staff in Student Life
understood how issues of diversity, equity and inclusion were being addressed from the Chief
Diversity Officers. At both universities, the interview participants largely blamed the lack of
diversity progress on senior administration. However, at Northwest University the Student Life
staff was more critical of the Chief Diversity Officer for not doing enough for diversity and
being disconnected from students. At Southwest University, the Student Life staff and students
placed much of the blame on senior administration for not being supportive enough of diversity
efforts and instead acknowledged that the CDO was not given much authority across the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

91
university. Nonetheless, regardless of the diversity organizational structures, all participants
found some value in having a Chief Diversity Officer position at the university. In addition, two
factors emerged from the data and observations, which were connectedness and position. The
interview data showed the more organizationally connected the participants were to the CDO, the
more they appreciated and supported the CDOs’ diversity efforts. In addition, position played a
role in how the participants responded to the questions. The data demonstrated the higher the
level of position the participants held at the university, the more careful and strategic the
participants were with their interview responses.
Summary
In summary, analyzing the findings through the lens of the main research question and
the three emerging research questions demonstrated the complicated nature of the responsibilities
of being the Chief Diversity Officer. In the analysis, CDO succeeded at the ground level through
grassroots efforts and relationship building in order to make diversity progress. However, the
ground level work from the CDO was not necessarily reflected in university-wide transformative
changes in equity, diversity and inclusion. Diversity organizational structures and lack of
authoritative power served as two of the common barriers for transformative change to take
place.
Chief Diversity Officers and Critical Race Theory
The Critical Race Theory (CRT) was a fitting theoretical framework for this study
because the role of the Chief Diversity Officer was to address issues of equity, diversity and
inclusion at the university. Critical Race Theory analyzed racial injustice, racism, bias and
discrimination through a systemic lens using five tenets (Delgado & Stefanic, 2012; Solorzano;
1997). The five tenets are (1) centrality of race & racism; (2) challenge the dominant ideology;
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

92
(3) commitment to social justice; (4) centrality of experiential knowledge and (5)
interdisciplinary perspectives (Solorzano, 1997; Solorzano & Yasso, 2001).
The Chief Diversity Officers touched on all five tenets in their roles; however, the
centrality of race and racism, challenging of the dominant ideology, commitment to social justice
and centrality of experiential knowledge were the four tenets that were mostly commonly
demonstrated in their work. The tenet on interdisciplinary perspectives of dismantling the White
power construct in the curriculum and academia served to be a challenge largely due to the CDO
not having oversight in academic affairs.
Centrality of Race and Racism
Both Chief Diversity Officers made race and racism central to their role at the university.
Race was the most salient identity in their pursuit of diversity, equity and inclusion for the
university. The idea of putting race at the core of their work was reflected in their push to
diversify the campus population at the student, staff and faculty level and in the programs they
coordinated and supported. Furthermore, issues of race relations and racism were commonly
present in their conversations with various stakeholders across the university. Although race was
central in their work supporting students, the CDOs acknowledged and demonstrated the
importance of understanding and educating the university on race through an intersectionality
lens. In order to be relevant to students, their work on equity, diversity and inclusion needed to
recognize how all their identities merged to shape their university experience (Delgado &
Stefanic, 2001).
Commitment to Social Justice
The social justice framework that existed in the Critical Race Theory calls for a “robust”
and rigorous movement and approach (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Given the political nature of
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

93
the position, Chief Diversity Officers demonstrated approach in addressing injustice was
strategic and more measured. However, the CDOs would empower and inspire student leaders to
take on the more activist approach in the social justice movement. Their route in supporting
social justice was naturally built in the mission of the universities they worked in. Southwest
University and Northwest University were rooted in liberal education and centered on
developing students to care about the world and society in which they live in. Northwest
University’s mission was centered on social justice and Southwest University had a social justice
resident hall in which the CDO supervised one staff member on social justice programs.
Challenge the Dominant Ideology
Challenging the dominant ideology was about dismantling stereotypes about people of
color that created barriers for learning and success (Bensimon, 2004; Solorzano, 1997). Most of
the work that came from the CDOs in challenging the dominant ideology took place with the
faculty who had power to set up a learning culture in the classroom. The CDOs met with faculty
to educate them about microaggressions and to hold individuals accountable for creating an
unsafe environment for student learning. The diversity programs from the CDOs also created
educational spaces to challenge the White power construct that existed at the universities.
Centrality of Experiential Knowledge
Bringing counter narratives to the forefront was critical in helping to break down
stereotypes of people of color and in helping to dismantle racial injustice at the university
(Iverson, 2007; Solorzano, 1997). The Chief Diversity Officers served as the students of color’s
eyes, ears and voices by listening, affirming their experiences and providing and sharing their
counter narratives with senior administration. The CDOs were constant advocates for students of
color and ensured the visibility of their counter narratives.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

