University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency

(USC Thesis Other)

Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WHITENESS:
A NARRATIVE ANALYSIS ON STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS, RACE,
IDENTITY, AND MULTICULTURAL COMPETENCY

by

Susan Elizabeth Ashe

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

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Susan Elizabeth Ashe

ii
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to white student affairs professionals who are
passionate about equity and equality. To white student affairs professionals who have a
desire to move toward a positive white racial identity, despite the difficulty in pursuing
such a path, or the ease with which one can dissolve into the invisibility of their privilege.
For white student affairs professionals who feel that being well-meaning is not enough
and who are ready to be an active voice to end institutionalized racism and individual
racist acts.

iii
iii
Acknowledgments
Doing something you’ve never done before can be a daunting task, full of highs
and lows. You see your most extraordinary potential and you hear the cruelest inner
voices. Completing a dissertation is an exercise in persistence and balance, none of
which is possible without support. I am forever grateful to all who supported me through
this amazing, bizarre, surprising, exhilarating, and inspiring process.
I must first acknowledge and thank my dissertation chair and committee:
Dr. Adrianna Kezar, you expected the best out of me and you pushed me to
deliver. I always felt you had my best interests at heart. You believed I could
accomplish the task, even when I did not. I am grateful for your swift feedback. You
never gave up on me. You inspire me and I feel fortunate to have had your guidance.
Dr. Mary Howard-Hamilton, you started me on this journey. You are responsible
for opening my eyes and for helping me discover my whiteness. I shudder to think what
my life would be like had you not shown me the door. I am beholden to you for lovingly
nudging me toward being brave and realizing that I can be an advocate, an ally, and a
positive role model.
Dr. Darnell Cole, your spirit and passion for student development and for
multicultural education motivated me to pursue this topic. I valued your support as your
student and I am indebted to you for your encouragement as your dissertation candidate.
To my parents, Arlene and Braxton, who didn’t really know what the heck I was
doing for the last three years, but cheered me on and reminded me of my self worth. You

iv
iv
fed me when I would have forgotten – even though you live in Alabama, you always took
my calls, you supported blindly, and you loved me unconditionally.
John, you told me to suck it up when I needed to and you sent me words of
encouragement when I needed them, like this (possibly inaccurate) quote: I knew I had a
good shot, so I just put my head down and dug deep. – Olympic Silver Medalist Galen
Rupp.
To my friends, there are too many to name, but especially to Jen, Alexa, Heather,
Lonny, Richard, Jason, Sara, Melissa, and Ritu. You have been so meaningful to me
through this process that I will spend years showing you exactly how much your
encouragement has meant. I missed out on far too many good times, milestones, and
gatherings and you never held it against me.
Debbie, you talked me through some of life’s biggest moments since circa 1991
and you didn’t let this one pass you by. Thank you for some of my favorite conversations
and for always showing me that I can do it, no matter what it is.
Cecilia, you have been more than a friend, more than a colleague, and more than a
classmate these last three years. I can’t imagine going on this journey without you. You
understood the erratic process to accomplish this project. Getting to know you, learn
from you, and reach a new level of academic achievement with you, has been an honor.
Kevin C., you got me into this whole doctoral mess, but you never abandoned me.
You supported me with more than words. You helped me brainstorm ideas, find
solutions to my problems, and you helped me get to the finish line.

v
v

Michelle W., you came unexpectedly toward the end of the process. You gave
me invaluable feedback, you helped me feel not so alone, and you gave me the
confidence to believe that my writing didn’t entirely suck.
My co-workers, Rebecca, Raquel, Marla, and the students, you supported me even
when my brain wasn’t quite working.
Jami, thank you for being a white ally and for thinking of ways to help me
maintain my energy and creativity throughout the writing process.
Piya, you are my comrade in academic nerdiness.
Barny, you are always up for some Subway and a chat. You’re next, so get to
writing, and I’ll be here for you.
The participants in this study, for being brave enough to share your lives with me.
My study spots, it took a while to find some of you, but once I did, we were
bonded for life. Palm Springs, USC, Broome Street General Store, Intelligentsia,
Starbucks, Seattle’s Best, and Covell, you gave me inspiring places to read, write, edit,
and think.
And to the dissertation process, you brought me to the realization that I too need
skills to become a more multiculturally competent student affairs professional. I need to
learn how to be antiracist role model. I need to use my voice. And, I need to never fall
into the invisibility of my own whiteness.

vi
vi
Table of Contents

Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables viii
Abstract ix
Chapter One: Introduction of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 9
Organization 11
Chapter Two: Review of Relevant Literature 13
Whiteness 15
White Privilege 34
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 39
White Racial Identity Development 47
Multicultural Competencies 61
Conclusion 66
Chapter Three: Research Methods 66
Purpose of the Study 66
Methodology 67
Data Collection 78
Data Analysis 83
Limitations 87
Conclusion 91
Chapter Four: Findings 92
Responses to Discussing Whiteness 93
Whiteness Institutionalized on Campus 105
White Privilege 114
Color-Blindness 125
Value of Support 128
Multicultural Competency 132
Conclusion 144

vii
vii
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Future Research 145
Summary of Findings 146
Discussion and Connections with the Literature 152
Implications 163
Future Research 170
Conclusion 175
References 176
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol – Participant Information Guide 189
Appendix B: Interview Protocol – Interview Question Guide 193
Appendix C: Participant Letter 196
Appendix D: Information/Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research 197

viii
vii
i
List of Tables

Table 3.1: Demographic Data of Participants and Institutions 73
Table 4.1: Summary of Findings – Responses to Discussing Whiteness 94
Table 4.2: Summary of Findings – Whiteness Institutionalized on Campus 107
Table 4.3: Summary of Findings – White Privilege, Color-Blindness, and 115
the Value of Support
Table 4.4: Summary of Findings – Multicultural Competency 133

ix
ix
Abstract
This study explored the effect race has on the daily work of white student affairs
professionals, how invested participants feel in being multiculturally competent, and their
awareness of racial identity, racial attitudes, and racial privilege. Semi-structured
interviews were used to gather responses from 12 white, student affairs, mid-level
managers who work at predominantly white institutions of higher education. Literature
in the areas of whiteness, white privilege, color-blind racial attitudes, white racial identity
development, and multicultural competencies provided context and a framework for the
findings wrought through narrative analysis of the interviews.
Professional associations have set the expectation that those in the field of student
affairs must value diversity and be multiculturally competent. This study reveals levels
of awareness and preparedness some student affairs educators possess to implement this
value of supporting diversity in higher education. Findings suggest white student affairs
professionals are not static individuals, but have varied experiences that affect their daily
job, their racial awareness, and their investment in being multiculturally competent. The
racial awareness of study participants fell along a spectrum that was primarily influenced
by their formal education and personal racial experiences. Additionally, while most
participants were invested in being multiculturally competent, many lacked the
confidence, skills, or support to act on their interest in improving diversity efforts on their
campus.

1
1

Chapter One: Introduction of the Study
Jen is a caring, well-liked, well-respected, white Director of Student Life. She
completed her master’s degree in higher education seven years ago, is well
educated, and seeks professional development opportunities for herself and her
staff. She worked hard to become the director by putting in late nights and
working weekends to serve the students. She has been the director for two years
at a mid-sized, predominantly white, four-year public university.

Jen has been working on an assessment project that examines the number and
types of programs her department has overseen on campus and the student leaders
who led the programs. She noticed that the programs were disproportionally
geared toward white, middle-class students and were conceived and executed
mostly by white student leaders. Jen has begun to wonder if this is okay or not.
She wonders if the programs reflect the university’s commitment to diversity.
She wonders how she may have contributed to this, what her role is in drawing
attention to this observation, if the observation is meaningful, and if she feels
prepared to challenge it.

Statement of the Problem
Serving students has been a core value of student affairs since the beginning of
the profession. Changing demographics of students on college and university campuses
establishes a need to focus on how student affairs professionals are serving all students.
A recent task force that examined the future of student affairs reiterated a long-standing
value of “responding to, and increasing, the diversity of students” (American College
Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
[ACPA & NASPA], 2010a, p. 2). Disparities between underrepresented students and
students in the majority remain a reality as seen in significant achievement gaps.
Focusing on diversity is not only important because it serves all students, but it also
brings inequality and inequity to light for students’ educational opportunities. Student
affairs has long felt a responsibility for helping campuses “understand, respond to, and
benefit from the diversity of all our students” (ACPA & NASPA, 2010a, p. 3). Because

2
2

diversity is a theme in the profession, individuals who make up the profession are also
expected to value diversity.
Race is not the only aspect of diversity on a college campus, but it is a large facet.
Tatum (2008) says we do not talk about race enough and we need to continually break the
silence. Even well intentioned people can fall prey to unexamined racism (Chubbuck,
2004; Frankenberg, 1993). Most white people do not want to be racist, nor do they
believe they are racist, even though they benefit from the privilege of being white. As
Frankenberg (1993) notes, for white people to learn that they have privilege and are a part
of the problem of racism is “genuinely shocking” (p. 3). Hooks (2008) goes on to say
that most whites do not see themselves as prejudiced or dominant and do not
acknowledge the ways they contribute to or benefit from white privilege. This makes
whiteness difficult to talk about. Historically, white people have not had a need to
examine their race because they are the dominant culture and considered the norm, which
makes it easy to forget that whiteness is not the only perspective. When whiteness is
drawn attention to, it can be uncomfortable and can evoke feelings of guilt, shame, anger,
fear, despair, and discomfort (Frankenberg, 1993; Tatum, 1992). However, examining
whiteness and dismantling white privilege are important in developing a positive white
racial identity and eliminating discrimination. As Gusa (2010) says, “to acknowledge
whiteness is not to perpetuate it, but it is the first step in uprooting it” (p. 478).
Therefore, in the absence of discussing whiteness or developing a positive white racial
identity, whites may either knowingly or unknowingly contribute to the perpetuation of
discrimination and racism (Helms, 1990).

3
3

A positive white racial identity and awareness of white privilege are necessary to
dismantle racism on predominantly white college campuses. Otherwise, “by ignoring the
cultural complexities associated with white racial identity, practitioners and scholars may
unwittingly contribute to the universalization of whiteness, and consequently, to the
marginalization of non-white racial identities” (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000, p. 81). White
students at predominantly white institutions are less likely than students of color to have
an awareness of their racial identity. Likewise, could it be that white student affairs
professionals at predominantly white institutions are also less likely to be aware of their
racial identity? According to Helms (1995), white racial identity is influenced by white
people's contact with people of color. If there is little exposure, or quality interaction,
white student affairs professionals may not be aware of their racial identity and privilege,
and might not be developing a positive white racial identity.
McIntosh (1988) says that white privilege is an “invisible package of unearned
assets” (p. 71) which white people can rely on but to which they remain oblivious. Racial
privilege means that white people have access to items, services, and opportunities that
others do not, and of which others are sometimes deprived. This means that white people
benefit from privilege, often at the expense of non-white people (Lechuga, Clerc &
Howell, 2009). “White privilege is institutionalized in the United States, that is, because
it is woven into the fabric of society, some might argue that it is virtually impossible for
whites not to reap the benefits of this privilege” (Rothenberg, 2008, p. 5). Drawing
attention to white privilege is not intended to make white people feel blame or guilt for
benefiting from racial advantage. Rather, the point is to help white people recognize that

4
4

privileging systems exist and that as white people experience unearned advantages, non-
white people experience unearned disadvantages (McIntosh, 1998).
The consequences of not seeing whiteness or dismantling whiteness lead to blind
spots and reinforce racial attitudes such as color-blindness. Color-blindness, while
intended to be a perspective that levels the playing field and emphasizes that race does
not matter, can be troubling for people of color. With a color-blind attitude, “racial or
ethnic differences are minimized, and [the] emphasis is on the universal or ‘human’
aspect of behavior” such as “assimilation” and the “melting pot metaphor” (American
Psychological Association [APA], 2003, p. 383). Ignoring race and whiteness means not
seeing the differences among students and colleagues (Dalton, 2008). Guidelines
adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA) (2003) note that while
adopting a “color-blind” attitude may be intended to counteract racial prejudice and
“reduce inequities” (p. 383), the effect may be the opposite. Rather, “color-blind
attitudes reflect the seemingly benign position that race should not and does not matter”
(Gushue & Constantine, 2007, p. 323). Social psychologists found that adopting a color-
blind attitude does not lead to equitable treatment of racial and ethnic groups (APA,
2003).
The American Psychological Association (1993; 2003) identified self-awareness
as a fundamental component of cultural competency. Additionally, awareness,
knowledge, and skills are aspects that are essential to multicultural competency (Pope &
Reynolds, 1997). Awareness is particularly important for student affairs professionals
because of their close relationships and interactions with students from culturally diverse

5
5

backgrounds. “Awareness of self as a racial being (i.e. racial identity or racial
consciousness) is paramount and necessary for one to be effective in multicultural
helping interactions” (Mueller & Pope, 2003, p. 150). Carter and Goodwin (1994) and
Helms (1990) emphasize the importance of awareness for counselors noting the more
aware they are the more effective they are at working with culturally diverse clients.
Similarly, the more aware student affairs professionals are, the more effective they can be
supporting multicultural students, policies and practices on college campuses (Mueller &
Pope, 2001).
Student affairs professionals of all races are in positions of leadership and
authority on campuses and they have the ability to use their positions as role models,
allies, and to create supportive environments for students. It is important for student
affairs professionals to have an awareness of their racial identity not only because of their
interactions with students of color, but also to bring awareness to white students. In
literature about college student development, it is noted that attending college positively
impacts the racial-ethnic attitudes of students, increases cultural awareness, and improves
the acceptance of other races and cultures (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Student affairs
professionals provide crucial programs and services to university campuses, such as
housing and financial aid (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996), while also designing and executing
valuable out-of-classroom diversity experiences that impact student learning and student
development. By being knowledgeable about racial identity, student affairs
administrators can educate and influence the growth and development of their students
(Carter & Goodwin, 1994).

6
6

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), there are over 110, 000
administrators in postsecondary education. The contributions of these administrators lead
to outcomes such as persistence, degree completion, retention, and academic success
(Astin, 1993; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). While it
is known that student affairs professionals positively contribute to the educational
mission of institutions, it is not known how their personal racial identity awareness effect
students, the programs and services offered, and policy formation. Mid-level
professionals are the biggest population of administrative professionals in higher
education. Mid-level administrators have daily interaction with students and senior-level
policy-makers. This places mid-level professionals in a unique position to affect the
campus climate. The Chronicle of Higher Education (2010) notes that close to 80
percent of administrators in higher education are white. It is worthwhile to examine the
racial awareness of white mid-level student affairs professionals at predominantly white
institutions to understand their effect on students, the campus climate, and the campus
culture.
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study examined white student affairs professionals. The study
looked at the effect race and racial awareness have on a professional’s day-to-day work,
their interaction with students, their investment in being multiculturally competent, and
their racial identity as white student affairs professionals. The importance of personal
identity development and racial identity development in college students has been heavily
covered, but there has not been a large focus on the student affairs professionals who

7
7

contribute to students’ identity development. Additionally, the topics of race, identity,
and multicultural competency have been covered in the fields of counseling and teacher
education, but less so in college student affairs.
Counseling and teacher education professions have shown that a positive racial
identity, higher racial awareness, and multicultural competencies are advantageous and
integral aspects to their professions. There are similarities in aspects of the counseling
and teaching professions with college student affairs. Therefore, this study shifted the
questions from a focus on counselors and teachers to look at the racial awareness, racial
attitudes, white privilege attitudes, and multicultural competencies held by white student
affairs professionals. The research questions (RQ) that guided this study were:
RQ1: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
RQ2: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?
RQ3: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?
Significance of the Study
A study that examines white racial identity, white privilege racial awareness,
color-blind attitudes, and multicultural competencies among white college student affairs
professionals is important for several reasons. One reason is that this study contributes to
dismantling whiteness and opening dialogue on an invisible and often taboo topic. This
study is specifically significant because of the lack of research on the topic of racial

8
8

identity awareness for the field of college student affairs. There is ample literature on
this topic in the closely related fields of counseling and teacher education, but little exists
for student affairs professionals.
Another significance of the study is that it may lead to improved programs,
services, and policies. It is established that the racial demographics for college students
is shifting to become more diverse and students are often a focus of studies that examine
the benefits of diversity education. However, there is less focus on student affairs
educators who are charged with creating programs, services, and policies that support
diversity in higher education. Parallels may be found among studies with counselors or
teachers; however, with a lack of information, these parallels are assumptions. This study
is significant because it establishes links between the fields of counseling and teacher
education and reveals the level of awareness and preparedness some student affairs
educators have to implement the value of supporting diversity in higher education.
Addressing the topic draws a better understanding of how to serve the needs of white
college student affairs professionals and the students they serve through programs and
policy creation.
In addition to the potential to serve students better through programs and services,
this study reveals professional development needs for college student affairs
professionals. There is an expectation in student affairs that new graduates from higher
education master’s programs will have taken a course on diversity; however, this is a new
expectation. Professionals who have been in student affairs for several years may not
have taken any courses on diversity. If that is true, then this study could support needed

9
9

training programs and professional development for mid-level student affairs
professionals.
A final significance for this study is in the contribution to literature on
multicultural competencies. American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) (2010b) recently
established multicultural competencies (MCC) for college student affairs professionals.
While the establishment of MCC is significant, it is not known if professionals currently
working in student affairs feel invested in pursuing MCC. There are studies in student
affairs literature that make a strong case for adoption of MCC in the student affairs
profession, but whether white student affairs professionals are motivated to adopt these
competencies is unknown. This study shows how invested some white student affairs
professionals are in incorporating multicultural competencies into their professional
competencies.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, terms are defined as follows:
Color-Blindness: Color-blindness “refers to the belief that race should not and does not
matter” (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000, p. 60).
Multicultural Competency: Multicultural competencies are the awareness, knowledge,
and skills needed to work effectively with culturally diverse populations (Mueller &
Pope, 2001).
People of Color / Students of Color: These are people and students who are non-white
and who identify as people of Arab descent, “people of African descent, people of Asian

10
10
descent, people of Latin American descent, and indigenous peoples (sometimes referred
to as Native Americans or American Indians)” (Tatum, 1997, p. 15). These may also be
people whose country of origin and primary language is not English (Kivel, 1996).
Predominantly White Institution: There is no federal designation for a predominantly
white institution (PWI). For the purposes of this study, a PWI is an institution where the
greatest percentage of students on campus identifies as white. At the institutions used in
this study, the percentage of white students on campus ranged from 48 to 66 percent.
Racial Identity: Racial identity is the “quality or manner of one’s identification with the
respective racial group” (Helms, 1990, p. 5).
Racism: Racism is a system of oppression based on power and privilege that translates
into attitudes, laws, policies, and practices that advantage some groups and disadvantage
other groups based on race (Rothenberg, 2000). The system of advantages and
disadvantages can be reinforced with racial prejudices, involving cultural messages and
institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals
(Tatum, 1997).
Racist Acts: Racist acts are individual acts directed at a racial group. Racist acts can be
active or passive. Active acts include verbal harassment, physical violence, intentional
acts of discrimination, while passive racist acts include “silence in the presence of
another’s racist remarks, unexamined policies and practices that disproportionately
impact people of color, [and] the failure to acknowledge the contributions of people of
color” (Tatum, 1994, p. 465).

11
11
Student Affairs: Professionals in student affairs “provide services, programs, and
resources that help students learn and grow outside the classroom” (National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators, 2012, para. 1).
White: The white race is a socially constructed identity based on skin color (Leonardo,
2002). White people are Americans who typically have light skin and are of European
decent.
Whiteness: Whiteness is a description, an experience, and an ideology. Whiteness
describes people with light skin and European features. The experience of whiteness is
that of being race-privileged and benefiting from unearned advantages. The ideology of
whiteness is, sometimes, unarticulated beliefs, policies, and practices that maintain whites
as the norm and societally dominant (Lawrence, 1997). Whiteness is fluid and not fixed
because it changes based on the changing meaning of race (Kincheloe, 1999).
White Privilege: White privilege is unearned advantages and benefits afforded to white
people based on the color of their skin (McIntosh, 1988).
Organization
This chapter gave a brief overview of the focus of the dissertation, including the
purpose and significance of the study. Chapter Two expands the topic by examining
relevant research and literature in the field. The second chapter also discusses theories
and frameworks that contribute to the current study. Chapter Three explains the
methodology for this study, including the qualitative approach, the instrumentation, and
the participants. Chapter Four will provides details about the data collected. The final

12
12
chapter, Chapter Five, summarizes the study and offers implications for practice and
further research.

13
13
Chapter Two: Review of Relevant Literature

The previous chapter provided an overview of the study and the importance of
examining whiteness in college student affairs professionals. The purpose of this chapter
is to review the literature related to whiteness, white privilege, racial attitudes, racial
identity, and multicultural competencies. The review of these areas of literature offers a
framework for the current study and a foundation for the methodology, detailed in
Chapter Three.
The literature included offers background information, gives context to the study,
and serves as a framework for participant responses. The literature presented in this
chapter helps make meaning of the responses collected and analyzed from interview
participants. The literature included supports the research questions:
RQ1: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
RQ2: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?
RQ3: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?
To answer these questions, the chapter focuses on five major sections of
literature: whiteness, white privilege, color-blind racial attitudes, white racial identity
development, and multicultural competencies. Within each section, there are subsections
to provide structure and depth to the chapter.

14
14
The chapter begins with a section on whiteness. The material is broken down to
review multiple definitions of whiteness, the history of whiteness, and the responses
individuals have to discussing whiteness and race. This literature is included because
whiteness is dominant in society, but is not always noticed. The literature defining
whiteness and explaining the history of whiteness is intended to show how whiteness
came to be, how whiteness has shifted over time, and how whiteness shapes American
culture. Understanding this literature is important to the current study of white student
affairs professionals because history and historical policies impact higher education and
the way student affairs professionals serve students. The sub-section on how white
people respond to racial conversations is included because, as previously noted,
discussing whiteness can evoke feelings of fear, guilt, or anxiety. Therefore, this
literature shows how student affairs participants might respond to being interviewed
about their race.
Following the section on whiteness is a section explaining what white privilege is
and providing examples of how white privilege manifests in society. This literature is
included because privilege and power are embedded in the concept of whiteness.
Understanding white privilege and how it might manifest in white student affairs
professionals is integral to this study because student affairs professionals have a unique
position to influence campus programs, services, and policies.
Next is a section that focuses on color-blind racial attitudes and research that
explains the effects of adopting color-blind racial attitudes. This literature is included
because it shows how racial attitudes have changed over time. Including literature on

15
15
color-blindness is important because the philosophy of color-blindness is appealing, but
the implementation of color-blind racial attitudes has been proven to have negative
effects for people of color.
Following the section on color-blindness is a section on white racial identity
development. This literature explains the steps by which a white person develops a
positive white racial identity. Developing a positive white racial identity is essential to
dismantling whiteness, so understanding how white student affairs professionals might
develop their racial identity is critical to this study.
Lastly, there is a section on multicultural competencies that explains what MCC
look like and details research that supports the integration of MCC in the student affairs
profession. This literature is included because there is evidence linking MCC to higher
levels of white racial consciousness. This information is important, as the current study
explores how invested some white student professionals are in being multiculturally
competent.
Whiteness
To better understand whiteness, the literature in this section focuses on an
overview of whiteness and why whiteness is worth studying. This section provides
insight into the first and third research questions of the current study: “How do white
student affairs professionals see their own race affecting their daily job?” and “How
aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial identity, racial attitudes,
and privilege?” The literature reviewed explores definitions of whiteness and the history
of whiteness, including how whiteness has become institutionalized. This section also

16
16
details common responses, which are sometimes barriers, to having conversations about
whiteness and race.
Background
According to Kincheloe (1999), studying whiteness is in the best interest of white
people, and white student affairs professionals, because when white people study
whiteness it helps them better appreciate the moral, ethical, social and political dynamics
of their whiteness and they can more progressively respond to the issues that surface from
their whiteness. Without studying and deconstructing the meaning of whiteness and
white privilege, it is difficult to build multicultural campuses or to have conversations
about race, race relations, and cross-cultural communications.
Gusa (2010) endorses examining the knowledge student affairs practitioners have
of whiteness because with this knowledge, professionals in higher education can perform
a more thorough cultural audit, examining their institution’s structural diversity,
programmatic diversity, social diversity, racial realities, and cross-cultural
communications among students and non-students in the campus community. Student
affairs practitioners are integral to the campus community in all these areas and are the
right people to effectively facilitate conversations with students about issues of privilege
and to create welcoming multicultural environments (Watt, 2007). It is often the
responsibility of student affairs professionals to create programs and courses that will
enhance the understanding and appreciation of diversity (Baxter Magolda, 2003).
Creating supportive multicultural environments allows students to engage in meaningful
experiences with peers from diverse backgrounds, when they may otherwise isolate

17
17
themselves with peers from similar backgrounds and perspectives (Harper & Hurtado,
2007). Meaningful interactions lead to positive racial experiences and the development
of positive racial identities for white students and students of color (Helms, 1995).
Yet, talking about whiteness and white privilege causes uneasiness, feels
dangerous, can be off-putting, and feels racist. Fear and guilt are themes that emerge
throughout literature on whiteness (Frankenberg, 1993; Kendall, 2006; Kincheloe, 1999).
Wildman and Davis (1997) explain that the fear of talking about whiteness, including
race and white privilege, is that discussing it will do more harm than good. Or, as noted
by Ortiz & Rhoads (2000), there is fear that when white people talk about whiteness or
race they will unintentionally make ignorant or racist remarks.
Despite this fear, according to Tatum (1994), white educators need to become
aware of and accept their whiteness in a non-defensive, nonracist way, without guilt. In
doing so, white educators can develop a positive white racial identity. The intention in
exploring and deconstructing whiteness is not to demonize white people, but is to expose
the individual and institutional effects of whiteness, to raise awareness, build allies, and
to strengthen culturally diverse campuses. Studying whiteness is an effort to racialize
white people who have traditionally been non-racialized and to develop ownership of a
white identity (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Focusing on whiteness does not remove the
attention that needs to be paid to underrepresented groups, rather it focuses on
challenging the system of whiteness that has disadvantaged underrepresented groups
through oppression (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Lund (2010) says that “the goal is not

18
18
to privilege those with white privilege nor set them apart from others; the goal is to have
white educators and learners recognize their privilege” (p. 17).
As Freire (2006) argues, the oppressor, in this case that is white people, is
negatively affected by oppressing others. Freire (2006) says this is dehumanizing for the
oppressor, which means that white people dehumanize themselves by dehumanizing
others. Acknowledging white privilege, or whiteness as the role of oppressor, is an
admirable trait for some, but for others the guilt and shame that accompany their
awareness is a deterrent from having conversations about race, drawing attention to their
whiteness, or dismantling their white privilege (Collin & Lund, 2010).
According to Lechuga et al. (2009) student affairs professionals who are
committed to building multicultural campuses and educating students about social justice
should be aware of their own whiteness and white privilege, and should strive to educate
themselves and students about how to engage in action that will positively affect their
personal development and the campus community. Deconstructing whiteness, including
its privileges and costs, helps students understand how to cope with living in a society
that is race-conscious and has historically advantaged white people with opportunities not
always afforded to people of color (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Awareness is a step toward
dismantling whiteness and describing whiteness makes white educators accountable to
see how whiteness affects their campus community.
Defining Whiteness
Defining whiteness can be “slippery and elusive” (Kincheloe, 1999, p. 162)
because as whiteness is examined, it becomes clear there is no good or consistent

19
19
definition of whiteness (Gallagher, 1997). Because whiteness does not have one
universal definition, this study used the following definitions of whiteness. Whiteness
can be categorized into describing race, explaining cultural norms and experiences, and
revealing ideologies. These three definitions are described below, but this study
primarily focused on two of the three definitions. Additionally, a theme that emerges
throughout defining whiteness is that whiteness is often invisible, and defining it,
deconstructing it, and discussing it makes it more visible (Dyer, 2008; Frankenberg,
1993; Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000).
The first definition of whiteness is that it describes a racial group of people. As a
description of race, whiteness generally describes people with light skin and European
features. These are people who “by virtue of skin color or perhaps national origin and
culture, [are] perceived as ‘white,’ as members of the dominant group” (Wise, 2008, p.
viii). The description of whiteness shifts according to history, and membership to
whiteness as a group can change based on the changing meaning of race (Kincheloe,
1999; Leonardo, 2002). In the history sub-section of this chapter, the fluidity of race and
the social construction of race are further explored.
The second definition describes whiteness as cultural norms and experiences built
through a sociological and political construct (Gusa, 2010; Kincheloe, 1999; Lawrence,
1997; Leonardo, 2002). The experience of whiteness is that of being race-privileged and
benefiting from unearned advantages. Frankenberg (1993) says whiteness is “a location
of structural advantage, of race privilege,” “it is a standpoint, a place from which white
people look at ourselves, at others, and at society,” and “it refers to a set of cultural

20
20
practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed” (p. 1). Tochluk (2010) explains that it
is difficult for white people to see their culture because they are accustomed to living in a
world of whiteness. Like fish are accustomed to living in water or right-handed people
are accustomed to living in a right-handed world, it makes whiteness hard to see.
Whiteness is a cultural point of view describing an assumption of the way things are done
or ought to be done (Frankenberg, 1993).
The third definition describes whiteness as an ideology and as the dominant
worldview in America (Lawrence, 1997). When looking at whiteness as an ideology,
whiteness is associated with privilege and power that allows white people to assert power
over those who are not white (Gusa, 2010). Lawrence (1997) describes the ideology of
whiteness as unarticulated beliefs, policies, and practices that maintain whites as the
norm and societally dominant. In this regard, whiteness takes the form of superiority,
entitlement, and domination. Additionally, whiteness sometimes takes the form of
victimization when whites feel they are unfairly losing privileges and entitlements to
people of color, such as with affirmative action (Gusa, 2010).
The first definition of whiteness, as a description of a racial group, is the most
visible of the three definitions, because it groups individuals by a physical appearance.
This definition is used throughout the current study as an underlying assumption,
meaning that those who appear white are assumed to be a part of whiteness. However,
the second and third definitions of whiteness, describing whiteness as a cultural norm and
an ideology, are used most often and interchangeably throughout the study. These

21
21
definitions are less visible than a physical grouping, but are pervasive in American
policies and practices which impact higher education and student affairs professionals.
A theme that emerges in defining whiteness as a cultural norm and ideology is
that whiteness is often described as invisible (Dyer, 2008; Frankenberg, 1993). For Dyer
(2008), the invisibility of whiteness is connected to the absence of drawing attention to
whiteness in descriptions of white people in the media and the pervasive use of whiteness
in public images, thereby making whiteness the norm. Kendall (2006) illustrates the
invisibility of whiteness by noting that people of color studied whiteness long before
white people began to examine it. This is evident in writings by W. E. B. DuBois (see:
Black Reconstruction from 1935). Despite the invisibility of whiteness, Ortiz & Rhoads
(2000) note that defining it, deconstructing it, and discussing it makes whiteness more
visible. By making whiteness more visible to white people, educating white people about
whiteness can be the responsibility of white people, rather than relying on people of color
to explain the effects of whiteness on society and higher education.
History of Whiteness
The previous section described how the definition of whiteness is multifaceted
and changes over time, and is used in the current study as a description of invisibility, a
cultural norm, and a dominant ideology. This section, about the history of whiteness,
illuminates how the shift in whiteness manifested over time. The history of whiteness is
included because the manner in which white student affairs professionals perform their
job may be affected by their historical knowledge of their own racial group and the affect
whiteness has had on others. White student affairs professionals have varying levels of

22
22
awareness of their racial identity and attitudes, depending on their exposure to and
knowledge of history.
It is accepted in the disciplines of history, biology and anthropology although not
fully accepted and still debated in some circles, that race is a social construct (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012; Kolchin, 2002). Humans, not nature, assigned people to racial
classifications for social and political purposes (Kendall, 2006; Kolchin, 2002; Omi &
Winant, 1994; Roediger, 2008). History shows us that America has been conscious of
race through laws, social treatment, and various acts of oppression such as when “Native
Americans faced genocide, blacks were subjected to slavery, Mexicans were invaded and
colonized, and Asians faced exclusion” (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 1). The fluidity of race,
and who belongs to which group has changed over time, and just as the meaning and
classification of race has changed over time, so has the meaning and classification of who
is white.
The inconsistency of classifications can be seen in several groups throughout
history. Kolchin (2002) shares an example from Jacobson’s book Whiteness of a
Different Color in which Benjamin Franklin describes racial classifications of Germans
and Swedes as “swarthy” and not white in 1751 (p. 158). Yet by the 1920s, Germans,
Swedes and other European immigrants were considered to be white. For European
immigrant groups like the Irish, Italian, Polish, Jews, and others, to become white and
receive the political and economic privileges of whiteness, assimilation was necessary
(Roediger, 2008). The swiftness with which these immigrant groups went from non-

23
23
white to white was linked to the swiftness of their assimilation. This meant giving up
family names, native languages, beliefs, and customs (Brodkin, 2004; Roediger, 2008).
During the transition of European immigrants’ classification from non-white to
white, many of these immigrants took jobs where people of color were driven out or
excluded. This gave immigrants who became white an economic foothold by taking jobs
in construction, wagon and coach driving, house painting, tailoring and dressmaking, mill
work, etc. (Kivel, 1996). As European immigrants became white, they benefited
educationally from segregated schools and economically through housing, auto, and
school loans, while people of color could not. Yet the infrastructure of the United States
was built by slave labor, low-paid labor, or prison labor performed by men, women, and
children of color (Kivel, 1996). This established historical disparities among those who
were classified as white and those who were not. As Kivel (1996) explains, history
shows that not all Americans started with equal opportunities, despite the belief in
equality and fairness.
Another example of the arbitrary nature of race and who is considered white can
be seen in the history of Mexican Americans. Mexican Americans have been legally
considered white, but have also been treated as non-whites politically, socially, and
economically (Foley, 2008). Through a Texas court case in 1933 Mexican Americans
were classified as white, then later in 1942 an Indiana court decided that Mexicans were
not white (Kendall, 2006). Additionally, the 1930 census created a separate category for
Mexicans thereby making them non-white, which led to the exclusion of Mexican

24
24
Americans from labor jobs and Mexicans were forcibly returned to Mexico (Foley, 2008;
Kendall, 2006).
Prior to the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, racial discrimination was explicit in
personal actions and laws. During and after the Civil Rights Movement, the United
States saw the formal elimination of racial discrimination through laws, however, the
enforcement of laws has taken time and informal discrimination has continued (Winant,
1997). Pitts (2008) notes that after the Civil Rights Movement racist views became
unfashionable and were driven underground. For individuals committed to social justice,
the battle for racial equality continued in the midst of changing laws, public perceptions,
and socially acceptable behaviors toward race (Winant, 1997).
Because in 2008 the United States elected a black man to the role of President,
and because America has seen partial racial victories during and after the Civil Rights
Movement, Roediger (2008) and Winant (1997) note that many argue that race is no
longer an issue. It is more common to focus on class and socioeconomic status over race,
because there are obvious disparities between the wealthy and the poor, and it is less
taboo to expose these inequalities. However, scholars (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012;
Kendall, 2006; Lipsitz, 1995; Wise, 2008) note that race is still a concern. One example
can be seen in the disproportionate representations of people of color in positions of
authority. The January 2005 issue of Black Enterprise noted that African Americans still
hold less than 1 percent of senior-level positions in corporate companies (Kendall, 2006).
Other examples are seen in the racial gaps that are evident in health care, infant mortality,
housing, education, and the judicial system.

