University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE EFFECTS OF CAMPUS FRIENDSHIPS AND PERCEPTIONS OF RACIAL
CLIMATES ON THE SENSE OF BELONGING AMONG ARAB AND MUSLIM
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Diane Shammas

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

May 2009

Copyright 200X Diane Shammas

ii

Dedication

___________________________________________________

To my late father, Nickolas Nasim Shammas, and my mother, Ruth Jeanette Shammas

My parents were both Depression-era kids, and I appreciated their hard work to
provide for my sister and me so that we could attend four-year colleges. My parents’
greatest wish was that neither my sister nor I would have to grow up experiencing the
difficult economic times they did. Within our immediate family, including our first
cousin, my sister and I were the first to receive our Bachelor’s degrees and Doctor of
Philosophy Degrees. My father had a particularly tough childhood. When my father was
two years old, his father left his mother. He never would see his father again. My
paternal grandparents were immigrants from Lebanon. For the first 11 years of his life,
my father and his older sister were placed intermittingly in boarding houses while their
mother worked selling linens. When my paternal grandmother remarried to a Lebanese
physician from Buffalo, New York, he turned out to be both verbally and physically
abusive in the household. Because of my father’s difficult childhood, he developed an
extraordinary intestinal fortitude. He became a successful businessman, a tough and
intractable negotiator, but at the same time very compassionate and charitable. My father
whistled and chucked a lot, and when he broke out into a hearty laugh, he would start to
wheeze. My father always looked for a silver lining in life. My father always enjoyed a
healthy life and appeared younger than his chronological age. Unfortunately, however,
his outstanding track record of good health would come to an end when at age 85 he was

iii
diagnosed with lung cancer. After I finished my first year in the PhD program at USC,
my father passed away— two and a half months before his 88th birthday. Although I
wish my father were alive to see me receive my PhD in urban education, policy, and
planning, he is no less in spirit with me.

iv

Nickolas and Jeanette Shammas

v
Acknowledgments
_

From the beginning and throughout the completion of my dissertation project,
a long list of individuals and institutions has earned my sincere gratitude. I first am
deeply grateful to Dr. Richard Tithecott of the University of Southern California
Graduate School for granting me a final-year fellowship that generously supported
the completion of the data analysis and the writing of my dissertation. I also want to
acknowledge the Rossier School of Education for awarding merit scholarships and
travel grants that helped to fund tuition and conference presentations throughout my
five years there.
I am greatly thankful to my doctoral advisor and chair, Bill Maxwell, who
allowed me considerable latitude in pursuing a dissertation topic that focused upon a
highly stigmatized ethnic group that has gone largely unexamined in the higher education
literature.
My dissertation project has been a labor of love, yet many times threw me into
bouts of irascibility, but in the end I managed to conquer and survive the
frustration. Bill, I now realize that you pushed me to unnerving limits because
you were convinced that I was capable of producing a fine piece of careful scholarship.
I also extend my sincere appreciation to the three following members that served on my
Dissertation Committee: Ron Avi Astor, Nelly Stromquist, and Dennis Hocevar. I had
the distinct pleasure of offering feedback to drafts of Ron’s book on school violence,

__________________________________________________

vi
merican Educational Research Association. Nelly was the first to recommend
d Terry
o
Kozeracki,
ri,
Otero, Susana Prieto, Ildiko Porter-Szucs, Adnan Sahli, Jerry
which subsequently won book awards from the American Psychological Association
and the A
that I enrich my survey data by adding a qualitative component to my analysis. I am
deeply grateful to Dennis Hocevar for introducing me to the highly technical topic of
ipsative measurement.
The survey project required the recruitment of at least 650 Arab and Muslim
community college students. Four people, three of whom were community college
instructors, helped me jumpstart what seemed like an insurmountable goal. My
appreciation goes to Nahla Kayali, Joanna Medwar Nachef, Amer El Ahraf, an
Timmins.
I owe many thanks to the Vice Presidents of Student Services, Vice Chancellors
of Academic Affairs, Deans of Students, and Directors of Institutional Research, wh
gave me permission to survey students on their respective campuses. Among these
community college administrators are Jess Craig, Elena Garate, Carol
Barbara McNeice-Stallard, Jonathan Morrell, Kate Mueller, Jacqueline Nagatsuka,
Steven Reif, and Lise Telson. I am profoundly indebted to the following instructors,
who believed in my project from the start and granted me access to their classrooms:
Nawf Abou-Dib, Jane Abu-Ghazaleh, Nazar Aldulaimi, Huda Aljord, Mohd Ansa
Florence Baker, Lynette Black-Cahill, Chuck Charter, Jennifer Craft, Abbas Faridi,
Firdous Farooqui, Katherine Grahl, Jiryes Haddad, Stephen Leonelli, Jalal Melahaji,
Nadir Muhsin, Rodolpho

vii
din
some of whom are Hashim al-Tawil, Mary Assel,
Yamam Almouradi, Rashid Beydoun, Deborah Najor Alkamano, and Ali Darwish.
A thousand thank yous to Sarah Cusworth Walker, PhD Educational Psychology,
who patiently spent countless hours, days, and practically a year over the phone, while
caring for her two-year old daughter and holding down a post-doctoral position at the
University of Washington, to help me figure out creative ways to analyze my
cumbersome and complicated survey data. To my dear friend, Donna Ayala: thank you
for your six-month dedication to assisting me with the survey data entry and focus group
transcriptions. A hearty thanks to my friend Johanna Wingert in helping me locate
dissertation funding opportunities. I also want to thank Analisa Zox-Weaver, my editor,
for her assiduous work in editing and preparing the final manuscript.
A million and one thank yous to Joe Galustian, our friend and part-time IT person
at Felix Chevrolet, and also to Juan Montoya of Felix Chevrolet for xerox services.
For both personal support and bearing with my perpetual angst throughout my
entire doctoral education, thank you to my closest friends, Patricia Brown, Joan
Conover, Lori Conover, Lilli Crawford, Anna DeChirico, Teresa Diaz, Eva Iskander,
As’ad Farah, Kimla Kouri-Ranney, Marty Toma-Morrison, Steve “Fast Eddie” Nelson,
and the Saker Family.
Tesar, Arthur Verge, Yuki Yamamoto, Amina Yassine, Ghazzan Zakaria, and Alaa
Zalzala.
I also extend many thanks to the faculty advisors and student members of the
Muslim and Arab student associations,

viii
To my family, my mothe ister, Professor Carole
Sha
hammas Group, thank you for allowing me to take a seven-year leave from working for
r, Jeanette Shammas, my s
mmas, my brother-in-law, Darryl Holter, PhD French History and CEO of the
S
twenty-five years to pursue my PhD.

ix
Table of Contents
edication ii
cknowledgements v
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xix
Abstract xx
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
The History of Anti-Arab Discrimination 3
Conclusion 20
Research Questions 21
Chapter 1 Endnotes 24

Chapter 2 26
Review of the Literature 26
Contact Hypothesis 36
Literature Review Summary 60
Chapter 2 Endnotes 62

Chapter 3 65
Methods 65
Scales 95
Qualitative Methods 177
Chapter 3 Endnotes 179

Chapter 4 186
Results 186
Qualitative Results 205
Chapter 4 Endnotes 213

Chapter 5 216
Discussion 216
Conclusions 226
Chapter 5 Endnotes 228

___________________________________________________

D
A

x
eferences 230

Appendix A: Survey Instrument 256

R

ppendix B: Focus Group Script 257 A

xi
___ ____ _
and Percentages of Students by Arab Descent 67

tages of “Arab descent Christian,” 73
nt Muslim, and Arab Descent Other Faith Students by
cent Muslim 78
udents by Ethnicity (N = 257)
and 79
Non-Arab Descent Muslim Students by Ethnicity (N = 541)
82
tudents of Other Faiths, Arab Descent and
85
unity Colleges by County (N = 753)
able 9.1: Frequency Distribution For Number of Campus Friendships 102
y Distribution for Number of Campus Friends in 103
e Activity of Studying with Students Outside of One’s Class
Number of Campus Friends 104
the Activity of Talking About Topics Unrelated to Classes and Studies
us Friends 105
g

List of Tables
__________________________________________ _ ___

Table 1: Numbers
Christian, Arab Descent of Other Faiths, Arab Descent Muslim,
and Non-Arab Descent Muslim (N = 753)

Table 2: The Numbers and Percen
Arab Desce
Self-Reported Ethnicity (N = 496)

Table 3: The Number and Percentage of Non-Arab Des
St

Table 4: The Number and Percentage of Arab Descent Muslim

Table 5: The Number and Percentage of “Arab descent Christian”
Students, Arab Descent S
Non-Arab Descent Muslim Students by Religious Affiliation (N = 753)

Table 6: Number and Percentage of Arab and Muslim Students
Surveyed at the 21 Comm

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Arab and Muslim Students 87
Surveyed at Eight Locations (N = 753)

Table 8: Coding Protocol for Students’ Responses to the 16 Campus 100
Friendship Items

T
in the Activity of Studying with Classmates

Table 9.2: Frequenc
th

Table 9.3: Frequency Distribution For the
in

Table 9.4: Frequency Distribution For the Number of Camp
in the Activity of Dinin

xii
ds 106

able 9.6: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent in 108

th
h
s Spent 110
ith a Campus Friend in the Past 14 Days in the Activity of Talking
111
able 9.10: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Times Spent 112
ng
113
e Activity of Participating
Off-campus Activities
114
grees of Closeness to 115
ampus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Students Outside

tivity of Talking About Topics Unrelated to
lasses and Studies
quency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to 117
ampus Friends in the Activity of Dining
Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to 118
ampus Friends in the Activity of Participating in On- and
ff-campus Activities

Table 9.5: Frequency Distribution For the Number of Campus Frien
in the Activity of Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities
T
the Past Month with Campus Friend in the Activity of Studying
With Classmates
Table 9.7: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent in e 109
Past Month With Campus Friend in the Activity of Studying wit
Students Outside of One’s Class

Table 9.8: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Time
W
About Topics Unrelated to Class and Studies

Table 9.9: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent with
Campus Friend in the Past 14 Days in the Activity of Dining

T
With Campus Friends in the Past Month in the Activity of Participati
in On-campus Activities

Table 9.11: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Times Spent
With a Campus Friend in the Past Month in th
in

Table 9.12: Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to
Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Classmates

Table 9.13: Frequency Distribution for the De
C
of One’s Class
Table 9.14: Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to 116
Campus Friends in the Ac
C

Table 9.15: Fre
C

Table 9.16: Frequency
C
O

xiii
ross Five Activities and the Total Number of Times Spent
ith Campus Friends Across Six Activities
121
mber of Campus Friends
Variables of the Number of Times Spent with Campus Friends