94
Interdisciplinary Perspectives
“Situating the research and education of race and racism” in different disciplines was
another avenue to dismantle White power construct at the university (Solorzano & Yasso, p. 3,
2001). However, integrating the education of race and racism in various disciplines was complex
for both Chief Diversity Officers. Although the Chief Diversity Officers were involved in
conversations with faculty to diversify the curriculum, the CDOs did not have the authority to
hold academic units accountable. The most common approach from both Chief Diversity
Officers was maintaining and keeping the conversation around diversity present in the
curriculum at their respective universities.
Implications for Practice
Chief Diversity Officer positions were created to coordinate diversity initiatives, engage
the internal and external community and to nurture partnerships across the campus to achieve
diversity goals (Barcelo, 2007; Nixon, 2015). The first implication for practice was that
grassroots efforts were valuable in bringing issues to the forefront and holding the university
accountable. There were pockets of allies and students who were committed to diversity and
social justice, therefore diversity issues became visible because they were at the ground level
pushing for change to occur. However, since most of the work was grassroots, diversity, equity
and inclusion progress tended to happen in isolation and in silos. The second implication for
practice is ensuring the Chief Diversity Officer has access to data in order to better understand
how to move diversity efforts forward for that particular university. A university-wide cultural
shift on campus climate must include university-wide accountability and assessment on issues of
diversity, equity and inclusion which requires access to data (Bensimon, 2004; Bensimon, 2005;
Firestone, 2006).
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

95
The third implication was the complexity of the role of a Chief Diversity Officer in
bringing equity, diversity and inclusion at the university. Should a university consider hiring a
Chief Diversity Officer, the CDO should have real authority over issues of diversity, equity and
inclusion that may transcend departments or programs. There was an inherent contradiction to
having a senior diversity staff tasked on moving the university forward on issues of diversity
when existing structures at the university made it difficult for diversity progress to take place. By
the nature of their position, they were tasked to work on issues of diversity however, they have
limited authoritative power to create transformative university-wide change. Hence, the Chief
Diversity Officer had more symbolic value for a university than real transformative value,
therefore they were essentially part of the rhetoric of the university.
Recommendations for Practice
The interviews from participants shed light on the complexity and challenges of the role
of the Chief Diversity Officer and how they shape campus climate for students of color. Their
degree of campus climate impact was influenced by their engagement and relationships with
stakeholders, organizational diversity structures and level of authority. The following
recommendations for practice were primarily focused on accountability, policy and a new
diversity organizational framework in order to be more effective in impacting and shaping
campus climate.
1. Power to Transform through Accountability and Policy
The CDOs need to be given the power to make university-wide transformative
change. The foundation for transformative change is through accountability. The Chief
Diversity Officers need to be able to hold units accountable for diversity goals beyond just
serving as diversity experts for units. Studies indicated accountability was a critical component
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

96
for creating institutional change on equity, diversity and inclusion and also removed the burden
away from the students and placed the responsibility on the university (Bensimon, 2004;
Bensimon, 2005; Firestone, 2006).
Although research identified the Chief Diversity Officer as the highest ranking diversity
staff at the university, in this particular research, the CDOs were not given enough authority to
make impactful changes for diversity, equity and inclusion (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013;
Wilson, 2013). A new approach to accountability may be incentivizing diversity achievements.
As demonstrated in this research, lack of accountability on addressing diversity creates barriers
for university-wide diversity efforts to take shape. The CDO should have the authority to fund
units and departments based on achievement of their diversity goals. Therefore, a new funding
framework on diversity should be considered. However, the reality is there are limitations to
funding and limitations in advancing diversity if the sole responsibility is on the CDO.
Therefore, in order to advance diversity, equity and inclusion at a university, senior
administration must also bring race and racism to the center of their daily work in order to
dismantle the White dominant structure and dominant ideology that exist. In addition, senior
administration must also acknowledge and integrate racial counter-narratives in their daily work
to impact campus climate in the classrooms, curriculum and student life.
Furthermore, researched showed that policy was important in how diversity, equity and
inclusion were reinforced at the university and delivered a message that the university supported
a campus of inclusion. (Rankin & Reason, 2005; Kezar, 2012). Hence, the Chief Diversity
Officers need to be institutionally involved in creating diversity policies. They need to be given
the authority to be leaders in diversity policies beyond just driving policy discussions. The
CDO’s fostering informal accountability through on-going data collection and pushing the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