25
25
Prior to the 1960s, people of color did most of the writing about whiteness and
how whiteness affects society. Yet American history was written almost exclusively
from a white point of view, and approved by white decision-makers in positions of
authority, thereby presenting history from a white bias and silencing the history of people
of color. As a result, authors of color and the history of those of color have traditionally
been excluded from the conversation (Kivel, 1996). Kivel (1996) calls this a cost of
whiteness because when the contributions of people of color are left out, we are left with
a “distorted and inaccurate picture of history and politics” (p. 36).
However, in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, the study of whiteness by
white people grew and white people began to notice their whiteness. This established a
dualism of racial consciousness and a dichotomy felt by whites (Winant, 1997). While
white people’s awareness of their history and the affects white history has had on people
of color increased, white people also anesthetized themselves from the oppression that
occurred in the name of whiteness and the privileges white people receive today because
of this history (Kendall, 2006; Winant, 1997). Learning about white history and the
fluidity of race through history is a step toward awareness, dismantling whiteness, and
building a positive white identity.
Institutionalized Whiteness
Part of understanding the history of whiteness is accepting how whiteness has
been institutionalized into American policies. The knowledge student affairs
professionals have of institutionalized policies that promote whiteness can affect the job
administrators do, the programs they create, and the policies they support. This

26
26
information ties to how white student affairs professionals see race affecting their job as
well as provides insight into their racial awareness. As whiteness is invisible, how it is
institutionalized is also invisible. Therefore, for white student affairs professionals to
have knowledge of institutionalized whiteness shows a higher level of consciousness and
awareness.
Examining whiteness from an institutional level helps us understand how
advantages and disadvantages tied to race are not always individual acts, but are
structurally embedded into our culture and government. The institutionalization of
whiteness is synonymous with systemic and institutionalized racism. Before describing
and providing examples to illustrate institutionalized whiteness and racism, it is important
to explain the differences between racism and being labeled “racist.”
Racism is defined as a system of oppression based on power and privilege that
translates into attitudes, laws, policies, and practices that advantage some groups and
disadvantage other groups based on race (Rothenberg, 2000). Segrest (2001) expands
that definition to say that, “racism implicates systems of oppression based on gender and
class, on patriarchy, capitalism, and heterosexism” (p. 65). Establishing that racism is a
system is important, because it is different than racist acts, which are individual acts or
behaviors directed at a racial group. Wellman, as quoted in Lawrence (1997), captures
this significance by explaining that when he interviewed white people, “they tended to
believe that racism was synonymous with personal prejudice, and because they did not
feel prejudiced, racism must be someone else’s problem” (p. 108). Kendall (2006) and
Frankenberg (1993) note that being labeled “racist” is assaulting, off-putting, and makes

27
27
individuals defensive and shut-down to having conversations on race. Wildman and
Davis (1997) explain the difference between racism and racist acts, and the importance of
focusing on the system of racism by saying:
Calling someone racist individualizes the behavior and veils the fact that racism
can occur only where it is culturally, social, and legally supported. It lays the
blame on the individual rather than the systemic forces that have shaped the
individual and his or her society. Whites know they do not want to be labeled
racist; they become concerned with how to avoid that label, rather than worrying
about systemic racism and how to change it. (p. 315)

Although white people are the most common beneficiaries of the system of racism
and whiteness, all white people do not necessarily embody or contribute to racism or
whiteness (Leonardo, 2002). Also, not all white people benefit equally from whiteness,
and not all people of color suffer equally from whiteness (Kendall, 2006, Lipsitz, 2008).
Characteristics in addition to race influence systems of power and privilege including,
gender, sexual orientation, religion, able-ness, class, and socioeconomic status. While
these other characteristics may carry privileges, they do not take away from skin color
privilege. (Kendall, 2006; Lipsitz , 2008; McIntosh, 1988).
Examples of how whiteness became institutionalized and privileged white people
can be seen throughout American history and through images of whiteness. There are
several examples that could be used in this section. However, the following examples
were chosen to give an overview of some of the most common examples used by some of
the most cited sources.
Lipsitz (2008) details what he calls “the possessive investment in whiteness” by
examining past and current policies and practices that have reinforced whiteness and
racism over time. Examples can be seen in the New Deal era (since the 1930s) that

28
28
widened the gap between white people and people of color through Federal housing
policies channeling loans toward white home buyers and away from inner-city residents,
which led to segregated neighborhoods (Lipsitz, 2008). In the 1950s and 1960s, urban
renewal programs that were intended to assist poor neighborhoods and people of color
destroyed more housing than it created when, throughout the history of the program, 90
percent of low-income units were removed and never replaced (Lipsitz, 2008). In the
1980s and 1990s, government policies cut federal aid to education and refused to
challenge segregation in education, housing, and hiring (Lipsitz, 2008). Additionally, tax
laws in the 1980s increased the value of investment income and decreased the value of
wage income further widening net wealth disparities between white people and people of
color (Lipsitz, 2008).
Other examples of systematic racial bias can be seen in healthcare, criminal
justice, and employment. In the area of healthcare, “minorities are less likely than whites
to receive preventive medical care or costly operations from Medicare” (Lipsitz, 2008, p.
74). In examining high levels of environmental health hazards such as “polluted air,
contaminated fish, lead poisoning, municipal landfills, incinerators, and toxic waste
dumps” (Lipsitz, 2008, p.74), race was the biggest predictor of exposure, even after
studies adjusted for income, education, and employment status. Similarly, significant
racial disparities can be seen proportionally among racial groups in arrests and
convictions in the criminal justice system. In employment, racial disparities can be seen
in hiring practices and in wages earned. When accounting for education and similar

29
29
qualifications, white people earn more than people of color at a rate of $1.00 for every
$0.60 (Kivel, 1996; Lipsitz, 2008).
A final example of institutionalized whiteness is demonstrated by the work of
Dyer (1988; 1997; 2008) who examines how whiteness is represented in images. Dyer
(2008) notes that “research – into books, museums, the press, advertising, films,
television, software – repeatedly shows that in Western representation whites are
overwhelmingly and disproportionately predominant, have the central and elaborated
roles, and above all are placed as the norm, the ordinary, the standard” (p. 11). Through
images, whiteness is perpetuated as the ideal and becomes further invisible.
One example Dyer (2008) uses is the description of people of color by their race,
but the absence of describing white people by their race in newspaper headlines or film
synopses, such as: “comedy in which a cop and his black sidekick investigate a robbery,”
“skinhead Johnny and his Asian lover Omar set up a launderette,” “feature film from a
promising Native American director” (p. 10). In failing to describe the white person by
their race, the white person is shown as an individual, while the person of color is limited
to their racial description. Dyer (1988) challenges white people to picture popular
movies with white lead actors and imagine that the actor is of a different race. In what
way would changing the race change the story or the film, and what does this show us
about how whiteness is engrained in imagery?
Another example is the embodiment of whiteness through Christian imagery
(Dyer, 1997). Dyer (1997) does not argue that Christianity is exclusively white, but he
notes that Christianity has been represented “in distinctly white ways for most of its

30
30
history” (p. 17). This is shown through the whitening of Christ in paintings and through
racializing the Crusades that made non-Christians into enemies (Dyer, 1997). Images
showed whites as good, clean, rational, and pure, while those who were not white were
represented as bad, dirty, irrational, and evil (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Dyer 1997;
Kincheloe, 1999).
Responses to Racial Conversations
As previously noted, when white people learn about whiteness, the history of
whiteness and how it is institutionalized, it can create feelings of guilt, shame,
embarrassment or inadequacy about racism and responses to it. Kivel (1996) argues,
these feelings lower the self-esteem of white individuals and negatively impact their
confidence to engage in conversations on race. As such, it is relevant to examine the
responses white people commonly have to engaging in conversations about race. The
responses to racial conversations, and the barriers that arise when having these
conversations, are relevant to the current study for two reasons. First, according to Watt
(2007), student affairs professionals are the ideal educators to lead racial discussions on
campus and to facilitate “difficult dialogues” (p. 116). This means that student affairs
professionals should be knowledgeable about the resistance that may arise from students
and colleagues related to uncomfortable dialogues surrounding race, privilege, and social
justice. Second, participants interviewed for this study engaged in potentially
uncomfortable dialogues about their own racial identity. Thus understanding the
literature on the language of resistance related to conversations on race is relevant.

31
31
Haviland (2008) explains that some resistant behaviors, that will be summarized
and detailed below, can appear through the use of evasive language. Evasive language
behavior can take the form of: avoiding words, false starts, safe self-critique, asserting
ignorance or uncertainty, letting others off the hook, citing authority, silence, or changing
the topic (Haviland, 2008). Evasive language can be used when a person feels
uncomfortable or unsure, and is a sign of a lack of knowledge or confidence. Evasive
language used by participants in this study indicates their level of confidence in their
awareness of race and discussing racial issues.
Authors such as Bonilla-Silva (2001), Gallagher (1997), Kivel (1996), McIntyre
(1997), and Watt (2007) explain that students and professionals sometimes respond by
exhibiting resistance and barriers when they attend workshops and classes that cover
race, racism, and privilege, and at other times they respond sympathetically and are
motivated to respond through action. The findings of three authors (Watt, 2007; Kivel,
1996; Pence & Fields, 1999) are summarized and detailed below to offer an example of
common responses.
Watt (2007) assessed reactions to difficult dialogues over a five-year period and
identified eight defense behaviors among master’s level students. The eight defense
behaviors identified are: denial, deflection, rationalization, intellectualization, principium,
false envy, benevolence, and minimization. Similarly, Kivel (1996) adapted nine tactics
used in instances of violence and victimization in abuse cases to describe resistance
behaviors to racial conversations. The nine tactics are: denial, minimization, blame,
redefinition, unintentionality, it’s over now, it’s only a few, counterattack, and competing

32
32
victimization. Additionally, Pence and Fields (1999) found three common responses to
teaching race to white students, including resistance, paralysis, and rage. While
resistance is natural and to be expected, and while many responses to racial conversations
are negative, some responses are positive and can be motivating and empowering. These
findings are further grouped and described below.
Denial.
In racial conversations, denial can take the form of acknowledging injustice but
not accepting it (Watt, 2007). Pence & Fields (1999) note that it can include denying or
becoming defensive about inequality and stating that racial issues may exist elsewhere,
but not here. It can also include statement like “discrimination is a thing of the past”
(Kivel, 1996, p. 41) or stating evidence to contradict the information that shows injustice
(Watt, 2007).
Deflection.
Watt (2007) describes deflection as shifting the focus during conversations to less
threatening topics or blaming others. For example, this might include blaming the school
system for not teaching about privilege (Watt, 2007) or blaming people of color for
disadvantages they may face (Kivel, 1996).
Minimization and silence.
Kivel (1996) describes minimization behavior through responses that state that
racism is not as bad as it once was. Minimization can also take the form of focusing on
smaller aspects of racial conversations, such as cross-cultural interactions, rather than
focusing on large-scale issues such as institutionalized racism (Watt, 2007). According

33
33
to Sleeter (1994) and Pence and Fields (1999), minimization can also be felt through
silence or paralysis. For example, if a white person says or does something racially
offensive, and no one speaks to counteract the behavior, then their act of racism has been
minimized. Watt (2007) and Kivel (1996) explain that minimizing can also be statements
that follow the offensive remarks, describing the behavior as unintentional or that no
harm was meant. However, even though harm may not be intended by offensive
behaviors it does not mean that harm is not felt.
Rationalization.
According to Watt (2007), rationalization behaviors appear as logical
explanations or alternative reasons for the disadvantages brought about through racial
issues. Rationalization does not require exploration of the root of the problem, but views
the issue as isolated. This behavior may also take the form of intellectualization or
principium. Meaning, intellectual arguments are offered as rationale for injustices or may
be based in personal or religious principles and beliefs (Watt, 2007).
Benevolence.
Watt’s (2007) definition of benevolence is behavior that is of a philanthropic act,
such as attending an event or fundraiser, which focuses on the act of power by the giver
and the powerlessness of the receiver. Benevolence can also take the form of showing
sympathy or affection for surface-level issues while avoiding deeper complexities of race
in society (Watt, 2007).

34
34
Motivation.
When white people learn about racial issues and white privilege, Hardiman (2001)
believes that some white people become motivated and respond by rejecting their
privilege and fighting to reverse social injustices. Similarly, Pence and Fields (1999)
argue that rage can be a powerful motivator. As educators, Pence and Fields (1999) use
rage as a constructive tool and motivating force when having conversations about race.
White Privilege
This section explains the concept of white privilege, provides examples of white
privilege, shows how it impacts white college student affairs professionals, and describes
how it has been represented in empirical studies. This literature builds on the previous
sections to further describe the many dimensions of whiteness and the affects white
privilege has on individuals and society. The current study asked how aware white
student affairs professionals are of their privilege, therefore it is relevant to provide a
deeper understanding of privilege and how it may be intertwined with how these
professionals perform their jobs.
Privilege exists when one group has access to items, services, and opportunities
that others do not and when that group has greater influence, power, and resources than
others (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Kendall, 2006; McIntosh, 1988). White privilege is
belonging to a racial group that defines the societal norm and gives that group the power
to ignore or avoid objecting to oppression (Wildman & Davis, 1997). Sometimes
privileges are earned and sometimes they are not. For example, when students get
accepted to college because they meet the academic criteria of the institution, that is

35
35
earned, however when they are accepted based on their legacy status, that is unearned
(Kendall, 2006). Based on white skin color, and white privilege, doors open to white
people that do not open to others. White privilege bestows entitlements and opportunities
on white people, but does so systemically and virtually anonymously (Kendall, 2006).
All who are white have white privilege, but the extent to which one experiences
their privilege can vary or be amplified depending on additional characteristics, such as
gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, education, religion, ability, and
physical appearance (Kendall, 2006; Kivel, 1996; Lipsitz, 1998). These characteristics
can carry privileges of their own, including sexism, heterosexism, classism, able-ism, and
Christianism. “Depending on the number of privileges someone has, she or he may
experience the power of choosing the types of struggles in which to engage,” (Wildman
& Davis, 1997, p. 316) or when to use their particular privilege in a particular situation.
For example, when at an educational conference one may call on their education
privilege, but when purchasing a home they may call on their white privilege.
McIntosh (1988; 1989) describes white privilege as “an invisible package of
unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to
remain oblivious” (p. 71). McIntosh’s seminal work has been influential to the field of
white studies. Prior to McIntosh, studying whiteness remained largely abstract and
intellectualized (Kendall, 2006). The education of many white people has been grounded
in “others’ experiences of discrimination and not their own experiences of privilege”
(Pence & Fields, 1999, p. 151). However, McIntosh (1988) started to make white
privilege tangible by creating a list of 46 things she noticed in her life that were attributed

36
36
to her white skin privilege, and that were not a part of her other privileges, such as class,
gender, religion, ethnicity, or geography. Her list included the following:
• I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the
time.
• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see
people of my race widely represented.
• I can go into a bookshop and count on finding the writing of my race
represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my
cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can deal
with my hair.
• I can swear, dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without
having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or
illiteracy of my race.
• I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my
race.
• I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge” I will be
facing a person of my race.
• I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against
me.
• I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking
(McIntosh, 1988, pp. 73-75).

Through the years, McIntosh (1998) has added to the list, as she noticed her
privilege in different situations. Additionally, other authors have added to the list or
made their own observations of white privilege. For example, Kivel (1996) notes that
white privilege allows white people to always have the opportunity to vote for someone
that reflects their race. White people are represented in a variety of roles in television
and movies (Dyer, 2008; Kivel, 1996). Flesh color bandages most accurately match
white skin tones and hair products for white people are readily available, but are not so
for all people of color (Kendall, 2006).
Some examples can be directly linked to workplace environments and structures
reflected in higher education. For example, white people are often in positions of

37
37
authority and have the capability to make decisions that affect everyone without
consulting anyone else (Kendall, 2006). In conversations, white people receive more
status and respect, and the comments of white people are rarely qualified, limited,
discredited or acclaimed simply because of their racial background (Kivel, 1996).
“Whites are never placed in positions because of their expertise of ‘whiteness’”
(Monaghan, 2010, p. 56). With almost 80 percent of practitioners in higher education
categorized as white (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010), these manifestations of
white privilege seem likely.
Whiteness becomes tangible when there is a personal experience with privilege
and the ability to minimize, rationalize, or create excuses for racial disparities can no
longer be explained away. In an effort to educate their students, Pence and Fields (1999)
created a curriculum in which their students replicated an investigative television piece
called “True Colors.” In the experiment, two males, one white and one black, went
around their town performing daily tasks, such as “renting an apartment, buying
consumer goods, and applying for a job through a temporary service” (Pence & Fields,
1999, p 151). After the experiment, the men both felt they were treated fairly in most of
the situations, however, the class observers were able to report the advantages bestowed
on the white male and the discrimination the black male received. The white male was
newly aware of how easily he was treated advantageously and he realized he was also
treating others differently. Conversely, the black male was outraged when he learned he
had been discriminated against. Pence and Fields (1999) worked with the class as they
were psychologically impacted from the experiment, but the class reported feeling a

38
38
personal connection with discrimination and privilege that they had not previously been
aware of, and they were motivated to take action by presenting to lower division students
and presenting in the community (Pence & Fields, 1999).
White Privilege Attitudes Scale
McIntosh is credited with making white privilege more tangible, but information
about white privilege is still largely illustrated through conceptual writings (see: Tim
Wise, Frances Kendall, and Shelly Tochluk). Pinterits, Poteat, and Spanierman (2009)
bridged the gap between conceptual and empirical with their study that established the
White Privilege Attitudes Scale (WPAS). The instrument created by Pinterits et al.
(2009) was used in this study by influencing the questions that created the interview
protocol, which provided context and depth to the qualitative responses of participants.
The WPAS is a 28-item quantitative scale that scores participants on four factors
related to white privilege within three dimensions. The factors and dimensions include:
willingness to confront white privilege (part of the behavioral dimension), white privilege
awareness (part of the cognitive dimension), white privilege remorse (part of the affective
dimension), and anticipated costs of addressing white privilege. Some of the questions in
the WPAS include:
• I’m glad to explore my white privilege.
• I look forward to creating a more racially equitable society.
• I take action against white privilege with people I know.
• I don’t care to explore how I supposedly have unearned benefits from being
white.
• I am curious about how to communicate effectively to break down white
privilege.
• I worry about what giving up some white privileges might mean for me.

39
39
• I am anxious about the personal work I must do within myself to eliminate
white privilege.
• Our social structure system promotes white privilege.
• Plenty of people of color are more privileged than whites.
• I am angry that I keep benefiting from white privilege
• White people should feel guilty about having white privilege (Pinterits, Poteat
& Spanierman, 2009, p. 421).

The WPAS created by Pinterits et al. (2009) examined the impact that
multicultural training had on the awareness of white privilege. Similarly, the study
explored the multicultural competency of student affairs professionals and their level of
white privilege awareness. Using the WPAS, Pinterits et al. (2009) were able to correlate
that white people who exhibited lower awareness of racism also scored lower on each of
the four factors in the WPAS scale. Pinterits et al. (2009) were also able to determine
that individuals with higher levels of education scored higher on their WPAS, as did
individuals who took part in a workshop or class that discussed white privilege. If mid-
level student affairs professionals hold, at minimum, a bachelor’s degree and have
engaged in a workshop about diversity or multiculturalism that discussed white privilege,
then findings by Pinterits et al. (2009) suggest that student affairs professionals will
exhibit higher awareness of their white privilege.
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes
Color-blindness is notable in current literature on racial attitudes and is an
appealing philosophy. As previously illustrated, the meaning of race has changed over
time, which means racial attitudes have also changed. Color-blindness, as an expression
of current racial attitudes, has emerged in the literature with more frequency in recent
years. Understanding the philosophy of color-blindness is relevant to the current study

40
40
because this racial attitude can affect how student affairs professionals perform their job
and how they treat colleagues and students.
Color-blindness is a belief, an attitude, and a perspective about race and racism.
It refers to the belief “that race should not and does not matter” (Gushue & Constantine,
2007, p. 323). Color-blindness differs from racism because racism represents a structure
of oppression, whereas color-blindness represents a belief that racial inequities do not
exist (Neville et al., 2000). However, color-blindness can lead to compliance with racism
because it acquiesces rather than challenges structures of oppression. Gusa (2010)
explains that color-blindness is where the race of a person is and ought to be immaterial
to any decision-making process. It is argued (Dalton, 2008; Lewis, 2004; Thompson,
1999) that color-blindness is a problem because it ignores and is ignorant of meaningful
differences among races and ethnicities. Lund (2010) notes that “being color-blind to
race and racism results in a lens of denial, through which white individuals cannot see
race and systemic racism” (p. 17). Suppressing or ignoring meaningful differences denies
white people and people of color of the ability to see how race shapes ones experiences
and opportunities.
The first half of the statement that defines color-blindness, that race should not
matter, is supported by scholars (Neville et al., 2000). According to Gusa (2010), most
white people find the notion of color-blindness appealing; they believe in the idea of
color-blindness and want a color-blind society to exist. The idea of a color-blind society
has been prominent since the Reagan-era (Omi & Winant, 1994). The ideology of a
color-blind society is attractive because it conveys democratic values of fairness,

41
41
equality, and a level playing field. The philosophy of color-blindness is that “color
should not determine someone’s worth,” “their right to vote, see a movie,” or “get a fair
trial” (Kendall, 2006, p. 51). In a color-blind society no one race would have special
rights, privileges, or increased significance (Omi & Winant, 1994). Being color-blind
was intended to remove color as a characteristic that could affect access to opportunities.
However, scholars argue that the second half of the definition of color-blindness,
that race does not matter, is where problems arise (Neville et al., 2000). Bonilla-Silva
(2001) notes that rather than being a way of removing obstacles, it is almost impossible to
not be conscious of color and race in American society. Color-blindness contributes to
blind spots by ignoring gaps among races in areas such as health care, housing,
education, and the judicial system (Kendall, 2006; Lipsitz, 1995; Wise, 2008). Kendall
(2006) argues that color-blindness assumes a distorted reality of equal footing, a level
playing field, and fairness. While people may not want to see color and race, American
society is color-conscious which means that people, like our students, have varying needs
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Rosenberg (2004) notes that respect, awareness, fairness,
sensitivity, and equity do not come through denying the racial experiences of our
students. If white educators do not see how race plays a role in the lives of a diverse
student population, they will not be able to attract the most talented students or be able to
serve their needs (Kendall, 2006; Rosenberg, 2004).
An assumption of color-blindness is that those who adopt this point of view are
non-racist or are antiracist because they do not treat people of color differently than they
treat white people. Guidelines adopted by the American Psychological Association

42
42
(2003) note that while adopting a color-blind attitude may be intended to counteract
racial prejudice and “reduce inequities” (p. 383), the effect may be the opposite. Social
psychologists found that adopting a color-blind attitude does not lead to equitable
treatment of racial and ethnic groups (APA, 2003). With a color-blind attitude, “racial or
ethnic differences are minimized, and [the] emphasis is on the universal or ‘human’
aspect of behavior” such as “assimilation” and the “melting pot metaphor” (APA, 2003,
p. 383). Additionally, a study conducted by Gushue and Constantine (2007) supported
the hypothesis that color-blind attitudes are related to less advanced racial identity
attitudes (i.e., more racist) and lower levels of color-blind racial attitudes are associated
with more advanced racial identity attitudes (i.e., less racist). Thus, maintaining a color-
blind view may act as a rationale for racial prejudice rather than a step toward inclusion
and equity.
An example of this can be seen in a 1998 study done in Detroit. Bonilla-Silva
(2001) was the principle investigator for the Detroit Area Study on White Racial
Ideology. All respondents in the study identified as either black or white. After
responding to a quantitative questionnaire, a random sample was interviewed and their
qualitative responses were analyzed for themes. Bonilla-Silva (2001) found that almost
all white respondents demonstrated one of the four color-blind themes that emerged from
the study.
The first theme was abstract liberalism in which respondents rationalized unfair
racial situations in an abstract and decontextualized manner (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). This
means that respondents may have intended to appear “liberal” or to not have a color-blind

43
43
perspective, but their responses offered contradictions and rationalization. Some
responses in this theme were “I’m all for equal opportunities, that’s why I oppose
affirmative action,” (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, p. 141) or “I don’t have anything against
interracial marriage, but…” (p. 146) then stated several problems that might arise from
interracial relationships.
The second theme Bonilla-Silva (2001) found as a theme of color-blindness was
biologization of culture in which respondents stated that blacks as a group had naturally
inferior qualities, such as less intelligence or lack of motivation. While Bonilla-Silva
(2001) classifies this theme as a part of color-blindness, he also notes that this is an
embodiment of racism white people have used toward black people.
The third theme of color-blindness that Bonilla-Silva (2001) found was
naturalization of racial matters. In this theme, respondents noted that the reason for
perpetuation of residential and social segregation is “it’s natural for people to gravitate
toward likeness” (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, p. 150) or that it is a choice that “just happens” (p.
149).
The fourth theme in the study was minimization of racism and discrimination
(Bonilla-Silva, 2001). This theme reflects minimization of racial differences and
justifications for maintaining color-blind ideologies, as found in studies detailed earlier in
this chapter in the section on responses to racial conversations (Haviland, 2008; Kivel,
1996; McIntyre, 1997; Pence & Fields, 1999; Watt, 2007). In this theme, white
respondents expressed a denial of structural racism or found it to be illegitimate.

44
44
White respondents expressed the following views in the Detroit Area Study: that
discrimination was self-inflicted by blacks, acts of oppression were exceptions,
discrimination was a thing of the past, and programs to assist with inequalities were no
longer necessary (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Why white respondents expressed these views
can be understood by looking at two statements in the quantitative questionnaire.
Responses to two specific statements about discrimination demonstrate the
different perspectives held by black and white respondents. On one item, “discrimination
against blacks is no longer a problem in the United States” (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, p. 151),
more than 89 percent of black respondents and more than 82 percent of white respondents
disagreed/strongly disagreed, showing similar views among black and white respondents.
Yet given the statement “blacks are in the position that they are today as a group because
of present day discrimination” (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, p. 151), only approximately 33
percent of whites agreed/strongly agreed while more than 60 percent of blacks
agreed/strongly agreed. Therefore, while both groups believe that discrimination is still a
problem, most whites in the study did not see present day contributions to discrimination
as the cause while a majority of blacks did (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). This demonstrates a
disparity in perspectives between the experiences of black and white respondents in the
Detroit study as a result of color-blindness.
Awareness of color-blindness is particularly important for educators because they
have a responsibility to be culturally responsive to students from diverse backgrounds.
According to Rosenberg (2004), adopting a color-blind view ignores cultural differences
and can result in unresponsiveness. Without being culturally aware, educators may

45
45
unintentionally blame students for their failures and may not take ownership for creating
a culturally responsive pedagogy (Rosenberg, 2004). Gushue and Constantine (2007)
came to a similar conclusion after studying color-blindness in counselors, saying:
With greater awareness of their own racial and cultural attitudes as well as an
acknowledgement of the unearned privileges that they receive from membership
in the white racial group, white counselors presumably would be better able to
appreciate the myriad of issues and dynamics associated with race and racism in
the context of working with clients of color. (p. 323)

Paying attention to color and race can be uncomfortable because it draws attention
to racial patterns found in social life and it acknowledges racial and ethnic differences
(Thompson, 1999). Talking about race can make some feel racist because it
acknowledges that there are differences. However, talking about color-blind ideologies,
race, and whiteness does not necessarily perpetuate racism or discrimination, often it can
be a tool for dismantling whiteness and racism. Kivel (1996) explains that, “instead of
being color neutral we need to notice much more acutely and insightfully exactly the
difference that color makes in the way people are treated” (p. 16). Rosenberg (2004)
goes on to say that “as painful or difficult as this knowledge of self and society may be, it
is vital to learn if we, as educators, hope to interrupt how we may be complicit (whether
intentionally or not) in maintaining the cycles of oppression for students of color” (pp.
268-269).
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale
While there are instruments that are designed to assess racism and prejudice, the
Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) is one of the only empirical instruments
designed specifically to measure color-blind racial attitudes. Neville et al. (2000)

46
46
developed the scale because they found a lack of empirical assessment on color-
blindness, yet they noticed an increase in how frequently color-blindness appeared in the
literature surrounding topics of race, racism, prejudice, and privilege. Information on this
instrument is included because the CoBRAS quantitative instrument served as an
influence for the interview protocol in the current study, and findings from the CoBRAS
study are relevant to this study’s examination of the awareness of racial attitudes in
student affairs professionals.
Neville et al. (2000) developed the questions in their instrument by reviewing
several qualitative studies and empirical instruments. During the validation of their 26-
item scale, Neville et al. (2000) established three factors associated with color-blind
racial attitudes: unawareness of racial privilege, institutional discrimination, and blatant
racial issues. Some of the questions used in their instrument include:
• Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance
to become rich.
• Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as type of health
care or day care) that people receive in the U.S.
• Due to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are
necessary to help create equality.
• Racism may have been a problem in the past, it is not an important problem
today.
• Talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tension.
• Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white
people.
• Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations (Neville et al., 2000, p.
62).