122
ariables of the Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends
235
nt with Campus Friends in the
ctivities of Studying (classmate friends), Studying Outside of Your
able 11.5: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Campus 123

and Studies, Dine, and
articipate in On- and Off-campus Activities
t 124
ness to Campus Friends in the
ctivities of Studying (classmate friends), Studying (outside of your class),
able 12: Factor Loadings of 7 Scale Items for Sense of Belonging Scale 128
134
able 15: Number and Percentage of Non-Arab and Non-Muslim 142
Table 10: Intercorrelations Between the Total Number of Campus 120
Friendships, the Total Number of Degrees of Closeness to Campus
Friends Ac
W

Table 11.1: Zero Order Correlations Between the Five Activity
Variables of the Nu

Table 11.2: Zero Order Correlations Between the Six Activity 121
Table 11.3: Zero Order Correlations Between the Five Activity
V

Table 11.4: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Campus
Friends and Number of Times Spe
A
Class, Talk on Campus About Topics Unrelated to Class and Studies,
Dine, and Participate in On- and Off-campus Activities

T
Friends and Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends in the Activities
of Studying (classmate friends), Studying (outside of your class), Talk
on Campus About Topics Unrelated to Class
P

Table 11.6: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Times Spen
with Campus Friends and Degrees of Close
A
Talk on Campus About Topics Unrelated to Class and Studies, Dine, and
Participate in On- and Off-Campus Activities

T
Table 13: Bi-variate Correlations for 6 Ethnic Identity Items and 4
Religious Identity Items

Table 14: Factor Loadings of 6 Ethnic Identity Items and 4 Religious 137
Identity Items

T
Students by Ethnicity

xiv

able 17: Mean Differences in Ethnic Identity Scores Between 144
l
erceived Discrimination Items 149
u lim
7)
ces in Perceived Discrimination Scores 153
etween Arab and Muslim Students (N = 572) and Non-Arab and
ry 160
s in the Activity of Studying with
lassmates (by percentage category)
161
ntage category)

ntage category)
ion
ith
y)
estry

’s Class (by percentage category)
try
t Are
tage category)

g With

Table 16: Means and Standard Deviations for Ethnic Identity Scores, 143
Arab and Muslim (N = 691), and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Groups
(N = 468)

T
Arab and Muslim students (N = 691) and Non-Arab and Non-Mus im
students (N = 468)

Table 18: Factor Loadings on 9 P

Table 19: Mean Perceived Discrimination Scores for Arab and M s 152
Students (N = 572) and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students (N = 44

Table 20: Mean Differen
B
Non-Muslim Students (N = 447)

Table 21.1: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Ancest
and Same Religion Campus Friend
C

Table 21.2: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Ancestry
and Different Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying
With Classmates (by perce

Table 21.3: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Religion 161
and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying
With Classmates (by perce

Table 21.4: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Different Relig 162
and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying W
Classmates (by percentage categor

Table 21.5: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same Anc 162
and Same Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with
Students That Are Outside of One

Table: 21.6: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same Ances 163
and Different Religion in the Activity of Studying with Students Tha
Outside of One’s Class (by percen

Table 21.7: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Religion 163
and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studyin
Students That Are Outside of One’s Class (by percentage category)

xv
able 21.8: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Different 164
tudies (by percentage category)
165
alking on Campus About Other Topics Unrelated to Class and Studies
165

alking on Campus About Other Topics Unrelated to Classes and

ncestry and Same Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Dining
able 21.14: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same 167
able 21.16: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Different 168
168
pus Friends in the Activity of
articipating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage category)
T
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
Studying with Students That Are Outside of One’s Class
(by percentage category)

Table 21.9: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same 164
Ancestry and Same Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of
Talking on Campus About Other Topics Unrelated to Classes and
S

Table 21.10: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same
Ancestry and Different Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of
T
(by percentage category)

Table 21.11: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
T
Studies (by percentage category)
Table 21.12: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Different 166
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
Talking on Campus About Other Topics Unrelated to Classes and Studies
(by percentage category)

Table 21.13: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same 166
A
(by percentage category)

T
Ancestry and Different Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of
Dining (by percentage category)

Table 21.15: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same 167
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
Dining (by percentage category)

T
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
Dining (by percentage category)

Table 21.17: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same
Ancestry and Same Religion Cam
P

xvi
me 169

tegory)
able 21.19: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same 169
ry)
t 170
nt Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
y)
pus 171

rent
nt Ancestry in Each of the Five Student Activities
Four Ethnic/faith Friendship 176
s
ty 214
187
nic Identity

t
s, and the Total Number of Degrees of Closeness
Campus Friends
190
pus Friends of Same
ncestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different Religion,

Table 21.18: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Sa
Ancestry and Different Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of
Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage ca

T
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage catego

Table 21.20: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Differen
Religion and Differe
Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage categor

Table 22: Means and Standard Deviations For the Percentages of Cam
Friendships of Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and
Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and Diffe
Religion and Differe

Table 23: Factor Loadings of 20 Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Items 174
Table 24: Mean Percentage Scores For the
Group Scales, Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and
Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry and Different
Religion and Different Ancestry

Table 25: Correlations Between Sense of Belonging and Many Variable 213

Sense of Belonging, Ethnici Table 26: One-Way Analysis of Variance for
and Religious Affiliation as Possible Controls (N = 699)

Table 27: Multiple Regression Analysis of Campus Friendships Predicting
Sense of Belonging to the College, Controlling for Eth
Table 28: The Regression of Sense of Belonging to the College on 189
the Total Number of Campus Friends, the Total Number of Times Spen
with Campus Friend
to

Table 29: Bi-variate Correlations Between Perceived Discrimination
and Four Ethnic/faith Friendship Groups, Cam
A
Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and Different Religion and
Different Ancestry

xvii
able 29A: Bi-variate Correlations Between Perceived Discrimination 192
and Different
eligion and Different Ancestry
193
nds of Same
ncestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different Religion,
Perceived Discrimination 194
ysis of Variance for the Interaction Between Perceived 197
iscrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends

able 31A: Means and Standard Deviations for the Interaction Between 197
us

e 32: Analysis of Variance for the Interaction Between Perceived 198
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends
of the Same Ancestry and Different Religion

able 32A: Means and Standard Deviations for the Interaction Between 198
erceived Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus
riends of the Same Ancestry and Different Religion

Table 32B: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels of 199
Perceived Discrimination on Campus Friends of a Same Ancestry and
Different Religion

Table 33: Analysis of Variance for the Interaction Between Perceived 199
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends
of the Same Religion and Different Ancestry

Table 33A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between 200
Perceived Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus
Friends of the Same Religion and Different Ancestry
T
and Four Ethnic/faith Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of
Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different
Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry,
R

Table 29B: Bi-variate Correlations Between Perceived Discrimination
and Four Ethnic/faith Friendship Groups, Campus Frie
A
Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and Different Religion and
Different Ancestry

able 30: Bi-variate Correlations Between T
and Four Ethnic/faith Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of Same
Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different Religion,
ame Religion and Different Ancestry, and Different Religion and S
Different Ancestry

Table 31: Anal
D
of the Same Ancestry and Same Religion
T
Perceived Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Camp
Friends of the Same Ancestry and Same Religion
Tabl
T
P
F

xviii

Table 34: Analysis of Variance Fo een Perceived 200
able 34A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between 201
of ampus
able 35B: Pairwise Comparisons of Weak, Average, and Strong Ethnic 204
f Perceived Discrimination on Sense of Belonging to the College

r the Interaction Betw
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends
f the Different Religion and Different Ancestry o

T
Perceived Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage C
erent Religion and Different Ancestry Friends of Diff

able 34B: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels of 202 T
Perceived Discrimination on Campus Friends of a Different Religion and
ifferent Ancestry D

able 35: Analysis of Variance For the Interaction Between Perceived 203 T
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Sense of Belonging to the College

Table 35A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between 203
Perceived Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Sense of Belonging
to the College

T
Identity on Sense of Belonging to the College

Table 35C: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels 204
o

xix
List of Figures
______________________________________________________

urages Open Racial, Ethnic, and 157

Figure 1: What Race or Ethnicity Do You Consider Yourself? 74

Figure 2: What Is Your Religion? 81

Figure 3: Frequency Distribution for Ethnic Identity Scale 140

Figure 4.1: Feel Discriminated Against by Students, Because of My Religion 155

Figure 4.2: Feel Discriminated Against by Students, Because of My Ancestry 155

Figure 4.3: Feel Discriminated Against by Faculty, Because of My Ancestry 155

Figure 4.4: Feel Discriminated Against by Faculty, Because of My Religion 156

Figure 4.5: The Administration Discriminates Against My Ethnic Group 156

Figure 4.6: The Administration Discriminates Against My Religious Faith 156

Figure 4.7: The Administration Supports Minority Group Organizations 157

Figure 4.8: The Campus Attracts Ethnic Diversity 157

Figure 4.9: The Campus Enco
Religious Discussion

xx
_
Apart from the wide-scale media attention that Arabs and Muslims have received
in the United States and abroad since 9/11, these two target populations have been largely
unexamined at both the two-year and four-year college levels. This dissertation study
represents a pioneering effort in investigating whether the post-9/11 backlash against
Arabs and Muslims has penetrated community college campuses. The main objective of
the study is to investigate the potential inter-relationships among the level of perceived
discrimination, the degree of diversity of Arab and Muslim students’ campus friendships,
and their sense of belonging to the college. This study challenges the tenets of Allport’s
contact hypothesis and advances instead two conflict theories, integrated threat theory
and social dominance theory that provide the theoretical framework for why perceived
discrimination might promote ethnic and religious clustering among Arab and Muslim
community college students.
The study employs a mixed methods design, a 92-item survey, and three focus
groups. The survey sample consists of 753 Arab Christian, Arab Muslim, and non-Arab
Muslim students from 15 community colleges in Southern California and six community
colleges in Southeast Michigan.
The results of the study are as follows: (a) there is a positive relationship between
Arab and Muslim students’ campus friendships and the sense of belonging to the college;
(b) there were no significant correlations between the level of perceived discrimination

Abstract
_____________________________________________________

xxi
d the percentage of campus friends who were of the same ancestry and same religion,
same ancestry and different religion, same re gion and different ancestry, and different
religion and different ancestry; (c) the onship between strength of ethnic
identity and the percentage of campus friends from the four ethnic/faith friendship
groups; and, (d) there were no interact he strength of ethnic identity and the
level o
well as
r
out
y of
s;

identity;
an
li
re was no relati
ions between t
f perceived discrimination on the dependent variables, sense of belonging and the
percentage of campus friends from the four ethnic/faith friendship groups. Student focus
groups furnished testimony on their experiences with discrimination on campus as
provided insight into Arab and Muslim students’ reluctance to report discrimination in
surveys. The implications of the study are for community college researchers to tailo
their measures of campus climate to fit specifically the institutional type and the student
demographic profile. Campus climate measures must include items that not only draw
more subtle forms of discrimination, but also inquire into a wide scope and frequenc
discriminatory behaviors.