97
university to collect campus climate data demonstrated their on-going commitment for social
justice. Access to data will equip the CDO with information to dismantle White dominant
structures that exist at the university through developing and shaping policies. Hence, the CDO’s
accessibility to data should be institutionalized as they lead diversity policies. CDO also should
be more integrated with shaping policy for campus bias and microaggression incidents and
system needs to be put in place to better address such incidents. Campus bias and
microaggression incidents
2. New Diversity Organizational Framework
A new diversity organizational framework also needs to be considered since most of the
data showed that diversity organization structures do matter. Diversity organizational
challenges made it difficult for the Chief Diversity Officers to advance diversity at the
university. A new organizational diversity framework would equip the CDO with authoritative
power to bring race and racism to the center of the educational discourse, systems and structure
to dismantle White dominant structures in both academic life and student life. In this new
diversity organizational framework, diversity, equity and inclusion will be infused throughout
the fabric of the university while holding senior level administration accountable on meeting
diversity goals. All senior level positions will have a dotted reporting line to the Chief Diversity
Officer as it relates to diversity initiatives. This includes the senior leadership in academic
affairs, senior leadership in student life and senior leadership in equity and diversity in human
resources. The senior leadership dotted line reporting will be transformative by giving the CDO
more power of authority at the highest level of university administration hence more
effectiveness in integrating diversity efforts university-wide. Therefore, diversity efforts will no
longer be situated in only pockets of the university from staff who would naturally would be
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

98
doing diversity work. The Chief Diversity Officer should also report directly to the President.
This level of reporting is critical in displaying the university’s commitment to diversity. As the
symbolic diversity figure head and go-to-expert, the Chief Diversity Officer brought visibility on
issues of race and racism to the educational discourse and structures by empowering students and
building staff and faculty allies at the ground level. The CDO will continue to have a ground
level connection with stakeholders. In particular, the CDO will have institutional partnership
and collaboration with the diversity centers. As the voice for student issues and concerns and
facilitating communities for diversity, the CDO will bring counter-narratives centrally to the
university through active participation and leadership in high-level council and committees. In
addition, the CDO will be well-resourced both in personnel support and in funding. This new
proposed diversity organizational framework takes into consideration the power of authority,
accountability and resources which is also a reflection of the university’s commitment to
diversity.
Future Research
Chief Diversity Officer hires have become more common in the last 10 years and
research on Chief Diversity Officer is still an emerging area of study (Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013). This research provided a limited understanding of the role of a Chief Diversity Officer as
it relates to campus climate impact for students of color. There is still much to be explored in
how they approach university-wide campus climate issues and much to be unearth regarding
their impact on students.
Two ideas for future research study sprung during the course of writing this research
topic. The social and political landscapes have exploded with the Black Lives Movement and
policy brutality in the United States. The Presidential primaries have brought conversations of
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

99
race issues and relations to the national forefront. College students across the nation have taken
ownership in holding their administration accountability for diversity, equity and inclusion.
Hence, there are parallels between what is happening in the nation and on college campuses. The
first new future research study can focus on how social and political issues impact campus
climate and how do the Chief Diversity Officers reflect these issues in their role. In the same
regards, globalization is also changing the demographic landscape and discourse at universities
across the nation. The second new future research study can focus on how the Chief Diversity
Officers define their role in a more global society and global higher education system. In
particular, how does the support and dialogue differ in regards to campus climate for
international students as compared to domestic students.
Limitations
This study provided evidence on how the Chief Diversity Officer shaped campus climate
and intergroup relations for students of color by supporting students, collaborating with Student
Life, contributing to policy and working within their specific diversity organizational structure.
However, this study had limitations. The limitations included interviews with only student
leaders, type of university and political nature of the position.
The first limitation was interviewing only student leaders. The students who were
selected to interview for this study were student leaders who engaged in diversity programs and
who had relationship and ties with diversity staff. They were more aware of the diversity
resources at the university due to the nature of their leadership role on campus. Therefore, the
student leaders selected to participate do not represent a cross section of students at the
university.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

100
The second limitation was type of university. The study focused on a small, private
university and a private, mid-sized university with a focus on liberal education; hence the
experiences shared by the CDOs, students and staff was through these lens. Therefore,
understanding how CDO impacted campus climate for students of color in this study was
contextual.
Finally, the nature of a Chief Diversity Officer position was political. Staff participants
were influenced by their staff role in the university and their relationship with the Chief
Diversity Officer. In addition, the Chief Diversity Officers were also well aware of the political
nature of their position and to some degree was strategic in their responses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, universities and colleges are experiencing a racial demographic shift in the
number of students of color enrolled in higher education. As indicated in Chapter 1, the data
indicated a significant growth in the number of Asian Pacific, Blacks and Hispanic/Latino
students since the mid-1970’s (NCES, 2012). However, research also showed that students of
color are more likely to face racial discrimination, racism and microaggression compared to the
White counter parts (Huber & Solorzano, 2015; Sue et al., 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005). These
forms of isolation and inclusion existed in the classroom, in co-curricular spaces and from
faculty, students and staff (Allen, 1995; Allen & Solorzano, 2001; Poon, 2011; Solorzano and
Yosso, 2001; Yosso et al., 2009). These experiences lead to a lack of sense of belonging and
social and emotional issues which impact academic success and college attainment (Hune, 2002;
Hurtado et al., 1998; Sue et al, 2007; Tinto, 1993). The role of the Chief Diversity Officers
continues to be vital in supporting issues of campus climate for students of color and for the
university community. The Chief Diversity Officer has a responsibility that all students have a
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