Their study led to two relevant findings. One finding established that a color-
blind attitude does not equate to racist attitudes toward people of color, but it does
indicate inaccuracies and distorted views about people of color and about race relations

47
47
(Neville et al., 2000). A second initial finding from the CoBRAS study also indicates,
similar to the WPAS, that more education denotes lower CoBRAS scores (i.e., less racist
attitudes). Therefore, if the assumption holds true that mid-level student affairs educators
have higher levels of education, then the CoBRAS study findings suggest that student
affairs professionals will exhibit lower levels of color-blind racial attitudes.
White Racial Identity Development
Central to the current research is understanding whiteness. Thus far, literature
covering several aspects of whiteness has been reviewed. This section explores literature
related to racial identity development, and the stages one passes through on the path to a
positive white racial identity.
One way to understand whiteness is through an examination of white racial
identity development theory. A model of white racial identity development is a way to
categorize participant responses and to understand the variety of perspectives that can be
held by a white person. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) state that, “a healthy identity for
whites requires the recognition and understanding of the role of race” (p. 26). White
racial identity development theories attempt to explain the various ways in which whites
can identify, or not identify, with other whites and/or evolve, or avoid evolving, a non-
oppressive white identity (Helms, 1990).
The dominant model in the field comes from Janet Helms (1984; 1990; 1995).
While Helms’ theory is not the only white racial identity model, it is widely known, has
received the most attention, it is the most cited and critiqued, and has been empirically
studied (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998; Hardiman, 2001; Miller & Fellows,

48
48
2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Rowe, Bennett & Atkinson, 1994). In fact, Helms’
model was empirically reviewed when others were not (Hardiman, 2001). Additionally,
Helms and Carter (1990) developed the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS) to
serve as an assessment tool that contributes to its ongoing empirical review which led the
theory to be the most influential of the white racial identity models (Hardiman, 2001).
Even as the leading white racial identity theory, Helms’ model is not infallible. The
following discussion includes a description of the theory, along with strengths and
limitations of the model.
Model
Helms originally formed a five-stage white racial identity model in 1984. After
critiques and reviews, she revisited the model. In 1990 she added a sixth stage and in
1995 she changed the language of her model to classify stages as ego statuses and
adjusted her language to reference people of color as opposed to only blacks. Helms
examined racial identity development from a counseling and psychology perspective.
Helms (1984) was initially interested in relationships between counselors and clients, but
was frustrated with minority-focused models in which the client was the problem and the
counselor was the solution. The focus, prior to her model, was an assumption that the
client was a person of color and the therapist was white. The attention was on the client
of color and not on the race, perspective, or assumptions of the white counselor or how
the white counselor’s perspectives influence the counselor/client relationship. Helms
(1984) believed that “all people, regardless of race, go through a stagewise process of

49
49
developing racial consciousness wherein the final stage is an acceptance of race as a
positive aspect of themselves and others” (p. 154).
Helms (1984) developed the White Racial Identity Development (WRID) model
by examining Black identity models, such as Cross’s 1971 theory of Nigrescence. The
theories on whiteness, at the time, focused mostly on racial attitudes towards other races
or the prejudice of whites toward blacks (Helms, 1984). Helms (1984) wanted to explain
how “whites develop attitudes about the racial group to which they belong” (p. 155). The
methodology Helms used to develop her model included informally interviewing “a few
white friends and colleagues to determine how they viewed the development of their
racial consciousness” (Helms, 1984, p. 155). As Helms developed the model, she asked
white professionals and students to offer feedback until she felt that the model accurately
reflected their experiences. Helms’ WRID model implies that it represents all white
Americans, but it does not necessarily explain the diverse experiences of all whites or the
way they develop their racial identity.
The WRID model is intended to be sequential and for the statuses to build upon
one another. However, Helms (1995) acknowledged that one’s growth into a status can
regress if it is not reinforced. Statuses that are supported grow stronger, but without
constant progress, a person will regress to their most comfortable status. Socialization
impacts the statuses, what the statuses mean to the individual, and how the person might
internalize the statuses (Helms, 1995). For a white person, interaction with other white
people who are progressing to a positive antiracist identity and interaction with people of
color reinforces their growth through statuses. However, while interaction is important,

50
50
the quality of the interaction is more significant in progression through the statuses
(Tatum, 1994). Additionally, Helms (1990) acknowledges that there is no ending to
understanding one’s own identity; rather, it is an on-going, life-long process.
Statuses
Helms’ (1995) WRID model has six-statuses with two major phases. The first
phase includes the first three statuses and requires the abandonment of individual racism
(Helms, 1990). The second phase includes the last three stages and ends with whites
actively opposing institutional and cultural racism and defining a positive white identity
(Helms, 1990). Helms (1990) noted that each of the six statuses encompasses distinctive
emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. As a person moves through the statuses of WRID,
Helms indicates that their attitudes will change much faster than their behaviors (1990).
She also suggests that dissonance is experienced in the WRID model when there is a
misalignment between a person’s emotions, attitudes, and behaviors about their
whiteness. Dissonance propels a person to move forward through the stages or causes
them to regress to previous stages (Helms, 1990). For example, dissonance may be
experienced by a white student enrolled in their first diversity class; or by attending an
event that challenges one’s perceptions of race; or through a personal experience that
illustrates racism, such as personally witnessing a white person renting an apartment for
which a person of color was denied.
Phase 1: Abandonment of racism.
Helms’ WRID model has two major phases. Phase 1 encompasses the first three
statuses and ends with the abandonment of individual racism. The first three statuses are

51
51
Contact, Disintegration, and Reintegration (Helms, 1995). Phase 2 encompasses the final
three statuses and ends with a positive white racial identity and the recognition of and
opposition to institutional and cultural racism. The last three statuses are Pseudo-
Independent, Immersion/Emersion, and Autonomy (Helms, 1990).
Contact.
The first status, Contact, is defined by racial naiveté, unawareness of institutional
or cultural racism, engagement in individual racism, and limited interracial interactions
(Helms, 1990). Many white college students, who are taking their first diversity course,
are typically in this stage (Tatum, 1994). In the Contact status, little attention is paid to
the significance of one’s racial group membership and being a part of the racial norm is
taken for granted. In this status, No conscious consideration is given to the advantages
whites receive based on their racial group. Additionally, many whites in this status
perceive themselves as free of prejudice and are unaware of their own assumptions about
other racial groups. A person moves from Contact to Disintegration when enough racial
experiences accumulate to propel the person.
Disintegration.
The second status of WRID is Disintegration. Disintegration “implies conscious,
though conflicted, acknowledgment of one’s whiteness” (Helms, 1990, p. 58). In this
status, a white person may feel discomfort as they begin to see how their lives, and the
lives of people of color, have been affected by racism. Emotions including guilt and
anxiety are common in this status.

52
52
In Disintegration, white people learn about active racism, passive racism, and
their sphere of influence (Tatum, 1994). Active racism includes verbal harassment,
physical violence, and intentional acts of discrimination. Whereas passive racism
includes silence in the presence of another’s racist remarks, unexamined policies and
practices that disproportionately impact people of color, and the failure to acknowledge
the contributions of people of color. In this status, white people learn that “an active
response to racism is required to interrupt its perpetuation in our society” (Tatum, 1994,
p. 465) which leads to an examination of one’s sphere of influence. The sphere of
influence for a person begins with the understanding of how their individual experiences
shape their perceptions, assumptions, attitudes, and the types of racism that seep into their
consciousness (Tatum, 1994). In Disintegration white people begin to see what they will
need to learn to undo internalized racism within themselves and within their sphere of
influence.
Disintegration is a delicate status because it is easy for whites to get lost here or to
withdraw and to deny the validity of the information they are processing about how race
affects society. There is a risk in this status that whites may avoid further contact with
people of color, they may attempt to convince others that people of color do not face
disadvantages, or they may seek information that will show that racism does not exist
(Helms, 1990). For educators, it is important to support whites working through this
status by finding positive role models that show how whites can undo racism in their
sphere of influence. As whites reshape their beliefs during this status, they enter
Reintegration.

53
53
Reintegration.
The final status of the Phase 1 is Reintegration. In Reintegration, whites
“consciously acknowledge a white identity” (Helms, 1990, p. 60) and, in the absence of
alternative information, believe that whites are superior to people of color. Feelings of
guilt and anxiety that were seen in Disintegration become attitudes of fear and anger
toward people of color (Helms, 1990). In this status, whites employ a deficit mentality
that reinforces the belief that whites have earned their status and privileges in society
without institutional or cultural advantages and that people of color are deficient and lack
intelligence, talent, and personal advancement skills.
In Reintegration, whites find explanations for racism that put the burden on
people of color and those who are the target of racism. This superiority may be actively
or passively expressed and it supports the myth of meritocracy. Meritocracy is the belief
that advancement and success are based in talent, intellect, and hard work. Meritocracy
does not account for the advantages, disadvantages, or opportunities one experiences
based on their race. In Reintegration, a belief of white superiority over people of color
reinforces the myth of meritocracy.
It is easy for whites to remain in Reintegration because whites can choose to
participate in or avoid situations that will challenge their personal racial identity
development. For some, the guilt and pressure to ignore how racism affects society is too
strong and whites get stuck in this status. Transition from the Reintegration status to
more advanced statuses comes as a result of a personally significant event that prompts

54
54
whites to begin to question their previous definitions of whiteness, justifications of
racism, and serves as a catalyst for whites to abandon their racist identity.
Phase 2: Defining a non-racist White identity.
Phase 1 of Helms’ white racial identity development model ends with the
abandonment of individual racism. Phase 2 of the WRID model encompasses the final
three statuses and ends with the recognition of and opposition to institutional and cultural
racism. The last three statuses are Pseudo-Independent, Immersion/Emersion, and
Autonomy (Helms, 1990).
Pseudo-Independence.
Pseudo-Independence is the fourth status of the model, and the first status of
Phase 2. Pseudo-Independence is defined by whites who actively question white
superiority, acknowledge the responsibility whites have for perpetuating racism, and seek
to understand his or her feelings about whiteness (Helms, 1990). Whites grow into and
through this status as a result of an ongoing dialogue about race. In Pseudo-
Independence, whites begin to intellectualize the negative feelings they had about race in
the previous statuses.
In Pseudo-Independence some whites distance themselves from their own racial
group and they seek friendships with those who express antiracist perspectives (Tatum,
1994). Whites in this status may encounter discomfort and dismissal from friends who
are in less advanced statuses and have not intellectualized their feelings about racism.
There is a dearth of strong antiracist white role models, so whites in this status can feel
somewhat abandoned and marginalized. In this status, whites may be uncomfortable with

55
55
their previous racial identity and they search for ways to redefine their racial identity.
Whites will advance through this status if they feel personal and intrinsic rewards that
serve as positive reinforcement for developing a positive white racial identity.
Whites experience a deepening awareness and commitment to unlearning their
own racism and creating a positive definition of whiteness in this status. Here whites
question the deficit mentality they previously held in relation to people of color and the
meritocracy associated with whiteness. While whites in this status may not have a
negative white racial identity, they have not yet established a positive racial identity
(Helms, 1990). Tatum (1994) encourages those in this status to “embrace who we are in
terms of our racial cultural heritage, not in terms of assumed superiority or inferiority, but
as an integral part of our daily experience in which we can take pride” (p. 468). As such,
whites in this status look for positive aspects of their racial identity unrelated to racism.
As whites begin this quest, they enter the Immersion/Emersion status.
Immersion/Emersion.
Immersion/Emersion is the fifth status of Helms’ WRID model. In Immersion/
Emersion, whites further question what it means to be white. This is accomplished by
participating in white-consciousness raising activities, abandoning a deficit mentality,
and the idea of changing people of color is replaced with a desire to change white people
(Helms, 1990). This is an assertive status in which whites actively seek answers to
questions about their racial identity. Additionally, they actively seek out non-oppressive
white people as role models. With the active work on the part of the white person, he or
she begins to feel empowered and there is excitement about their new white identity. As

56
56
whites begins to eliminate negative racial feelings, and replace them with positive racial
feelings, whites moves toward Autonomy and feel inspired to challenge racism and
oppression (Helms, 1990).
Autonomy.
The final stage of Helms’ model is Autonomy and is the highest level of white
racial identity. Autonomy is marked by whites who have “abandoned cultural and
institutional racism as well as personal racism” (Helms, 1990, p. 66). Autonomy is an
on-going process in which a person is “continuously open to new information and new
ways of thinking about racial and cultural variables” (Helms, 1990, p. 66).
Autonomy is a culmination of all other statuses. In this final status, whites
develop a new and evolved definition of whiteness. This white identity is internalized
and becomes incorporated as part of one’s own person self-definition. This process is not
static or linear. While Helms’ WRID model is designed to be sequential, she
acknowledges that one can move through, around, and over statuses (Helms, 1995).
Therefore, as whites move between statuses, they continue to grow and see things from
different perspectives along the way.
In this status, whites no longer feel the superiority of whiteness nor do they feel
the need to disadvantage or oppress people of color so that whiteness can remain
dominant. Autonomous whites are able to differentiate societal dictations of race from
their own contribution to institutional and cultural racism. In this final status, whites also
consider other forms of oppression, such as sexism or heterosexism, and embark on
eliminating these forms of oppression in addition to racism. Reaching Autonomy does

57
57
not mark perfection for whites, but it marks an abandonment of individual racism and the
recognition of and opposition to institutional and cultural racism (Helms, 1990).
Limitations
As previously noted, Helms’ model is not the only white racial identity
development model, nor is it infallible. One limitation to the WRID model is the
weakness of the empirical nature of the theory and of the White Racial Identity Attitude
Scale (WRIAS). Despite empirical studies, the WRID model was widely accepted prior
to extensive critical evaluation (Rowe et al., 1994). Much of the research that promoted
the WRID model depended on the use of the WRIAS (Helms & Carter, 1990).
In addition to only measuring the original five stages of the WRID model, the
WRIAS has other limitations (Hardiman, 2001). Behrens (1997) conducted a meta-
analysis of the WRIAS and discovered inconsistencies and weaknesses with the model.
Behrens (1997) revealed that the WRIAS is not a cohesive scale to characterize each of
the stages and that the reliability and validity of the scale is questionable. Behrens (1997)
states that the WRIAS is not appropriate for use as a general racism scale and its
“characterization as a measure of multiple dimensions of white racial identity is, at this
point, not supported” (p. 10). While some of the “features of the WRID model might be
appealing, rational analysis and the available empirical evidence lead us to believe that
existing models might be less than satisfactory” (Rowe et al., 1994). Because of the
weaknesses in the WRIAS, the strength of the WRID theoretical construct is
compromised and jeopardizes the model’s usefulness altogether (Behrens, 1997).

58
58
Another limitation to the WRID model is whether it effectively demonstrates
identity development. Multiple critics (Behrens, 1997, Hardiman, 2001; Ortiz & Rhoads,
2000; Rowe et al., 1994) note that the WRID model does not “actually explain how
whites develop a racial identity, but rather how they develop attitudes toward other racial
groups” (Miller & Fellows, 2007, p. 52). Helms’ model describes how whites “develop
different levels of sensitivity to and appreciation of other racial/ethnic groups … but little
about white identity” (Rowe et al., 1994).
The model links identity development to racism, but Hardiman (2001) argues that,
“there is more to whiteness than racism” (p. 123). Carter, Helms, and Juby (2004) also
pose the question of whether racial identity must be related to racism. Their findings
were inconclusive which questions the current theoretical construction of the WRID
model (Carter et al., 2004).
Hardiman (2001) also questions whether Helms’ model can represent white racial
identity development if it does not accurately represent all white Americans. Helms’
current model does not explain the diverse experiences of whites, the multiple eras of
socialization for whites, or the different ways whites may develop a racial identity
(Hardiman, 2001). These limitations indicate that more research is needed “to discover
what causes White people to make very different choices regarding the meaning of race
in their lives” (Miller & Fellows, 2007) and how they develop a white racial identity.
Strengths
Despites these limitations, Helms’ model significantly impacted the fields of
psychology and multiculturalism. Her model is heralded for challenging whites to

59
59
examine their racial identity. By deconstructing whiteness, Helms has “contributed to the
reduction of racism and white cultural bias in the practice of counseling” (Hardiman,
2001, p. 117). Helms’ work dismantles whiteness by dissecting the statuses whites
experience and explains how whites can progress past obliviousness toward a non-racist
white identity (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Concurrently Helms examines the impact of
racism on white racial identity development, which has positively impacted cultural
identity theory (Hardiman, 2001).
Another strength of Helms is seen in her response to critiques of her 1984 and
1990 models. She was questioned about her use of stages in a developmental theory
(Helms, 1995). Helms (1995) notes in her 1995 revision that the use of stages was too
rigid. As a result, she relabeled each stage as an ego status and indicated that whites
could fluidly move between statuses or jump from status to status, depending on their
unique situation, their influences, and how that person was socialized (Helms, 1995).
Helms (1995) pointed out that “if a status is constantly reinforced, it grows stronger, but
if not, it withers away” (p. 187). Helms and Cook (1999) also noted that a person can be
in multiple statuses, which can influence their reactions to racial situations.
Helms was also questioned about the exclusive focus on blacks as the object of
racism in her model. Helms (1995) responded to the critique of her exclusive use of
blacks as the oppressed group in her model. Helms’ language originally focused on
blacks as the oppressed group because at the time she developed the WRID model, most
racial identity development models were oppression-based and were centered on blacks
(Helms, 1984; 1995). In her revision, Helms (1995) states that the use of blacks in the

60
60
theory can be generalized to be any oppressed non-white group and should not be
restricted to blacks.
Another strength of Helms’ model is its usefulness for student affairs
administrators. WRID allows practitioners to examine their own racial identity
development and to educate students in higher education. Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005) provide evidence that college attendance positively impacts racial-ethnic attitudes
of students, increases their cultural awareness, and improves their acceptance of other
races and cultures. Student affairs staff can ensure these positive outcomes by offering
educational experiences that expose students to interracial interactions and support honest
discussions about racial identity without fear (Miller & Fellows, 2007). The greater the
awareness of student affairs professionals about racial identity development, the more
effectively they can provide educational forums for white students to verbalize their
thoughts and opinions thereby giving students a chance to explore their white identity
without shame (Miller & Fellows, 2007).
Summary
While the WRID model should not be relied upon to offer a framework for
solutions to all questions regarding how whites develop a healthy racial identity,
currently there is “no single appropriate process or outcome of white identity
development” (Miller & Fellows, 2007, p. 62). Therefore, it is the challenge of educators
to be aware of their own identity development, and that of their students, and to
cautiously use the existing models to inform their practice, and to stay abreast of research
on racial identity and whiteness as it continues to develop.

61
61
Helms’ WRID model demystifies whiteness and makes it feasible to train
educators to be responsive to racial relationships (Helms, 1995). The goal of Helms’
model is to reduce the emphasis on changing people of color to fit into a normalized
white society, and instead focuses on encouraging whites to adopt a non-racist white
identity (Helms, 1995). Multicultural education mirrors this goal as it aims to “shift from
knowledge of others to a more inclusive process that enhances racial identity
development on the part of all students” (Carter & Goodwin, 1994, p. xx). Using Helms’
framework, student affairs administrators can be educated to increase their own
awareness, learn more about their own racial identity, support inclusive educational
practices, improve interracial relationships, mediate racial problems, and resolve tensions
before they become problems (Helms, 1995; Miller & Fellows, 2007).
Multicultural Competencies
The final section of this chapter discusses multicultural competencies. The
literature explaining multicultural competencies is included to provide context for the
second research question in the current study: “Do white student affairs professionals feel
invested in being multiculturally competent?” Before asking if student affairs
professionals are invested in multicultural competencies, we must first explain what they
are. The elements that make up MCC are awareness (or attitudes), knowledge, and skills
(Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Pope & Reynolds, 1997). In student affairs, this means
having the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to create multicultural learning environments
and multicultural campuses.

62
62
The topic of multicultural competencies has been largely tackled in the field of
counseling psychology. More recently, the field of student affairs produced research
arguing for MCC (Burkard, Cole, Ott & Stoflet, 2004; Pope & Reynolds, 1997) and
associations for student affairs responded by establishing competencies called Equity,
Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) as a professional expectations for student affairs
practitioners (American College Personnel Association & National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators [ACPA & NASPA], 2010b). Scholars argued for
multicultural competencies to be established in student affairs because it was clear there
was a need for competencies, but there was not a consensus on what those competencies
should be. As King and Howard-Hamilton (2003) note, if individuals did not have MCC
when they entered student affairs graduate programs, they should have them by the time
they graduated. Unfortunately, with the lack of consensus about proficiencies, there was
an inconsistency in the awareness, knowledge and skills expected of new professionals in
the field and in the training received in graduate programs (Pope & Reynolds, 1997).
Now that guidelines have been established in student affairs, practitioners can
expect proficiency from student affairs administrators in these areas, consistency and
standards in graduate training programs, and baseline skills in new professionals entering
the field. Some of the 30 competencies noted in the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
publication from ACPA and NASPA (2010b) are that student affairs professionals will be
able to:
• Assess and address one’s own awareness of EDI, and articulate one’s own
differences and similarities with others.
• Demonstrate personal skills associates with EDI by participating in activities
that challenge one’s beliefs.

63
63
• Facilitate dialogue effectively among disparate audiences. Inter act with
diverse individuals and implement programs, services, and activities that
reflect an understanding and appreciation of cultural and human differences.
• Recognize social systems and their influence on people of diverse
backgrounds.
• Develop effective multicultural training that expands the cultural knowledge
of one’s staff
• Identify systemic barriers to equality and inclusiveness, and then advocate for
and implement means of dismantling them.
• Provide leadership in fostering an institutional culture that supports the free
and open exchange of ideas and beliefs, and where issues of power and
privilege are identified and addressed (pp. 10-11).

Empirical studies show positive relationships between multicultural competencies
and white racial consciousness, white privilege attitudes, and white racial identity
attitudes. In studies conducted by Mueller and Pope (2001; 2003), they defined seven
types of white racial consciousness, which describe attitudes whites hold about being
white. Their studies found strong relationships between white racial consciousness and
multicultural competencies in student affairs professionals. Specifically, higher levels of
multicultural competency related to “less avoidance of, less uncertainty about, and less
ethnocentric attitudes toward the meaning of being white” (Mueller & Pope, 2001, p.
140). Likewise, a study conducted by Mindrup, Spray, and Lamberghini-West (2011) in
the fields of counseling and social work confirms a positive relationship between white
privilege awareness and multicultural competencies. Meaning, a greater awareness of
one’s white privilege indicates greater levels of multicultural competency. Similar results
emerged from a study by Ottavi, Pope-Davis, and Dings (1994) which indicated that
racial identity development correlates to the attainment of MCC and should be a
consideration when planning training programs and workshops.

64
64
Additionally, empirical studies show positive outcomes for multicultural
competencies and attendance at multiculturally focused workshops and classes. For
example, Lawrence and Bunche (1996) studied the extent to which a one-semester course
in multicultural education impacted white teacher candidates. The results showed that the
course was a catalyst for emerging teachers who were developing their racial identity, but
more than one course is needed to guide and support white teachers as they progress
toward a positive white anti-racist identity (Lawrence & Bunche, 1996).
The evidence from these studies, and from the newly adopted ACPA and NASPA
professional competencies, indicates that multicultural competencies are strongly
supported and are values of the profession. While MCC are a value of the profession, it
does not mean that student affairs professionals feel invested in being multiculturally
competent. In a study by King and Howard-Hamilton (2003), they found that white
students who scored low on multicultural competency scales demonstrated an eagerness
to learn how to overcome their discomfort with people from different backgrounds. This
raises the question that if student affairs professionals demonstrate a lack of MCC, will
they also demonstrate a lack of motivation for growth? The current study sought to learn
whether student affairs professionals are invested in being multiculturally competent and
what motivation they have to become multiculturally competent.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to review the literature related to whiteness, white
privilege, racial attitudes, racial identity, and multicultural competencies relevant to
answering the research questions: “How do white student affairs professionals see their

65
65
own race affecting their daily job?,” “Do white student affairs professionals feel invested
in being multiculturally competent?,” and “How aware are white student affairs
professionals of their own racial identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?” Throughout the
literature there are overlapping themes of invisibility, privilege, power, fear, how white
people make sense of these themes, and how white student affairs professionals are a part
of deconstructing whiteness. This literature serves as the framework and establishes the
relevance of the current study. The literature covered in this chapter was used to analyze
responses participants gave through the interview process. For example, how participants
responded to having a conversation about their race was linked to the literature on
responses to racial conversations, how white people create their racial identity was linked
to the literature on the statuses associated with white racial identity development, and
others. The literature was also used as a basis for comparison. For example, the literature
shows empirical examples of how increased multicultural competencies indicate
increased white consciousness, how color-blind attitudes indicate distorted views about
people of color, and others. This information assisted the researcher in drawing
conclusions about interview responses in the current study.
The next chapter uses the information in this review of literature to provide a
foundation for the methodology. Chapter Three describes the current methodology and
explains the interview protocol used for data collection. The literature reviewed here
influenced the protocol that was created and served as a framework for making meaning
of the responses from participants as a part of data collection and analysis.

66
66
Chapter Three: Research Methods
The purpose of this chapter is to explain the research design for the current study.
It utilizes the literature reviewed in the previous chapter to illustrate how existing
theoretical constructs support this study. This chapter describes the methodology and
sampling strategy used as well as instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis
procedures. The chapter also exposes the role of the researcher and any biases that stem
from the researcher’s point of view.
Purpose of the Study
As a reminder, the purpose of this study was to examine the racial identity
awareness of white mid-level student affairs professionals at predominantly white
institutions. This qualitative study examined the effect racial awareness has on a
professional’s day-to-day work, their interaction with students, and their investment in
being multiculturally competent. The study also explored the degree of racial identity
awareness and the white privilege attitudes held by white student affairs professionals.
The research questions that guided this study are:
RQ1: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
RQ2: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?
RQ3: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?

67
67
Methodology
The methodology utilized for this study was a qualitative approach. A qualitative
approach was ideal for a study about identity because it allowed for a deep understanding
of the subject and for context to be applied to the meaningful data collected. Qualitative
inquiry is best used when research questions examine people’s experiences and the
meaning they make of their experiences (Patton, 2002). A qualitative approach can be
seen in past studies of whiteness, such as Frankenberg (1993) and Tatum (1994) that
contributed a depth of understanding to the study of white racial identity. Creswell (2007)
noted that qualitative methods are ideal for giving a voice to those that have been
silenced and empowering participants to tell their story. As whiteness has been described
as being invisible, a qualitative approach was suitable to give whiteness a voice.
Qualitative research, in this study, assumes a critical theory and critical race
theory perspective, with a constructivist lens. Meaning that the data collected were based
on the truths and beliefs constructed by the individuals in the study (Mertens, 2010) and
their perspectives were examined critically to empower the individuals and to transcend
any assumed racial stereotypes or expectations (Creswell, 2007). According to
Kincheloe and McLaren (2002), critical theory questions societal assumptions and power
differentials that imply that individuals or groups are equal when the realities of
institutional oppression, such as racism, expose inequalities. An example of inequalities
can be seen in the literature highlighted in Chapter Two on the history of whiteness, the
institutionalization of whiteness, and white privilege. Critical theory is grounded in
compassion and challenges society to look closer at “what is and what should be”

68
68
(Giroux, 2001, p. 9). A critical perspective asks us to question our frames of references
and to question that which appears obvious (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). Similarly,
critical race theory (CRT) examines the relationship between power, race, and racism and
is interested in the stories and voices of the unheard (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). The
qualitative approach supports asking these questions by closely examining the
experiences of individuals.
The understanding gained from this qualitative study is based on the views
constructed by white student affairs professionals and is dependent on the context of the
individuals studied. While this study focused on the racial identity of white student
affairs professionals, racial identity is not the only identity one possesses. Depending on
the context of a situation, one’s different identities may dominate. A qualitative
methodology allowed for contextual situations to be identified and critiqued to determine
how if at all participants’ white racial identity affected their day-to-day work as a student
affairs professional.
Data in this qualitative study was analyzed using a deductive and inductive
approach. Data collected was primarily open-ended, semi-structured interview responses
informed by existing literature on whiteness. The existing theoretical frameworks and
literature on whiteness were used to focus the study and serve as a guide, which is a
deductive method. However, qualitative studies are typically inductive, allowing for new
concepts and ideas to emerge and this study was open to inductive discovery. The
inductive approach allows for themes to emerge as the study progresses and does not
limit the study to a single outcome (Mertens, 2010). This also allowed for the researcher

69
69
to interact with the participants so they had the ability to influence the direction of the
study inductively. Because this study took a constructivist approach, it assumed that the
relationship built between the researcher and participants influenced the stories and
experiences the participants were willing to share. Discussing race and identity can
evoke feelings of fear, guilt, and anxiety. Thus, putting the participants at ease was
essential. A qualitative approach allowed the researcher to build rapport and a
relationship with the participants, thereby allowing them to feel comfortable enough to
share their experiences.
While a qualitative methodology was appropriate for this study, critics could
argue that more quantitative data is needed for studies on whiteness. Pinterits et al.
(2009) note that white privilege attitudes have largely been described in conceptual
writings and there is limited empirical evidence. Pinterits et al. (2009) endorse
quantitative studies on whiteness with qualitative aspects so that context is given to the
responses in the quantitative instrument. This study builds on quantitative studies by
using questions from quantitative instruments to influence the qualitative interview
protocol. Using quantitative studies to influence this qualitative study contributes
knowledge to the topic and offers a deeper understanding of whiteness in student affairs.
Creswell (2007) argues that a recognized approach to qualitative inquiry is needed
to enhance the research design and to lend credibility to the study. While there are
multiple approaches to qualitative research, this qualitative study followed the narrative
analysis approach. The narrative approach used for this study is explained below.