Keywords: Arabs; Muslims; ethnic relations, interfaith relations, intergroup relation
inter-racial contact; social interaction; campus friendships; campus surveys, campus
climate, discrimination; sense of belonging to college, ethnic identity; religious
community college students; and two-year colleges.

1
___________________________________________________________________

Chapter 1

have received

of
ther
s

and inviting to some Arab and Muslim students. The main objectives of the dissertation

Introduction
Apart from the wide-scale media attention that Arabs and Muslims
in the United States and abroad since 9/11, these two target populations have been largely
unexamined at both the two-year and four-year college levels. This absence in the
campus diversity literature is remarkable in light of two recent national surveys that show
that 76%
1
of young Arab Americans of traditional college age, 18 to 29 years, have
experienced personal discrimination (Arab American Institute, AAI, 2007), and 50%
Muslim Americans between 18 and 24 have reported discrimination in school and the
workplace
1
(Muslims in the American Public Square, 2004). Given these alarming
statistics, this dissertation study represents a pioneering effort in investigating whe
the post-9/11 backlash against Arabs and Muslims has penetrated community college
campuses.
Advocating an open-door policy, community colleges often are perceived a
promoting a campus environment that is conducive to harmonious relations between
ethnic groups (Maxwell & Shammas, 2007). Yet, with the culturally prevalent
stigmatization of Arab and Muslims as enemies to the United States’ national security,
there might be distinctive features of the campus climate that might not appear as benign

2
ionships among the
vel of perceived discrimination, the degree of diversity of Arab and Muslim students’
campus friendships, and
s the locus of research provides access to first generation and 1.5 generation students
first noteworthy case found in the United States’ denial of citizenship to Syrian-Lebanese
discrimination is incumbent here to demonstrate why the present study is long overdue in
on the history of discrimination against Arabs and Arab Americans, Christian and
ic
wide range of ethnicities, I ca em in this chapter. It is
will be to establish whether Arab and Muslim students perceive discrimination on the
community college campus, and to investigate the potential inter-relat
le
their sense of institutional belonging. Using community colleges
a
who are more likely to be the most vulnerable targets of discrimination.
Simply to situate discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans within the
context of post-9/11 imparts a truncated history of the racism directed against these two
groups in the United States. Anti-Arab racism predates 9/11 by over a century, with the
immigrants based upon nativist arguments about whether they were Asian or White
(Gualtieri, 2001; Naff, 1985). Throughout the last half-century anti-Arab racism in the
United States has been less associated with color than rooted in the geopolitics of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict and crisis. An historical overview of Arab and Muslim
both the diversity and ethnic relations literature of higher education. I will focus primarily
Muslim, as witnessed in United States’ immigration policy, federal court cases, academ
tenure cases, and the mainstream media. Since non-Arab Muslim Americans encompass a
nnot devote sufficient space to th
essential, however, to point out that many non-Arab Muslim Americans, indigenous or

3

The “Turks” of Asia: Are We White or Asian?
institutional racism. Until 9/11, they essentially were an invisible minority, or what Naber
has term ts
to the U
,
ive

olian
red
n many
zation
vist
converts (e.g., African Americans, Southeast Asians, Latinos) are subjected to double
discrimination, related to their skin color as well as to their religion.

The History of Anti-Arab Discrimination

In the United States, Arabs and Arab Americans have experienced insidious
ed as “ambiguous insiders” (2000, pp. 27-61). The first wave of Arab immigran
nited States were predominantly Syrian-Lebanese Christians (1880-1920).
Because Greater Syria-Mt. Lebanon was under the direct control of the Ottoman Empire
U.S. naturalization officers arbitrarily identified Syrian-Lebanese under the amalgamat
category “Turks of Asia” (Naff, 1985). Between 1905 and 1917, Syrian-Lebanese racial
identity was perceived as marginally “Caucasian,” containing, as one U.S. Commissioner
of Immigration and Naturalization characterized as a “doubtful element of Mong
plasma” (Naber, p. 39). The misclassification of Asian found Lebanese immigrants mi
in what Naff characterized as the “yellow race crisis.” Under the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882 and sections of the 1906 Naturalization Act, Syrian-Lebanese immigrants were
threatened with denial of citizenship or possible deportation (1985). Although i
states, the courts exercised arbitrary rulings for denying or granting citizenship, the 1915
case of Dow vs. the United States set a legal precedent for Syrian-Lebanese naturali
by designating them as “Semites of the Caucasian race” (pp. 247-259). Yet, the nati
debate over Syrian-Lebanese as Asian was not legally resolved until the passage of the

4
ased on the stipulation that their country of
origin must lie in the unrestricted (Western) region of Asia for immigration.
.”
d

d
Immigration Act of 1917 (Gualtieri, 2001; Naff 1985). The Immigration Act of 1917,
which excluded certain categories of Asians from immigrating to the United States,
legally determined that Syrians were white, b
For Syrian-Lebanese, their gained status as white remained honorary at best. In
the Jim Crow South, the Syrian-Lebanese Maronites were considered “colored and
Catholic,” which as one Alabama political candidate brashly admitted in a handbill:
They have disqualified the Negro, an American citizen from voting in the white
primary. The Greek and Syrian should also be disqualified from voting. I don’t
want their vote. If I can’t be elected by white men, I don’t want the office
(Conklin & Faris, 1987, p. 15)

The following 1929 statement by Senator Reed of Pennsylvania is eerily reminiscent of
the incendiary, racial remarks that have been heard from our present day Senators an
Congressmen: “How can anyone expect an Arab, who has lived under some patriarchal
government, where he did not even dare whisper his views, to come here and participate
intelligently in the American processes of democracy?” (U.S. Congress, 1929).
During the 1920s, there were several incidences of racial violence perpetrated
against Arab Americans, some of which purportedly involved members of the Ku Klux
Klan. The most notable case of extralegal violence against a naturalized Syrian-Lebanese
American was the lynching of Anula (Nicholas) Romey in Lake City, Florida.
Essentially, the lynching was meant as a punishment to a Syrian-Lebanese immigrant an
his wife for speaking out, and an admonishment to Blacks (which also extended to
members in the Southern community deemed as “non-white”) that they should not
challenge the Southern caste system (Gualtieri, 2004). As summarized below, Romey’s

5

The Lynching of Anula (Nicholas) Romey
ances. There were conflicting news reports regarding the
is car,
ne
icholas Romey phoned Baker to tell
se
lynching exemplifies Arab racialization within the context of other discriminated groups
in the Jim Crow South—which, in Romey’s case, was being neither fully white nor fully
black within the Southern racial hierarchy.
Nicholas and Fannie Romey owned a grocery store, outside of which it was
customary to display the produce for sale.
2
In the second week of May 1929, Chief of
Police, John F. Baker ordered Fannie Romey to remove her produce from the sidewalk,
as it violated the Lake City ordin
manner in which Fanny Romey protested Baker’s order, one recounted that she
threatened to kill Baker; but another source, based on a legal investigative report, claimed
that Fanny was dragged by Baker’s officers to the patrol car until one of the town’s
leading citizens halted the arrest on her behalf. Upon further investigation, it seems that
this same police chief, Baker, promised to reimburse Romey’s son for repairs on h
which was damaged by a speeding stolen car. When Baker defaulted on his promise,
Fannie confronted Baker about his lying, his unfairness, and his abuse of power. As o
report revealed, he became infuriated that Fannie challenged his authority and decided to
punish her for her outdoor displays. Apparently, there were other grocers who displayed
their vegetables, but who were not ordered to set them back inside the store. In revenge
for Baker’s dishonorable treatment of his family, N
him he was returning the vegetables to the sidewalk. This conversation prompted Baker
to visit the store a second time, upon which his officers fired a round of shots for purpo
of intimidation only. According to one of several newspaper reports covering the story,

6
s
for his
killed
he
ican
acist

the
while Nicholas Romey was hiding behind the counter, a police officer struck him on his
head. In distress, Fannie Romey rushed to the front of the store and, seeing her husband
lying in a pool of blood, shot at Chief of Police Baker, who returned fire, and mortally
wounded her. While Fanny lay on the floor warning her son not to interfere, the police
officer shot another round of fire at Fanny and exclaimed “aren’t you dead yet?” Nichola
Romey was taken to the local jail and, upon his arrival, threatened to seek revenge
wife’s murder. Later that night, a mob removed Romey from his cell, lynched, and
him
3
(Gualtieri, 2004, pp. 4-5).
The Romey lynching revealed not only that Syrian-Lebanese Arabs were at t
time victims of white racism, but also more significantly, how first wave Arab Amer
immigrants responded generally to racial actions that contested their “whiteness.” After
Romey’s lynching, a Syrian elite appealed to the Governor of Florida to investigate the
lynching, but for the most part, the Syrian-Lebanese community’s reaction to the
lynching wavered between a strategy of passive resistance and a vehement defense of
their white status. Gualtieri (2004) maintains that by reasserting their position on the
white side of the color line, Syrian-Lebanese Americans reinforced the white suprem
discourse and exclusionary policies of the period. Yet, in their defense, she also
acknowledges that their affirmation of whiteness demonstrated a survival strategy to gain
citizenship rights and upward economic mobility.
Over the last 40 years, due mostly to their political marginalization vis à vis the
U.S. Mid-East policy, Arabs and Arab Americans have not benefited from having
racial designation as white (Gualtieri, 2008; Shryock, 2008). Increasingly, they have

7

s
n
8; Samhan, 1999).
rican
haracterized by a larger number of Muslims from diverse parts of the Arab World,
s
become a stigmatized minority with a racially liminal status of being “not quite White”
(Cainkar, 2008; Gualtieri, 2008; Shryock, 2008). Two small-scaled survey studies have
reported that only between 5% and 20% of their Arab respondents perceive themselves or
Arabs, in general, as “white” (Cainkar, 2008; Read, 2008).
4
These perceptions of non-
Whiteness are concealed in the census reports, because the U.S. Census Bureau record
persons of Arab descent who indicate “other race” and write in “Arab” as “white”
(Abdulrahim, 2008). This official racial category of white has handicapped Arab
American lobbyists from obtaining a federally approved change to minority classificatio
for Arabs, which, as they have claimed, more accurately reflects how many of their
constituents self identify on the census long form (Gualtieri, 200
The post-World War II era witnessed a transition in the nature of Arab Ame
marginalization, which steadily became identified with Arab political activity rather than
with racial/geographical origin (Samhan, 1987). The change resulted from numerous
events, the Declaration of the Independence of Israel, the Arab-Israeli War, and U.S.
foreign and economic policy in the Middle East. Concurrently, there was the second
wave of Arab immigration (1945-1967), which in comparison to the first wave was
c
displaced refugees from the 1948 Palestine War, and, in general, a higher educated class
of professionals and university students (Suleiman, 1999). Coming from Arab countrie
that had attained relative autonomy from colonial rule, these immigrants brought with
them a revived form of Pan-Arab nationalism and self-identified with the “Arab”
classification more than their predecessors had. The third immigration wave (1967 to the