101
safe environment for development and learning. However, diversity, equity and inclusion efforts
cannot be the sole responsibility of the Chief Diversity Officer. University administration also
has a responsibility ensure that diversity, equity and inclusion are central to their work.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

102
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Chief Diversity Officers: Impact on campus climate for students of color
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study to is to examine Chief Diversity Officers and their impact on campus
climate for students of color and intergroup relations. The literature and research indicate that
students of color are dealing with campus climate issues in the form of racism, discrimination
and micro-aggression. These factors impact their college experience, which leads to academic
challenges, socio-emotional adjustment and a lack of a sense of belonging (Hurtado et al, 1999;
Hurtado et. al., 2008). It is important to conduct research on campus climate for this population
because colleges and universities are enrolling more students of color (U.S. Census Bureau,
2015). In addition, there is limited research on Chief Diversity Officers and in particular, there is
a lack of research on how a Chief Diversity Officer impacts campus climate for students of color
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

You will participate in one interview of approximately 1 hour. During the interview, you will be
asked about your role on campus, diversity initiatives, diversity programs, structures, campus
climate and intergroup relations. The interview will be recorded with a digital recorder.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The interviews will be recorded, transcribed and coded. However, the content of the interviews
will be kept confidential. The participants and the university will be kept confidential for this
study. Only the researcher will know the identity of the participant and the university. Data will
be kept up to 3 years after this study. The members of the research team, the funding agency 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.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator, Mary Ho at (510) 295-7109 or maryho@usc.edu. Address: 3551 Trousdale
Parkway, Los Angeles, California 90089
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – 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
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

103
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.

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

104

APPENDIX B
Email to Chief Diversity Officer

Dear (Name)

I hope this email finds you doing well. I was referred to you by (name, title) from (campus).
(name) is a former colleague of mine. I used to work at (campus) for 7 years in diversity. I am
currently the Assistant Dean for Diversity and Strategic Initiatives at the University of Southern
California in the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
The reason why I am emailing you is because I am a third year Ed.D candidate at USC and I am
currently working on my dissertation. My research focuses on Chief Diversity Officers and their
impact on campus climate for students of color and intergroup relations. The methodological
approach is qualitative. I will be interviewing the Chief Diversity Officer, student affairs staff
and student leaders. I will also be conducting document analysis.
I hope you are interested in participating in my research study. Please let me know if you are
available and if I can provide you with more information. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mary Ho

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

105
APPENDIX C
Email to Student Life Staff:

Dear (Name)
I hope this email finds you doing well. I was referred to you by (name of CDO and title). I am
currently the Assistant Dean for Diversity and Strategic Initiatives at the University of Southern
California in the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
The reason why I am emailing you is because I am a third year Ed.D candidate at USC and I am
currently working on my dissertation. My research focuses on Chief Diversity Officers and their
impact on campus climate for students of color and intergroup relations. The methodological
approach is qualitative. I will be interviewing the Chief Diversity Officer, staff and student
leaders. I will also be conducting document analysis. The (name of CDO) will be participating in
the research study. I will be on your campus on (day). I hope I will be able to interview you.
Please let me know if you have an interest and if I can provide you with more information. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mary Ho

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

106
APPENDIX D
Chief Diversity Officer Interview Protocol
Main research question:
How do Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for
students of color?
Emerging questions are:
(1) How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Affairs?
(2) How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
(3) How do specific diversity organizational structures affect campus climate issues and
intergroup relations for students of color?

Introduction
“Hi _________(name of chief diversity officer). I hope your day is going well. Thank you for
taking the time out of your day to speak to me. I want to be respectful of your time so I
scheduled the interview for one hour. The purpose of the interview is to understand how a Chief
Diversity Officer contributes to campus climate for students and color and intergroup relations.
The information shared will be used as part of my research study in my role as doctoral student
in the Ed.D program at USC. Your identity will be kept confidential. The interview will be
recorded. I also want to preface that the theoretical framework used to guide this study is the
Critical Race Theory, therefore some questions would be addressing specific CRT tenets. Before
we start, please fill out this consent form”.
Interview Questions
Question Type
(1) How long have you been working as a
chief diversity officer at (university name)?