70
70
Narrative Analysis
The primary source of data for this study was narrative analysis of 12 white
student affairs professionals’ interview responses. Narratives were developed through in-
depth interviews in which participants discussed the path to their profession, experiences
that shaped their identity, and reflections on race in relation to their profession. Narrative
analysis is well suited to studies of identity because it allows the researcher to understand
how individuals construct their identity, make sense of important events in their lives,
and represent those events to others (Riessman, 1993). CRT endorses the use of narrative
analysis because it demonstrates the validity of one’s voice and it gives a deeper
understanding to how race is seen (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
Narrative analysis was chosen because this study was most interested in the
individual perspectives of student affairs professionals and how they see their race and
their racial identity affecting their jobs. Capturing individual stories and developing them
into a narrative provided a good representation of how mid-level student affairs managers
make sense of their race, in relation to their professional work. Narrative research does
not have a prescribed or formalized approach, but it does expect that stories will be
collected, the context of the stories will be relevant, and that expertise will be used in the
analysis of the stories (Creswell, 2007).
Creswell (2007) describes narrative analysis as an approach in which the
researcher “collects descriptions of events or happenings and then configure[s] them into
a story using a plot line” (p. 55). Riessman (1993) believes that narratives and story
telling are natural forms of communication and that narratives are the “primary way

71
71
individuals make sense of experience[s]” (p. 4). Identity formation is multifaceted, so
narrative analysis was a good approach to see how the multiple experiences of the
participants related with their racial identity. Through the plot lines or themes that
emerged through narrative analysis, the study revealed patterns and experiences that
show how white student affairs professionals see race affecting their daily job.
Narratives are subjective; however, the stories that emerged were from the point
of view of the participant and represented their words and descriptions. It is up to the
researcher to analyze the narratives in an objective manner, meaning the analysis should
be impartial, unbiased, and free from assumptions. The researcher used her knowledge of
the literature and past studies to show themes. For example, when participants told their
story the researcher examined their responses in the context of whiteness literature
(Frankenberg, 1993; Kendall, 2006; Kincheloe, 1999; Kivel, 1996; Lipsitz, 1995;
Roediger, 2008; Winant, 1997), white privilege literature (Ancis & Szymanski, 2001;
Kendall, 2006; Kivel, 1996; McIntosh, 1989; Pinterits et al., 2009), white racial identity
development (Helms, 1995), racial attitudes literature (APA, 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2001;
Gushue & Constantine, 2007; Neville et al., 2000), and multicultural competency
literature (APA, 1993; Mueller & Pope, 2001, 2003; Pope & Mueller, 2005; Pope &
Reynolds, 1997). While literature and frameworks guided the researcher through the
construction of the study, the protocols and interviews were developed and conducted by
the researcher. Thus, the researcher is an instrument in the qualitative inquiry and the
point of view of the researcher must be considered.

72
72
Sampling Strategy
The sample size for qualitative studies with a narrative approach can vary. While
there are “no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 244), the
results should be useful and credible. As such, a larger size can be considered if there is a
pool of participants to develop a collective story (Creswell, 2007). This study included
12 white, mid-level, student affairs professionals employed at predominantly white
institutions. Eight women and four men were interviewed and all used pseudonyms in
the study (see Table 3.1).
The sampling strategy for this study was purposeful and was based on certain
criteria. Purposeful sampling is typically used in qualitative research to look more
closely at the research problem (Creswell, 2007). The research questions focused on
white student affairs professionals, so being purposeful about the criteria used to select
participants from this population was appropriate. The outcome of using of purposeful
sampling was in-depth understanding of the research problem, rather than empirical
generalizations (Patton, 2002).
The type of criteria used for the sample was homogenous and heterogeneous. The
homogenous criteria included participants who identify as the same race (white), the
same profession (student affairs professional), the same job level (mid-level manager),
and the same institutional demographic (predominantly white institution). Participants
also held similar types of jobs, meaning, they were employed in one of three areas:
residence life, career centers, or campus activities. These positions share similarities

73
73
Table 3.1: Demographic Data of Participants and Institutions

Institution Participant
Big State University
• Public
• Research
• 48% white
• 22,000 enrollment
Dave
• First-Yr. Initiatives, Dir. &
Asst. Dean of Students
• 20+ yrs., professional experience
• Doctorate, Education Admin.
• Moderate, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education
Martin
• Campus Activities, Assoc. Dir.
• 5 yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Educational Leadership
(Current Doctoral candidate)
• High, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education
State Valley University
• Public
• Master’s granting
• 50% white
• 4,100 enrollment
Charlotte
• Housing & Residential Educ., Dir.
• 20+ yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Student Development
(Current Doctoral candidate)
• High, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education
Emily
• Residential Educ., Assoc. Dir.
• 5+ yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Counseling
• High, exposure
• 26%-51%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education

First University
• Private
• Religious
• 61% white
• 10,000 enrollment
Chuck
• Campus Activities, Dir.
• 10+ yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Counseling
• High, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education
Mary
• Career Center, Dir.
• 20+ yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Student Dev. & Higher Educ.
• Moderate, exposure
• 76%-99%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education
Mars University
• Private
• Religious
• 52% white
• 9,000 enrollment
Angela
• Student Employment Services, Dir.
• 10+ yrs., professional experience
• Doctorate, Law
• High, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education
John
• Residential Services, Dir.
• -10 yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Student Affairs
• Moderate, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education
Center University
• Private
• Master’s granting
• 60% white
• 5,000 enrollment

Donna
• Housing & Residential Life, Dir.
• 15 yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Counseling

• Moderate, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education

Liberal Arts University
• Private
• Liberal Arts
• 48% white
• 2,000 enrollment
Leyna
• Housing & Res. Life, Assoc. Dir.
• 5 yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Student Affairs
(Current Doctoral candidate)

• Moderate, exposure
• 51%-75%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education

Park College
• Private
• Liberal Arts
• 54% white
• 2,000 enrollment

Jenny
• Residential Educ., Asst. Dir.
• 5+ yrs., professional experience
• Master’s, Higher Education

• Moderate, exposure
• 26%-51%, white friends
• Moderate, mulitcultural education

Sunny College
• Private
• Liberal Arts
• 66% white
• 900 enrollment
Jane
• Assoc. Dean of Students
• 20+ yrs., professional experience
• Doctorate, Educational Admin.

• Moderate, exposure
• 26%-51%, white friends
• Considerable, mulitcultural education

74
74
because they have comparable interactions with students and senior student affairs
professionals.
The homogenous criteria gave parameters to the types of individuals used in the
study. The study was about white, mid-level, student affairs professionals, so it made
sense that they were the participants and that their perspectives were captured in the
qualitative study. Predominantly white institutions were used as one criterion because
they are environments where there are more white students than students of color and the
majority of institutions in America are PWIs. As the demographics of students on
campuses shift, there is a need to focus on serving the needs of all students. However,
according to Sleeter (2001), PWIs have responded more slowly to these changing needs,
therefore, it was in line with the literature on whiteness and this study to capture the
perspective of white student affairs professionals working in white dominated
environments.
The heterogeneous criteria applied were the institutional type, meaning
participants were employed at various types of institutions. The eight institutions that
served as sites for the study included four-year institutions with populations that were
small, mid-size, or large, and institutional types that were public, private, or religious.
The heterogeneous criteria allowed for variety and diversity among the participants who
met the homogenous criteria. Keeping the participant group homogenous allowed the
researcher to describe this particular subgroup in depth, while the heterogeneous criteria
allowed for flexibility in the conditions of the study (Creswell, 2007).

75
75
Mid-level managers.
Mid-level managers were the focus of this study. Many student affairs studies on
race and identity focus on graduate students rather than mid-level managers. Mid-level
managers remain largely under-studied; however, they make up the largest group of
professionals in student affairs. This group of professionals is worth studying because of
their unique position in the field of student affairs.
Mid-level managers are often caught between two worlds as they are no longer
entry-level, yet they do not have the decision-making authority of senior-level
professionals. To be considered mid-level, professionals must have a minimum of five
years as a full-time employee with experiences supervising, budgeting, and
programming. This means that mid-level managers have decision-making power, but are
not responsible for most large-scale or transformative decisions. Mid-level managers
work closely with both students and upper administration. They often advocate for
students to senior-level staff and they likewise interpret and explain senior-level
decisions to students.
The mid-level managers in this study were from one of three areas of focus in
student affairs, either residence life, career services, or campus activities. These three
areas were used as parameters because professionals in these areas have high contact with
students and with senior administrators. Additionally, there are similarities among these
areas, as of each of these areas have readily available opportunities to have meaningful
conversations with students.

76
76
An assumption about the demographics of mid-level professionals is that they
hold master’s degrees in higher education, student affairs, or an applicable field. The
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the American College
Personnel Association are the largest professional associations relating to higher
education and student affairs. Both NASPA and ACPA advocate for these graduate
programs to have courses that focus on topics of diversity and multicultural education,
including issues of race and identity. Studies by Lawrence and Tatum (1999), Sleeter
(2001), and others have shown that racial awareness increases after attending and
participating in semester-long classes or workshops. However, over time, awareness
tends to decrease. As this group of professionals actively participated in classes that
included racial awareness, and work with diverse college student populations, there was a
question of whether their racial awareness decreased over time.
Site Selection
To gain access to the population that meets the criteria, the researcher identified
mid-level managers at predominantly white institutions in Southern California by using
gatekeepers. The gatekeepers were used to serve as a method of introduction and to gain
access to the institution and participants at the institution. Creswell (2007) notes that
participants at a site need to be accessible, willing to participate, and able to contribute
knowledge to the subject being researched. The gatekeeper assisted in identifying
participants that meet these criteria. However, care was taken with use of the gatekeeper.
While the gatekeeper was helpful in identifying participants at the site, it was
communicated that the pool of participants should not be pre-screened for their assumed

77
77
high or low level of multicultural competence or racial awareness. The gatekeeper
assisted in identifying willing participants, but did not identify participants that would
skew results.
Eight predominantly white institutions were used as sites for participant selection
in Southern California (see Table 3.1). Institutional pseudonyms were used. There is no
federal designation for a PWI, so for the purposes of this study, a PWI is an institution
where the greatest percentage of students on campus identifies as white. At the
institutions used in this study, the percentage of white students on campus ranged from
48 to 66 percent. Of the institutions, four are private and not religiously affiliated, two
are private and religiously affiliated, and two are public institutions that are in the process
of pursuing their federal designation to become Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI). The
two public institutions still have a majority of students on campus who identify as white,
but close to 30 percent of their student population identifies as Latino/a. The variety in
institutional sites improved the amount of diversity among participants, within the
homogenous criteria. This was a narrative analysis, not a case study focused on a certain
institution, so finding stories from a variety of participants at a variety of institutions
improved the range of the study.
Because the researcher is a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California, institutions in the Southern California region were targeted for geographical
convenience, feasibility, and the accessibility of gatekeepers. While convenience of the
institutions was considered, this study did not take place at the researcher’s own

78
78
institution. Selecting institutions where the researcher is not employed helped to
eliminate the potential of power differentials between the researcher and participants.
Data Collection
Data was collected by conducting individual, in-person interviews with 12 white,
mid-level, student affairs managers, and by asking participants background information
in the form of a questionnaire. The protocol began with 19 questions answered prior to
the interview that established participant information, including information about the
participant’s institution, demographics, profession, education, and diversity experiences
(see Appendix A). This information served as background data, but is also grounded in
the literature. For example, as in the literature on multicultural competencies and white
racial identity development, questions asked participants about classes or workshops they
have taken on issues of diversity or multiculturalism and their answer options were: not at
all, not very much, moderate, considerable, or a great deal. Participants were also asked
about their exposure to people of color and their answers options were: no exposure,
small amount, moderate amount, or considerable amount. Lawrence and Tatum (1999)
show that courses in multicultural education increase white individual’s racial identity
development and Helms (1995) notes that white racial identity is influenced by white
people's contact with people of color.
The interview protocol also included an interview question guide (see Appendix
B). The interview question guide included open-ended, semi-structured, broadly worded
questions. Riessman (1993) suggests broad questions with follow-up questions and
probes to allow the participant to have control in the interview process and to allow for

79
79
maximum elaboration. The interview protocol developed by the researcher was
influenced and adapted from the literature. The researcher reviewed empirically
validated quantitative instruments, such as the White Privilege Attitudes Scale (Pinterits
et al., 2009); Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000), White Racial
Identity Attitude Scale (Helms & Carter, 1990), Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-
Skills Survey (Kim, Cartwright, Asay & D'Andrea, 2003), Privilege and Oppression
Inventory (Hays, Chang & Decker, 2007), and the Psychosocial Costs of Racism to
Whites Scale (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004), and adapted questions from these
instruments to build the broad interview questions. Creswell (2007) noted open-ended,
semi-structured questions enable the researcher to understand and capture the
participant’s point of view, without predetermining what that point of view will be.
Many of the questions were adapted from close-ended questions in the quantitative
instruments to open-ended questions, to allow participants the ability to answer beyond
“yes” or “no.”
This interview question guide allowed the researcher to stay focused on racial
identity, awareness, and the affect whiteness has on the daily job of mid-level managers.
The questions were designed to allow participants to tell their story and to explain how
race affects their daily job, if they feel invested in being multiculturally competent, and
how aware they are of their racial identity. The interview guide included follow-up
questions, that accompanied the broad questions, to ensure topics related to the research
questions were covered. The researcher asked follow-up and new questions during

80
80
interviews to capture the participant’s narrative story and the depth of the participant’s
point of view (Patton, 2002).
Data was collected through one interview that lasted between 60 - 120 minutes
with each participant so the researcher could learn in depth information about each
participant. Participants were interviewed individually, in a safe and comfortable
environment. According to Reissman (1993), one-on-one interviews are appropriate for
sensitive subject matter, including conversations about race. Individual interviews allow
participants to share their perceptions or biases in a setting that is free of judgment.
Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The researcher took notes
during the interview to capture non-verbal responses, tone, and mood, but relied on
digital recordings and transcriptions to capture the narratives. Capturing body language
is essential when using a critical theory approach, according to Kincheloe and McLaren
(2002), because the meaning of what a participant is saying is in their action more so than
their words.
Rapport
The nature of this study, on the subject of race and whiteness, could make
participants uncomfortable because it asks individuals to think and talk about a topic that
is not often discussed. When conducting interviews, one of the roles of the researcher is
to put the participant at ease, so they will feel comfortable enough to share information as
honestly as possible without worry of negative consequences. According to Patton
(2002), the researcher must do this by establishing rapport and neutrality. Rapport is built
by creating an environment that conveys trust and empathy. Likewise, neutrality is

81
81
achieved when the participant can share information with the researcher free of judgment
(Patton, 2002). The researcher in this study used a variety of ways to build rapport and
neutrality, such as through a using a gatekeeper, through the interview protocol, and
through the interview environment.
The researcher began building rapport by using a gatekeeper to introduce the
researcher to the participant. A gatekeeper is an individual who has insider status
(Creswell, 2007). In this study, the gatekeepers were colleagues or friends of the
researcher at the participant’s institution. The gatekeeper served as a mediator who
introduced the researcher to the participant and as someone who could vouch for the
researcher.
After establishing an introduction, Creswell (2007) recommends securing the
permission of the participant to be interviewed. When seeking permission from the
participant, Creswell (2007) suggests that rapport can be built by informing the
participant of the motivation and purpose of the study. Additionally, ensuring
confidentiality and providing anonymity to the participant builds trust (Creswell, 2007).
This was done through the following actions by the researcher. First, a letter was sent via
email to each participant that introduced the researcher and explained the motivation for
the interview request (see Appendix C). Next, an information fact sheet that was
approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board was
attached to the participant letter (see Appendix D). Then, prior to the start of the
interview, participants were once more given information about the purpose and
motivation for the study. Participants were also reminded that they could withdraw from

82
82
the study at any time. Lastly, participants were given the opportunity to choose their own
pseudonyms, not only for themselves but also for their institution. If the participant did
not choose their own pseudonym, one was assigned to them.
Patton (2002) recommends that the researcher consider the way questions will be
asked as another rapport building method. For example, probes and follow-up questions
will be used during the interview to deepen responses. According to Mertens (2010)
qualitative research and interviewing requires “supportive listening” (p. 246). The
researcher did this was by listening carefully, giving feedback, and offering recognition
to the participant during the interview to increase the connection between the researcher
and the participant. The researcher reassured participants during moments of uneasiness.
Additionally, at times, the researcher shared personal information to humanize the
conversation and to build and environment for sharing. This can allow the participant to
feel like a part of the conversation rather than just an answer-giver and will validate their
participation in the study (Patton, 2002).
The researcher must also be mindful of power differentials between the
participant and the researcher when asking questions. As power and structured
inequalities are a part of whiteness, they are also a part of a critical research approach,
which is applicable in the data collection process and in the building of rapport. The
researcher paid special attention to her status, both professionally and educationally, and
any perceived power inequities. If the participants felt the researcher had a higher status
in experience, education, socio-economic status, or the like, it may not engender trust.
To counter any possible power inequities, the researcher was mindful of her attire,

83
83
cautious about referencing literature, and established that she and the participant were
learning together through the interview process.
Selecting a location for the interview is another aspect to consider when building
rapport. Creswell (2007) suggests that the interview location is safe, quiet, and
comfortable. The researcher interviewed each participant in-person, in a space chosen by
or comfortable to the participant, thereby allowing the participant to have a sense of
control over the interview environment. Narrative inquiries are intended to be
conversational (Reissman, 1993), so the researcher was careful to identify a location that
lent itself to a comfortable, conversational setting and was free from distractions. All
participants chose to conduct the interview in their office at their institution.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the method by which the researcher finds meaning in the data
collected. Creswell (2007) noted in qualitative studies there are three basic stages for
data analysis. The stages include, preparing the data, analyzing the data, and presenting
the data. The current study used the narrative research method to collect data, and a
narrative analysis approach to examine the data, code for themes, and validate the
findings.
First, data must be prepared for analysis by transcribing the interviews. In this
study, a professional transcriber was employed to create the initial transcriptions. The
researcher then checked the transcriptions for accuracy. Transcriptions were then sent to
participants. Participants had the opportunity to edit their transcripts, if they chose. No
participant chose to make any changes to their transcript.

84
84
Before analyzing and coding the data, demographic information was extracted
from the questionnaire participants filled out prior to the interview (see Appendix A).
The demographic data was organized so the self-reported information could be compared
(see Table 3.1). With narrative analysis, Creswell (2007) suggests that analysis begin by
“restorying” the interviews. This means that the narratives of the participants are
reorganized into a framework that reflects elements such as “time, place, plot, and scene”
(Creswell, 2007, p. 56). The purpose of restorying the interviews is to sort the
information in such a way that the researcher can work with the data and make sense of
it. For this study, that meant organizing the stories from the 12 participants in a similar
manner and learning: what prompted the participant to notice their race or what was the
setting of their realization?
When coding the data for narrative research, Creswell (2007) notes that turning
points, epiphanies, and contextual information often emerge from the stories and the
researcher should be attuned to these aspects in the narratives. As themes are examined,
Creswell (2007) suggests linking themes from the data to theoretical perspectives. This
study assumed a constructivist lens and a critical theory perspective. As such, the
researcher pulled themes from the interviews that reflected the context of the participant’s
experiences and noted truths and beliefs constructed by the participants. Critical theory
asks us to question assumptions; therefore, the researcher critically examined the
assumptions held by participants by separating themes that revealed what participants
believe from what participants think they should believe. Identifying these theme and
epiphanies are natural aspects of narrative research.

85
85
In the initial stages of analysis for this study, topics, epiphanies, quotes, and
thoughts were pulled from the transcripts and grouped into 42 like areas, such as:
family/background, racial evolution, student affairs path, privilege recognition,
expressions of doubt. Quotes from participants were extracted from the transcripts that
were interesting, articulate, and reflected the topic areas. As the 42 areas were further
analyzed, similarities emerged and the areas were collapsed into 33 categories. Not all
participants had epiphanies or responses that fit in each of the 33 categories. The
researcher examined the 33 areas in relationship to the literature and the research
questions. Creswell (2007) describes this part of the analysis process as a spiral where
the researcher organizes the data, then steps back to examine the meaning, then
reorganizes, reclassifies, and reexamines the data until the final themes emerge. The
spiral process was used in this study, with the final outcome being six themes (see Tables
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) that are described in the Chapter Four.
Having analyzed and coded the data into six main themes, it is then presented and
subject to validation. According to Reissman (1993), trustworthiness is the method by
which narrative analysis is validated. Narrative research is naturally subjective and
dependent on the researcher’s perspective, which means that care and consideration must
be taken to prove the validity of the analysis.
Trustworthiness.
Validation of findings is most often related to quantitative studies, but in
qualitative studies, Creswell (2007) notes that validation is about determining the
accuracy of the findings, also known as trustworthiness. Creswell (2007) and Reissman

86
86
(1993) assert that trustworthiness can be built through a number of methods. Creswell
(2007) recommends that researchers use at least two strategies or methods to ensure
trustworthiness in their study. In this study, the following methods were used.
One strategy Riessman (1993) recommends to build trustworthiness is through
presenting the analysis in a convincing and persuasive manner. Creswell (2007) notes
that a way to accomplish this is for the researcher to provide rich, detailed descriptions
that will allow the reader to see the themes and characteristics from the interviews. This
will allow the reader to reach his/her own conclusions, in addition to the conclusions
drawn by the researcher. This study used quotes as often as possible in the findings to
allow the reader to hear the voices of the participants.
A second method is through member checking (Creswell, 2007; Riessman, 1993).
In member checking, the researcher takes data and analysis to the participant so the
participant can judge the credibility. In this study, the strategy was used by showing
participants their transcript to verify that participants were adequately represented in the
study. All participants were sent their transcript and no participant offered corrections or
asked to be removed from the study.
A third strategy to build trustworthiness is by utilizing an outside reader.
Creswell (2007) describes this as a peer reviewer who performs an external check on the
research process. The peer reviewer for this study examined participant quotes and the
final theme descriptions to validate that there was congruence in what the researcher
attempted to describe and what the reader understood.

87
87
A fourth way to build trustworthiness is by describing how interpretations of the
data were concluded, by making primary data available to future researchers, and being
open to alternative interpretations (Riessman, 1993). Describing how conclusions are
drawn explains the data analysis process and allows others to determine the
trustworthiness of the researcher’s conclusions. This description is found throughout the
next chapter that presents the study results.
Lastly, the researcher should clarify their biases, assumptions, and motivations in
the study (Creswell, 2007). The researcher should be aware of the researcher’s point of
view so they can understand the context for the study. While the researcher strives to be
objective in their analysis of data, an honest disclosure of the researcher’s perspectives
gives credibility and honesty to the study. This researcher’s perspective is presented in
the section to follow.
Limitations
This study has many limitations. To begin, the use of narrative analysis is
subjective and open to interpretation. Additionally, as noted by Reissman (1993) when a
study is limited to one methodological perspective then it is “by definition, partial,
incomplete, and historically contingent” (p. 70). Another limitation was the willingness
for individuals to participate in a study about whiteness and racial identity. It is possible
that only individuals who were interested in and invested in their racial identity
development chose to participate which may have skewed the results of the study.
Building off the self-selection bias of participants agreeing to be part of the study, was

88
88
the potential limitation of how participants represented themselves through their self-
reported responses to interview questions and the pre-interview questionnaire.
A third potential limitation of the study is the geographic focus on Southern
California, rather than a random sample of national participants. Finally, the researcher
was an instrument of the study and there was only one researcher, which carries inherent
limitations because interpretations of the data are confined to the researcher’s point of
view.
Role of the Researcher
As the researcher, I must consider the identities I bring to this study and the biases
that are inherent in those identities. Patton (2002) notes that qualitative analysis relies on
“the insights and conceptual capabilities of the analyst” (p. 553). To understand my
insights and perspectives as a researcher, Patton (2002) believes it is important to disclose
personal biases so that personal involvement with the subject matter can be eliminated
and the researcher can gain clarity on their perceptions.
As a white, middle-class, able-bodied, southern, female, mid-level, student affairs
manager employed at an HSI, I think about and consider how my race affects my job
daily. Because I am personally invested in my racial identity development and
awareness, I have a desire to improve my multicultural competencies so that I can better
serve my racially diverse student population through individual interactions and through
programs that serve students’ needs. However, before I took a diversity class as a part of
my master’s degree in higher education in 2003, I did not possess the knowledge or skills
to work with a multicultural population nor was I aware of my racial identity or privilege.

89
89
Like many white people, once I began to discover my privilege I was embarrassed
and felt guilty. Rather than dwell on the negative emotions associated with whiteness, I
was spurred to discover if there are other white student affairs professionals who think
about how their race affects their daily job and if they are invested in being
multiculturally competent. This study was a way for me to discover these answers.
Since I have a personal investment and curiosity in the subject of whiteness, there
is a bias that exists in my point of view. As Creswell (2007) notes, “how we write is a
reflection of our own interpretation based on the cultural, social, gender, class, and
personal politics that we bring to research” (p. 179). This is true for me also. Because
qualitative research and the narrative approach seeks to hear the voices of the
participants, I sought to be aware of my biases and experiences so that I could hear the
true voices of the participants and not just the voices I wanted to hear or that I thought I
heard.
In addition to being aware of my biases and experiences, I was also conscious of
my fears. Writing about and talking about whiteness is taboo. Talking about whiteness
carries with it many assumptions, presumptions, and fears of being labeled a supremacist
or racist. This study was an academic pursuit, but fear about the outcome, who will read
it, or if some may be offended, may have unintentionally led me to self-censor my
thoughts and my writing.
As the study progressed, I reflected on my personal identity and noticed how
conducting this study affected me as an individual, a researcher, and a practitioner. I saw
that my identity development and racial awareness was on a spectrum and I identified

90
90
with many statuses in Helms’ (1995) White Racial Identity Development model. For
example, because I chose to study whiteness it shows that I want to learn more about the
topic and my own identity and that places me in a higher WRID status. However, there
were moments during the interviews and the analysis that I felt inadequate and
withdrawn, which would place me at a lower WRID status. While interviewing
participants I was careful to explain to participants that I was not an expert and that we
were learning together. I now believe that I adopted that perspective not only to build
rapport, but also because I was not confident that I was an expert or that I was the right
person to conduct this study.
There are inherent biases that exist in the researcher as an instrument of any
study. Having distance from the interviews, listening to the recordings, and reading
transcripts allowed me to reflect on how I am a part of the study, including my racial
identity, privilege, and multicultural competency. This allowed me to develop
confidence, objectivity, and recognize my biases. Because I was developing my
expertise, I was conscious of the judgments I placed on participant responses. I made my
best effort to remove judgment from the findings and reflect participant responses
objectively through their words and not through my filter. I felt this not only added to the
trustworthiness of the study, but it also honored their voices. I recognize that everyone is
at a different level of awareness, competency, and confidence in relation to their racial
identity and their ability to articulate their perspectives. Through the process of
evaluating literature, interviewing participants, and analyzing responses, my confidence
grew and I also began to articulate my perspectives better.

91
91
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to explain the research design for the study, to
detail the theoretical constructs of the study and provide rationale for the methodological
approach. To hear the stories of white, mid-level, student affairs manager, it was
important to use a narrative research approach to allow for depth and detail to be shown
in the results of the study. In this study, data was collected using an open-ended, semi-
structured interview protocol from 12 participants who met the purposeful criteria. The
data was analyzed, examined and linked with the theoretical constructs that support this
study and the data was validated to establish the trustworthiness of the interpretation.

92
92
Chapter Four: Findings
This study looked at the effect race and racial awareness has on white student
affairs professionals, their daily work, their interaction with students, their investment in
being multiculturally competent, and their own racial identity. To do this, three research
questions guided the study:
RQ1: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
RQ2: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?
RQ3: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?
Twelve student affairs professionals participated in the study and lent their perspectives
to answer these questions. Their responses, experiences, and insight provided answers to
the research questions. As participants shared their stories and their epiphanies, themes
emerged. This chapter highlights those findings.
This chapter is organized similarly to the literature review found in Chapter Two.
The first section highlights the responses participants had to discussing whiteness. They
responded by reacting to being interviewed and through the emotions that arose when
participants talked about diversity, multiculturalism, whiteness, and privilege. The
second section highlights how participants noticed whiteness institutionalized on campus.
This could be seen in how participants saw whiteness included in their campus’ definition
of diversity and through the racial incidents participants noticed on campus. The third

93
93
section describes how participants recognized white privilege. This included how they
noticed privilege in their students and how they noticed privilege in their own lives. This
commonly included how privilege can be invisible and how some participants felt inner
conflict in reconciling their privilege. The fourth section focuses on racial attitudes of
color-blindness and the dangers associated with adopting a color-blind attitude. The fifth
section focuses on the value participants felt through support systems and how some
participants strive to be safe places for students. The final section shows the
multicultural competencies of participants and includes examples of how invested
participants are in being multiculturally competent.
Responses to Discussing Whiteness
The literature on whiteness explains that engaging in conversations about race can
raise a variety of emotions. This theme was apparent during the interviews in two ways
(see Table 4.1). One way was through the comfortable and uncomfortable responses
participants had to being interviewed about race. Another way emotions emerged as a
theme was through the variety of feelings shared about acknowledging one’s own race
and whiteness. Aspects of these themes contribute answers to all three research
questions: “How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting their
daily job?,” “Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being multiculturally
competent?,” and “How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?”