8
ith an
ghtened criticism of U.S. policy, particularly as it related
n

l
ech.

ng
.S.
present) resembled the demographic profile of the second Arab immigration, but w
even greater number of political refugees from successive wars, for example, the 1967
Israeli-Arab War, Lebanese Civil War, and the Persian Gulf War. Both second and third-
wave immigrants displayed a hei
to the United States’ pro-Israel bias and the Palestinian struggle for statehood. These
immigrants also inspired political activism among some second and third-generation
Arab Americans, who in turn established professional associations, and social service,
advocacy, and civil rights organizations, such as Arab American Medical Association,
ACCESS (Arab Community Center for Education and Social Services), Arab America
Institute, and American Anti-Arab Discrimination Committee.
Beginning in the early 1970s, as Arab American activism was mounting in
response to the United States’ policies in the Middle East, there was a concomitant rise in
the institutionalization of government policies and law enforcement that specifically
targeted Arab or Arab American citizens. In the next section, I refer to only a few federa
cases in which specific government operatives worked to harass individuals of Arab
descent, many of whom were students, and to infringe upon their right to free spe

U.S. Governmental Operatives Targeting Arab Americans and Arab-U.S. Resident Aliens
In 1972, the Nixon administration spearheaded “Operation Boulder” targeti
Arabs and Arab Americans, in particular students, in order to reveal their possible role in
terrorist activities in Palestine and Israel (Akram, 2002). Abiding by presidential
directives, the FBI made harassing phone calls to Arabs with U.S. citizenship and to U

9
ental
o were
he FBI arrested the LA 8, seven Palestinian resident aliens and one
e Popular
and

gration courts, in
ever,
ne of
ights. After a decade long investigation of Al
resident aliens of Arab descent, and visited their homes without clear evidence of
criminal activity. The 1970s wiretapping and surveillance set off a chain of governm
interventions and intrusions into the lives of many Arabs and Arab Americans wh
found to be judicially innocent.
In 1987, t
Kenyan (a wife of one of the Palestinians) for raising charitable donations for th
Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and for distributing the PFLP’s magazine,
which, ironically, was available for readership at public libraries, college campuses,
the U.S. Library of Congress (Naber, 2008a). Although the FBI absolved the LA 8 of
terrorist charges, it persisted in deporting them on the grounds of an obsolete law,
McCarren Walter Act, dating back to the McCarthy era, which linked their activities to
the promotion of Communism. Since 1988, the LA 8 case shuffled through immigration
courts, federal district courts, U.S. Supreme Court and back to immi
which newer legislation, Clinton’s 1994 secret evidence directive and provisions of the
Patriot Act, was employed in an attempt to deport two of the eight defendants.
5
How
on January 30, 2007, an immigration judge, Judge Bruce Einhorn, dismissed the
deportation charges on the grounds that the government had violated the two defendants’
constitutional rights. He epitomized the case as “a festering wound on the body of these
respondents, and an embarrassment to the rule of law” (Democracy Now!, 2007).
Since 9/11, the academic freedom and freedom of speech case of Sami Al Arian,
formerly a tenured engineering professor at the University of Florida, represents o
the most reprehensible abuses of civil r

10

t
y
e
revious
oena
d
il
08).
judiciary
est
Arian’s involvement in two Islamic, pro-Palestinian advocacy organizations, the FBI in
2003 accused Al Arian and seven others of using these organizations to support the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement.
6
The AAUP (the American Association of
University Professors) and some faculty members rallied to Al Arian’s support
(Walsh, 2002).
At the 2005 U.S. District Court trial, a federal agent admitted that after
intercepting close to a half a million calls there had been no mention of an attack agains
the United States or advanced knowledge of an attack in the Middle East. The jur
acquitted Al Arian on 8 of 17 counts, and deadlocked 10-2 in favor of his acquittal on th
other 9 (Laughlin, Liberto, & George, 2005). In 2006, Al Arian entered into a plea
agreement with the U.S. government, in which on his behalf they declared his p
activities as non-violent (with the provision that there were no victims associated with
these activities), and guaranteed his release to be deported in 2008.
It is now 2009, and Al Arian remains incarcerated because he refused a subp
to give further testimony on the grounds that it was not stated in his plea agreement
(United States of America v. Al-Arian, 2008). On July 10, 2008, a federal judge rule
that Al Arian did not pose a threat to the community, and consequently, granted him ba
while he awaits an August 13
th
court trial summoned by the prosecution (Hubbard, 20
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, however, refused to honor the
ruling, transported him to another regional jail, a 100 miles from where two of his old
children live, and subjected him to unwarranted and harsh conditions of solitary
confinement (Freesamialarian, 2008).

11
r
overnment deemed as unpatriotic and terrorists (Cole, 2003). This sends a cautionary
erves, the rights of

resignation of the high school’s principal, Debbie Almontaser, a Yemeni-American
These federal court cases illustrate dramatic examples of civil rights violations
and the political marginalization of Arab and Muslim Americans. In the majority of the
cases, the defendants were subjected to unnecessary, protracted court trials. While othe
non-Arab or non-Muslim immigrants might have participated in similar activities (e.g.,
political demonstrations, distributing pamphlets about conflicts in their home countries,
and sending remittances back home), these were pro-Palestinian activists that the
g
message to Arab and Muslim Americans that, as Shryock obs
citizenship, albeit “minoritized,” are extended to those only who submit to “policies of
depoliticization” and behave as “good Arabs and “good Muslims” (2008, p. 108).
In the last five years, there has been an emergence of McCarthyesque
organizations, who as vigorous supporters of the current administration’s policies in the
Middle East, attempt to suppress the free expression of speech, particularly as it relates to
the discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict, on predominantly college campuses.
Recently, neo-conservative watchdog organizations, like Daniel Pipe’s Campus Watch,
are averting their gaze away from “radical Islamicists” toward law abiding Muslim
Americans, whom they claim are subversively proselytizing Islam and anti-American
Middle East policy in the public sphere. Such was the case of Daniel Pipe’s coalition
“Stop the Madrassa,” which exerted pressure on the New York City Education
Department to halt the opening of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a public
school in Brooklyn, and helped to precipitate Mayor Bloomberg’s request for the

12
sh’s

security and global commerce.
a tee shirt bearing the words “Intifada NYC” seen on display on a
n.

ir
ser
explained to the reporter the literal translation of the intifada (i.e., “shaking off,” from
(Elliott, 2008). The mission of the Khalil Gibran International Academy was to prepare
students for entry into elite colleges as well as to expose students, Arab and non-Arab
descent alike, to the Arabic language and culture with the hope of becoming goodwill
ambassadors. The school also represented the visionary embodiment of President Bu
planned initiative for public schools to offer language courses in less commonly taught
languages, like Arabic, as a goal to heighten national

Muslim American Educator and the Intifada Tee Shirt Affair
Debbie Almontaser was a 20-year veteran teacher in the New York public school
system and was a recognized bridge builder and inter-faith activist. Her subsequent
resignation centered on
table at an Arab Festival by one of the members of the “Stop the Madrassa” coalitio
The organization, Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, which distributed the tee
shirts, trained young Arab American women in community organizing and media
production. Almontaser’s link to the “tee shirt affair,” was that she was a board member
of a Yemeni American organization, which allowed the arts and media group to use the
office. Confronted by a spokesperson of the New York Education Department,
Almontaser acknowledged familiarity with the art and media group, but expressed no
knowledge of the tee shirts. Persuaded by two spokespeople for the New York
Department of Education to accept an interview with the New York Post,
7
Almonta

13
in the interview as a
rong endorsement of the intifada, and sent a condemnatory letter to the Post. The
Mayor Bloomberg, asked for
on at
y
rk Department of Education relieved Professor Rashid
n
ad filed
the root verb, nafada, in Arabic), and its adopted meaning within the context of the Arab-
Israeli conflict. The chief of the United Federation of Teachers, who initially supported
the Khalil Gibran academy, interpreted Almontaser’s comments
st
following day Deputy Mayor Walcott, on the request of
Almontaser to resign or risk closure of the school.
7

Toward the end of the ordeal, Almontaser had been called a “radical,” “jihadist,”
and a “9/11 denier.” Since her resignation, Almontaser has taken an evaluator positi
the New York City’s Office of School and Youth Development. She is planning a lawsuit
for the Education Department to reinstate her at the Khalil Gibran International Academ
(Cohler-Esses, 2007).
In 2005 the New Yo
Khalidi, the director of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, from his positio
lecturing city teachers enrolled in a professional developmental course. Khalidi’s
dismissal originated from a New York Sun article asserting that the professor had made
offensive statements about Israel. Even though Khalidi claimed that the New York Sun
misquoted him,
8
the Department of Education refused to answer if they had verified his
comments. Apparently, none of the schoolteachers in the development program h
complaints against him. At Columbia, Jewish students who had complained about
intimidation from pro-Palestinian teachers had in fact strongly endorsed Khalidi

14
nt
mary
n the tenure cases of Abu-El Haj and Joseph Massad.

r.
the
, 2007; Zureik, 2002). Despite a 2,500-
descent,
ale student in class and asked her to leave after she expressed pro-Israel
lodged the complaint. Outside of academia, he has been strongly critical of Zionism in
(Purnick, 2005). Most recently, attacks on Middle Eastern scholars of Palestinian desce
have provoked unsettling repercussions during their tenure bid process. A brief sum
follows o
Tenure Cases of Nadia Abu El Haj and Joseph Massad
An organization of right wing critics, headed up by a Barnard alum, campaigned
tirelessly against granting tenure to Nadia Abu El Haj, a Barnard archaeology professo
Many of the charges leveled against Abu El Haj’s scholarship were based on gross
misrepresentations of the historical conclusions that she had presented with respect to
Jerusalem Old City excavations
9
(Cohler-Esses
signature petition issued against Abu El Haj, Barnard College decided to award her
tenure in November 2007.
The same off-campus advocacy group, David Project Center that vigorously
campaigned against El Haj’s tenure, produced a film singling out Joseph Massad, and
two other professors for discriminating against Jewish students at Columbia. In the film,
an unidentified student claims that Massad, an associate professor of Palestinian
shouted at a fem
views. Massad denied the classroom incident. An appointed faculty committee
investigated the claims made in the film, but did not find any evidence of Anti-Semitism
or discrimination at the university. In the committee’s file, they had recorded that Massad
was a popular professor, but that he had acted inappropriately towards the student that