Background
(2) Please describe the reporting and staffing
structure in your area.

RQM & RQ3
2a. How does your particular diversity
organizational structure ensure that racial
campus climate issues are addressed?

RQM & RQ3
2b. How does your staff assist in diversity
initiatives that is specific to racial identity?

RQM & RQ3
(3) Please describe your role as the chief
diversity officer at the university
RQM & RQ2
(4) What do you feel is your primary role as
the chief diversity officer of the university?
RQM
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

107

4a. How have you talked about the role of
race on this campus and do you feel it plays a
central role in your role as CDO?
T1
4b. Can you discuss your commitment to
social justice on the campus? How is this
demonstrated?

T3
(5) How are your diversity initiatives specific
to students of color supported by senior level
administration?

RQM
5a. Describe the diversity policies in place for
students of color?

RQ2
5b. How these diversity policies implemented
at the university?

RQ2
5c. How do you think the university can
further enhance diversity initiatives for
students of color?

RQM
5d. How has these diversity initiatives been
assessed?

RQM
5e. How have these policies been
communicated?

RQ2
5f. How are you involved with programs,
discourse or policies that challenge the
dominant ideology?
T2
5g. How do you ensure the curriculum is
diverse?
RQM, RQ3
6. How do you engage with faculty on
diversity initiatives?

RQM
6a. Please describe faculty diversity initiatives
that are directly related to students of color.
RQM
6b. How are you involved with examining or
studying race or racism in multiple
disciplinary at the university?

T5
7. How do you work with student affairs staff
on diversity programs specific to students of
color?

RQ1 & RQ3
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

108
7a. In what ways does student affairs staff
engage with diversity policies specific to
students of color?
RQM & RQ2
8. Are there any programs from your area that
directly engage students on issues of
diversity?

RQM, RQ1 & RQ2

8a. Are there any programs from your area
that directly allows students of color to share
their experience being a college student at
university?
RQM & RQ3
8b. How do you ensure the experiences of
students of color, heard, validated or
supported as a part of the racial discourse on
campus?
T4
9. How would you describe campus climate
for students of color?
RQM
9a. How have racial microaggressions for
students of color been addressed?
RQM
9b. What policies do you have in place to
address bias related incidents?
RQ2
10. Is there anything you want to add that you
did not get to during this interview?

“Thank you ________ (name of chief diversity officer) for taking the time to speak to me. If
need be, I will follow up via email with more questions.”

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

109
APPENDIX E

Student Life Staff Interview Protocol
Main research question:
How do Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for
students of color?
Emerging questions are:
(1) How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Affairs?
(2) How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
(3) How does the type of diversity organization structure affect how campus
climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed?

Introduction
“Hi _________(name of student affairs staff). I hope your day is going well. Thank you for
taking the time out of your day to speak to me. I want to be respectful of your time so I
scheduled the interview for one hour. The purpose of the interview is to understand how a Chief
Diversity Officer contributes to campus climate for students and color and intergroup relations.
The information shared will be used as part of my research study in my role as doctoral student
in the Ed.D program at USC. I also want to preface that the theoretical framework used to guide
this study is the Critical Race Theory, therefore some questions would be addressing specific
CRT tenets. The interview will be recorded. Before we start, please fill out this consent form”.
Interview Questions
Question Type
1. Please describe your role at
________(university name)?

Background
2. How long have you been at the university? Background
3. How do you work with the Chief Diversity
Officer?
RQM & RQ1

3a. Do you have a direct reporting
relationship to the CDO?
RQM, RQ1 & RQ3
3b. How does the CDO work with other
members of the student affairs staff?
RQM, RQ1 & RQ3
4. What are some of the current initiatives or
policies that promote diversity for students of
color?
RQM & RQ2

4a. Who leads these initiatives or policies? RQM, RQ2, RQ3
4b. How is the CDO connected to these
initiatives or polices?
RQM, RQ2 & RQ3
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

110
4c. How is your area connected to these
initiatives or policies?
RQM, RQ1, RQ2 & RQ3

4d. How have students become aware of these
initiatives?
RQM & RQ3
5. Describe the diversity organizational
structure at the university.
RQM & RQ3

5a. How does the diversity organizational
structure work to shape campus climate for
students of color?
RQM & RQ3
6 Describe campus climate for students of
color.
RQM

7a. How are racial campus climate issues
communicated to students?
RQM
6a. How has the CDO addressed issues of
racial microaggressions for students of color?
RQM
6a. How do you feel the CDO makes the
racial climate central in her role as the chief
diversity officer?
T1
7. How does the CDO foster intergroup
relations for students of color?
RQM

7a. How has the CDO made sure the
experiences of students of color are heard,
validated or supported as part of the racial
discourse on this campus?
T4
7b. How does the CDO work with student
affairs to foster intergroup relations for
students of color?
RQM & RQ1
7c. How has the CDO demonstrated a
commitment to social justice?
T3
8. How are diversity policies created for
students of color?