94
Table 4.1: Summary of Findings – Responses to Discussing Whiteness

Angela Charlotte Chuck Dave Donna Emily
Response to
interview

• Discomfort • Comfort • Comfort • Discomfort (at times) • Discomfort (at times) • Comfort
Emotions
expressed
and/or
verbalized

• Anxiety (family)
• Curious about
cultures
• Conflict (family)
• Confusion, Shock
• Earnest
• Empathy
• Motivated, Passionate

• Earnest
• Motivated
• Careful
• Clumsy, Klutzy
• Curious
• Earnest
• Embarrassed
• Nervous, Paranoid
• Proud
• Worried

• Anger
• Careful, Defensive
• Confusion
• Disheartened, Hurt
(specific experience)
• Empathy
• Frustration
• Guilt
• Inadequate
• Sadness

• Anger (specific
experience)
• Earnest
• Inspired
• Motivated, Passionate
• Shock (specific
experience)
• Upset (specific
experience)
Feelings of
inadequacy
expressed
and/or
verbalized
• n/d • Contributing to
conversations
• Facilitating
conversations (except
gender)
• Motivating students
• Motivating students • Contributing to
conversations
• Vocalizing and
correcting injustice
• Contributing to
conversations
• Contributing to
initiatives
• Facilitating
conversations
• Motivating students

• n/d
Fear of failure • Careful • n/d • n/d • Careful
• Fear of being
misunderstood
• Fear of offending
• Worry

• Careful
• Defensive

• n/d

Note. n/d = no data

95
Table 4.1 (Continued): Summary of Findings – Responses to Discussing Whiteness

Jane Jenny John Leyna Martin Mary
Response to
interview

• Discomfort (at times) • Inconclusive • Comfort • Discomfort (at times) • Comfort • Inconclusive
Emotions
expressed
and/or
verbalized

• Conflict (family)
• Embarrassment
• Empathy
• Grief
• Guilt
• Shame
• Tears
• Careful
• Conflict (internal)
• Conflict (family)
• Earnest
• Guilt
• Inadequate,
Powerless
• Motivated
• Oblivious
• Shock
• Careful
• Conflict, Dissonance
• Confusion
• Discomfort
• Earnest
• Embarrassment
• Empowered
• Frustration
• Guilt
• Motivated
• Worry
• Confusion
• Curious
• Devastated
• Discouraged
• Earnest
• Empowered
• Frustration
• Pride
• Shock

• Anger
• Curious
• Conflict
• Conflict (family)
• Doubt
• Empathy
• Loneliness
• Sadness, Upset
Feelings of
inadequacy
expressed
and/or
verbalized
• Contributing to
conversations
• Facilitating
conversations
• Contributing to
conversations (except
as an ally)
• Motivating students
• n/d • Contributing to
conversations
• Facilitating
conversations
• Motivating students
• n/d • Contributing to
conversations
• Facilitating
conversations (except
gender)
Fear of failure • n/d • Careful
• Fear of offending
• Careful
• Fear of offending

• Desire to be authentic • n/d • n/d

Note. n/d = no data

96
Responses to being interviewed
Participants manifested their comfort and discomfort with being interviewed
about race in different ways. This could also be interpreted as manifestations of anxiety
or lack of anxiety about discussing an oft-considered taboo topic. Some participants were
comfortable and relaxed. For John, Chuck, Charlotte, Emily, and Martin their comfort
and demonstrated lack of anxiety were noticeable in their body language and through the
ease with which they spoke about race. This was observed throughout their hour-long
interview. They sat with a relaxed posture while being interviewed, exhibited an absence
of stuttering or second-guessing their thoughts about privilege and race, or by conducting
the interview with an open door.
Others participants were worried about being interviewed, inquisitive about the
motives I had for studying the topic, and demonstrated characteristics of discomfort and
anxiety. Angela showed aspects of discomfort throughout the interview. When
describing a population or a certain group, Angela would often say “different,” as in
“different student groups,” “different religions,” “different cultures,” or “different
ethnicities.” The literature would describe this phenomenon as the use of evasive
language and is a sign of a lack of knowledge or confidence (Haviland, 2008).
Additionally, Angela paused frequently when answering questions, chose her words
carefully, and was the only person to ask for a copy of the interview transcript.
Dave, Jane, Leyna, and Donna showed aspects of discomfort at moments during
the interview, but not necessarily throughout their interviews. For example, Dave would
shift in his seat and would laugh nervously at times. Jane was tearful through much of

97
the interview, which reflects discomfort. However, the ease and resolve with which Jane
articulated her experiences shows she was comfortable with her discomfort. Leyna was
concerned about being identified as a participant by saying, “I have to be very careful
because I’ve said enough things in your recording that you’ll be able to tell what
institution I’m from so you’ll have to be careful with that information.” And an
expression of discomfort was shown by Donna when she sought confirmation that the
results of the study would be positive and would show that student affairs professionals
contribute positively to issues of diversity on campus, “I think we do a better job in
student affairs, right? At least I hope so. I hope that’s what you find too!”
These reactions and demonstrations of comfort and discomfort were noteworthy
because it set the tone for the interviews. The responses did not, however, appear to
correlate to a participant’s awareness of their whiteness, their depth of racial identity
development, or their investment in being multiculturally competent. The anxiety and
lack of anxiety participants expressed while being interviewed was not significant enough
to offer an answer to the research questions or determine if it has any effect on how race
affects their daily job. There was a loose connection, though, between the participants’
comfort level and the expressions some had with feelings of inadequacy or fear of failure.
This will be further explored in the next sub-sections.
Emotions
Thinking about race, whiteness, and oppression caused participants to express a
range of emotions. For some this was shown through tears and/or expressions of sadness,
guilt, frustration, confusion, and shock. Participants also expressed feelings of

98
inadequacy and a fear of failure that will be covered in their own sub-sections. The first
research question was addressed in the participants’ emotional responses while each
described how race affects their daily job. Responses showed that a variety of triggers
produce a range of emotions that impact how participants respond and react to situations.
Additionally, the third research question was addressed as participants revealed their
level of awareness by the openness with which they shared their emotions and the depth
with which they expressed them.
Donna shared having feelings of empathy, sadness, anger, and guilt when thinking
and talking about issues of race and diversity. She said, “It hits me at different times,
depending on who I’m working with or what the situation is. That’s difficult for me,
being someone who is smart and educated to have to own and to have to think about.”
Martin also shared sentiments of confusion and frustration when he said, “I still feel
discouraged and like, why are people this way? … The whole process overall, not
particularly positive emotions; a lot of negative emotions. ... Just a lot of heavy things;
nothing like happiness and delight.”
Jane was emotional and shed tears from the beginning of her interview and
throughout our conversation. Much of this was connected to guilt she feels. Jane has a
strong educational background in oppression reduction and social justice. In prior years
she led many diversity education experiences for students, but in the last several years
she drastically reduced her involvement. She said:
The reason that I get emotional is because my journey started with a family
setting that was not embracing of other people, other cultures and races outside.
If I could disconnect that and talk about it without it being so tied to my feelings
and my role that would be what I would do. … I can’t separate that and I, as an

99
administrator, it is hard to open up your past life so much so that you don’t have
control over how that spins or what have you.

For Mary, Emily, and Martin emotions became acute as a result of significant
moments during diversity training exercises or during their undergraduate experiences.
Mary recalled an intense diversity training at First University, “It raises, I remember for
me it raised some issues that I wasn't even aware of, for myself, about some things that I
was upset about.” Specifically, Mary had buried emotions connected to the perceived
firing of her favorite supervisor, who was a Latina female. Mary was sad and angry
about the situation and attending a campus-sponsored diversity training felt hypocritical
to her. Mary said, “Okay you’re talking about diversity and we all should do [diversity]
training and everything, and yet you are, what I perceive is, you are intimidated by this
woman, because she’s a woman and she’s Latina.”
Similarly, Emily was angered and upset by an experience in college that involved
a black male friend whom she invited to eat lunch with her in the campus dining hall. A
campus staff member assumed her friend was a basketball player who was not supposed
to eat in the hall. The staff member told Emily’s friend he needed to leave the dining hall
and that he could not eat there. Emily was shocked at the treatment of her guest and
became choked up as she recalled the incident. She said, “That was the first time where I
thought people experience different things. I get emotional still.” Martin had a similar
experience. When Martin was an undergraduate, he became friends with classmates that
grew up experiencing discrimination and prejudice, something unfamiliar to Martin. He
said, “I literally, like all the way to college, could not fathom that somebody would
actually treat somebody differently based on any of those things.”

100
Leyna’s emotions on race and diversity were connected with embarrassment and
worry. She expressed a concern over the genuineness with which she contributes to
diversity efforts on her campus. She said:
I think that there’s still some sense of guilt, almost like am I faking it? That
sounds horrible. I don’t really know how to articulate what I’m saying, but sort
of. Like I’m talking about it, but am I really living it? Do I really understand? I
think I’m torn there because sometimes I feel like - am I saying what I’m
supposed to say, or am I really feeling this all the way?

Feelings of Inadequacy.
While some emotions can act as motivators and inspire action, many participant
emotions were negative and caused participants to feel inadequate. These kinds of
emotions were predicted by the literature (Kivel, 1996; Pence & Fields, 1999; Watt,
2007) and manifested by participants in expressions of powerlessness, self-doubt, silence
or minimization of the participant’s ability to contribute to conversations about race or
diversity. As such, while many participants were aware of their own whiteness, they
showed a lack of confidence in their ability to act. In many ways their sense of
powerlessness showed that some participants felt invested in being multiculturally
competent, but lacked the knowledge and/or skills to be able to act on their awareness,
and this appeared to sometimes affect their daily job.
As white women, Charlotte and Mary shared similar responses that demonstrated
feelings of inadequacy. They showed a lack of confidence contributing to conversations
on race, because they are part of the white majority racial group. They did, however, feel
more confident contributing to conversations on gender, because as females they are in
the gender minority group. Charlotte said, “I’m not usually in the thick of it from a

101
multicultural perspective as a white female.” Mary said, “Sometimes I still feel that I
don't have as much of a voice as I wish I did,” when talking about being a woman on a
male-dominated campus. Mary expanded on the thought of being a part of campus
diversity conversations when she said:
You know I probably could if I wanted to, but I’m not sure that I have had much
to say, to be honest. Sometimes I think - what can I contribute to the
conversation? I’m a white woman, you know. And I don’t feel comfortable
saying the one thing that - I think is white male dominated. I mean in terms of the
administration at First U., let alone the student... I could speak as a woman,
gender; I could contribute to the conversation in that way. I think the reason I
haven’t said that I want to be on that committee or whatever is, because I don’t
know what I would contribute.

Donna and Jane expressed uncertainty with their contributions to campus
conversations, despite feeling it was necessary. Donna said:
And, I don’t know if I should admit this either, but sometimes I don’t know if it’s
heard better from me or not when I’m bringing up those pieces. Sometimes it’s
like okay, there’s a white woman remembering these things but I know also that
it’s up to me to say those things. Because when it is my Asian friend who sits in
those meetings as well, and she’s always the person bringing them up, that it
sounds like well, this is your job because you’re the Asian student affairs
professional, and of course that’s what you’re thinking.

Additionally, Jane explained that she feels she is not a strong facilitator of conversations
about race, diversity, privilege, or oppression. Jane values diversity education and is
aware of the benefit in white people educating others about privilege, but she minimized
her ability to contribute and is stunted by her strong emotions of sadness, guilt, and self-
protection. She said:
I think it’s a bit of an emotional issue sometimes and it’s just hard for me. I just
don’t feel like that’s my strength so even though I know the strengths of whites
educating about issues of diversity, it’s just always been difficult for me. It’s not
one of my strengths and I just feel like I triage my life as best I can and do what I

102
do well. I definitely understand it and know that it’s this complicated often
painful thing when you work with students and that is part of work.

Jenny expressed confusion about how to make a positive contribution to diversity
efforts on her campus. Charlotte, Donna, Chuck, and Leyna all noted that there are
groups of students on their campuses that are passionate about issues of social justice, but
there are also groups of students who are apathetic. Jenny said, “How do we get those
white students who don’t listen and don’t care, to listen and care? I think that’s the age
old question. How do I?”
Jenny, Charlotte, Mary, and Jane shared this frustration not only in their
professional lives, but also in their personal lives because of “prejudiced” family
members. Jenny summed it up when she said, “I can’t do that with my own father yet, so
how am I going to do that with a group of students and I’ve had years with him? I don’t
know.” Angela did not connect her frustration with her professional life, but she was
disappointed in the thoughts and ideas that were sometimes expressed by her “close-
minded” parents. When she spoke with them about race or corrected their prejudiced
comments, Angela felt uncomfortable. She said, “I certainly felt some anxiety, because I
didn’t want to hurt someone. Because I knew the comment wasn’t coming from a bad
place.”
The expression of inadequacy and the lack of confidence in how to act shows that
participants see the value of contributing, but they withhold their action either because
they sometimes lack the skills to act or they sometimes feel are the wrong person to act.
This shows the inner conflict and confusion participants felt when thinking about
diversity and how it connects with their personal and professional lives. These

103
expressions of inadequacy tie closely with the fear of failure, described more below. The
similarities show that emotions can halt performance, even when motivation, awareness,
and knowledge exist.
Fear of failure.
Fear of failure, worry, and carefulness with language and actions were at the
forefront of some participants’ minds. As with the feelings of inadequacy, exploring a
fear of failure contributes to the first research question and helps answer how white
student affairs professionals see race affecting their daily job. It also helps answer the
second research question. As noted in the previous sub-section, a fear of failure does not
necessarily indicate whether a participant feels invested in being multiculturally
competent.
Dave shared this fear more than any other participant. He frequently mentioned
in the interview that he was concerned with being “culturally clumsy” and “klutzy,”
additionally he was nervous about how he is perceived and feels “very careful.” Because
Dave repeated this thought throughout his interview, it shows he has a desire to not be
“clumsy,” but he may lack the skills to feel confident with his contribution to diversity.
Dave said:
I still have nightmares over when will I say the stupid thing at the microphone, or
when will I handle the event in a way where I’m completely perceived as klutzy
or when will I just plain old be klutzy? When will I offend somebody and how
will I handle that and will I be forgiven or not? In some ways I need help.

Donna, John, and Jenny shared similar perspectives about being careful with
language and defending the things they are doing well. When Donna was asked to
describe diversity and multiculturalism on her campus she pondered, “How do I answer

104
this right? … I always do take a breath and I think that I'm always trying to defend us.”
Jenny expanded on that idea and said, “I think especially being a white person because
you don’t want to offend anyone. There have been people who have purposefully hurt
people of other races, and so you’re being careful because you care.” John concurred, he
said:
I try to be as PC as possible so I don't have a misstep in the language. So yeah, I
wouldn't say that I'm constantly afraid to say the wrong thing, but I definitely
acknowledge that I'm trying to say the right thing and trying not to say the wrong
thing. ... I'm trying to be as careful as possible.

Emily and Donna also reflected on carefulness, which they notice in student
interactions on campus. Donna called it “politeness,” but Emily described it as students’
ability to mask their prejudice. Emily does not feel she personally witnesses any
“outright” racial problems, but she thinks it is because students have learned how to say
the right things that will minimize offense. She said, “I think they’ve learned how to be
PC so they know what to say and not to say. I don’t think that matches up with what
they’re thinking or feeling, but they know how to come across a certain way.” Emily
points out an interesting observation not only about students on her campus, but also
about the genuineness with which participants represented their own views during this
study.
Leyna’s fears stem less from offending others and more from a desire to be
authentic, genuine, and truthful. She wants her thoughts to match her words and her
actions. She said, “I want to help, I want to understand, I want to be involved, I care a
lot, I make sure that this is a part of what we do, but internally always judging like, where
am I?” Similarly, Jane’s fears stem from a fear of disappointing others. She said, “I

105
don’t want to put myself on something so important that I cannot follow through on. I
couldn’t think of anything worse.” The desire to be genuine and not let others down
caused Leyna to have conflicting thoughts about how her words and actions are received.
She said:
That discomfort is how you grow, but it’s hard. It’s hard especially when I’m
having the conversations with people of color or in groups that have people of
color in them. I wonder what they’re thinking about what I’m saying and whether
or not I’m doing it right or whatever. And then I’m thinking, but there I am
singling them out and that person is going to think what all people of color think?
And then I get mad at myself, and lots of that stuff goes on. Should I think that?
Should I not think that? Is that wrong?

Throughout these expressions of fear of failure, participants articulated a desire to
be forgiven for missteps, and some hoped to be recognized and rewarded for their efforts
and good intentions, even if they failed. These examples from participants show that
many put effort and care into being careful with their language, because they are sensitive
and aware that language can often be offensive and lead to dissonance. This fear of
offending may not be unfounded, as what may be appropriate to one may be offensive to
another. Without the awareness, knowledge, and skills to adeptly handle such situations,
participants express a lack of confidence that has an effect on their job and their ability to
positively contribute to diversity efforts.
Whiteness Institutionalized on Campus
Answering the first and third research questions about how white student affairs
professionals see race affecting their job on campus and how racially aware white student
affairs professionals are meant asking participants about whether they saw whiteness or
race on campus. This was done by asking if they believed whiteness was included in

106
their campus’ definition of diversity and by asking if participants noticed isolated or
systemic racial incidents on campus. The first sub-section will explore how whiteness is
included in campus definitions of diversity. The second sub-section demonstrates how
aware participants are of the institutionalized and systemic nature of whiteness on
campus, or if they limited their awareness to isolated acts. The responses show a
spectrum of answers that demonstrate a low and high level of awareness and how that
affects a participant’s job (see Table 4.2).
Whiteness Included in the Campus Definition of Diversity
By and large, the answer to the interview question, “How does whiteness fit into
your institution’s definition of diversity?” was that it does not. Angela paused and
thought heavily before answering, saying, “I think it’s usually not. Yeah.” Jenny was
also puzzled with how to answer the question when she said, “I don't know. I think that's
a really hard one. Yeah, I don't know.” John summed it up when he said:
I would say it’s not included and not talked about really. Whenever we look at
diversity we are looking at, maybe the minority groups that we have in our
populations, and that’s not the white group. It’s just not even talked about, or
kind of acknowledged that something needs to be addressed.

While “no” was the common answer, some participants want whiteness to be
included in their campus definition, and they do include it in their personal definition of
diversity. When Chuck responded to the question he said, “Well, no. I don’t think we
really talk much about what that looks like and where that comes from.” Chuck went on
to say, “I wish it did. I’m a big fan of discussing whiteness. What does it mean for us to
be white?” Likewise, Martin sees whiteness as a part of his personal definition, but as for

107
Table 4.2: Summary of Findings – Whiteness Institutionalized on Campus

Angela Charlotte Chuck Dave Donna Emily
Whiteness
included in
campus
definition

• Not included • Neither included nor
excluded
• Not included, wants it
to be
• Not included • n/d • Not included
Racial
incidents
noticed
• Not noticed • Isolated
• Systemic
• Isolated
• Systemic
• Isolated
• Systemic (noticed
somewhat)
• Isolated
• Systemic
• Isolated (noticed
somewhat)
• Systemic (noticed
somewhat)

Jane Jenny John Leyna Martin Mary
Whiteness
included in
campus
definition

• n/d • Not included • Not included • Neither included nor
excluded
• Not included, wants it
to be
• n/d
Racial
incidents
noticed

• Isolated
• Systemic
• Isolated (noticed
somewhat)
• Isolated • Isolated
• Systemic
• Isolated • Isolated
• Systemic (noticed
somewhat)

Note. n/d = no data

108
the university he said, “To be honest I don’t see whiteness as part of the definition of
diversity on an institutional level.”
Charlotte and Leyna shared that while whiteness is not specifically included, it is
also not excluded; therefore, they believe that whiteness does fit into their institution’s
definition. Charlotte said, “I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s important to have a
white perspective or a male perspective to use those two examples, that that’s a part of
the diversity.” Leyna said that her campus’ definition has to do with the “differences that
make each of us unique” and so she said, “Of course whiteness would fit in there just like
any other category would fit in there.”
The ability participants had to recognize if whiteness was or was not included in
the campus definition of diversity was a window into their racial awareness and their
investment in being multiculturally competent. The recognition of the inclusion of
whiteness shows what participants see and what they want to see. It was also an indicator
of the awareness participants had about racial incidents on campus.
Racial Incidents
When participants were asked about racial incidents they noticed on campus,
answers ranged from being oblivious of any isolated incidents to being deeply aware of
systemic problems. This range in awareness of participants is analogous to the difference
between individual “racist” acts and the system of oppression based on power and
privilege known as “racism.” The danger of only noticing racial problems as isolated
incidents shows the failure to see how advantages and disadvantages are structurally
embedded into predominantly white institutions. Therefore, this sub-section is divided

109
into two areas of focus, isolated incidents and systemic issues. The observations
participants had about isolated and systemic racial incidents, coupled with their
observations of whiteness as a part of the campus’ diversity definition, were indicators of
the investment participants had in being multiculturally competent and in the action they
took to support diversity efforts.
Isolated incidents.
Angela paused frequently when considering whether she noticed racial incidents
on campus. She said, “I’m trying to think. I think… I don’t… I think something did
happen a couple of years ago. And I don’t remember what it was. So it was isolated.”
John also believed that incidents on his campus were singular problems. He said, “I think
it’s isolated. I feel it’s isolated. Because this year we haven’t had any sort of significant
thing compared to last year.”
Participants were asked to describe the racial incidents they saw on campus and
with a few exceptions, such as pointing out that Latino students were questioned about
whether they were really students and whether they were allowed to be on the free
campus bus (Chuck), or the tension between Israeli and Palestinian students (Dave), or
that “Greeks are not a breeding ground of sensitivity for any identity” (Martin), or that a
gay student may have been assaulted due to his sexual orientation (Jenny), the
overwhelming number of racial incidents were targeted at black students on campus.
Black students were targeted through a variety of ways, such as roommate
conflicts or being singled out by fellow students on campus. Mary said this of roommate
conflicts, “Where literally somebody will say they don’t want an African-American

110
roommate; to me that’s unbelievable.” However, the most common way black students
were targeted on campus was through public safety. John, Leyna, and Donna had
examples of this, but Jane summed it up by saying:
Where they are getting followed by a car load of people, they call out to them and
say racial things to them insulting, and then the campus safety responds and not
really totally with it. Each step is not handled the best. It’s not like a disastrous
handling, but it’s not handled the best way and the student is feeling very upset,
isolated and not supported. This past weekend we had one where a student spit in
another student’s face and it’s a white student on a black student at a party at
another campus and felt like it was racially motivated.

Donna and Chuck noted how incidents like these create a negative atmosphere on
campus and these acts devalue the positive efforts to create an inclusive, safe, and
welcoming environment. Donna said:
They felt like everything that we’ve told them, every brochure and everything –
you’re going to be safe here, we’re not like other campuses – all the things we
told them and we promised them, they felt that they were robbed because we did
not follow through with those values and those outcomes that we promised them.

There is value in recognizing isolated racial acts and having a campus-wide
response that seeks to eliminate hate. However, they are not the only racial issues on
campus. These isolated acts were snapshots of incidents that happened and were
recognized. These examples do not account for the incidents that participants did not
notice, all of which are reasonable contributors to larger and deeper systemic issues that
are inherent in predominantly white institutions.
Systemic issues.
In contrast to recognizing isolated incidents, some participants noticed systemic
issues. The depth of recognition of systemic issues, if they were noticed at all, ranged
from mild observations to deeper structural reflections. For example, on the milder end

111
of the spectrum, when answering a question about whether she believes that some
students are excluded from leadership roles, Mary said, “Probably. But I only hear that
from like, the Director of Multi-Ethnic Programs or some of those folks that work in that
area where… students don’t usually talk to me about that kind of stuff, generally.” Dave
expanded on this thought of students being excluded on campus by saying:
Does career services look like a place that celebrates diverse careers and gay and
lesbian career seekers, and people from traditionally marginalized populations?
Maybe not, it’s got an old school interface. You have to call and make an
appointment, people have suits and so I can imagine it can often be off putting to
certain populations.

On the other end of the spectrum, some systemic issues were deeper and
recognized by participants as embedded problems. For example, Chuck, Dave, Leyna,
and Jane point out problems with structural diversity on campus, meaning the
representation of diversity on campus through numbers of racially and ethnically diverse
students, faculty, and staff. Chuck, Dave, and Leyna note that their campus’ faculty
representation does not correlate proportionally to the diversity of their student
population or to the diverse population of California. Jane notices structural diversity
problems annually in the conspicuously low admission rates of black students on campus,
despite the institution’s promises to admit more black students. Leyna also reflects on
the structural diversity in her office. She said, “I’m not sure if there’s something
noticeable within our structure. Everyone who works with student leadership in the
involvement center is white right now. All the administrators are white, and maybe that’s
an issue too.”

112
Leyna and Jane reflect on the denial and lack of awareness about the systemic
issues on their campuses. Leyna said, “There’s been some debate on campus about
whether things like that actually exist. ‘We don’t have those problems here,’ and that
kind of stuff.” Jane sees this type of attitude and a lack of awareness on the part of fellow
administrators. She gave the example of “Disneyland trips get planned on Yom Kippur,”
which illustrates a lack of awareness about socio-economic privilege and religious
expectations seen from a majority culture perspective. Jane goes on to say of campus
administrators, “It’s a little bit of trying but not enough of the awareness of really having
a deep root here.”
Donna notes that the very nature of a predominantly white institution means that
there are systemic issues of oppression that need to be addressed and that there is a
disparity between those with privileges and those without. Donna wants to believe the
incidents that happen on campus are isolated incidents, but she said, “I think when you’re
on a predominantly white campus, I don’t know how it can’t be systemic.” Donna gave
an example of systemic issues at Center University that revolve around the lack of a
multicultural center on campus, despite students and staff advocating for one. She said,
according to Center University administrators, “the philosophy is that the whole campus
is a multicultural center.” She goes on to say that, “Students think that’s ridiculous.
They can’t understand why a prestigious university like the one that they belong to
wouldn’t think that’s important.”
Charlotte was aware of the systemic issues inherent at a PWI. She is attentive to
barriers created by her residence life office and strategizes ways to reduce them. She

113
considers what may be creating the barriers and looks to improve systems to make them
“as student friendly and intuitive as they can be.” Charlotte gave several examples of
how she does this. One example includes a collaborative approach to reduce barriers by
working with students, the cashier’s office, and financial aid. She said her office is
“looking at how financial aid interacts with payment requirements, so creating a pathway
for students who are on financial aid to achieve and obtain the same kind of priority.”
Another example Charlotte gave to regarding barrier reduction was changing a
residence life policy that pertained to the rates students pay when staying in housing on
days not regularly covered in the student's housing contract. The policy change she
initiated primarily benefits wards of the state, but any student can take advantage of it
regardless of their reason. This way Charlotte is creating an equitable system through
improved policies and not giving, as she says, “exceptions.” Charlotte said:
I see a lot of my job at this level is to make sure that our systems are not exclusive
and that they’re not discriminatory and that they are opening up opportunities for
as many students as possible and they don’t make any specific kind of student feel
marginalized or uncomfortable.

The findings in this section illustrate how whiteness is institutionalized on
predominantly white campuses. The examples shared by participants demonstrate their
spectrum of awareness about how whiteness is embedded into their campus through the
inclusion or exclusion of whiteness in the campus diversity definition. The examples also
demonstrate a spectrum of awareness about how advantages and disadvantages are
structurally embedded into predominantly white institutions. The responses from
participants are interconnected and show that, for participants, a deep acknowledgement

114
of systemic issues relates to a greater investment in reducing systemic barriers for
students.
White Privilege
Participants were asked if they noticed privilege in their own lives and in the lives of their
students. These prompts were designed to answer the third research question and to gain
insight into how aware white student affairs professionals are of their own privilege, how
they recognize privilege on their campus, and whether their awareness of privilege shapes
their work. Their answers revealed that participants are mostly aware of their privilege,
but participants also find it easy to forget their privilege and to ignore their awareness
when they so choose (see Table 4.3). McIntosh (1988) would say that ignoring privilege
can be more comfortable for white people because it allows them to feel less personally
accountable for institutionalized whiteness. This section builds on the previous sections
about responses to discussing whiteness and institutionalized whiteness on campus, by
adding depth to the awareness demonstrated by participants and by providing insight into
the participants’ investment in being multiculturally competent and their motivation to
act.
Privilege of Students
It was often easier for participants to notice the privilege of others than to
articulate their own privilege. Their answers, as have been seen previously in this
chapter, are on a spectrum. For example, when asked whether some students have more
privileges than others, Angela did not notice. She said, “In my area, no. We’re trying to

115
Table 4.3: Summary of Findings – White Privilege, Color-Blindness, and the Value of Support

Angela Charlotte Chuck Dave Donna Emily
Privilege
noticed
(of students)

• Not noticed • Family
• Racial
• Socio-economic
• Racial • n/d • Connections
• Family
• Racial
• Socio-economic
• Family
• Racial
• Socio-economic
Privilege
noticed
(of self)
• Confessed that she
does not think about
being white
• Education
• Travel (extensive)

• Absence of obstacles
• Connects privilege
with oppression
• Invisibility
• Whiteness

• Can ignore racial
growth by choice
• Professional
advancement
• Rarely feels
unwelcomed
• Whiteness

• Invisibility
• Oblivious about
privilege others lack
• Rarely feels unsafe
• Recognizes majority
dominance
• Whiteness

• Absence of worry
• Education
• Food
• Naïve about racial
incidents (at times)
• Whiteness

• Whiteness
Color-blindness • n/d • Aware of others
races, but does not
believe it defines
them
• Articulated the
dangers of a color-
blind attitude
• Family promoted
color-blind attitude
• Aware of others
races, but does not
believe it defines
them
• n/d • Family espoused
color-blind attitude
• Aware of student's
race, does not assume
it defines them

• Aware of student's
race, does not assume
it defines them
Support • Calls on an black
colleague when
needed
• Diversity supported
by upper admin
• Gains support from
colleagues

• Diversity supported
by upper admin
• Wants to be safe
place for students

• Diversity supported
by upper admin
• Wants support, gives
him confidence
• Diversity not
supported by upper
admin
• Gains support from
trusted colleagues
• University generously
supports professional
development

• Diversity supported
by supervisor and
upper admin
• Gained support from
white ally

Note. n/d = no data

116
Table 4.3 (Continued): Summary of Findings – White Privilege, Color-Blindness, and the Value of Support

Jane Jenny John Leyna Martin Mary
Privilege
noticed
(of students)

• Family
• Racial
• Socio-economic
• Connections
• Family
• Socio-economic • Connections
• Family
• Racial
• Socio-economic
• Racial
• Socio-economic
• Racial
• Socio-economic
Privilege
noticed
(of self)
• Absence of obstacles
• Connects privilege
with oppression
• Invisibility
• Whiteness
• Absence of fear
• Connects privilege
with oppression
• Inner conflict and
dissonance
• Oblivious about
privilege others lack
• Whiteness
• Absence of obstacles
• Given opportunities
and seizes them
• Inner conflict and
dissonance
• Invisibility
• Whiteness
(moderate)
• Absence of struggles
• Connects privilege
with oppression
• Raised with a
comfortable home
and employed parents
• Invisibility
• Whiteness
• Absence of
struggles
• Can "go wherever
and do whatever and
access whatever"
• Rarely feels
unwelcomed
• Whiteness
• Graduate degree
• Home owner
• Travel (mission
trips)
• Whiteness
(moderate)
Color-blindness • n/d • n/d • n/d • n/d • Family espoused
color-blind attitude
• Articulated the
dangers of a color-
blind attitude
• Aware of student's
race, doesn't assume
it defines them
• Articulated the
dangers of a color-
blind attitude
Support • Feels guilt for not
offering more
support to campus
and students
• Gained support from
'For Whites Only'
group
• n/d • Diversity supported
by supervisor and
upper admin
• Diversity not
supported by
supervisor
• Gains support from
colleague in upper
admin
• Not hindered by
hierarchical barriers
• Diversity supported
by supervisor and
upper admin
• Feels empowered by
supervisor
• Supervisor is a safe
place
• University does not
support professional
development
• Discovered need for
a safe person after a
specific racial
incident
• Diversity supported
by upper admin, but
genuineness is
doubted

Note. n/d = no data

117
help everybody get a job. That’s our goal. So whoever needs more support.” But all
other participants noticed some aspect of privilege among students. They mostly noticed
this through the actions of parents, connections and opportunities, through the awareness
and ignorance of some students, and through the socio-economic status of students.
Leyna, Donna, and Jenny work in residence life at private institutions and they
see privilege in the ways parents call and demand things for their students. This was
sometimes attributed to the entitlement parents felt or the connections parents had with
campus administrators. However, it was often associated with white parents and students
in higher socio-economic brackets. Jenny sees this through connections and
opportunities. For example, she noticed that students who have positive relationships
with faculty or deans more often receive scholarships and/or awards. This was not
limited to white students; this crossed racial lines.
Martin recognized that some students at Big State University are aware of their
cultural identity when they step foot on campus, some develop racial and cultural
awareness during their time as students, and there are others that remain ignorant of their
racial identity. Martin said, “Many of them become cognizant of that here. That said,
there’s definitely a contingency of students that are completely oblivious to all of it and
remain obvious until the day they graduate.” At Center University, Donna noticed this as
well when she said, “there are students who have white privilege and use it often and
don't even realize it.” She went on to say:
I think there’s a lot of white privilege and I think there are some students who
really understand what that means, and certainly there’s staff and professionals
who understand what that means. I think there’s some white guilt, because we are
educating so much, and so we see a lot of that as well.

118

Most participants recognized socio-economic privileges of students. Socio-
economic privilege was often, but not always, tied to white racial identity. John noticed
it in the cars that students drive and Leyna noticed it when students purchased expensive
items for their room and expected their roommate to pay for half the cost. For Leyna, the
reason she recognized socio-economic privilege, perhaps more than racial privilege, was
because she said, “it’s certainly something that we have more control over working
with.” To act on the economic disparity that prevented some students from seeking
positions as resident assistants (RAs), Leyna proposed an improvement in compensation
packages for the RAs. Leyna’s proposal was approved by upper administration because
she was able to demonstrate the benefit to students through numbers. This was a
systemic barrier Leyna helped reduce. She hopes to improve the compensation even
more in years to come, but she was satisfied with the progress she made this year.
Donna noticed similar socio-economic inequities at Center University through
tiered housing prices. She is unable to change the current pricing structure, but sees how
the tiered pricing stratifies students. The wealthier students, typically white, are in the
newest and best halls, while the poorer students, typically students of color, are in the
older and less desirable halls. Since Donna is unable to change this structure, she makes
exceptions for students as often as she can, even though her business office fights with
her about it. She said, “I make exceptions for individuals when it comes to that, and it
feels right to me so I keep doing it.” These examples from Leyna and Donna show that
not only do they recognize the privileges of students, but also they are taking action to
reduce the systemic barriers created by privilege inequities.