15
ook
ure
pearance

and had
ontaser had spent 20 years in the New York
,
s’
st Arabs and Muslims is
his articles for English language Arab newspapers. Massad has demonstrated a strong
publishing record, with his most recent book earning him the Lionel Trilling B
Award.
During the first round of the tenure proceedings, the ad hoc committee of five
scholars voted 3 to 2 in Massad’s favor, but the provost denied his bid. Senior faculty
members convened and were able to influence the provost to reconsider Massad’s ten
case. In 2009, a second, newly established ad hoc committee will decide on Massad’s
tenure while he is on paid administrative leave. At present there are mixed views about
whether the University delaying Massad’s tenure bid suggests that they will make a
decision in his favor (Wilson & Byrne, 2008).
These last four cases evidence that pro-Palestinian advocacy (or the ap
thereof) prejudiced two tenure decisions, and resulted in Khalidi’s and Almontaser’s
dismissal from their respective lecturing and administrative positions. El Haj and Massad
had satisfied the tenure related criteria of scholarly, university press publications,
satisfactory student evaluations. Debbie Alm
public school system, and had built strong coalitions with Jewish and Christian
communities.
Much of the racism against Arab and Muslim Americans has been political in
nature, which, as illustrated in the previous cases, stems from not only political activism
but also from the espousal of political views that run sharply counter to the United State
policy toward Israel. The most dominant form of racism again

16
l differentialism, which over two centuries
e,

s them”
l provide a series of examples of the American media’s
vilifica
s–and
the clichéd notion of cultural or civilizationa
has permeated the writings of European Orientalists and primordial theorists
(Huntington, 1996; Lewis, 1990; Said, 1979). The mainstream media, as the
government’s representational apparatus, has adeptly interpreted this cultural difference
of Arabs and Muslims through the construction of essentialist racial tropes. For exampl
after the Iranian Revolution, the American hegemonic discourse on the Arab enemy
transformed into the “Arab Muslim enemy,” thus disseminating the falsehood that all
Arabs are Muslims (Naber, 2008). The media, in turn, has racialized this conflation of
Arab/Muslim enemy as a cultural other, violent and fanatical, who is devoid of any
human qualities. Intensified by the events surrounding 9/11, images of the cultural other
are undergirded by the binary logic of “us versus them” that has its roots in a
differentialist racism (Balibar, 1991; Jamal, 2008; Taguieff, 1988). The “us versu
racial logic situates Arab and Muslim Americans outside of the benefits of citizenry, as
they are perceived as being synonymous with traitors, and thus not deserving of
American civil liberties (Alsultany, 2008).
In what follows, I wil
tion and “otherization” of Arabs and Muslims (Jamal, 2008, pp. 114-130). In
many of these media representations, time and space become muddled so that ingenuous
television viewers or readers walks away with the indelible impression that they have
been exposed to genuine representations of how contemporary Arab and Muslim
their own counterparts in the United States—lead their lives.

17
ian
matic example is Hal Roach’s 1925 Grief in
jah
ters
r
).

age
s
Anti-Arab and Muslim Racism in the Media
Silent-era films initiated some of the first cinematic vilification of Arabs and
Muslims, with their ornate Orientalist imagery of veiled and turbaned tribal people in
souks, flying carpets and donkeys, along with the genre’s misidentification of East Ind
characters and dress as Arabs.
10
A paradig
Baghdad, a parody of Douglas Fairbanks’s film Thief in Baghdad, in which a mahara
clad chimpanzee poses as an Arab ruler (Roach, 1925). The 1930s produced a series of
black and white, and color cartoons replete with stereotypic images of Arabic charac
and fantastical reproductions of the ancient Arab world. In Fleischer’s 1937 color
cartoon, Popeye Meets Ali Baba, Pluto appears as an Arab bully, brandishing a scimita
(curved sword) and bellowing out “Make no error, I am full of terror” (Fleischer, 1937
Van Beuren’s Gypped in Egypt (1930) opens up to Waffle the Cat and DonDog
embarking on an Egyptian adventure in kitsch where they meet up with a looming and
foreboding live sphinx who deposits them inside a pyramid that comes alive with a
scampering sarcophagus figure, a fire alarm mummy, and hieroglyphics dancing on the
wall (Van Beuren, 1930).
In turning to the television shows and films of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, Naber (2000)
elaborates three media types that characterize Arabs and Muslims. The first media im
is the demonizing trinity of the Arab/Middle Eastern/Muslim misogynist who violates
women. The second type is the “supra-oppressed” and “inferior” Arab/Middle
Eastern/Muslim woman completely cloaked in the sartorial niqaab (loosely translated as
face veil and long gown), juxtaposed to the “white American women,” who symbolize

18
he

y, while these films and television programs evoked the

nd

ly, in his
ast
Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974, common pictorial
Arab
equality, democracy, and justice. The third media representation is the absence of t
Arab woman from the scene of the Arab man, White American man and White American
man (Naber, pp.44-45). Ironicall
evils of Arab misogyny, the very act of excluding the Arab female character from the
scene might itself be construed as sexist.
According to Naber, the presentation of these media images in television a
cinema is calculated to be simultaneous with political events in the Middle East and thus
serve to legitimize the U.S. political agenda and foreign policy. Naber points to the
overlap of the events of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, the U.S. Arab oil wars, the Iranian
revolution, the U.S. intervention in Lebanon, U.S. bombing of Libya, and the Persian
Gulf War with the respective film and television productions, Harum Scarum (1967,
starring Elvis Presley with an Arab sheikh tying a woman to a stake), episodes of Alice
and Trapper John, MD (1979-1986), Raiders of the Lost Arc (1981), Sahara (1983),
Harem (1985), True Lies (1994), GI Jane (1997), and The Siege (1998). Similar
analysis of several hundred cartoons from newspaper editorial pages and comic sections,
Ronald Stockton observes that hostile themes around Arab characters have paralleled
periods of economic crisis in the United States and political upheaval in the Middle E
(1994). For example, during the
themes in political commentaries were of sexually depraved, greedy, and deceitful
sheikhs with secret powers. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a Scrawls’
cartoon compared Arafat to vermin, with the accompanying headline, “Question: What’s
the difference between a rat and Arafat? Answer: the rat has more friends” (Stockton,

19

productions of post-9/11 governmental discourses, such as sacrificing civil rights for
the sake of national security. In one epis ractice, an Arab American
ng,
n
that he
f the
ssive position taken in the show, the overarching message is that the

1994, p. 136). Stockton emphasizes that many of these loathsome themes, such as
avariciousness, deception, and depravity, are redolent of the cartoon caricatures of Jews
in Nazi propaganda literature.
Alsultany (2008) demonstrates how episodes of a prime time TV function as
re
ode of The P
university professor, who is presumably innocent and an unfair target of discrimination,
sues an airlines for barring him from being a passenger on a flight. During the heari
the Arab American’s attorney raises the issue of civil rights by drawing parallels betwee
barring Arabs from a plane and forcing African Americans to sit at the back of bus,
however, failing to add that his client was American. The court exchange is reminiscent
of the Bush administration’s “double talk,” with the show’s judge proclaiming
has a great respect for the freedoms provided by the Constitution, but “in the face of
potentially boundless terrorism” he must rule against the plaintiff’s motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order (Alsultany, p. 215). Alsultany explains that in spite o
liberal and progre
Arab American was the “enemy other,” which effectively places him outside of the
protection of the Constitution.
The judge’s ruling in the television episode closely parallels the American
public’s post-9/11 views on restricting the civil liberties of Arab Americans, as reported
in the Detroit Arab American Study (Baker, Howell, Jamal, Lin, Shryock, Stockton et al.,
2004). The study reveals that when Arab Americans are the targeted population in the

20
are
b Americans. When the same restriction

ade

.

rtook changes in
e style to avoid discriminatory situations.
11
Pertinent to the focus of this study, Cainkar
cites the following quotation from llege student who changed her
ethnic
question for curtailing civil liberties to ensure national security, non-Arab Americans
almost three times more likely to agree than Ara
of civil liberties is applied to an unspecified U.S. citizen, however, a nearly equal
percentage of Arab Americans and non-Arab Americans agree with the statement.

Conclusion
This historical overview has signaled the potentially deleterious effect that long-
term discrimination, which to some degree may be viewed as even licensed by the
majority, might have upon generations of Arab and Muslim Americans. Over a dec
ago, Stockton (1994) raised similar concerns regarding the harmful impact of media
stereotyping, particularly on Arab and Muslim American children. He estimated that 2
million Arab Americans and over 3 million Muslims from a variety of ethnic
backgrounds have been subjected to hostile and derogatory imaging (Stockton, 1999, p
149). At present, this statistic clearly has doubled safely to 6 million or more for both
domestic populations (Arab American Institute, AAI, 2002; Muslims in the Public
Square, 2004).
In Cainkar’s post-9/11 interview study (2008) with a mixed age group of 102
Arab Muslims, some respondents commented that since 9/11 they unde
lif
an Arab American co
college friendship group to avert verbal harassment: “I changed my circle of friends from
Caucasian small-town girls [at NIU] to Arabs and Muslims and people of other

21
cales in the social sector. In this study, I
b
pus. I also provide a
slim
e level of perceived
that on average only 5% of the students feel discriminated against by other students,
s

pus
backgrounds. I stopped going to bars and clubs and anywhere people made ignorant
comments. Caucasians lack tolerance” (p. 71).
Cainkar’s ethnographic study focused upon Arab Muslims’ experiences of post-
9/11 discrimination in a wide range of lo
investigate the perceived discrimination of Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, and non-Ara
Muslims within the educating setting of the community college cam
quantifiable measure of the level of perceived discrimination among Arab and Mu
community college students, and test the relationship between th
discrimination and students’ likelihood to form same ethnic or same faith campus
friendships. In his study of an ethnically diverse community college, Maxwell indicates
faculty, and administration. Less than 20% of the students who perceive discrimination
by other students feel it is difficult to make friends on campus (Maxwell & Shammas,
2004). Similarly, a review of the institutional reports from individual community college
portray campuses, particularly those on the West Coast, as welcoming, with little
evidence of inter-ethnic conflicts. In the present study, however, I suspect the picture will
greatly vary with the target population being Arab and Muslim community college
students. I submit the following five research questions of the study.
Research Questions
1) Do the number of, the frequency of interaction of, and degrees of closeness of cam
friendships increase Arab and Muslim students’ sense of belonging to college?

22
ss ethnic
and/or cross faith campus friendships?
3) Does a strong ethnic or religious identity predispose a student to engage in a higher
rcentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friendships?
) Is there an interaction between the strength of ethnic identity and the level of
erceived discrimination on the sense of belonging to a school?
) Is there an interaction between the level of perceived discrimination and the strength
f ethnic identity on the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friendships?