RQ2
8a. How does the CDO engage with these
diversity policies?
RQM & RQ2
8b. How do you feel the CDO challenges the
dominant ideology in the programs, discourse
or policies?

T2
8c. How has the CDO examined or studied
race or racism in multiple disciplinary on your
campus?

T5
(9) Is there anything you want to add that you
did not get to during this interview?

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

111
“Thank you ________ (name of student affairs staff) for taking the time to speak to me. If need
be, I will follow up via email with more questions”.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

112
APPENDIX F
Student Leader Interview Protocol
Main research question:
How do Chief Diversity Officers (CDO) shape campus climate and intergroup relations for
students of color?
Emerging questions are:
(1) How do CDOs collaborate with the Division of Student Affairs?
(2) How do CDOs influence and shape diversity policy for students?
(3) How does the type of diversity organization structure affect how campus
climate issues and intergroup relations are addressed?

Introduction
“Thank you for taking the time out of your day to speak to me. I want to be respectful of your
time so I scheduled the interview for 30 minutes. The purpose of the interview is to understand
how a Chief Diversity Officer contributes to campus climate for students and color and
intergroup relations. The information shared will be used as part of my research study in my role
as doctoral student in the Ed.D program at USC. The interview will be recorded. Before we start,
please fill out this consent form”.
Interview Questions
Question Type
1. I want to confirm the following
demographic information:
(a) What year are you?
(b) What is your racial and ethnic
background?
Background
2. What diversity leadership activities are you
involved in?
(a) How did you hear about these programs?
(b) Which department are these programs
from?
© Describe your experience participating in
diversity programs?
Background
3. What are some of the campus climate
issues that students of color are faced with at
the university?
Background
3a. How has the Chief Diversity Officer or
university addressed to these campus climate
issues?

RQM

3b. How do you feel the Chief Diversity

T1
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

113
Officer or the university makes the racial
climate central in her role as the chief
diversity officer?
4. How are students of color supported by the
Chief Diversity Officer or the university?
RQM

4a. How has the Chief Diversity Officer or the
university made sure the experiences of
students of color are heard, validated or
supported as part of the racial dialogue on this
campus?
T4
4b. How can the Chief Diversity Officer or
the University provide additional support for
students of color?
RQM
5. What diversity programs are you aware of
from the Chief Diversity Officer or the
university?
RQM

5a. How do you usually hear about these
programs?
RQM & RQ3

5b. How do you feel these diversity programs
have helped with campus climate for students
of color?
RQM
6. Are you aware of any diversity policies for
students in place from the Chief Diversity
Officer or the university?

RQM & RQ2
6a. How have these diversity policies helped
with campus climate for students of color?
RQM & RQ2
6b. How do you feel the CDO or university
challenge the dominant ideology in the
programs, dialogue or policies?
T2
6c. How has the CDO or university
demonstrated a commitment to social justice?
T3
7. How has the curriculum at
_______________ (university) been reflective
of your race?
RQM
7a. What else can the CDO or university do to
diversify the curriculum?

RQM
7b. How has the CDO or the university
examined or studied race or racism in
multiple disciplinary on your campus?

T5
8. Is there anything else that you would like to
share that you did not get to?

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

114

“Thank you ________ (name of student affairs staff) for taking the time to speak to me. If need
be, I will follow up via email with more questions.”

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

115
References

Aiken, J.R., Salmon, E.D. & Hanges, P.J. (2013). The origins and legacy of the civil
rights act of 1964. The Journal of Business Psychology. (28). 388-399

Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at
predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities.
Harvard Educational Review. 62(1), 26-45.

Allen, W.R. & Solorzano, D. (2001). Affirmative action, educational equity and campus
racial climate: A case study of the university of Michigan Law School. Berkeley
La Raza Law Journal 12(2), 237-268

Anderson, E.L. (2003). Changing U.S. demographics and American higher education. New
Directions for Higher Education. 131. 3-12.

Antonio, A.L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: reassessing contributions to
scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education. 73(5), 582-602.