119
Privilege of Participants
To further explore the awareness participants had of privilege, they were asked to
transition their focus from the privilege they noticed in students to the privilege they
noticed in themselves. The recognition participants had of their own privilege was shared
through answers that demonstrated different levels of awareness. On the lower end of the
spectrum, participants described privileges that may or may not be attributed to white
skin privilege. On the higher end of the awareness spectrum were participants who spoke
deeply about the privileges they experience because of historic advantages from being
white.
The responses of Angela and Mary demonstrated recognition of privilege, but the
privileges they described may not always be associated with white skin privilege. When
Angela was asked if she could articulate any experiences where she noticed privilege in
her life, she had a casual response when she said, “Sure. I mean, with my education, and
all the traveling that I’ve done, and the places that I’ve had opened to me. So, yeah.”
Mary shared a similar perspective when she explained, “Yes. The fact that I have a
master’s degree, that I bought a house. I’ve been in third world countries, so I see what
we have in this country and how privileged we are.”
Martin, Chuck, and Jane feel that their whiteness has given them access they
might not otherwise have. Martin described the town that surrounds Big State University
as “a very white town.” Because of that he said, “I can kind of go wherever and do
whatever and access whatever. I mean the place where I have the limit is the economics.
I’m not going to get into the Polo Club but otherwise.” Chuck feels that he was able to

120
get his job at First University though the historic privilege that gave him connections he
might not have known otherwise. He said, “Let’s be honest, I have my position here
because I knew people.” Jane has worked on her predominantly white campus for many
years and she works hard to make connections and to “get on your good side.” Jane often
wonders, though, if she is treated better because of her personality or because she is a
white woman. She said, “I know too that it probably has to do with me being a white
woman. I know that I’m probably using my chips on those kinds of things on a regular
basis.”
Some participants drew attention to the connection between the unearned
advantages of white privilege and oppression. Donna felt a lot of guilt about the
privileges she has had, she said, “I didn't have to work hard for some of these things.”
Charlotte articulated the connection between privilege and oppression with
thoughtfulness. She said, “I’ve ridden a wave of historic white oppression against people
of color and there has been some benefit that I have gained from the fact that systems,
when I was a very young child, were very tilted in that direction.” The recognition of the
connection between privilege and oppression carried some frustrations for Martin as he
said, “I see a lot of privilege and some I don’t know what to do with.” Jenny too had
difficulty reconciling her whiteness with the oppression that is embedded in privilege.
She said:
I was born with certain privileges just because I’m white and just because my
parents are white, they probably have a different socio-economic status and I was
born into a neighborhood where I could walk a mile to go to church and not even
worry about it. Whereas peers of mine had to worry about gunshots and things
like that. I don’t even know if there were gangs in my high school. I’m that
oblivious.

121

As participants spoke about their privileges, the emotions described earlier in the
chapter emerged. Emotions like guilt, confusion, frustration; emotions that are not
typically positive. Because it is difficult to reflect on one’s own privilege and to notice
that which is normal and regular to one’s existence, many participants spoke of the
invisibility of privilege, which is described below.
Invisibility.
The notion of invisibility and of being “oblivious,” as Jenny said, appeared in a
few different ways throughout the interviews. One way was in the absence of
disadvantages or in the ability for things to come easily. This recognition led some
participants to put in effort to make the invisible, visible. Another way invisibility
appeared in interviews was through the lack of attention race was given by family
members when growing up.
A moment that encapsulated white privilege came from Angela’s interview. At
the end of the conversation, Angela inquired about the motivation for this study and then
confessed that she really does not think about being white. She was reassured that not
recognizing whiteness was common and her confession was an illustration of why
studying and deconstructing whiteness is important. This encounter demonstrates how
privilege is invisible and how it is difficult to notice that which is considered the norm.
Many participants noticed their privilege in the absence of disadvantages in their
lives. For example, Jenny recognized her privilege in an absence of fear in her life and
Leyna recognized it through the “struggles I just haven’t had.” Charlotte expanded on
the absence of disadvantages when she said, “I think I’ve recognized it more by the lack

122
of impediments than I have in any one situation where I feel like I’ve gotten something
that someone else hasn’t gotten in a specific instance.” Martin echoed that when he said,
“relatively speaking I don’t have anything to complain about.” John summed it up by
saying:
I’ve been educated, I feel like I went to the schools I wanted to go to and have
gotten into them. I’ve been accepted to things that I’ve applied for. It sounds
weird but there’s not a lot of ‘no’s’ happening in my life. Why is that? I don’t
have a lot of questions coming my way saying ‘no, you can’t do that; we’re not
going to let you do that.’ Things aren’t so bad for me and so what does that
mean? Is that because I’m white? I can’t say that’s not a part of it I guess.

Dave acknowledged that he is in the cultural majority as a straight, married, white
male and it is difficult for him to keep those aspects of his identity in mind. He described
it like this, “I think of myself as a cultural T-Rex, who can just go stomping around
asking ‘Where are all the people? Why are they afraid?’ It’s easy to forget the
privilege.” Donna finds it challenging to remember her privileges and assumptions,
because it is invisible. She tries to make an extra effort to draw attention to unearned
privileges and disadvantages of those without privilege, because it is easy to be
complacent. Donna said, “I really need to remember it when I’m the only one in the
room that’s going to be that voice.” Leyna built on that idea by realizing that she grew
up with privileged experiences and for her to be an effective administrator she needs to
be mindful that her experiences were not the same as others. She said:
I’m thinking about my experience growing up and comparing it other people’s
experience growing up. Or to things that are going on in my students lives; little
things like the house I lived in, what my parents do for a living and things like
that. I make jokes about being poor because I work in student affairs, and it’s not
appropriate and I shouldn’t do that. I really don’t anymore.

123
The thoughts of family members on issues of race ranged from “important”
(Chuck), “mixed” (Charlotte), “narrow-minded” (Dave), “close-minded” (Angela),
“prejudiced” (Mary), “racist” (Emily), and “bigoted” (Jenny). Most often, conversations
about race were invisible and were not something that happened. John’s family did not
talk about race, but they didn’t avoid the topic either. He said, “I just don’t think it was a
part of our lives or world or anything my parents had thought about or were interested in,
so we just kind of just lived, just existed.” Leyna’s family didn’t talk about race either.
She said, “I didn’t even know what my parents thought about it growing up.” While this
allowed Leyna to form her own ideas about race and her identity, she pointed out that,
“on the other hand, that’s a part of privilege. You don’t have to talk about race, because
we were white, so we didn’t have to.”
These examples demonstrate the difficulty of keeping privilege in mind. It also
illustrates why it is important for white people to be the voice and reminder that not
recognizing privilege does not mean that one does not benefit from privilege or that
privilege does not exist. It takes effort to become invested in being multiculturally
competent and to remain invested in deconstructing whiteness. There are influences from
family, colleagues, and emotional connections that can make it easy to deprioritize one’s
investment in diversity efforts.
Internal conflict and dissonance.
During the conversations about privilege, two participants expressed a specific
struggle with their whiteness, their identity, and their privileges. John and Jenny talked
about the dissonance and internal conflict they feel between being aware of their

124
advantages and not wanting to give up those advantages. These two participants thought
about whether it makes them selfish to take advantage of their own privilege. John said
this about his inner conflict, “This is going to come off as really selfish sounding but I’m
also like – you’re looking out for yourself because I’m trying to create a career and a
life.” He went on to wonder how he might reconcile this. He said, “How do I support
other people? But still as a young professional, and as someone who wants to achieve as
well. How do I still achieve and recognize the privilege?” Jenny felt this same inner
conflict and selfishness. She said:
I think as a white person I really struggle with my desire to develop and help
people and want this equality, and my desire as just a selfish human being to want
the best for me. How do I let those two meet together? Especially when often, as
a white person, they can be at odds.

Jenny and John gave this struggle context when they talked about their futures
and the advancement they hope to have in their careers. Neither Jenny nor John had
resolution for their inner conflict they only had questions that they hope will lead them to
a solution. Jenny had this to say:
You’re trying to understand your privilege without over abusing it, and
oppressing others. But then there comes a point where you just feel you’re
oppressing everybody, just by being. How do you not let that debilitate you and
how do you move forward? I talk to a lot of student affairs professionals that are
still really struggling with that, who are white. I know if I’m going for a job
interview and you’re going for a job interview and you’re a person of color, if we
have equal qualities and we’re basically the same qualified, you’re probably going
to get the job. Is that fair? Is that not fair? How does that make me feel? It
doesn’t necessarily make me feel valued as a person who’s white, like I’m less
valued just because I’m white. That’s what happened to lots of other people for
years and years and years, and so where’s that balance and where’s that equality?
I don’t think we’ll necessarily get there, but I think right now – and you care
about those issues so you also don’t want to see it change either because you
know that it’s not fair.

125
Similarly, John said this:
I’m in this point of privilege, I have these different opportunities and I get that. I
recognize even being promoted at a young level, over people who have been in
this longer and maybe were a person of color, and I get promoted over them and I
think what does that mean? I’ve thought about it. It can be hard to think about,
but I recognize I’m in a level where I have a lot of privilege in my life and so,
what can I do with that? Maybe I’m too young to have figured that out yet.

This struggle and inner conflict is an illustration of how one can become stuck
while progressing toward a positive white racial identity. Helms (1990) might
characterize these as examples of the Disintegration status because it is easy for whites to
get lost in how their whiteness affects society. John and Jenny are experiencing an inner
debate about their privilege and identity. They are also experiencing the dissonance that
Helms (1995) describes when attitudes and thoughts change before one’s behavior
changes. Depending on their future experiences and the knowledge they acquire, they
may remain stagnant with this inner dichotomy, or they may experience additional
dissonance, which will push them forward or backward in their white identity
development.
Color-Blindness
There were no specific questions asked in the interviews about particular racial
attitudes such as color-blindness, as it would have been difficult to ask non-leading
questions on the topic (see Appendix B). However, through the interview process
participants shared their views in ways that showed color-blind attitudes and the dangers
of adopting color-blind attitudes (see Table 4.3). Color-blindness is the perspective “that
race should not and does not matter” (Gushue & Constantine, 2007, p. 323). Including
the perspectives participants had about color-blindness helped answer the third research

126
question by showing how aware participants are of their racial attitudes. Participants
articulated color-blind attitudes held by family members and why these attitudes felt
dangerous. How participants saw color-blindness also demonstrated the investment they
have in being multiculturally competent and their earnestness in not making assumptions
about their students’ circumstances.
At the beginning of Mary’s interview, she shared a story about a compliment she
received from a co-worker when Mary was working on her master’s degree at nearby
Large State University. The story illustrated color-blindness and encapsulated the
dangers of color-blindness. Mary said:
I had a career counselor at [Large State] once tell me, and she was African-
American. She said, ‘One thing I notice about you is when you look at people,
you don’t see their color, you try and see them and who they are inside.’ I really
appreciated that she noticed that. Then there are some dangers to that.

When asked to describe the kinds of dangers she saw with the compliment, she
explained:
Well, because people are; you know I’m a white woman, privileged, I have an
education. There are identity things that are associated with that. I think it’s not
good to [say] ‘Oh, I don’t see that you’re black or that you’re a woman.’ It’s part
of who that person is. It’s kind of a tricky thing. … I don’t know that I’ve
reconciled it in my mind, totally, but I think it’s something to be cognizant about.

In addition to Mary’s illustration, two participants recounted color-blind attitudes
in messages from family members. Neither Donna’s nor Martin’s families talked about
race when they were growing up, but both received similar color-blind messages from
their families. The notion of equality was impressed upon Donna. She said her family
told her, “We’re going to treat people as equals and if you’re a part of this family, that’s
what you’re going to do. We don’t judge people or anything.” Similarly in Martin’s

127
family, the message was, “You don’t think of people differently, you don’t treat people
differently. If anything they’re not different.” Martin appreciated this message from his
family, but he ultimately concluded that it was not an attitude that he espoused.
Martin thinks about the race of his students quite a bit, he said, “It’s like
wrestling, where I try to be conscious of it and not conscious of it at the same time.”
Chuck shared a similar thought when he reflected on whether he thinks about the race of
his students. Chuck said, “I think I'm aware of it and I try to be sensitive to it, but I also
don't want it to define someone. I have to be aware of how my interaction with them
might be perceived.” Martin went on to offer this perspective:
I want to be color-blind to the extent that I want everyone to feel like and
genuinely receive excellent service. I don’t want there to be any variation in the
service to students based on their identity. To some extent to be truly effective
with all students you can’t be color-blind because you might treat students
differently in order to treat them effectively.

Embedded in the thoughts shared by Martin is the importance of not making
assumptions about students. This was a feeling shared by other participants. Donna
explained that when speaking with students, she is careful not to generalize their
experiences. She said she approaches conversations by saying, “You’re an individual and
you [have a] unique experience at Center, please share it with me.” Donna has found that
students want to tell their story, but to generalize a student's experience would be
“ridiculous” and “hurtful.” Emily also talked about the dangers of making assumptions
about students and the dangers of expecting that her experiences are like the experiences
of her students. She said, “You can never really know what people are going through.
You can’t assume what’s normal for someone based on what I think is normal.”

128
For Charlotte, putting in the effort to not make assumptions and to not be color-
blind means that she is showing respect to her students. She also believes she must
balance her openness with the knowledge and skills she has acquired through years of
experience and diversity education. Charlotte said:
I don’t want to appear that I’m so sensitive that I completely understand the
experience because that does not seem to convey a measure of respect that I think
really is due to the dynamics of an experience that is very different from mine.
However, I try to imagine based on all of my education and experience, how this
student’s experience might be affected by the fact that they are a student of color.
… I’m just trying to be open and create an opportunity for students to share,
where it’s appropriate, issues that are impacting their experience that I would
need to understand.

Value of Support
Up to this point in the findings, participants have shown a spectrum of awareness
about their whiteness, privilege, identity, and attitudes. Additionally, participants have
shown how their awareness affects their job as student affairs professionals and their
investment in being multiculturally competent. Oftentimes emotions affected
participants, including fear of failing and feelings of inadequacy. A theme that arose
through the interviews, that counteracted the emotions that serve as hurdles, was the
value of support, including the empowerment and confidence support can provide (see
Table 4.3). Support, in this study, came from colleagues, classmates, and supervisors.
Regardless of where the support came from, it was clear that participants valued being
supported in their efforts to learn more about their own racial identity and in being able to
contribute to diversity on campus. Participants also described that the absence of support
prompted them to seek out people or places that felt safe.

129
Some supervisors and members of upper management were mentioned as
professionals that set a positive tone for improving diversity on campus. Martin, John,
Chuck, Leyna, Charlotte, and Emily all gave specific examples of supportive staff on
campus that inspired them and empowered them to contribute positively to campus
diversity efforts. One example came from Martin who has a supportive Dean of Students
and Vice President for Students Affairs. He said, “The top instills the values in this
particular case. I mean the value of diversity and individualized care and concern and
service to students; it’s not negotiable in this division.” Having that support has
empowered Martin to contact colleagues across campus about diversity efforts. Martin
isn’t afraid that he is disrupting campus hierarchy by making these connections on his
own, because he feels supported by his supervisor.
John similarly mentioned that the support he receives on issues of diversity comes
“from the top.” John’s Dean of Students pushed John to revisit homogenous marketing
materials and to think more about diversity in his area, while his Vice President for
Student Affairs has drawn attention to gender gaps in student leadership that John didn’t
previously recognize. Chuck also feels his Vice President for Student Affairs is setting
the right tone for diversity efforts on campus. He said “[our] VP has a real heart for this
… so it’s kind of easy to get on his table with these types of things.”
Conversely, Leyna does not see her direct supervisor as a person who is as
invested in diversity as Lenya is and she doesn’t find it easy to talk to her supervisor
about diversity efforts. She expressed disappointment when she said, “I don’t think it’s a
big issue for my current supervisor either. And it should be a bigger issue for us.” In the

130
absence of support from her direct supervisor, Leyna found another advocate. Leyna
describes the Associate Dean of Campus Diversity as strong, influential, a person she can
consult with, and someone she admires. Developing this relationship has given Leyna
confidence and has helped her feel empowered to talk to other colleagues and
administrators about improving campus diversity efforts.
Charlotte draws support from sitting on the President’s diversity council and
having a strong working relationship with the President’s office. Being part of a group
that influences campus diversity efforts is meaningful and inspiring to Charlotte. Emily,
who is supervised by Charlotte, mentioned that she feels encouraged and supported to
explore diversity efforts at State Valley University. At the time of my interview with
Emily, she had just concluded her first large-scale, campus-wide diversity program called
the Tunnel of Oppression. Having a supportive supervisor who encouraged the program
and having supportive colleagues to help execute the program made the program a
success, with strong attendance and positive feedback from attendees. The fact that
Emily feels supported by Charlotte shows that support can inspire confidence and action.
It also demonstrates the value of having role models. In this case, the role model is white
which assists in the deconstruction of whiteness and helps support the development of a
positive white identity.
The portrayal of people or groups as “safe places” came up frequently when
participants described what made them feel supported, or when they described how they
hope to be viewed. Mary described what it means for a person to be considered “safe,”
she said, “I think I wouldn’t feel judged by them and I also feel like they would keep my

131
confidence, and it would not come back to haunt me.” Mary found herself in need of a
safe place when she was angry about the firing of her Latina boss. Mary was without a
safe person to speak with for months and she felt isolated and lonely without a trusted
person to whom she could talk. She has since worked through her emotions connected
with the firing and recently established a relationship with the Campus Pastor and the
Director of Multi-Ethnic Programs. If Mary were in a similar situation today, she feels
they would be colleagues to whom she could turn.
Martin described his supervisor as a safe person to talk to, and someone who
challenges him to confront his assumptions. He said, “My supervisor identifies as an
African-American woman and she and I, we just eat this stuff up, and talk about it and
challenge each other. It’s a very comfortable, safe place to explore and stuff.” This is a
quality that Chuck wants to be known for. He wants to be seen as a “safe place for
students to come and talk because of my work with the community.” Chuck hopes his
contributions to campus show that he is leading by example and that he does more than
talk the talk.
Dave finds his supervisors and colleagues to be supportive, but he wants more
support. Dave lacks confidence in his ability to contribute to diversity efforts and thinks
that support makes him feel more confident. One way he finds support is in departmental
team meetings, when the group can brainstorm solutions to hypothetical campus issues.
Another way he seeks support is by turning to students. He said, “My favorite is trusted
students to guide me to say, don’t try that, that won’t work with us and that sort of thing.
I don’t feel like I can do it by myself. I feel like I need to consult with others.”

132
Jane had the most unique experience with a support group. During her graduate
program she learned about social justice and oppression education. She remembers that
many of her assumptions about race and identity were challenged while pursuing her
master’s degree, and she often felt confused about how to reconcile those emotions. A
trusted group of students, with leaders that created a safe environment, established a
regular meeting called “For Whites Only.” Many of their conversations revolved around
developing a positive white identity and learning to understand their cultural experiences.
Jane remembered that the group often had difficulty finding significant things to talk
about, in regards to whiteness, that didn’t involve privilege. Jane said this of the
experience:
I think the most helpful part of it was knowing that you were among people who
wanted to have that same understanding and ability to come to terms with how to
be white and supportive of diversity and examine yourself at the same time. To
make sure that you’re doing that and it’s not all about other people’s experience.

Multicultural Competency
The final section of the chapter focuses on multicultural competency. The
findings thus far have described different aspects of awareness, including race, identity,
privilege, oppression, and institutionalized whiteness. This section offers a final look at
the awareness, knowledge, and skills that comprise multicultural competency and adds
examples from participants that answer the research questions (see Table 4.4). This
section is broken into three sub-sections. The first sub-section describes how participants
feel they have become aware and knowledgeable about issues of multiculturalism and
diversity. The second sub-section examines the skills participants demonstrated that lend
to their multicultural competency, primarily focusing on the skills participants feel they

133
Table 4.4: Summary of Findings – Multicultural Competency

Angela Charlotte Chuck Dave Donna Emily
Multicultural
Competency
(Awareness /
Knowledge)

• Attending diversity
celebration events
• Attended diversity
trainings
• Sat on diversity
committee

• Education (graduate)
• Experiences

• Adopted children of
color
• Attended multi-ethnic
church
• Cognizant of his race
and position when
meeting with students
• Dated women of
color
• Education
(undergraduate and
graduate)
• Attending campus
diversity events
• Education (graduate)
• Observing other's
mistakes
• Mindful of being a
model to others

• Education
(undergraduate and
graduate)
• Education (graduate)
• Experiences
• Raised in multi-
ethnic neighborhood
Multicultural
Competency
(Skills)

• n/d

• Wants more diversity
workshops and
trainings
• Wants more
opportunities for
diversity discussion
• Wants to learn how to
teach privilege to the
privileged
• n/d

• Wants courage to
speak up in racial
situations
• n/d • Wants more trainings,
resources, and
dialogue about
diversity issues
Investment • Assembling a panel • Believes it's "critical"
to understand
diversity issues
• Hiring
• Improved policies,
procedures to reduce
systemic barrier
• Wants div. programs
to be interconnected
• Wants additional
diversity knowledge
and skills, but other
responsibilities
become prioritized
• Wants programs from
office to be more
inclusive
• Attempts to
incorporate
experiential diversity
training into his work
• Attends div. sessions
• Encourages staff to
advise diverse groups
• Hiring
• Makes exceptions to
policies to reduce
barriers
• Supervises div.events
• Wants a multicultural
center on campus
• Coordinated diversity
trainings and campus-
wide programs
• Deprioritizes at times
because other "stuff
just starts getting in
the way, so it's about
still making it a
priority on the list"
• Hiring

Note. n/d = no data

134
Table 4.4 (Continued): Summary of Findings – Multicultural Competency

Jane Jenny John Leyna Martin Mary
Multicultural
Competency
(Awareness /
Knowledge)

• Education (graduate) • Aware of multiple
campus diversity
efforts
• Education (graduate
and undergraduate)
• Aware of campus
programs and groups,
but does not actively
contribute
• Education (graduate)
• Education (graduate
and undergraduate)
• Racial experiences
attributed to
awareness
• Study abroad
• "Cognizant of
different identities"
• Racial experiences
attributed to racial
awareness and
knowledge
• Education (graduate
and undergraduate)
• Education (graduate
and undergraduate)
• Specific racial
experience and
diversity training
attributed to racial
awareness
• Study abroad
Multicultural
Competency
(Skills)

• Facilitated diversity
trainings, retreats,
emersion experiences
in the past, chooses
not to lead now
• Wants more dialogue
about diversity
• Wants to learn how to
teach privilege to the
privileged

• Comfortable being a
part of conversations
that include diversity,
not comfortable
leading conversations
• Wants more
experiences

• Gaining skills, being
more intentional and
less reactionary with
her actions
• Wants to learn how to
teach privilege to the
privileged

• Develops training for
student leaders,
includes diversity
• Wants coordinated
diversity efforts for
training students
• Wants to work on
how diff. identities
work together
• Wants more dialogue
among staff
• n/d
Investment • Deprioritizes,
"complacent" with
personal development
• Acknowledges value
of white voice
• Hiring
• Led div. efforts in the
past, chooses not now
• Publications
• Values teaching priv.
to the privileged
• Considers race of
student when student
shows strong identity
• Does not feel she
contributes other than
supporting programs,
initiatives, groups,
and being an ally
• Hiring
• Wants change to
happen
• Considering how to
speak up and use
voice
• Deprioritizes, other
responsibilities
become focus
• Hiring
• Publications

• Cares about
improving div. efforts
• Leads staff diversity
goals and learning
outcomes
• Improved policies,
procedures to reduce
systemic barrier
• Required staff to
attend campus
diversity certification
• Cares deeply about
serving students
• Contributes to
campus diversity
through influence on
committees and
programs
• Improving training to
be more than "a slide
about diversity"

• n/d

Note. n/d = no data

135
are lacking and the skills they want to gain. The last sub-section focuses on the
investment participants have in being multiculturally competent.
Awareness and Knowledge
The participants’ level of awareness and knowledge became apparent as they
described how they contribute to diversity on campus, their racial identity evolution, and
their interactions with students. As has been seen in previous findings, awareness and
knowledge of diversity and multiculturalism was on a spectrum, and in many examples,
participants were inspired to act and create positive change because of their awareness
and knowledge about issues of diversity, whiteness, and oppression.
A time that all participants were aware of the student diversity on campus and
their personal contribution to diversity was during hiring, putting together a panel, or
during the creation of marketing materials. Additionally, nearly all participants described
diversity events on campus. Some events were celebratory in nature, like when Angela
mentioned attending “Bento Under the Palms” sponsored by the Japanese Club and when
Donna mentioned the “Step Show” from the Black Student Union. Other events were
educational in nature, Donna mentioned the panel discussion the Black Student Union
organized after the “Step Show” and Emily talked about the “Tunnel of Oppression” that
she helped organize with other members of campus staff. With the exception of John,
Angela, and Mary, all other participants offered at least one example of how they
personally contribute to improving diversity efforts on campus through events, programs,
or trainings that originate from their office.

136
Attending college and gaining a master’s degree in a field related to student
affairs significantly influenced the participants. All participants except for Angela
attended a student affairs-related graduate program and all except Angela stated that
graduate school helped them gain awareness and knowledge about race, identity,
privilege, and oppression. Graduate school also helped participants make sense of some
of their experiences growing up. Jenny explained it this way, “I actually didn’t even
really think a lot about white guilt and responsibility and stuff until I got into college.”
John’s graduate program focused on inclusion and those ideals permeated each of his
classes. He said, “Then when you go to grad school in student affairs it’s just all
diversity, all multiculturalism all the time. That’s what we did in every class in some
way or the other.” This was a significant observation by participants because
multicultural competency is a value of the student affairs profession (ACPA & NASPA,
2010a; 2010b). The attention participants gave to the positive influence of their graduate
classes and experiences validates the value of multicultural competency and shows it is
endorsed and promoted in student affairs’ degree programs.
The knowledge that participants learned in graduate school often times inspired
them to act. Sometimes this was on a personal level, like having a conversation with a
family member they saw as “prejudiced.” Mary recalls studying sociology, “racism and
classism and all of that, and into women’s liberation; all the isms” and how her new-
found knowledge led to arguments with her parents who were afraid she going to “marry
an African-American.” These conversations were frustrating and disappointing to Mary.
Dave was also inspired by college, and he too had conversations with his parents, but he

137
became worn down by the conversations and now he's “kind of given up on them in some
ways.”
Emily was inspired by her graduate program to act and personally contribute to
improving diversity on campus. Emily grew up in a predominantly Latino neighborhood
and she does not recall having other white friends growing up, but she does remember
that being called “white” was meant as an insult. Graduate school helped her understand
the history of racism that shaped her experiences growing up. She said, “it helped I think
inspire me for the future.” Chuck was also inspired by the classes he took in college and
graduate school. He said they inspired him to act and to learn more outside of classes:
It really opened my eyes up to the differences of experiences that people had and
the things that influenced those as well. That really pushed me into the idea that I
need to learn about this and I need to figure out and find more out on this as well.
Not only in building relationships but also doing research and finding out more
about who I was and also other people’s journeys as well. I think that’s been the
journey all along.

Skills
Having the skills to contribute positively to diversity efforts was the weakest
aspect of multicultural competency for the participants. Many participants’ examples
demonstrated the skills they felt they were lacking or the skills participants want. These
examples also demonstrated that while having knowledge, awareness, and skills are
essential to being multiculturally competent, they mean nothing if the participant is not
motivated to act.
The skill that emerged most frequently as lacking had to do with the ability to
lead conversations about diversity or to contribute to conversations about race and
identity. Sometimes it was a lack of confidence that held participants’ back, and other

138
times it was their whiteness that held them back. For John, he lacked confidence and the
experience to lead diversity efforts. He said, “I feel comfortable being a part of the
conversation. I don’t know if I feel comfortable being in the lead of those
conversations.” Similarly, Mary and Charlotte said they felt more comfortable
contributing to diversity conversations from a gender perspective, but not as confident
from a racial perspective. Charlotte said, “I’m not usually in the thick of it from a multi-
cultural perspective as a white female.”
A lack of skills hindered John who was involved in an adversarial conversation
directed at him by a black co-worker. John’s co-worker felt that John was not listening to
him because he was black. John insisted that their disagreement was a result of different
perspectives, but in retrospect, John realized that he handled the situation poorly. John
said it was a lack of skills and a lack of experience that caused him to fail. He felt he had
the knowledge and awareness to have a meaningful conversation from his graduate
program, but not the skills. He said:
I go back to all the different classes, you learn about your own privilege. I
learned about that a long time ago, but then recognizing that in the middle of that
conversation, that’s what’s happening. I think that’s what’s really difficult. I
think it’s transitioning the toolbox into a really, in the moment 20 minute
conversation, that that’s the tool I wish I had. I probably was missing on
recognizing things that I knew I was taught.

Similarly, Dave is haunted by a time when he witnessed a racist and sexist
incident and he didn’t act. Dave was an advisor for an overnight student retreat and a
student was singing a derogatory song around the campfire. Dave felt that he could have
acted or that he could have corrected the situation, but he didn’t. He said, “It was the
perfect moment to step in and say something. I just heard the beginning of it and I like

139
walked away.” Another colleague stepped in and diffused the situation in a humorous
and non-confrontational manner and Dave was envious of his colleague’s facilitation
skills. Dave wanted to be able to confront the student, but he said confronting others is,
“excruciating for me because I guess I grew up with it in some ways and I … just the
amount of discomfort is so huge.” Dave’s strong need to be liked, his fear of failure, and
his lack of skills contributed to his lack of action.
Facilitation skills and creating more opportunities for dialogue and diversity
trainings were some of the skills other participants wanted. As Charlotte said, “We wish
we had more opportunities for discussion in diversity on campus. We wish there were
more workshops, training around diversity issues.” A training that participants wanted in
particular was to be more skilled at teaching privilege to the privileged. This was
mentioned by Charlotte, Leyna, and Jenny. Jenny recently attended a workshop at a
professional conference about teaching privilege to the privileged and she left the session
wishing she had more skills. She said, “It’s been clear to me that we’re not teaching
ourselves how to have those conversations and if I’m going to teach students how to have
those conversations and develop them, then I need to have that as well.” Leyna echoed
Jenny’s thoughts. Leyna struggles with how to teach privilege to the privileged and she
wants more skills in this area. She said:
I think that’s been a struggle for me to know how to facilitate those conversations.
We have a lot of stuff that comes up when you talk to white males about privilege
that we need to process through, but then we have other students that are
frustrated; we want to work through that.