It is important to clarify that throughout the study I refer generically to the student
mple as “Arab and Muslim” because the student exhibits cultural markers that are
nked to an Arabic speaking country and/or are affirmed Muslims. The student sample
chnically is comprised of four subgroups: Arab descent Christians, Arab descent
uslims, non-Arab descent Muslims, and a few cases of Arab descent of other faiths. As
will elaborate upon in Chapter 3, I combined the four subgroups into one group, Arabs
nd Muslims, in order to achieve the recommended sample size for the study.
In the following chapter, I formulate five hypotheses that correspond with the
ve research questions. The literature review contains a collection of studies that provide
pport for the five hypotheses. Chapter 3 gives a detailed explanation of the sample
rget population, methodological procedures, and the measurement of each of the
2) If Arab and Muslim students perceive a high level of discrimination against them by
fellow students, faculty, or administration, are they more likely to establish a higher
percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friendships rather than cro
pe
4
p
5
o

sa
li
te
M
I
a
fi
su
ta

23
endent variables stated in the five hypotheses. Chapter 4 submits the

independent and dep
results of each of the five hypotheses tested, and Chapter 5 is the discussion of these
results, the limitations of the study, and the implications for future research.

24
of 1,846 respondents: Arab, 485,
uth Asian, 619 (Pakistani, 347; Indian, 159; Bangladeshi, 76; and Afghan, 37), African American, 271,

ited States, Syrian-Lebanese often followed an economic pattern of
ansition from peddling to becoming owners of small retail stores. Many continued on to own larger retail
here that two incarcerated Black men were asked if they saw Nicholas Romey’s
duction from jail. They replied that they did not hear or see anything. As Blacks had the most to fear and
ently
s
at a
ainkar’s study (2008) was based on a sample of 102 Arab Muslim respondents in the Chicago metro

%, some college or BS/BA, 43%, and postgraduate, 42%). Only 20% of her respondents perceived
rabs as white. Read’s study (2008) surveyed 335 Arab Christian and Arab Muslims, about an equal

ports in the national press, that U.S. representative Norman Mineta disclosed a 1978 FBI and INS master
plan to detain Arab Americans at a camp in Oakdale, Louisiana in the event of war with certain Arab states
oseph, 1999). In 1986, the year before the LA 8 arrest, there were two widely publicized hate crimes that
ended in murder –Alex Odeh, a Palestinian American activist and West Coast regional director of the
an Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Ismail al Faruqi, a Palestinian American Islamic
, who was an outspoken critic of Israel.
add to the controversy of Al Arian’s case, the FBI had uncovered tapes of Al Arian at an early 1990s
tifada rally, in which he cried out “death to Israel.” During the grand jury proceeding, Al Arian testified
at his political censure of Israel was directed against its repressive government and occupation of the
Palestine, not against the Jews as a people.
chelle Renford’s article, “No Man’s Land” in the Tampa’s Weekly Planet provides an alternative
planation to Al Arian’s “death to Israel” speech (Renford, 2002). First, she lays out his full quotation at
e rally: “God is one; Muhammad is the leader; the Qur'an is our constitution; struggling for God is our
proach, victory is for Islam; death to Israel; a revolution, a revolution until victory; a march, a march
wards Jerusalem; a revolution, a revolution until victory; a march, a march towards Jerusalem; and there
is no deity but God, and Muhammad is His messenger. God is great, and victory is for Islam." Second, she
explains that by the phrase “death to Israel” Al Arian said that “he meant death to the occupation, death to
Chapter 1 Endnotes
1

The Muslims in the American Public Square survey (2004) consisted
So
African, 137, other ethnicity, 216, and unsure of ethnicity, 18. There were 1,074 males and 772 females.
About half of the respondents were between the ages of 35 and 54. The percentages of respondents from
each region were: West, 15%; East, 36%; South, 23%, and Central/Great Lakes, 26%.

2
After settling a few years in the Un
tr
stores or become manufacture wholesalers (see Naff, 1985).

3
It is worth noting
ab
lose in the Jim Crow South, especially as related to lynching, their distancing themselves from Romey’s
lynching is somewhat similar to what occurred in the Leo Frank case. Leo Frank, a Jewish American, was a
manager of a pencil manufacturing company in Atlanta, Georgia. He was accused of --and subsequ
lynched for-- raping and killing a fourteen-year old girl, Mary Phagan, who was in his employ. There wa
compelling evidence that Frank’s Black foreman murdered her, but he pinned the killing on Frank--
presumably as a Black Man to save his own hide from being lynched. In court, the foreman, Conklin,
testified that Frank confessed to him about killing her and that the two of them disposed of her body at the
bottom of the factory’s elevator shaft. He also stated that Frank ordered him to write a note that read th
Black man killed her, and put the note next to her body (New York Times, 1915).

4
C
area, mean age range 30-49, 28%, were born in the U.S., and had mixed educational levels (high school or
less, 14
A
percentage of both was surveyed in an Arab church and Arab mosque in Central Texas. Among Christians,
46% percent was foreign born, and 54% was U.S. born. Among Muslims, 82% was foreign born, and 17%
was U.S. born. Read found that while a third of the Arab Christians perceived themselves as white, a
considerably lower percentage of Arab Muslims did not (5.2%).

5
Coincidentally, during the LA 8 court proceedings, the Sacramento Bee rumored, along with isolated
re
(J
Americ
scholar
6
To
in
th
Ro
ex
th
ap
to

25
the policies that oppress the Palestinian and d nd. He does not mean kill every Israeli.”
Yet, in the article the implication is that since armed resistance against occupation that
Israeli soldiers and armed settlers will more than likely be targeted.
principal, Danielle Salzberg, who was Jewish and spoke no
Arabic, replaced Almontaser. Although berg was in favor of the Khalil
Gibran International Academy, he has pport to Almontaser since her
resignation (James Zogby, 2008).
n apartheid
that
the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE and attributed the destruction to the Jews. In Zureik’s review, El
accounts. Overall, El Haj favors science as action and not discursive analysis. In general, she commended

10

ely
%
al sectors:
rcial transactions, 9%,
government offices, 9%, airports/airplanes, 7%, and civil society institutions, 6%. However, the problem
ced.
eny him a homela
Al Arian believed in
7
The New York Education Department p
after Almontaser’s resignation, an interim
ressured Almontaser to do the interview with the Post. Three days
in the inception Mayor Bloom
not offered any assistance or su

8
According to the New York Sun, Khalidi remarked that Israel was a “racist state with a
system,” but Khalidi stated that he was referring to Israeli policy not the state of Israel (Cohler-Esses, 2007;
Purnick, 2005).

9
The network of right wing critics made a series of allegations, one of which was that El Haj denied
Haj merely opens up the discussion on the origin of the destruction of Jerusalem to other “equally
plausible” accounts. El Haj cites that the Romans’ destruction supports “nationalist historiography” and
that alternative evidence points to “class or sectarian conflict with Jewish society” (2002). El Haj also
appears to be critical of Israeli archaeologists who have overlooked evidence that conflicted with biblical
Israeli archaeologists for their adherence to scientific methodology rather than for not succumbing to a
political agenda, and she recommended that future Palestinian archaeologists follow suit in reconstructing
their history.

For extensive discussion on the demonization of Arabs in television and film, see Jack Shaheen (1984;
2001).
11
During the interviews, Cainker (2008) asked her informants to respond affirmatively (Yes) or negativ
(No) to whether they had experienced any discrimination since 9/11. Fifty-three percent said yes, and 47
said no. Respondents indicated that they experienced discrimination in the following soci
employment, 39%, public space, 22%, schools, 11% , law enforcement, 11%, comme
with these survey responses is that they do not inform the level or nature of discrimination experien

26
Chapter 2
_______________________________________________________________________

Review of the Literature
re
rcloth
he

relations between the sense of belonging and different
contex
educati
rather than upon the larger peer group--and their effect upon students’ affective

The Relationship Between Friendship and a Sense of Belonging
A handful of researchers has focused upon the social dynamics of friendship in its
examination of social integration in four-year and two-year colleges (e.g., Antonio,
2001a, 2001b; Antonio, 2004; Maxwell, 2000a; Thomas, 2000). The studies, dealing
specifically with the relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging, a
not only few, but also have targeted only middle and high school populations (Fai
& Hamm, 2005, Goodenow, 1993; Hamm & Faircloth, 2005). When researchers have
examined college students’ sense of belonging, they have directed more attention to t
effects of the students’ larger peer group than to their primary or proximal social ties
(e.g., Hurtado &Carter, 1997; Lee & Davis, 2000; Velasquez, 1999).
In this section, I first review different conceptualizations of belonging and
friendship, and then propose theoretical definitions for both. Second, I present the few
existing studies that support the relationship between sense of belonging and school
friendships (e.g., Faircloth & Hamm, 2005; Hamm & Faircloth, 2005; Hoyle &
Crawford, 1994). I also discuss the findings of related research in higher education,
which have revealed significant cor
ts of peer interaction on campus. This examination will show the need for higher
on studies, especially at the two-year level, to focus on campus friendships—

27
e
ent social
interaction (Sherif, Sherif, White, & Hood, 1954). Sherif et al. (1954) demonstrated that
12-year old boy scouts developed camaraderie with their previous rival group after the
researchers reassigned them to a no-conflict, cooperative setting. The concept of
belonging has undergone several definitions: from a sense of community, relatedness,
and connectedness, to one of affiliation, membership, and friendship (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow & Salamone, 2002; Hoyle & Crawford, 1994;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Orlando, 2000; Osterman, 2000;
Velasquez, 1999). Sense of belonging is not only an individual, intrapsychic state, as with
experiencing personal comfort, being accepted or valued, but also consists of feeling
socially anchored to one’s specific community, for example, school (Goodenow, 1993;
Hamm & Faircloth, 2005; Osterman, 2000). McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) definition
captures the communitarian experience of a sense of belonging as a person’s feeling of
embeddedness in the community:
A sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that

needs will be met through their commitment to be together. (p. 9)
outcomes. Third, I suggest a hypothesized relationship between campus friendships (i.e.,
number, quality, and frequency of interaction) and sense of belonging.