Asian American Center for Advancing Justice (2011). A Community of Contrast: Asian
Americans in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.advancingjustice.org/
sites/default/files/CoC%20National%202011.pdf

Barceló, N. (2007). Transforming our institutions for the twenty-first century: The role of
the chief diversity officer. Diversity Digest: Institutional Leadership, 10(2), 7-8.
Retrieved from http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/vol10no2/Barcelo.cfm

Bensimon, E.M. (2004). The diversity scorecard a learning approach to institutional change.
Change. 45-52.

Bensimon, E.M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: an
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education.
131. 99-111.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genre of research in multicultural education. Review of educational
research. 71(2). 171-217.

Biklen, S.R. & Bogdan, R.C. (2006). Qualitative research in education. An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
Ed.). Syracuse University: Pearson.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations, artistry, choice and leadership.
San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass

Buddin, R. (2012). Implications of Educational Attainment Trends for Labor Market
Outcomes. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542024.pdf

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

116
Chrisman, R. (2013). Affirmative action: extend it. The Black Scholars. 43(3). 71

Cress, C. M. (2002). Campus climate. In A. M. Martinez, & K. A. Renn (Eds.), Women in
higher education: An encyclopedia (pp. 390–397). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-
CLIO, Inc.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2006). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY:
New York University Press

Downing, R.L, Lubensky, M.E. Sincharoen, S., Gurin, P. (2002). Affirmative action in
higher education. Diversity Factor. 10(2). 15-20.

Gasman, M., Baez, B., & Turner, C.S.V (2008). Understanding minority-serving
institutions. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Goff-Crews, K. (2014). Faculty impact on students of color. Journal of College and Character.
15(1). 7-14. Doi: 10.1515/jcc-2014-0002

Guiffrida, D.A., & Douthit, K.Z., (2010). Practice & theory: The black student
experience at predominantly white colleges: implications for school & college
counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development. 88. 311-318.

Gurin, P.D., Eric, L, Hurtado, S., Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity in higher education: theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review. 72 (3). 330-
366.

Firestone, W.A. & Shipps, D. (2006). A new agenda for research in educational leadership.
Teachers College. Columbia University.

Hale, F.W. Jr. (2004). What makes racial diversity work in higher education. Academic
leaders present successful policies and strategies. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Los Angeles: SAGE
Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J., (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: seeking to define
and understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 1(4). 222-234

Harvey, W.B., (2014). Chief diversity officers and the wonderful world of academe. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2). 92-100. doi: 10.1037/a0036721

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

117
Huber, L.P. & Solorzano, (2015). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race research.
Race, Ethnicity and Education. 18(3). 297-320. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2014.994173

Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college students. New
Directions for Student Services. 97. 11-20.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. 70(4). 324-345.

Hurtado, S., Griffin, K.A., & Arellano, L., Cuellar. (2008). Assessing the value of climate
assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education. 1(4). 204-221.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: educational policy and practice. The Review
of Higher Education. 21(3). 279-302

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse
learning environments: improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education. ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report. 26(8). 2-140

Inkelas, K.K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic co-curricular activities facilitate a sense
of ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American
undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development 45(3), 285-302

Iverson, S.V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis
of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly.
43(5). 586-611

Kezar, A. J. (2012). Shared leadership for creating campus cultures that support students
of color. In Museus, S. D., & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures:
Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 150-167). New
York, NY: Routledge.

Kezar, A. & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: examining
transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles. International
Journal of Leadership in Education. 11(4). 379-405
Kimberly Goff-Crews (2014). Faculty impact on students of color. Journal of College
and Character. 15(1). 7-14
Leon, R.A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 7(2). 77-91. doi: 10.1037/a0035586

Lintner, T. (2004). The savage and the slave: critical race theory, racial stereotyping and the
teaching of American history. Journal of Social Studies Research. 28(1). 27
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

118

Liu, W.M., Cuyjet, M.J. & Lee, S. (2010). Asian Pacific Student Involvement in Asian
American Culture Centers. In Patton, L.D. (Eds.), Culture centers in higher
education perspectives on identity; theory, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Lopez, G.R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race
theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly. 39(1). 68-94.

Luo, J. & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2009). A retrospective assessment of the educational benefits of
interactions across racial boundaries. Journal of College Student Development. 50(1). 67-
86. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0052

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
Ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.

Milem, J.F. Chang, M.J., & Antonio, A.L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Washington, D.C: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.

Milem, J.F. , Umbach, P.D., Liang, C.T. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation of
hypothesis: The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal
of College of Student Development. 45(6). 688-700.

Mortenson, T.G. (2000). Poverty, race, and the failure of public policy: The crisis in higher
education. Academe. 86. 38-43

Museus, S.M. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African American and
Asian American students’ cultural adjustment and membership predominantly White
institutions. Journal of College Student Development. 49(6). 568- 586.