Leyna feels though that she is developing more skills, which comes with
experience. Leyna is becoming more comfortable in her role at Liberal Arts University

140
and she is starting to see some changes come about that she made happen. Prior to her
position at LAU, she said her experiences were all about being reactionary and following
the direction of other colleagues. Now she is growing in her skills and confidence and
becoming more intentional in her actions, like with reducing systemic barriers for RAs or
developing comprehensive diversity training for new full-time staff members. Leyna said
she is “thinking intentionally about how I am role modeling that for the people who work
for me and everything.”
These examples also demonstrated that while having knowledge, awareness, and
skills are essential to being multiculturally competent, they mean nothing if the
participant is not motivated to act. Having skills, in addition to awareness and
knowledge, is not something that Jane was lacking. Jane was inspired to act at one point
in her life. She led diversity trainings with students and she facilitated campus dialogues
with staff. Jane was inspired by the knowledge and skills she received from her master’s
and doctoral degrees that were based in education and social justice. She said, “When I
first started I played a much more active role in educating the RA staff and people like
that about oppression in education and looking through the lens of different people’s
experiences and things like that.” However, her motivation has declined over the years.
She said, “I’d say that even though I participated and I still continue to, I’m not one that
leads it.”
Jane does not need permission from supervisors or campus colleagues to
incorporate more diversity education into her the daily work she does, like with the tutor
program she supervises, she said, “I think to myself, like you could be doing this on your

141
own you don’t need anybody’s permission, but I just haven’t gotten to that point.” Her
lack of motivation to act is due in part to a lack of support from her environment. She
said, “But I would have been the only one that would have brought that up, no one’s ever
brought that up.” The pressure to be the voice of campus diversity efforts is fatiguing for
Jane, and, leading diversity efforts becomes too emotional for her and leaves her
choosing not to act.
These examples show that most participants are earnest and care, but their lack of
confidence, coupled with their lack of skills, hinders them. While it may not hinder their
investment in being multiculturally competent, it does hinder their motivation and desire
to act. For this reason, it seems that the better research question to ask could be: “How
do white student affairs professionals build confidence and skills to translate their
investment in being multiculturally competent into action?”
Investment
Some participants are invested in being multiculturally competent while others are
less so. It was easy to find example of participants who were invested, because
participants explained their commitment to action. It was more difficult to find examples
of participants who were not invested in being multiculturally competent. This could be
because of the population of participants or because it is more difficult to identify
something that is absent from the conversation. Some participants were upfront about
their lack of investment in being multiculturally competent, because it becomes a low
priority. An absence of examples that demonstrate a lack of investment may mean that

142
some participants were not invested in being multiculturally competent, or it may mean
that they did not provide examples to show how they are invested.
Martin demonstrated his investment in being multiculturally competent in a few
different ways. One way was through the leadership trainings he created for student
leaders and the improvements he wants to make to the diversity aspect of those trainings.
He said, “We’re trying to embody that idea that diversity is not just once a year part of
the curriculum, it really is day to day.” As Martin put it, he wants diversity to be more
than “a slide about diversity” during a presentation. Martin is also passionate about
improving campus dialogue around issues of diversity. He ended our interview with a
host of questions he would like discussed at the campus level. He wants to know:
What do we value as a campus? Diversity and what other values? What does that
mean? Do we all value that as individuals? What are our experiences like on
campus? What are our experiences like with supervision on campus? How do
our identities relate to our work experiences? What are people frustrated about?

Leyna showed her investment in being multicultural competent by sending her
staff to her campus’ diversity certification program. The diversity certification program
is a one-day intensive training that she believes has helped improve awareness about
issues of diversity around campus. She gave an example of how staff on campus were
inspired to act after the diversity certification program. In one area staff recognized they
were setting an economic expectation of co-workers and assuming all people had the
same privileges and disposable incomes. She said, “It means that in some people’s
offices that they’re getting rid of potlucks because it’s not fair to ask people to bring food
to work, and those kinds of things.”

143
Donna explained that a way she attempts to stay invested in being multiculturally
competent is through attending educational sessions about diversity when she attends
conferences. Center University is very generous about supporting professional
development and Donna takes advantage of those opportunities. She said that attending
conferences and sessions about diversity help her to connect with colleagues and to
strengthen her support system. Meanwhile, Angela shows her investment by attending
cultural events on campus and by participating in the campus-required diversity training.
While Emily sees a desire to help and to contribute to campus diversity efforts,
she also sees that it is easy to be distracted by other priorities. She said:
Diversity and multiculturalism is a value, so sometimes if it’s not focused on as
much, it’s not because it’s not important, it’s probably because other day to day
stuff just starts getting in the way. So it’s about still making it a priority on the
list.

John confessed that since he completed his master’s degree, focusing on diversity has not
been at the top of his list and he has not sought any professional development
opportunities to strengthen his knowledge or skills. He said, “To be honest, I haven’t
really sought out any just because my focus has been on other things.” Chuck would like
to increase his knowledge or skills by pursuing a “doctorate” or by attending a “week-
long conference,” but he lacks motivation because as he said, “I just don't have the
energy.”
Charlotte understands how easy it is to deprioritize diversity education, but she
reinforced the importance of keeping diversity at the top of the priority list, and not
allowing it to be pushed aside. She said, “It’s more an issue of it’s the right thing to do as

144
opposed to on top of it being the right thing to do, it’s critical to your survival in the
environment for you to understand these things.”
Conclusion
The findings in this chapter contribute to answers to the research questions that
guided this study. Overall the findings show that participants are not static individuals,
but rather, they are on a spectrum and are influenced by the unique events in their lives.
Participants have interconnected experiences that influence their racial awareness and
racial identity which shows that there is no one way to answer the research questions.
The first research question asks, “How do white student affairs professionals see
their own race affecting their daily job?” The responses show that participants do not
always see their race affecting their daily job, however, the emotions of participants and
their awareness of racial incidents on campus influenced participants. The second
research question asks, “Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?” The responses show that participants are invested, some
more than others. The awareness participants had of their own privilege, white identity,
racial attitudes, and knowledge of oppression, led to their increased investment in being
multiculturally competent. The responses also show that while multicultural investment
is important, it is also important for participants to have the skills and confidence to
translate their investment into action. Lastly, the third research question asks, “How
aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial identity, racial attitudes,
and privilege?” The responses fell on a spectrum, depending on the experiences and
education participants had acquired to this point.

145
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Future Research
This dissertation started with a vignette about a fictional white student affairs
professional named Jen. Jen noticed that the programs she was supervising were
disproportionally geared toward white, middle-class students and were conceived and
executed by mostly white student leaders. Jen wondered if that was okay or not, she
wondered if the programs showed the university’s commitment to diversity, and she
wondered if she was prepared to do anything about her observations. Through the stories
gathered in this study it became apparent that Jen’s questions are not unlike those of
many white student affairs professionals. Jen, like many of this study’s participants, is
aware of her whiteness but lacks confidence in her skills and her ability to act on
improving diversity in the programs she manages. This vignette captured the motivation
behind this study, which sought to discover the racial awareness of white student affairs
professionals and to better understand how white student affairs professionals act upon
their awareness. The findings suggest that critical consciousness can be enhanced
through reflection. This study provides understanding and tools for that reflection, such
as questions to raise, emotions that naturally arise, and feelings and fears that can be a
hindrance.
The purpose of this study was to examine race and racial awareness among white
student affairs professionals. It was important to focus on this population because student
affairs professionals are not studied as often as college students, counselors, or teachers,
yet they work closely developing and educating college students and are often tasked
with improving or creating university policies and procedures. Therefore, this study

146
explored the effect race has on the daily work of white student affairs professionals, how
invested they feel in being multiculturally competent, and their awareness of racial
identity, racial attitudes, and racial privilege. The three research questions that guided
this study were:
RQ1: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
RQ2: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being
multiculturally competent?
RQ3: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?
Chapter Five provides a conclusion to this dissertation study. In the first section
of this chapter the findings from Chapter Four are summarized. Following the summary,
the second section discusses how the literature from Chapter Two connects with the
findings in Chapter Four. The third section provides implications for practice and the
final section discusses this study’s limitations and ideas for future research.
Summary of Findings
To summarize the findings of Chapter Four, this section is organized according to
the research questions. Chapter Four examined the stories of 12 white student affairs
professionals who work at predominantly white institutions. Through narrative analysis
of participant responses (see Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) themes emerged,
interconnections became noticeable, and answers to the three research questions were
developed. Interview responses from the 12 participants in this study offer insights into

147
the challenges and struggles white student affairs professionals at predominantly white
institutions sometimes face.
For the first research question, as with the others, participant responses
demonstrated a spectrum of awareness and commitment to action. The first question
was, “How do white student affairs professional see their own race affecting their daily
job?” The answer, according to responses from participants, was that white student
affairs professionals do not always see race affecting their daily job. The literature on
white privilege (McIntosh, 1988; 1989) and institutionalized whiteness (Lipsitz, 2008)
would argue that race always affects the job one does, whether recognized or not, because
whiteness shapes one’s views and outlooks regardless of how aware one is. However, in
this study, there were two facets that seemed to increase the chances that a participant
saw their own race affecting their job. Those two areas included, first, participants’
emotional connections with and reactions to their racial identity and discussing issues of
diversity and, second, how aware participants were of systemic racial issues on campus.
The emotions participants shared included comfort, discomfort, anxiety, sadness,
guilt, frustration, confusion, shock, worry, inadequacy, and fear. These emotions did not
always consciously hold back participants from performing their daily job, but their
emotional connections and reactions were prevalent whether they chose to be involved in
diversity efforts and conversations and in the confidence with which they approached
diversity efforts and conversations. Sometimes emotions were triggered by specific
experiences and sometimes emotional ties to issues of race were lying under the surface
for participants. There was not always an obvious relationship between a participant’s

148
emotional response to discussing whiteness and their awareness of their own racial
identity or how they saw race affecting their daily job, but there was a connection.
Meaning, some participants shared strong emotions of sadness or frustration about racial
experiences. For some this caused stagnation and a lack of action, others held back from
certain actions, such as facilitating diversity conversations, but not from all actions.
Meanwhile, others were motivated by their emotions to engage in diversity efforts or
improve racial situations on campus. As such, the emotions of the participant had an
impact on their job; whether it had an overall motivating or stagnating effect or just
impacted certain aspects of their job.
The depth to which a participant expressed their acknowledgement of systemic
issues on campus was another area that impacted how participants saw race affecting
their daily job. For participants who either did not notice or who only noticed isolated
incidents, their contributions to diversity on campus were more limited to individual
actions, such as programs and events which improved the campus culture regarding
diversity. For those participants who noticed systemic racial issues on campus, in
addition to isolated incidents, they tended to be more in tune with the importance of
improving campus culture regarding diversity. Their actions were geared toward
systemic improvements of policies and procedures, in addition to individual actions such
as programs and events. Participants who noticed systemic issues articulated their
observations to varying degrees. The more a participant was able to articulate systemic
issues and institutionalized oppression, the more aware they were of their whiteness, and
the more likely they were to articulate the changes they were making to policies and

149
procedures. Additionally, the changes were designed to create more equity for all
students, rather than maintain policies and procedures that created privileges and
advantages only for some students.
The second research question asked, “Do white student affairs professionals feel
invested in being multiculturally competent?” The answer, based on participant
responses, is yes; many participants do feel invested in being multiculturally competent.
The investment in being multiculturally competent was also on a spectrum, with some
participants more invested than others. Their stories suggest that several issues shaped
participants’ investment in being multiculturally competent, including their awareness of
their privilege, their racial attitudes, and their awareness and knowledge of
multiculturalism. The more aware participants were of their privileges, the more positive
their racial attitudes and identity, and the more knowledgeable about issues of oppression
and multiculturalism, the more invested and motivated participants were in being
multiculturally competent.
Additionally, as participants responded, it became apparent that investment was
important, but having the skills and confidence to be multiculturally competent are also
important, although not fully addressed by the research question. While many
participants felt invested in being multiculturally competent, their desire did not always
translate into actually being multiculturally competent or feeling confident in their
multicultural competency. Two areas contributed to participants being multiculturally
competent, including having a support system and having skills.

150
First, having a positive support system came from participants feeling like they
had safe people with whom to discuss issues of race and having supportive supervisors.
The safeness and security of a support system, or person, gave participants a place to
reflect on their thoughts about diversity and it gave them confidence in their abilities to
contribute positively to multiculturalism on campus. Many participants were well-
meaning and cared deeply about issues of diversity. However, they often found it
difficult to translate their good intentions into positive actions. Having support
encouraged participants to act on their good intentions.
Second, having skills contributed to participants being multiculturally competent.
The participants in this study felt they lacked skills and showed a strong desire to acquire
skills, so they could actualize their investment in multicultural competency. Lack of
skills stemmed from a dearth of experiences with racial situations, feelings of
inadequacy, and fear of failure about gaining skills or having experiences. The anxiety
participants shared about gaining skills through having racial experiences involved risk
on the part of the participant. The fear of handling a racial situation poorly is not an
unfounded fear. Engaging in conversations with other white professionals and
professionals of color opens one up to missteps, mistakes, and offending others.
Exposing oneself to failure could mean a participant might gain valuable experiences or it
may cause the participant to feel as if they inflicted damage to the advancement of
diversity efforts.
The third research question asked, “How aware are white student affairs
professionals of their own racial identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?” The answer to

151
this question also fell on a spectrum and was impacted by two main areas of influence.
The first was personal and racial experiences participants had and the second was
knowledge acquired from graduate school.
First, personal and racial experiences increased a participant’s awareness of their
privilege, led to a positive racial identity, and contributed to a positive racial attitude.
Sometimes these experiences were negative thoughts and images portrayed by family
members with which participants disagreed. Other times these were experiences
participants had with friends or colleagues who were people of color. This often meant
that participants translated abstract notions into tactile experiences, which connected
white participants with issue of diversity, oppression, and prejudice that they previously
only read about or assumed may be true.
A second area that increased awareness was knowledge acquired from graduate
school. Not all participants attended graduate school for student affairs-type work, but
those who did, expressed value in gaining knowledge about privilege, oppression, and
multiculturalism. The experience of reading about privilege and oppression was a salient
moment for many participants. Graduate school was a time when participants reflected
on their race and began developing a positive white racial identity. In graduate school,
participants were able to consider their personal experiences, question their identity in a
safe environment, engage in meaningful dialogue to improve critical consciousness,
connect with other individuals who were growing in their identity, and develop language
to articulate their knowledge.

152
Overall, the findings from Chapter Four show that participants are not static
individuals, but have interconnected experiences which affected their racial awareness.
The answers participants provided to all research questions were on a spectrum and
different aspects of a participant’s experience influenced their awareness. The results
from this narrative analysis offer insight into the areas that may impact racial awareness
of white student affairs professionals, their multicultural competency, and how they
perform their daily job.
The overarching message that rings through the findings is that the participants in
this study demonstrate that it is essential for white student affairs professionals to be
motivated to act on their investment in being multiculturally competent. On top of their
motivation to be multiculturally competent, white student affairs professionals must have
the skills and support to capitalize on their investment. Without skills and valuable
support, it seems possible that the investment in being multiculturally competent may
fade, individuals will divert their focus and deprioritizing diversity, despite its value, and
their progress toward a positive white identity will diminish.
Discussion and Connections with the Literature
The literature reviewed in Chapter Two provided a background of information
about whiteness, white privilege, color-blind racial attitudes, white racial identity
development, and multicultural competencies. The literature was useful as responses
from the participants were reviewed and analyzed. It offered a context to the stories
participants shared and became a framework for the findings presented in Chapter Four.
In addition to the literature previously reviewed, there were also areas of literature not

153
reviewed that emerged in the findings and deserve attention. There were seven major
areas of literature distinctly reflected in the findings. Those areas included: responses to
discussing whiteness, institutionalized whiteness, white privilege, color-blindness, white
racial identity development, multicultural competency, and the value of support. This
section describes how the literature helps explain the findings, what this study adds to the
literature, and what was not previously reviewed in the literature.
The first area of literature, responses to discussing whiteness, offered a context for
findings that emerged throughout the study. The emotions shared by participants were
particularly salient and were predicted by the literature. Kivel (1996) argues that feelings
of guilt, shame, embarrassment, and inadequacy negatively impact the confidence of
white people engaging in conversations on race. This was true in the current study;
participants demonstrated feelings of inadequacy, a fear of failing, and a fear of being
misunderstood associated with conversations about race. One explanation for this may
come from looking closer at critical race theory. CRT began as a legal movement that
studies the relationship between power, race, and racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
One aspect of CRT is interest convergence. Interest convergence is the sense that people
believe what benefits them (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). In this study, that could mean
that the fear of inadequacy, failure, or of being misunderstood comes from believing that
a rule, action, or policy may harm some, but does not harm the majority. Therefore, it
may be easier to allow the rule, action, or policy to exist because challenging it would be
uncomfortable. And, even though challenging it may be the right thing to do, it may not

154
feel worth it for participants since only a minority is harmed and the majority is left
unharmed.
While participants did express some feelings of guilt and shame, most did not
dwell on these emotions and were not stuck within these negative feelings. The literature
predicts that emotions, particularly rage about privilege and injustice, can serve as
motivation (Pence & Fields, 1999). Participants in the study did not demonstrate rage in
their responses, but some did express anger, shock, and frustration. Having self-selected
to participate in this study, the participants demonstrated a willingness to talk about race.
Perhaps other professionals experiencing more anger or rage chose not to participate. It
is also possible that participants did not share their outrage because of their feelings of
inadequacy and inner conflict. For those that did express anger, shock, and frustration,
these feelings may have served as motivating factors. However, other possible influences
on motivation may have been higher levels of awareness about privilege and oppression.
Participants showed that their racial awareness was affected by their racial experiences
and their education. This appeared to also relate to the motivation and earnestness with
which participants were invested in taking action in their daily job and improving
diversity on campus.
Experiences that may have influenced some participants were the views of family
members. Many participants expressed negative racial views held by their family
members. For many participants, especially as they developed awareness and knowledge
about privilege and oppression, they rebelled against their family’s viewpoints. This was
a difficult notion for participants to reconcile as many felt a great deal of love for their

155
family, but they did not love the prejudice and hatred their family sometimes espoused.
This was a motivating, but confusing idea for participants. They recognized that they
have a desire to improve diversity efforts on campus, but are unable to improve the racial
attitudes of their family.
The next area of literature describes institutionalized whiteness and provided
context to the study as participants described whether they noticed isolated or systemic
racial situations on campus. The literature on institutionalized whiteness differentiates
racist acts from racism. The distinction is that racist acts are individualized behavior and
it lays blame on individuals, rather than revealing that racist acts are a byproduct of
systemic forces (Wildman and Davis, 1997). Racism is a system of oppression based on
power and privilege that translate into attitudes, laws, polices, and practices that
advantage some groups and disadvantage others based on race (Rothenberg, 2000). The
participants in this study demonstrated a range in their level of consciousness regarding
this distinction.
The literature serves as a basis for describing the differences between racist acts
and racism, but it does not serve as an explanation for why some participants did not
notice, or only noticed, isolated acts while others recognized systemic issues. A possible
explanation could be interest convergence, a participant’s personal racial experiences, or
their level of awareness. However, it could also be the investment by participants’
institutions in reducing systemic barriers. For example, none of the institutions
specifically included whiteness in its definition of diversity. Some participants noticed
that whiteness was not expressly included nor excluded, but the value the institution

156
places on whiteness as a voice of diversity was mostly absent and invisible. The
invisibility of whiteness on campus could be a predictor for the recognition of isolated
and/or systemic racial issues that is raised by this study, but is not fully seen in the
literature. This study addressed the depth of invisibility of whiteness on campus and
created a link with the isolated and systemic racial issues at the institution.
The literature on white privilege addresses the invisibility of whiteness, in
addition to the privileges participants receive as a benefit to their whiteness. The
invisibility of whiteness is connected to the absence of drawing attention to whiteness,
establishing and reestablishing whiteness as the norm, and non-whiteness as that which is
different (Dyer, 2008; Frankenberg, 1993). The invisibility of whiteness is a
characteristic of white privilege. McIntosh (1988; 1989) describes white privilege as “an
invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about
which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (p. 71). Participants were able to articulate
their privilege and unearned advantages to varying degrees.
The literature predicts that privilege becomes less intellectualized and more
tangible when it is connected with personal experiences and observations (Kendall,
2006). One way this was reflected in this study was through the absence of whiteness in
the campus definition of diversity. The literature shows that there is a need for
individuals to talk about whiteness in order to dismantle whiteness, but the literature does
not talk about the need for institutions to address whiteness as a component of diversity.
This study adds to the literature by exposing this as a need for further development.

157
Another way the literature on white privilege is addressed in this study was
through responses in which participants recognized an absence of disadvantages and
when they expressed obliviousness about race. Graduate school served as a time when
participants learned the definition of privilege and began to internally reflect on the
privilege they experience, how to articulate those privileges, and how to reconcile their
privilege in connection with the oppression that is often a byproduct of privilege. The
literature from the White Privilege Attitudes Scale (Pinterits et al., 2009) predicts that
higher levels of education relate with higher levels of racial awareness. The literature
does not explain the affect that racial awareness and education have on motivation to act
or contribute to change. This study addresses a need for the literature to respond to
factors that contribute to motivation for change.
There were no specific questions that asked participants about color-blindness, so
familiarity with the literature was essential to explaining the findings during data
analysis. The literature tells us that color-blindness is a racial attitude espousing “that
race should not and does not matter” (Gushue & Constantine, 2007, p. 323). The concept
of color-blindness is appealing; however, the American Psychological Association (2003)
found that adopting a color-blind attitude does not lead to equitable treatment of racial
groups and equates to racial ambivalence. Research by Gushue and Constantine (2007)
established that lower levels of color-blind racial attitudes were associated with more
advanced racial identity attitudes (i.e., less racist). Therefore, it was both striking and
encouraging that participants articulated the dangers of color-blindness without prompts
or leading questions during the interview. Participants were able to articulate attitudes of

158
color-blindness, but mostly in relation to others, such as colleagues or family members.
The literature does not offer an explanation for how individuals recognize or express their
own racial attitudes of color-blindness or how individuals might progress from a color-
blind to a color-conscious racial attitude. The findings in this study add to the literature
as participants described their reluctance in making assumptions about students based on
race. The unwillingness to discount race as a factor in a student’s identity shows that
participants are progressing toward a color-conscious attitude. Scholars who study CRT
argue, “only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do
much to ameliorate misery” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 27).
Additional literature would be helpful to offer further explanations to these
findings. For example, what contributed to this progression? Are there characteristics
about the participants in this study that makes them more likely to progress toward a
color-conscious attitude? It could be that the level of education and level of racial
awareness is a factor. Additional research or theories might address this progression, but
what can encourage participants to be more aggressively color-conscious?
The literature describing white racial identity development offered explanations
for the findings in several ways. One finding of the study was that while participants felt
emotions such as guilt, shame, and embarrassment, they were not stuck in these negative
feelings. Helms’ (1984; 1990; 1995) White Racial Identity Development theory offers a
reason for these findings by explaining that abandoning negative emotions is an
indication of progressing through the stages toward a positive white racial identity.

159
Another finding that is explained through WRID is the internal conflict and
dissonance described by John and Jenny. WRID (Helms, 1990) shows that it is easy for
whites to become stuck in the stages of Disintegration and Reintegration. In
Disintegration, white people learn that action is necessary to dismantle whiteness and to
create an equitable society without oppression. In Reintegration, whites explain their
advantages through the myth of meritocracy, which is the belief that advancement and
success are based in talent, intellect, and hard work, but it does not account for the
advantages, disadvantages, or opportunities one experiences based on race. Both
Disintegration and Reintegration are reflected in the struggle and “selfishness” these
participants described for wanting to support people of color and diversity issues, but also
wanting personal advancement. The ideas that were expressed by John and Jenny are at
odds within these participants. Helms (1995) argues that attitudes change before
behaviors do. Also, without a positive catalyst, individuals will remain in a state of
conflict and will not progress toward a positive white identity (Helms, 1990). Therefore
white student affairs professionals like John and Jenny need to be nurtured and supported
to develop positive racial attitudes that lead to positive racial behavior.
A third finding that is explained through WRID links with the value of support.
Participants described times when they were and were not supported in their racial
identity development. Positive environments and reinforcement support participants in
their development toward a positive white racial identity. Helms’ (1990) describes that
whites who are in Disintegration need positive white role models who can show them
how to undo racism, and whites who are in the Pseudo-Independence stage can feel

160
abandoned or unsupported if there is an absence of positive role models. This support
should be substantive, meaningful, and rich with quality. Participants in this study
showed that they were interested in support and positive white antiracist role models.
However, some participants were more intentional than others in their quest. An
explanation for the eagerness with which participants pursued support may have been
impacted by their environment, because it is difficult to see and discover that which is
absent.
Finally, findings in this study also reveal a weakness in WRID, as is covered in
the literature. Participants in this study were not static in one status of the WRID theory.
It was demonstrated throughout the study that participants exhibited a spectrum of racial
awareness. Responses from participants showed that at times they expressed
characteristics of Disintegration or Reintegration and at other times they may have
expressed characteristics of Pseudo-Independence. It would be difficult to label
participants as being in one status over another based on these findings, therefore this
study adds to endorsement that further revisions of WRID are necessary.
A sixth area of literature that helped explain the findings was multicultural
competency. Multicultural competency is comprised of awareness, knowledge, and
skills. Empirical studies show that there is a positive relationship between multicultural
competencies and white racial consciousness, white privilege attitudes, and white racial
identity attitudes (Mueller & Pope, 2001; 2003; Mindrup et al., 2011; Ottavi et al., 1994).
This literature helped explain the findings in this study, but not fully. The study showed
that participants who demonstrated higher levels of racial awareness were invested in

161
being multiculturally competent. However, participants lacked multicultural competency
skills. Participants showed a desire to gain skills that would make them multiculturally
competent, but specifically wanted to learn more about teaching privilege to the
privileged and facilitating conversations on race. This study adds to the literature
because it shows an area of weakness for participants. Most participants were educated
with a degree that included diversity education. These findings suggest that student
affairs-type degree programs are fulfilling their commitment to increasing the awareness
and knowledge, although it is not evident how degree programs assess the awareness and
knowledge of graduates. Additionally, the findings show that skill-building is lacking
and graduates would benefit from courses designed to teach privilege to the privileged
and facilitate conversations on race.
The final area of literature that helped explain the findings was in the value of
support. The literature on white racial identity development and institutionalized
whiteness reinforce that importance support plays in progressing toward a positive white
identity and in establishing an institution absent of systemic racial issues. The findings
could have been strengthened, however, with literature about how to develop positive
antiracist role models, allies, and mentors. The investment participants have in being
multiculturally competent could be increased not only with skills to facilitate racial
conversations, but also in becoming positive white role models. Helms (1990) says there
is a dearth of antiracist white role models. Helms (1990) also says that positive support is
essential as individuals achieve a positive white identity. The participants in this study
are strong candidates to be seen as positive white role models, but they need the

162
confidence and skills, which could lead them to be support systems for students, new
professionals, and upper administration. Participants asked for increased dialogue about
issues of diversity, which means they are not currently supported in their desire either by
their campus or their environment. Titone (1998) explains that creating a public space to
think about and discuss diversity, and being an anti-racist ally are shows of support. The
professional associations of ACPA and NASPA (2010a; 2010b) have demonstrated that
diversity and multicultural competency are values of the student affairs profession. The
findings suggest that institutions are not mirroring this value, as evidence through the
absence of whiteness in the diversity definition, scarce professional development
opportunities, and the lack of dialogue on campus.
The findings in this study were mostly explained by existing literature, but the
results also reveal areas where the current literature is lacking and add new ideas to the
literature. One area in which this study adds to the literature is on motivation. This is
done in two ways. First, study results raise questions about the link between emotional
responses to race and motivation. Second, findings suggest there may be a link
connecting racial awareness and education with motivation. Another way this study adds
to the literature is by focusing on the institution’s role in dismantling whiteness. Study
results raise the question of whether the invisibility of whiteness on campus is a predictor
for isolated and/or systemic racial issues. The next area of the literature to which this
study adds is in considering factors that promote progression from a color-blind racial
attitude toward color-consciousness in white student affairs professionals. The study also
questions the method by which student affairs degree programs assess the multicultural

163
competency of their graduates and shows a need for the inclusion of skill-building
courses. Lastly, the study would benefit from literature focused on how to develop
positive white role models.
Implications
The information in this study matters to the field of student affairs because
examples and voices from professionals working in the field shape implications for
practice. Research in student affairs is growing, but student affairs continues to pull from
research done on college students, counselors, and in teacher education. This study adds
directly to the body of research in the field of student affairs.
The findings presented in this study are a window into the thoughts, feelings, and
competencies of the white student affairs professionals who participated in this study.
The overarching findings show that it is essential for white student affairs professionals
to be motivated to act on their investment in being multiculturally competent and to have
the skills and support to capitalize on their investment. The recommendations in this
section focus on implications for student affairs professionals, including their skills and
support, motivation, education, and university environment.
Skills and Support
First, participants asked for skills to improve their ability to facilitate racial
conversations and they asked for training that will teach them how to teach privilege to
the privileged. The desire to acquire knowledge and skills about facilitating diversity
conversations in general, and privilege specifically shows that participants are not
currently receiving support in these areas. The benefit to pursuing this will be that

164
student affairs professionals will capitalize on their investment in being multiculturally
competent. Additionally, their self-efficacy and confidence in being a voice at the
diversity table will increase. Rather than remaining silent and invisible, as is common
with white people, white student affairs professionals should be encouraged to use their
voice to tell their story and to contribute to improving diversity efforts on campus.
Trainings and workshops are tools that exist to assist student affairs professionals
in this endeavor. Trainings and workshops activate MCC, are shown to have a positive
impact on multicultural competencies, and the literature shows the positive benefits of
being multiculturally competent (Mueller & Pope, 2001; Mindrup et al., 2011; Ottavi et
al., 1994; Pope & Reynolds, 1997). Therefore, divisions of student affairs could direct
trainings that are experiential and use skill-building techniques. Trainings should be
intentional, meaningful, and include depth and breadth of information. Professional
consultants, theatre troupes, and/or movies can assist in making abstract concepts about
race and diversity tangible for participants.
Professional development opportunities at regional or national conferences are
one way for participants to gain the skills they want, but not all professionals have access
to these types of professional development opportunities. Therefore, a recommendation
is for divisions of student affairs at each campus to support their mid-level managers by
offering trainings and opportunities for dialogue. Not only would this improve awareness
and establish common language among campus colleagues, but it would also develop the
teaching and facilitation skills of student affairs staff. A direct way to serve this need is
through practical workshops that include scripts for engaging in racial dialogues or

165
through scenarios and role-playing where staff can approach racial situations to
brainstorm positive outcomes and troubleshoot potential mishandlings.
Motivation
The next implication focuses on motivation. The findings in this study showed
that while some participants were educated and racially aware, they lacked motivation to
act. Sometimes this was because their emotions held them back and other times it was
because issues of diversity were easy to deprioritize. The field of student affairs, either at
a national level or at the campus level, would benefit from literature or theories that
address the characteristics that are necessary to move an educated and aware person to
action. Student affairs professionals are often overwhelmed and understaffed, so it is
easy to understand how diversity efforts become deprioritized if they are not woven into
the fabric of one’s position. If campuses have not already established diversity efforts
integrally into the expectations of student affairs staff, or into their job descriptions, this
would be a good place to start. In addition to making diversity an expectation of student
affairs professionals, campuses need to support, motivate, and reward their staff for
demonstrating their commitment.
Perhaps by establishing safe spaces for on campus where staff can think creatively
about diversity, it would not only show that the campus is committed to diversity, but it
would also support and motivate staff to maintain diversity as a priority. Another way to
motivate staff to maintain their investment in multiculturalism is by encouraging
collaboration among campus offices. This could come in the form of co-teaching courses
on race, privilege, and oppression and advocating for such courses to be a part of the