The Concept of Belonging
Bauermeister and Leary (1995) and Osterman (2000) maintain that belonging is
innate, because of the human need to bond. The Robber’s Cave Experiment is illustrativ
of the intrinsic quality of human bonding that emerges between persons in frequ
members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’

28
r of a

What is Friendship?
In the main, friendship research has belonged to the terrain of social psychology,
or what some sociologists have coined “sociological social psychology” (Crosnoe, 2000;
Stets & Burke, 2000). A cadre of social psychologists has argued the importance of
analyzing personalized interactions, that is., friendships, in order to explain inter-group
attitudes and behavior (e.g., Brewer & Miller, 1984; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Brown,
Vivian, & Hewstone, 1999; Sherif et al., 1954; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, &
Ropp, 1997). Epstein (1983) differentiates between peers and friends by the number of
interactors, voluntariness, frequency, and intensity of the association. Other defining
components of friendship are mutuality
3
and stability (e.g., Epstein, 1983; Hallinan,
1983). A social network approach to friendship determines mutuality or reciprocity by
mapping out if two or more persons nominate each other as friends (Hallinan, 1985;
Louch, 2000).
Network analysis also informs the closeness of the friendship (e.g., acquaintance
or friend vs. best friend). As Crosnoe (2000) has underlined, knowing the quality of the
In this study, I define the theoretical construct of a sense of belonging as feelings
of being valued, feelings of comfort, socially grounded in, a part of,
2
and a membe
campus community. I chose this definition, because it incorporates the dual conceptions
of the sense of belonging, a person’s subjective experiences, and the communitarian
dimension of belonging to a (campus) community. It is important to point out now that I
am applying this definition to a student’s sense of belonging to the college and not, for
example, to a sense of belonging to an ethnic, religious group or social group.

29
a person
e of
acy,
ar have observed the significance of
a
ve
initiated on campus. By defining friendships as “affective” relations, I am distinguishing
friendship or the structural ties in friendship networks is as important as whether
has friends (p. 380). Even though number of friends may indicate the degree of a
student’s social integration (Faircloth & Hamm, 2005), the debate over the influenc
friendship has shifted from number of friends to the “closeness” of the friendships
(Hartup, 1993; La Gaipa, 1979; Sarason, Sarason & Pierce, 1990). Numerous empirical
studies have identified a cluster of attributes with close friendships, such as intim
self-disclosure (i.e., sharing of personal and private thoughts and feelings with another
person), companionship, self-worth, validation, security, and trust (Berndt,1982;
Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Furman & Robbins, 1985; Sharabany, 1994; Way,
Gingold, Rotenberg, & Kuriakose, 2005). In many respects, the definition of friendship is
as much about what close relationships do for a person as it is about what they are. For
this reason, some sociologists have conceived of friendships as a resource of social
capital (Coleman, 1988), or as a provider of benefits, “provisions” (Weiss, 1974).
Similarity is another important element of friendships (e.g., Epstein , 1983;
Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998; Hamm, 2000). Friendship scholars (Hallinan & Smith,
1985; Hamm, 2000; Kao & Joyner, 2004) in particul
same ethnicity in the choice of school friendships. Because similar attributes serve to
bind friendships, there is this notion of friendship or friendship groups constituting
private culture (Crosnoe, 2000; Fine, 1980; Kinney, 1999).
Taking into consideration the multiple dimensions of friendship, my theoretical
definition of campus friendship is that they are “affective” relations that students ha

30
will define the students’ affective relations by the
frequency of their interaction and the degree of closeness. There is some question
whether frequency of interaction is as salient a characteristic of friendship as persons
advance in age, or have long-standing relationships (Adams, Bleiszner, & DeVries, 2000;
Weisz & Wood, 2005). However, especially given the commuter climate of the
community college, frequency of interaction or contact would be a prerequisite to form
initial, close interpersonal relationships, and therefore, would serve as a key component
in the assessment of campus friendships. Frequency of peer interaction and degrees of
closeness were found to be strongly associated in Smith and Moore’s study on intraracial
relations among African American students in a predominantly White university (Smith
& Moore, 2000). Specifically, the authors reported that Black students who felt “close or
very close” to other Black students were two times more likely to participate more
frequently with their Black peers in a number of campus activities than socially distant
Black students were. One dimension of Smith and Moore’s closeness measure was the
proportion of campus friends that were also Black.
Intimate or close relationships encompass a wide array of feelings: comfort about
talking about one’s self and one’s problems with another person or persons, trust,
acceptance, and support. Purposely, I did not incorporate reciprocity or stability into my
definition of campus friendships because the time constraints of the study do not permit
me to match up mutual friends, or to track the permanency of the friendships. The
the emotional investments usually associated with friendships from mere casual
acquaintances made on campus. I
4

31
in
The Role of Campus Friendships on Sense of Belonging
In administering the Perceived Cohesion Scale (PCS) to various groups of college
students throughout the United States, Hoyle and Crawford (1994) reported moderately
strong correlations between a sense of belonging and two peer interaction variables:
percentage of friends in the group and degree of involvement in-group activities. In a
larger scale study of seven urban high schools, Hamm and Faircloth (2005) employed the
number of school friends as one of four dimensions of sense of belonging. Similar to
Hoyle and Crawford’s results, Faircloth and Hamm’s found that the number of school
friends nominated was a significant indicator of sense of belonging for European
American and Latino(a) students, but not for the African American and Asian descent
groups. The implication of their finding was that school friendships might offer unique
benefits for some ethnic minorities, but might not generalize to ethnic group members
whose cultural preference was to generate social support from their neighborhood instead
of from school (e.g., Way & Chen, 2000).
In their qualitative study of ethnically diverse high school students, the same
authors observed that campus friendships served as a secure base and a buffer against the
negative effects of peer acceptance (Hamm & Faircloth, 2005). Friendship networks help
to connect the student with the larger peer group so that he or she feels a part of the
school community. Similar conclusions were advanced in studies of African American
students at four-year colleges (Loo & Rolison, 1986) and African American high school
similarity dimension of friendship will become more meaningful as a criterion variable
hypotheses two, three, and four.

32
at

unity (Berger, 1997; Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
igh
found
,

Orlando, 2000; Tinto, 1997). The latter two studies also administered questionnaire
students (Booker, 2007). Brewer, von Hippel, & Gooden (1999) found otherwise th
ethnic enclaves among African American and Latino college students reduced their sense
of institutional belonging.

Post Secondary Studies on Peer Interaction and the Sense of Belonging
To date, there have not been any higher education studies that have examined
directly the relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging.
5
Seven
relatively solid studies found similar and moderately strong associations between peer
relations and sense of belonging. Three were correlational questionnaire surveys at four-
year college sites with high levels of peer interaction, for example, residence halls, a
student organization, and a learning comm
McClusky-Titus & Oliver, 2001). The quantitative measures generally demonstrated h
reliability (most alphas ≥ .80), but their validity was not reported. The samples were
nonrandom but representative, ranging from N = 272 to 728. These studies each
moderately sized relationships between the variables of student peer relations and sense
of belonging to the community. In some of these studies, the separate measures might
have been measuring the same underlying dimension, rather than separate variables
which might have inflated the estimates of the strength of the relationships.
Four of these studies were qualitative investigations that examined learning
communities and campus centers with open-ended interviews or focus groups with
samples of 50 to 100 informants (Hoffman et al., 2002; Kember, Lee, & Li, 2001;

33
udies varied as to which
g
n
g
Hispanic clubs— on a student
of color’s sense of belonging insofar as providing a zone of racial comfort in a
redominantly White institution
6
(Davis, 1991; Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Guiffrida, 2003;
Lewis, 1987; Mitchell & Dell, 1992; Taylor & Howard-Hamilton, 1995). Sidanius, Van
Laar, Levin, and Sinclair (2004) confirmed the positive association, but noted that
membership in student ethnic organizations also fomented ethnic segregation and ethno-
centric bias. Hurtado and Carter (1997) revealed that over a three-year period different
types of student organizations had varying effects on Latina students’ sense of belonging
to the college. They found that membership in culturally related, community and
surveys and used longitudinal designs over the period of an academic year to track
changes in the sense of belonging to the college. Although the st
specific aspects of sense of belonging were measured, they each found relatively stron
associations between peer relations and the various measures of belonging. Tinto’s
research has notable relevance to this study’s student population because it focused o
community college students. He also employed the strongest research design by includin
a control group and multiple qualitative and quantitative measures. In general, the
studies that combined the use of longitudinal panels, comparison groups, multiple site
analysis, and broader measures of sense of belonging produced the stronger evidence for
the significance of peer relations on the sense of belonging (e.g., Berger, 1997; Hoffman
et al., 2000; Orlando, 2000; Tinto, 1997).
Other studies have focused upon the positive effect of participation in ethnic
student organizations— for example, Black Student Union,
p

34

nse
r and four-year colleges. Although Antonio’s work must be
s
conflicting evidence
there is
m

Can Community College Students Make Campus Friends?
Maxwell (2000c) has advanced the case that if researchers want to study social
interaction in community colleges, they need to look in different places than they do in
four-year colleges. In other words, the loci of their research should take place in
classrooms and study groups where there is a higher student participation rate than in
clubs, organizations, and extra-curricular activities. In support of this line of reasoning,
Maxwell (2000b) found that even though a little over half of the community college
students seldom participate in social activities, two-thirds still found it easy to make
friends on campus. From these results, one assumption is that if students are obliged to
religious organizations contributed more significantly to Latinas’ sense of belonging by
the third year of college than did ethnic student organizations.
7

As evidenced by the foregoing studies, there is a dearth of scholarship on the
effect of personalized student interactions, such as campus friendships, on students’ se
of belonging at two-yea
acknowledged for setting the trend on the importance of the study of friendship group
among four-year college students (Antonio, 2001a, 2001b, 2004), the equivalent in
community college scholarship lags behind.
8
One obvious reason is
about whether a meaningful student life exists on a commuter campus. That is, if
a sufficient level of social interaction that would provide students the opportunity to for
campus friendships (Astin, 1993; Bers & Smith, 1991; Dougherty, 1992; Napoli &
Wortman, 1996, 1998; Nora, 1987; Pascarella, Smart & Ethington, 1986; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1983; Skahill, 2002).