Nixon, M.L. (2013). Women of color chief diversity officers: Their positionality and agency in
higher education institutions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved February 23, 2015. from
ProQuest: Full Text. (UMI Number: 3588822).

National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (2014). Standards of
professional practice for chief diversity officers. Retrieved from
http://www.nadohe.org/standards-of-professional-practice-for-chief-diversity-
officers
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Fast fact enrollment. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

119

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Fast fact race/ethnicity of college
faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Educational attainment. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp

Ng, C.J, Lee, S.S. & Pak, Y.K. (2007). Contesting the model minority and perpetual
foreigner stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in
education. Review of Research in Education. (31), 95-130.

Patton, L.D. (2010). Culture centers in higher education perspectives on identity; theory,
and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate.
In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures. New
directions for institutional research (No. 68, pp. 3–18). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Poon, O. (2011). Asian Americans, “Critical mass,” and Campus climate: A CRT case
study. In Rong, X.L., & Endo, R. (Eds), Asian American Education-Identities,
Racial issues, and Languages. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Pope, R.L., Mueller, J.A., Reynolds, A.L. (2009). Look back and moving forward: Future
directions for diversity research in student affairs. Journal of College Student
Development. 50(6). 640-658.

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

Rubenfeld, J. (1997). Affirmative action. The Yale Law Journal. 107(2). 427-472.

Smith, D.G., Turner, C.S.V, Osei-Kofi, N. & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the usual:
successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. The Journal of Higher Education.
75(2). 133-160.

Solorzano, D.G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping,
and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly. 24(3). 5-19.

Solorzano, D.G., Ceja, M. & Yosso, T. (2000). Crtical 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.

Solorzano D.G. & Yosso, T.J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit
discourse toward a critical race theory in education. Multicultural
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

120
Education. 9(1). 2

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review. 67(1). 1-41.

Stanley, C.A. (2014). Commentary the chief diversity officer: An examination of cdo models and
strategies. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 7(2). 101-108. doi:
10.1037/a0036662

Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist. 57(6). 613-629.

Stein, N. (1995). Affirmative action and the persistence of racism. Social Justice: A
Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order. 22(3). 28-36

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 Pscyhology. 13(1). 72-81.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2
nd
ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, D.A., & Wade-Golden, K.C. (2013). The chief diversity officer: Strategy,
structure, and change management. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus

Wilson, J.L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within
higher education. The Journal of Negro Education. 82(4). 433-445.

Worthington, R.L, Stanley, C.A., Lewis, W.T. Sr. (2014). National association of
diversity officers in higher education standards of professional practice for chief
diversity officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 7(4). 227-234

Wu, F.H. (2002). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and the perpetual foreigner
syndrome. Civil Rights Journal. 6(1), 14.

Yosso, J.T. , Smith, W.A., Ceja, M., Solorzano, D.G. (2009). Critical race theory,
racial micoaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates.
Harvard Educational Review. 74(4). 659-786

Umbach, P.D. (2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education.
Research in Higher Education. 47(3). 317-345

U.S. Census (2012). The Asian population. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/
cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf.

CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER AND CAMPUS CLIMATE

121
U.S. Census (2013). Race. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/
about.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Millennials outnumber baby boomers and are far more
diverse, census bureau reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the impact of Chief Diversity Officers on campus climate. In the last decade, Chief Diversity Officer positions are increasing in order to address issues of equity, diversity and inclusion as universities are becoming more diverse (Census, 2015

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

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

PDF

Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study

PDF

Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

Campus change agents: examining the experiences of cultural center scholar practitioners at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

Asian American college student well-being: racial identity consciousness as model minorities at an elite university

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

The relationship between the campus climate and under-represented students’ experiences on campus and the influences on fit, self-efficacy, and performance: a qualitative study

PDF

Into the wildfire: campus racial climate and the Trump presidency

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

Uncovered: finding and being authentically myself in the workplace: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership brilliance: superintendents of color revolutionizing and empowering educational excellence across America

PDF

The assessment of Latino affective and behavioral responses to racial campus climate

PDF

Holler if you hear me: the experiences of Black male alums of predominantly White independent schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Ho, Mary (author)

Core Title Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/02/2017

Defense Date 11/10/2016

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

Tag African American students,Asian American students,campus climate,chief diversity officer,critical race theory,diversity,equity,inclusion,Latino students,OAI-PMH Harvest,racial microaggression

Language English

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee member), Lee, Sunny (committee member)

Creator Email maryho@usc.edu,maryho238@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-344520

Unique identifier UC11258029

Identifier etd-HoMary-5111.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-344520 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HoMary-5111.pdf

Dmrecord 344520

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ho, Mary

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