166
institution’s core curriculum. Howard-Hamilton, Phelps, and Torres (1998) say that all
student affairs professionals are responsible for promoting diversity, including
understanding diversity in historical and current contexts. Therefore, it should not be left
to the offices that specialize in multiculturalism and/or diversity, but student affairs
professionals should be motivated to infuse diversity into the division of student affairs
and the greater institution.
Education
Building on the implications thus far, participants shared stories that illustrated
the importance of their graduate school education in a student affairs-related field.
Participants described the inspiration and growth they felt as a result of learning about
race, privilege, oppression, and multiculturalism while in their graduate programs. This
demonstrates that student affairs degree programs do a good job contributing to the
awareness and knowledge of graduates. Therefore, there is value in the continued efforts
of student affairs graduate programs to maintain their focus on diversity education.
Degree programs in student affairs would also benefit, however, from skill-building
courses to round out the multicultural competency of professionals. The practical
trainings described previously are a place to start. Programs that have an experiential
component may also assist in motivating white student affairs professionals. This study
demonstrates that when participants had a tangible experience, in addition to their
awareness and knowledge, they were inspired to act.
Graduate students are expected to positively contribute to the field of student
affairs when they become new professionals, which means they also need to leave with

167
tools to also build skills on their respective campuses. Degree programs in student affairs
would benefit from accountability and assessing the multicultural competency of
graduates, so that it is established that graduates possess the awareness, knowledge, and
skills to positively contribute to diversity as new professionals and to educate college
students about issues of privilege and oppression.
Expanded accountability in the training of student affairs professionals through
graduate degree programs also ties into a recommendation for increased accountability
for the professional competencies of student affairs professionals. ACPA and NASPA
(2010a; 2010b) have established expectations for diversity competencies, but there are no
current benchmarks or measurements to show achievement in these competencies.
ACPA and NASPA should continue to pursue their expectation that student affairs
professionals become professionally competent, but they should also pursue
accountability standards to demonstrate the competencies of professionals. Therefore,
the pursuit of increased accountability in the development and maintenance of MCC
among recent student affairs graduates and established student affairs professionals is
recommended.
The next implication also pertains to the education of white student affairs
professionals. The findings showed that there was a relationship between the racial
awareness of participants and their ability to notice and/or differentiate between isolated
racial incidents on campus and systemic racial issues embedded in campus. This
illustrates the importance of not only including oppression education into the education of
white student affairs professionals, but also in giving student affairs professionals the

168
skills to voice their concerns when they observe oppression. It is valuable for
participants to notice and actively counteract individual racist acts, but it is equally
important for participants to recognize the systemic racial issues and barriers that
inherently disadvantage students on predominantly white campuses. Then, after
awareness and recognition, white student affairs professionals must be moved to act on
their realizations.
The next implication shifts the focus from the education of white student affairs
professionals to how white student affairs professionals contribute to the education of
others. Student affairs professionals are committed to student success and student affairs
professionals often serve as change agents, support systems, mentors, and role models for
college students. All participants in this study had interactions with students on a daily
basis, but not all participants created diversity programs and events for the campus.
Regardless of obvious influence on diversity efforts for campus, all participants had the
opportunity to influence and educate students during their interactions, whether through a
career counseling session, a room change assignment, or a leadership training workshop.
There is an expectation that white student affairs professionals value diversity. And so,
an extension of that expectation is that white student affairs professionals will educate
students on matters of diversity through their interactions, no matter how big, small,
obviously, or innocuously the interaction relates to diversity.
University Environment
The final set of implications is connected with the university environment. First,
participants asked for opportunities for dialogue. Intentional discussions and dialogue

169
about diversity are essential to creating meaningful and positive environments (Torres,
Howard-Hamilton & Cooper, 2003). White student affairs professionals should be
encouraged to organize and/or contribute to diversity through dialogue. Participants can
share their stories and contribute to the deconstruction and dismantling of whiteness by
lending their voice to the conversation. The increase in dialogue among white student
affairs professionals may also serve as a motivating factor by encouraging a person who
is tentative about speaking up to share their experiences and grow the conversation.
Establishing a safe and supportive environment for conversations about race can
be challenging, but can also benefit white student affairs professionals. Campus support
of dialogue not only serves a need that emerged in the findings, but is also supported by
the literature. As such, staff should be rewarded for initiating dialogue, establishing
supportive environments, and engaging in critical inquiry. Delgado and Stefancic (2012)
say, “If race is not real or objective, but constructed, racism and prejudice should be
capable of deconstruction” (p. 49). A supportive environment is needed to encourage
staff to challenge and dismantle whiteness, prejudice, and systems of oppression. Ideas
to do this include learning sessions, brown bag lunches with diversity allies, fireside chats
with administrators who are committed to diversity, or weekend retreats with students
that focus on improving awareness, knowledge, and skill-building.
Another implication that is connected with the university environment is hiring
practices. Most participants acknowledged that they think about race most often when
they are preparing to hire students and/or staff. Examining racial identity and racial
awareness of candidates in the hiring practice could do three things. First, it could

170
reinforce the university’s commitment to diversity by contributing positive antiracist role
models to the campus environment. Second, it could be a way to assess a candidate’s
investment in being multiculturally competent and third, it could serve as an
accountability measure for multicultural competencies in student affairs.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the limitations of the current research, there are areas where the current
research could be expanded using either the current participants or using new
participants. Additionally, there are areas of future research that are inspired by the
findings in the current study. The limitations addressed in Chapter Three include a single
methodological approach, possible self-selection bias of participants, regional geographic
constraints, and the perspective of a sole researcher. Ideas for future research of the
current study and new studies are included below.
The first areas of future research look at an expansion of the current study, using
the current participants. First, it would provide depth to the current study if participants
were interviewed on more than one occasion. This could allow the researcher to learn if
the thoughts participants had on whiteness and multiculturalism change over time.
Additionally, with narrative analysis, the stories told by participants did not always
naturally cover all the questions during the time allotted for the interview. A second,
third, or fourth interview could allow the researcher to ensure all topic areas of the study
are covered through participant responses. It could also allow participants to think more
deeply about a topic that is often under discussed and it could allow for follow-up to
discover how participants may change as a result of the interview process.

171
Again, using the same participants, future research could be expanded to a mixed
method approach that includes quantitative instruments. This would provide additional
depth to the study and would explore correlations and relationships between quantitative
and qualitative findings. There is an absence of quantitative studies on whiteness, so it
would further benefit the research area of whiteness to add quantitative findings from the
participants. While there are several quantitative instruments to choose from, a
suggestion for future research would be to start with a focus on the racial awareness and
racial identity using three instruments. The first being the White Racial Identity Attitude
Scale, a 50-question survey developed by Helms and Carter (1990) to assess Helms’s
(1984) White Racial Identity Development theory. The second being the White Privilege
Attitudes Scale, a 28-question survey developed by Pinterits et al. (2009) to assess white
privilege attitudes from affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. The third is the
Multicultural Competence in Student Affairs assessment instrument developed by Pope
and Mueller (2000) to measure multicultural competence in student affairs. All of these
instruments have been empirically validated and are ideal for use in future research.
A third area of future research, using the current participants, could be to cross-
reference the information they shared during interviews. All the responses were limited
to the perceptions and self-reports of the participants. Participants shared information,
whether it was about campus data, statistics, organizational structures, racial diversity, or
other verifiable information. An idea for future research is to verify the perceptions of
participants with actual data. For example, if the perception of a participant is that the
student government leaders are a racially diverse group, the researcher could examine the

172
demographics for current and past student government leaders to determine if the
perception of the participant is accurate.
To see if the findings in this study hold up over time, this study could be
expanded longitudinally with the current participants. The findings showed that the
experiences of participants contributed to their racial awareness, their understanding of
privilege, their racial attitude, and their investment in being multiculturally competent. If
the participants were revisited with similar questions on an annual basis, it could provide
insight into their growth toward a positive white racial identity. It could also reveal what
experiences participants attribute to their growth and development, what influences their
motivation, and what actions they have taken.
A fifth idea for future research is to take this study, and the narrative analysis
methodology, and duplicate it in a different region of the country with new participants.
Or to duplicate the study among white student affairs professionals at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCU), HSIs, or at PWIs that have consistently high
percentages of historically underrepresented populations.
This study focused on white mid-level managers at predominantly white
institutions in Southern California. Would the same findings hold true for a study
examining racial awareness and investment in being multiculturally competent in the
Mid-West, the South, the North, or even in Northern California? Or among HBCUs or
HSIs? Expanding the research geographically and to different types of institutions could
show similarities and differences in experiences that lead to racial awareness, if the
investment in being multiculturally competent is at the same level, and if the skills

173
participants seek are comparable in other areas of the country or at a variety of
institutions. This could provide valuable implications to the education of student affairs
professional and the creation of tools to support racial development of white student
affairs professionals.
Another idea is to increase the sample size of participants and to focus on the
emergence of any gender differences. The current study had eight female and four male
participants, so it was difficult to make assumptions about multicultural competency from
a gender perspective. Perhaps if the sample size were larger, more would be revealed.
An assumption may be that white men have less fear of failure or feelings of inadequacy
because they have privilege among multiple identities.
Lastly, what would this study reveal if the participants were white student leaders
at PWIs? A dissertation from Taylor (2005) at the University of Texas at Austin studied
the perceptions white students have about white privilege. It would be interesting to
combine the premise of this study with elements of Taylor’s (2005) study to learn about
the multicultural competency of student leaders, who by all accounts are our future
leaders.
The final four ideas for areas of future research were inspired by the findings of
this current study. One finding that emerged from participant responses was the value of
support. Therefore, an area for future research would be to more closely examine the
support systems and positive white role models that are available to white student affairs
professionals. In addition to the support that inspired confidence among participants,
participants voiced repeatedly their desire for more skills. This too is an area that should

174
be further explored to enable the growth of white student affairs professionals toward a
positive white racial identity and to becoming strong white anti-racist role models.
Participants specifically voiced their desire to learn how to teach privilege to the
privileged. Future research could explore tools and/or trainings that provide white
professionals with the knowledge and skills to feel confident in their ability to teach
privilege to the privileged and with the resources to expand positive white anti-racist role
models in the field of student affairs.
Another area of possible future research relates to an aspect of personal identity
that was shared by some participants, but not all, namely their spirituality. No questions
in the current study addressed the religious and/or spiritual beliefs of participants, but
some participants shared their spiritual perspective even if it was seemingly unrelated to
topic of whiteness and racial identity. Therefore, it would be interesting to purposefully
incorporate questions about spirituality and racial awareness to explore any relationships
that may exist with or between these two areas of study.
A final idea for future research is inspired by a comment that came from Emily.
During Emily’s interview she shared that she feels that students have become savvy in
their ability to mask their prejudice because, she feels, students have learned how to say
the right things that will minimize offense. It is reasonable to assume that the words of
individuals do not always reflect their true feelings. Therefore, an area of future research
is to examine, if possible, the dichotomy between what we say and what we think, what
we say and what we do, what we want to believe and what we really believe. At the heart
of this idea for future research is the genuineness with which one presents themselves and

175
the factors that contribute to a false and/or accurate representation of oneself through
words and actions.
Conclusion
This study explored the effect race has on the daily work of white student affairs
professional, how invested professionals feel in being multiculturally competent, and
their awareness of racial identity, racial attitudes, and racial privilege. Findings suggest
white student affairs professionals are influenced by their formal education and personal
racial experiences and that while most are invested in being multiculturally competent,
many lack the confidence or skills to act in improving diversity efforts on their campus.
Continued research into and expansion of multicultural competency expectations and
development strategies in student affairs will ensure current and future professionals have
both the confidence and skills necessary to successfully contribute to campus diversity
efforts.

176
References
American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. (2010a). Envisioning the future of student affairs. Task force on
the future of student affairs. Washington, DC: Author.
American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. (2010b). Professional competency areas for student affairs
practitioners. Task force on professional competencies and standards.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Guidelines for providers of psychological
services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. American
Psychologist, 48(1), 45-48.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.
American Psychologist, 58(5), 377-402.
Ancis, J. R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Awareness of white privilege among white
counseling trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 548-569.
Arredondo, P., & Arciniega, G. M. (2001). Strategies and techniques for counselor
training based on the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29(4), 263-273.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

177
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs’ role in transforming
higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 231-247.
Behrens, J. T. (1997). Does the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale measure racial
identity?. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 3-12.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post–civil rights era.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Brodkin, K. (2004). How did Jews become white folks?. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. P. Pruitt,
& A. Burns (Eds.), Off white: Readings on power, privilege, and resistance (pp.
17-34). New York: Routledge.
Burkard, A., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2004). Entry-level competencies of new
student affairs professionals: A delphi study. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 283-309.
Carter, R. T., & Goodwin, A. L. (1994). Racial identity and education. Review of
Research in Education, 20, 291-336.
Carter, R. T., Helms, J. E., & Juby, H. L. (2004). The relationship between racism and
racial identity for White Americans: A profile analysis. Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 32, 2-17.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010). Almanac of higher education. Washington DC:
Author.
Chubbuck, S. M. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: The complexity of
personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 301-333.

178
Collin III, S. A. J., & Lund, C. L. (2010). The intersections of white privilege and
racism: Moving forward. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
125, 91-94.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dalton, H. (2008). Failing to see. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Critical
readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp. 15-18). New York, NY:
Worth.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: New York University Press.
Dyer, R. (1988). White. Screen, 29(4), 44-65.
Dyer, R. (1997). White. London: Routledge.
Dyer, R. (2008). The matter of whiteness. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege:
Critical readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp. 9-14). New York, NY:
Worth.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Foley, N. (2008). Becoming Hispanic: Mexican Americans and whiteness. In P.
Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Critical readings on the other side of racism
(3rd ed.) (pp. 55-65). New York, NY: Worth.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of
whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

179
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
Continuum International.
Gallagher, C. A. (1997). White racial formation: into the twenty-first century. In R.
Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror
(pp. 6-11). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Gusa, D. L. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of whiteness on campus
climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 464-489.
Gushue, G. V., & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Color-blind racial attitudes and white
racial identity attitudes in psychology trainees. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 38(3), 321-328.
Hardiman, R. (2001). Reflections on white identity development theory. In C. L.
Wijeyesinghe, & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity
development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 108-128). New York,
NY: New York University Press.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services,
120, 7-24.
Haviland, V. S. (2008). “Things get glossed over”: Rearticulating the silencing power of
whiteness in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 40-54.

180
Hays, D. G., Chang, C. Y., & Decker, S. L. (2007). Initial development and psychometric
data for the privilege and oppression inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 40, 66-79.
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling
a Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 153-165.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’ White and People of Color racial identity
models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (1995, pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Helms, J. E., & Carter, R. T. (1990). Development of the White racial identity inventory.
In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 67-80). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and
psychotherapy: Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
hooks, b. (2008). Representations of whiteness in the black imagination. In P. Rothenberg
(Ed.), White privilege: Critical readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp.
19-23). New York, NY: Worth.
Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Phelps, R. E., & Torres, V. (1998). Meeting the needs of all
students and staff members: The challenge of diversity. New Directions for
Student Services, 82, 49-64.

181
Kendall, F. E. (2006). Understanding white privilege: Creating pathways to authentic
relationships across race. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kim, B. S. K., Cartwright, B. Y., Asay, P. A., & D’Andrea, M. J. (2003). A revision of
the multicultural awareness, knowledge and skills survey – counselor edition,
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(3), 161-180.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). The struggle to define and reinvent whiteness: A pedagogical
analysis. College Literature, 26(3), 162-194.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research. In Y. Zou & E. T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative
approaches to the study of education (pp. 87-138). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
King, P. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2003). An assessment of multicultural
competence. NASPA Journal, 40(2), 119-133.
Kivel, P. (1996). Uprooting racism: How white people can work for racial justice.
Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Kolchin, P. (2002). Whiteness studies: The new history of race in America. The Journal
of American History, 89(1), 154-173.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence, S. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 108-117.

182
Lawrence, S. M., & Bunche, T. (1996). Feeling and dealing: Teaching white students
about racial privilege. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(5), 531-542.
Lawrence, S. M., & Tatum, B. D. (1999). White racial identity and anti-racist education:
A catalyst for change. Retrieved from http://teachingforchange.org/node/149
Lechuga, V. M., Clerc, L. N., & Howell, A. K. (2009). Power, privilege, and learning:
Facilitating encountered situations to promote social justice. Journal of College
Student Development, 50(2), 229-244.
Leonardo, Z. (2002). The souls of white folk: Critical pedagogy, whiteness studies, and
globalization discourse. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 29-50.
Lewis, A. E. (2004). “What group?”: Studying whites and whiteness in the era of “color-
blindness.” Sociological Theory, 22(4), 623-646.
Lipsitz, G. (1995). The possessive investment in whiteness: Racialized social democracy
and the "white" problem in American studies. American Quarterly, 47(3), 369-
387.
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from
identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipsitz, G. (2008). The possessive investment in whiteness. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), White
privilege: Critical readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp. 67-90).
New York, NY: Worth.
Lund, C. L. (2010). The nature of white privilege in the teaching and training of adults.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 125, 15-25.

183
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A Personal account of coming
to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M. L. Anderson, &
P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (1992, pp. 70-81).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and
Freedom, July/August, 10-12.
McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege, color, and crime: A personal account. In C. Richey
Mann & M. S. Zatz (Eds.), Images of Color, Images of Crime (pp. 207-216). Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with white
teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Miller, A. N., & Fellows, K. L. (2007). Negotiating white racial identity in multicultural
courses: A model. In L. M. Cooks, & J. S. Simpson (Eds.), Whiteness, pedagogy,
performance: Dis/placing race (2007, pp. 49-66). Landham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Mindrup, R. M., Spray, B. J., & Lamberghini-West, A. (2011). White privilege and
multicultural counseling competence: The influence of field of study, sex, and
racial/ethnic exposure. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 20,
20-38.

184
Monaghan, C. H. (2010). Working against the grain: White privilege in human resource
development. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 125, 53-63.
Mueller, J. A., & Pope, R. L. (2001). The relationship between multicultural competence
and white racial consciousness among student affairs practitioners. Journal of
College Student Development, 42(2), 133-144.
Mueller, J. A., & Pope, R. L. (2003). The relationship of demographic and experience
variables to white racial consciousness among student affairs practitioners.
NASPA Journal, 40(4), 149-171.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2012). What is student
affairs?. Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/career/whatis/default.cfm
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction
and initial validation of the color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 59-70.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to
the 1990s (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Ortiz, A. M., & Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Deconstructing whiteness as part of a multicultural
educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student
Development, 42(1), 81-93.
Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between white
racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural competencies. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 149-154.

185
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pence, D. J., & Fields, A. J. (1999). Teaching about race and ethnicity: Trying to uncover
white privilege for a white audience. Teaching Sociology, 27(2), 150-158.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pinterits, E. J., Spanierman, L. B, & Poteat, V. P. (2009). The white privilege attitudes
scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
56(3), 417-429.
Pitts, L. (2008). Crazy sometimes. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Critical
readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp. 137-141). New York, NY:
Worth.
Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2000). Development and initial validation of the
multicultural competence in student affairs–preliminary 2 scale. Journal of
College Student Development, 41(6), 599-608.
Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2005). Faculty and curriculum: Examining multicultural
competence and inclusion. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 679-
688.
Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competencies: Integrating
multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Journal of College Student
Development, 38(3), 266-277.
Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

186
Roediger, D. R. (2008). How race survived US history: From settlement and slavery to
the Obama phenomenon. London: Verso.
Rosenberg, P. M. (2004). Color blindness in teacher education: An optical delusion. In
M. Fine, L. Weis, L. P. Pruitt, & A. Burns (Eds.), Off white: Readings on power,
privilege, and resistance (pp. 257-272). New York: Routledge.
Rothenberg, P. (2000). Invisible privilege: A memoir about race, class, and gender.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Rothenberg, P. S. (2008). White privilege: Critical readings on the other side of racism
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A
critique and alternative proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 129-146.
Segrest, M. (2001). The souls of white folks. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I.J.
Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 43-71).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (1994). A multicultural educator views white racism. The Education Digest,
59(9), 33-36.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-
106.
Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial costs of racism to whites scale
(PCRW): Construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
51(2), 249-262.

187
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial
identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review,
62(1), 1-24.
Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies
and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 462-476.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and
other conversations about race. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Tatum, B. (2008). Breaking the silence. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Critical
readings on the other side of racism (3rd ed.) (pp. 147-152). New York, NY:
Worth.
Taylor, B. J. W. (2005). The social construction of race and perceptions of privilege for
white college students at a predominantly white institution (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from lib.utexas.edu.
Thomspon, A. (1999). Colortalk: Whiteness and Off White. Educational Studies, 30(2),
141-160.
Titone, C. (1998). Educating the white teacher as ally. In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg,
N. M. Rodriguez, & R. E. Chennault (Eds.), White reign: Deploying whiteness in
America (pp. 159-175). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Tochluk, S. (2010). Witnessing whiteness: The need to talk about race and how to do it.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

188
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2003). Identity development of
diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for
practitioners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Occupational employment statistics: Education
administrators, postsecondary. Retrieved from: www.bls.gov/OES .
Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues, privilege and social justice: Uses of the Privileged
Identity Exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. The College Student
Affairs Journal, 26(2), 114-125.
Wildman, S. M. & Davis, A. D. (1997). Making systems of privilege visible. In R.
Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror
(pp. 314-319). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Winant, H. (2004). Behind blue eyes: Whiteness and contemporary U.S. racial politics. In
M. Fine, L. Weis, L. P. Pruitt, & A. Burns (Eds.), Off white: Readings on power,
privilege, and resistance (pp. 3-16). New York: Routledge.
Wise, T. J. (2008). White like me: Reflections on race from a privileged son. Brooklyn,
NY: Soft Skull.

189
Appendix A

Interview Protocol – Participant Information Guide

Dear Potential Participant,

Thank you for your interest in participating in my dissertation. This questionnaire will
help me assess if you are eligible to be a participant. This questionnaire asks about your
demographic characteristics, your professional characteristics, and about the
characteristics of the institution you currently work for. In accordance with Institutional
Research Board approvals through the University of Southern California, your
information will be kept confidentially and pseudonyms will be given to participants and
to the institutions where participants work.

If you meet the criteria for my study, I will be in contact with you to schedule and
interview.
Thanks again for your interest!

Sincerely,
Susan Ashe

Doctoral Candidate
Department of Educational Leadership
University of Southern California

Director of Judicial Affairs
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

sashe@usc.edu
323-683-2203

Participant’s Demographic Characteristics

1. Your name:
2. Your institution’s name:

If selected to be a participant, and if you have a preference, please indicate the following.
3. Preferred pseudonym for your name: (optional)
Preferred pseudonym for your institution: (optional)

4. Ethnicity:
a. Asian/Asian American
b. Black/African American

190
c. Hispanic
d. Native American/Alaskan Native
e. White/Caucasian
f. Other (please specify)
g. Prefer not to respond

5. Gender:
a. Female
b. Male
c. Transgender
d. Other (please specify)
e. Prefer not to respond

6. In which division of student affairs do you work?
a. Academic Assistance / Advising / Student Support
b. Admissions
c. Alumni Services
d. Auxiliary Services
e. Campus Activities / Leadership Development
f. Campus Ministry / Service
g. Campus Recreation / Athletics
h. Campus Safety
i. Career Services
j. Civic Engagement / Community Service
k. Disability Services
l. Financial Aid
m. Graduate Students
n. Greek Life
o. Health Services / Counseling / Wellness Programs
p. International Student Programs / Study Abroad
q. LGBTQ Programs / Gender Issues / Women’s Center
r. Multicultural Affairs
s. Orientation / New Student Programs / Parents
t. Registrar / Student Accounts
u. Residential Life / Living Learning Communities
v. Student Conduct
w. Student Union
x. Sustainability
y. Undergraduate Education / Academic Affairs
z. Other (please specify)

7. Years of full-time professional experience
a. 1-4 years
b. 5-10 years

191
c. 11+ years

8. Highest degree earned
a. Bachelor
b. Masters
c. Doctorate
d. Other (please specify)

9. Do you have a degree in Education?
a. Yes
b. No

10. In what field of education do you hold a degree?

11. Have you taken a class or workshop on issues of diversity or multiculturalism?
a. Yes
b. No

12. (If Yes) Where did you take the class or workshop? (Check all that apply
a. Undergraduate school
b. Graduate school
c. Professional conference
d. Workshop/conference at your institution
e. Other (please specify)

13. How would you characterize your exposure to people of other races?
a. No exposure
b. Small amount
c. Moderate amount
d. High amount

14. What percentage of your friends are white?
a. 0%–25%
b. 26%–50%
c. 51%–75%
d. 76%–99%
e. 100%

15. What amount of multicultural education have you had?
a. None at all
b. Not very much
c. Moderate
d. Considerable
e. A great deal

192

Participant’s Institution Information

16. Institution Type:
a. Historically Black College or University
b. Hispanic Serving Institution
c. Indigenous Peoples College or University
d. Predominantly White Institution

17. Institution Type:
a. Public
b. Private
c. For-Profit

18. Institution Type:
a. Doctoral/Research University
b. Master's Colleges and University
c. Baccalaureate College
d. Baccalaureate/Associate's College
e. Associate's College
f. Unknown

19. Institution Population:
a. 30,000+
b. 20,001–30,000
c. 15,001–20,000
d. 10,001–15,000
e. 7,501–10,000
f. 5,001–7,500
g. 2,501–5,000
h. 1,001–2,500
i. < 1,000

193
Appendix B

Interview Protocol – Interview Question Guide

The interview protocol included two main sections. The first section (see
Appendix A) was a questionnaire that each participant filled out to determine
demographic information. The second section was an interview question guide that was
used by the researcher to keep the interviews on track.
The interview question guide included open-ended, semi-structured, broadly
worded questions. The researcher had the autonomy to ask follow-up questions and
probes. This protocol was intended to keep the researcher on track with the topics to be
covered. As is customary with narrative analysis, questions were designed for maximum
elaboration so that participants could share their personal story and their experiences.

Next to each broad question, it is noted which research question(s) is referenced.
• [Q1]: How do white student affairs professionals see their own race affecting
their daily job?
• [Q2]: Do white student affairs professionals feel invested in being multiculturally
competent?
• [Q3]: How aware are white student affairs professionals of their own racial
identity, racial attitudes, and privilege?

Above each question, it is noted which literature influenced the questions.

[Literature: Narrative Analysis]
1. Tell me about yourself. [Q1]
a. What led you to student affairs?
b. What influenced you to do this kind of work?

[Literature: Multicultural Competency, Whiteness]
2. Tell me about diversity and multiculturalism on your campus. [Q2; Q3]
a. How do you define diversity/multiculturalism?
b. How does your campus show that it values diversity/multiculturalism?
c. How do you contribute to creating a multicultural campus?

194
d. How does whiteness fit into your definition or your institution’s definition
of diversity?

[Literature: Whiteness, White Privilege, Color-Blindness]
3. Do you think much about the race of your students? [Q1; Q3]
a. How does the race of your students influence aspects of your job
(programs, policies, etc.)?
b. Do you notice if some students have more
privileges/resources/opportunities than others? How so?

[Literature: Institutionalized Whiteness]
4. What types of students tend to be in leadership roles on your campus? [Q2; Q3]
a. Do you notice if students are excluded from leadership roles or
conversations? What is that attributed to?

[Literature: Whiteness, Color-blindness]
5. What type of racial problems do you notice on your campus? [Q1]
a. Are racial problems on your campus rare and isolated or are they
systemic?
b. Does it seem as if racial problems are a thing of the past?
c. How do racial problems impact your job?

[Literature: Multicultural Competency, White Racial Identity]
6. Describe your evolution and understanding of race and different cultural
backgrounds in your work as a student affairs professional. [Q1; Q2; Q3]
a. How important is your understanding of your race in your job?
b. How do your personal experiences affect your job in student affairs?

[Literature: Institutionalized Whiteness, Multicultural Competency]
7. Tell me about your perceptions of your campus and your professional
development in relation to issues of diversity. [Q1; Q2]
a. How does the leadership at your institution support your professional
development around issue of diversity and multiculturalism?
b. How does your institution show its value of diversity?

[Literature: Multicultural Competency]
8. How comfortable and competent do you feel when interacting with persons from
different cultural backgrounds? [Q2; Q3]
a. How comfortable and competent do you feel in assessing the needs of:
i. LGBTQ students?
ii. Students from very poor socioeconomic backgrounds?
iii. Students from different cultural/racial/ethnic backgrounds?
iv. Students with disabilities?

195
b. How confident are you in your ability to secure information and resources
to better serve culturally different students?
c. How comfortable do you feel consulting with another student affairs
professionals about the needs of a student whose cultural background is
different from your own?

[Literature: Whiteness; White Privilege; White Racial Identity, Color-blindness]
9. Describe times that you notice your race. [Q3]
a. Did your family talk about race or racial issues when you were growing
up?
b. Do you have any fears or anxiety talking about race?
c. Does talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tension?
d. Do you feel that you experience privileges based on your race?

[Literature: Multicultural Competency, White Privilege]
10. Over your career in student affairs, describe your interactions with individuals
from different cultural backgrounds. [Q2; Q3]
a. Tell me about any times in your career that you were challenged by a
racial or cultural situation.
b. Tell me about any times in your career that you challenged yourself to be a
part of a culturally or racially different situation.

[Literature: White Privilege]
11. Describe any times in your student affairs career when biases, discrimination, and
prejudices were directed at you by a student or colleague. [Q1; Q3]

[Literature: Multicultural Competency]
12. How do you prepare yourself to work with people who are culturally different
from you? [Q2]
a. What resources would you like to assist you in this endeavor?

196
Appendix C

Participant Letter

197
Appendix D

Information/Fact Sheet for Non-Medical Research

198

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the effect race has on the daily work of white student affairs professionals, how invested participants feel in being multiculturally competent, and their awareness of racial identity, racial attitudes, and racial privilege. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather responses from 12 white, student affairs, mid-level managers who work at predominantly white institutions of higher education. Literature in the areas of whiteness, white privilege, color-blind racial attitudes, white racial identity development, and multicultural competencies provided context and a framework for the findings wrought through narrative analysis of the interviews. ❧ Professional associations have set the expectation that those in the field of student affairs must value diversity and be multiculturally competent. This study reveals levels of awareness and preparedness some student affairs educators possess to implement this value of supporting diversity in higher education. Findings suggest white student affairs professionals are not static individuals, but have varied experiences that affect their daily job, their racial awareness, and their investment in being multiculturally competent. The racial awareness of study participants fell along a spectrum that was primarily influenced by their formal education and personal racial experiences. Additionally, while most participants were invested in being multiculturally competent, many lacked the confidence, skills, or support to act on their interest in improving diversity efforts on their campus.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Preparing for the field of student affairs: White graduate students and the social justice and inclusion competency

PDF

Leadership development in student affairs graduate preparatory programs

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

Other duties as assigned: Black student affairs professionals navigating and learning to heal from racial battle fatigue at predominantly white institutions

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

Short-term study tours and global competence development

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

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

PDF

How religious engagement shapes the college experience of African American Christian males at a predominantly White institution: a phenomenlogical approach

PDF

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

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership strategies, skills, and professional approaches utilized by effective senior-level student affairs administrators at urban universities

PDF

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

From their perspective: discovering the sources of impact on older women undergraduates' identity development and mapping those experiences

PDF

The influences of student organizational type on the leadership development of African American students at predominantly white institutions: a case study

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

An awareness of local identity: influence of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific (HAP) issues course at Kapi‘olani Community College

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ashe, Susan Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/19/2012

Defense Date 10/02/2012

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

Tag color-blindess,Higher education,multicultural competency,OAI-PMH Harvest,racial awareness,student affairs,white privilege,white racial identity development,whiteness

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna J. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell G. (committee member), Howard-Hamilton, Mary (committee member)

Creator Email sashe@usc.edu,seashe@sbcglobal.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-115888

Unique identifier UC11292369

Identifier usctheses-c3-115888 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AsheSusanE-1309.pdf

Dmrecord 115888

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ashe, Susan Elizabeth

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