35
in the
ity

of
f
e extent of the student’s social integration on
campus (Faircloth & Hamm, 2005 ction might intensify the
to
perception of discrimination against one’s ethnic group or religious group propels
interact with other students in a classroom—a potential social setting—an opportunity
exists for them to create social bonds so that they might possibly find a place with
larger group at the college (see Hallinan & Smith, 1985 on the importance of opportun
structures on friendship selection). Therefore, it is from this premise that I submit the
following hypothesis:
First hypothesis: Arab and Muslim students’ campus friendships, as defined by
the number of, the frequency of interaction, and the degrees of closeness, will have a
positive relationship with their sense of belonging to the college.
In stating the first hypothesis, I have incorporated the three dimensions of
friendship outlined earlier in the friendship literature: number of friendships, degree
closeness of friendship, and frequency of interaction. I have included the number o
friendships, because it might inform th
). Frequency of intera
closeness of campus social relationships, which together might influence the degree
which the student experiences a sense of belonging.
The next section discusses the theoretical underpinnings of my second, third,
fourth, and fifth hypotheses within the context of the contact hypothesis and two
competitive conflict theories. I elaborate on the two conflict theories that challenge
certain assumptions of the contact hypothesis. I also provide the theoretical rationale for
why certain ethnic groups tend to cluster ethnically, or rather engage in ethnically
homophilous friendships. One explanation posited in the second hypothesis is that the

36
ing my
nflict theories, I furnish brief
ss

on. Within the literature, same/cross race
erg,
d that
persons towards in-group friendships (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). Follow
discussion of the contact hypothesis and the two co
ethnographic accounts of discrimination against Arab and Muslim college students in
order to demonstrate the explanatory usefulness of these two conflict theories. I then
present the available research literature that supports my hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Throughout this section, terms, such as in/out groups, cross-groups, same/cro
race, and same/cross ethnic will emerge. The reason for this wide breadth of terminology
is that some of the cited research examines differences between groups that are not
predicated on culture, race, ethnicity, and religi
and same/cross ethnic will be used interchangeably to refer to social relations with
persons of color, ethnic and ancestral origins similar or different from one’s own.
9

Contact Hypothesis
The Reduction of Prejudice and Discrimination Through Cross Ethnic Friendships
The educational benefits of diverse peer interaction fuel the argument of many
who continually press for campus diversity as an administrative priority (Astin, 1993;
Gurin, Gurin, Dey, & Hurtado, 2002; Hurtado, Dey, & Treviño, 1994; Hurtado, Engb
Ponjuan, & Landreman, 2002; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998;
Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1996). Antonio (2001a) observe
students who normally engaged in racially homogenized friendship groups benefited
significantly from inter-racial interaction. Antonio reasoned that it encouraged them to

37

t
,
iendships
(e.g., Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Antonio, 2001a, 2001b, 2004; Brown &

person or
group. Even though prejudice and discrimination suggest different directions of causality
leave their “culture comfort zone” of same-race friendships and participate in
interpersonal challenges (Antonio, 2001a, p. 612).
The value placed upon diverse peer interaction derives theoretical support from the
contact hypothesis. Popularized by Gordon Allport,
10
the contact hypothesis states that
contact between groups, for example, racial and ethnic groups, reduces prejudice. Allpor
expanded the theory by identifying four positive conditions of contact that must be
present before the reduction of prejudice can result: (a) equal status of the groups in the
situation, (b) common goals, (c) intergroup cooperation, and, (d) support of authorities
law, or customs (Allport, 1954, pp. 261-281).
The contact hypothesis has received wide acceptance among social scientists,
particularly those who conduct research on cross-group or cross-race fr
Hewstone, 2005; Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997, 1998; Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2000; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Sherif et al., 1954; Wright et al., 1997). Yet, while
the mainstay of the contact hypothesis is that cross-group/cross-ethnic friendships will
reduce prejudicial attitudes, the present discourse of ethnic clustering will look at the
relationship between a perceived discriminatory racial climate and the likelihood of
choosing a higher number of same group or same ethnic friendships. Allport clearly
distinguished between prejudice as an attitude and discrimination as a behavioral
response to a prejudicial attitude (1954). In other words, a person could harbor prejudicial
attitudes, but not necessarily exhibit discriminatory behavior toward another

38
ictor
s
ve,
n
n
ic
Alternative Theories to the Contact Hypothesis
ce
rated
4) maintain that ignorance of the out-group
e

or relationships, I have juxtaposed them for comparison because they focus their
argument upon related variables, cross and same group ethnic friendships.
The problem with the contact theory is that alternative theories entertain pred
variables, for example, emotive, social dominance, that might prevent or decrease the
likelihood of contact between ethnic and religious groups. These theoretical difference
pose challenges to Allport’s four conditions of the contact hypothesis. The competiti
conflict theories outlined below focus on interethnic or intergroup conflict, rather than o
equal status, which will provide a potent argument for my second hypothesis. That is,
under the current racially and politically charged climate facing Arabs and Muslims i
the United States, Arab and Muslim students might be predisposed to form same ethn
or same faith friendships than cross-ethnic or cross-faith friendships.
The integrated threat theory posits that cross-ethnic contact might not redu
discrimination if negative conditions, for example, anxiety or threat, constrain one ethnic
group from interacting with another (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Proponents of integ
threat theory, Stephan and Stephan (198
engenders anxiety in the in-group, which in turn increases the in-group’s prejudice
against the out-group. Emotive theorists, like Stephan and Stephan (2000) and Smith
(1993), view fear and anxiety as th underlying bases of in-group and out-group identity
formation. Smith argues that prejudicial attitudes and beliefs of the in-group alone do not
account for discriminatory behavior toward the out-group. Rather, negative

39
.
eory
f
n
ced by the struggle over those who are trying to acquire material resources
llege

in-group appraisals of the out-group ignite prejudicial emotions against them. Therefore,
for Smith (1993) prejudice signifies a negative social emotion targeted at the out-group
Social dominance theory
11
asserts that human social systems have a natural
inclination towards group-based hierarchies. Similar to realistic group conflict th
(Sheri , 1954), social dominance agrees that there is “realistic competition for scarce
material resources” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, p. 181). But, the theory goes one step
further by asserting that hegemony exists particularly to ensure the maintenance of the
social status and prestige connected with these material goods. The hegemonic positio
of one social group over another also assures social stability and safeguards against,
which Sidanius esoterically characterized as “an [anarchic state of [1980s] Lebanese
politics” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, p.181). Sidanius explains that, furthermore, lower
status individuals tend to acquiesce to their subordinate positioning— or “structural
asymmetry”— for two reasons (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, pp. 192-196). One, they
subscribe to the “legitimizing myth” (Sidanius & Pratto, 194), simply put: that the higher
status (dominant) group is deemed more worthy, because they wield more power—
economically, socially and politically.
The underlying thread connecting these two theories is the perceived realistic
threat indu
versus those trying to retain them.
12
Examples of realistic threat are conflicts associated
with land, power, and jobs. Within the educational context, a prospective, White co
student might consider affirmative action as a realistic threat, because he or she perceives
the policy as lessening their chances of entry into a highly selective university. In their

40
al
cans

ps,
r

ial
n
orporate media as its
e
student’s
pre-9/11 study of discrimination against Arab students on the campus of the University of
Maryland, Miville’s and Sedlacek reported that students responded negatively toward
Arab students receiving financial aid (1992). Again, prejudice and subsequently
discrimination are linked to the perceived threat over scarce material resources.
Stephan also refers to “symbolic threat” that is a perceived threat to the world
view of the in-group (dominant), such as group differences in morals, values, norms,
standards, beliefs, and attitudes (Stephan, Ybarra, Martnez, Scwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa,
1998). As an ethnic and religious minority, Arab and Muslim Americans seem to be
viewed as a symbolic threat more than a realistic threat. Bushman and Bonacci’s soci
psychology experiment (2004) on post-9/11 discrimination against Arab Ameri
sharply illustrates that the prejudice against this target population is associated with the
threat of cultural differentialism. The researchers found that college students, particularly
European Americans, who pretested at a high, level of prejudice against minority grou
were less likely to forward an email addressed to an Arab student, which indicated he o
she won a scholarship than if they were rejected. The college students’ prejudice scores
were based on responses to survey questions, which corresponded to threats of cultural
difference and criminality rather than to competition with racial minorities over financ
rewards.
The fear component of Stephan’s integrated threat theory is particularly useful i
explaining how the government’s “War on Terror,” and the c
representational apparatus, has reproduced itself in the dominant discourses that pervad
some classrooms and campuses after 9/11. Cainkar (2008) recounts one college

41
ount,

.,
ral

nd Arab
W
group (d
narrative in which the instructor commented that “ their “religion (Islam) allows” them to
become terrorists. This is part of what they believe is jihad” (p. 72). In another acc
a Palestinian community college student, who was the only Arab in his class, implied
that he was made to feel accountable for 9/11 when, after the course instructor showed
pictures of Osama bin Laden on TV, he pointed to him and said to the class, “Ask him if
you have any questions” (Cainkar, p. 72). There also is this linkage of Islam with the
perverse and the aberrant. For example, at a Muslim Student Association meeting on a
Southern California community college campus, a member related to me that during
student club rush week a White student approached their booth, and shouted, “Your
prophet is a molester” (Muslim Student Association meeting, October 2006).
Naber (2008b) deconstructs her informants’ narratives by identifying components
of their post-9/11 experiences with one or more of the following signifiers, for example,
Arabic sounding names, dress (e.g., scarf and beard), dark skin, nation of origin (e.g
Middle Eastern and South Asian). She explains that underlying this string of cultu
signifiers is a stereotypic logic that associates an Arab or Muslim person as potentially
being a national security threat. For example, Naber alludes to Arab Christians a
Muslims alike who anglicize their Arabic names or surnames in order to disassociate
themselves from the cultural stereotypes of a terrorist. According to Naber, the culture of
fear evoked by 9/11 manufactured a host of baseless assumptions and misconceptions
surrounding Arabs and Muslim Americans (Naber, 2008b).
ithin integrated threat theory, the fear of threat generally resides within the in-
ominant group) not the out-group (subordinate group). Whereas, social

42
dominan
the subo
theorists
unfair le
In its lite rabs
and Mus ollowing 9/11, were subjected to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, wiretappings, seizures of property, FBI home and
work visits, detentions, deportations, and interrogations (Murray, 2004). The concept,
however, could easily be expanded to include the experiences of an even greater number
of Arabs and Muslims in the United States that resemble what Naber calls the “internment
of the psyche” (Naber, 2006, p. 240). The “internment of the psyche” signifies a state of
consciousness in which one feels imminent danger of harassment, intimidation, assault,
detention, surveillance, or disappearance; even if the event does not happen. Naber
illustrates several examples of “internment of the psyche” that her informants have
experienced in institutional settings, for example, school, workplace, as well in public
spaces, for example, restaurants, buses, neighborhoods, or streets. The feeling of
psychological incarceration is best exemplified in the following account of university
women who feel conflicted about wearing the headscarf on campus—do they exercise the
freedom of observing their religion or refrain from doing so because of the stereotypic
reactions from non-Muslims? As Manal, a university student explained:
We felt supported, but at the same time, there was a concern for our safety. I had
ally
being mindful of my surroundings. I remember the Muslim Student Association
at no one was walking alone to
ce theorists tend to refer to threat as being what the dominant group inflicts upon
rdinate group—as in “institutional terror.” According to social dominance
, the conventional meaning of institutional terror is wrongful incarceration and
gal sentencing of ethnic minorities, etc. (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, pp.194-195).
ral sense, institutional terror readily describes the cases of at least 100,000 A
lims in the U.S. who, f
never carried pepper spray. I started carrying pepper spray after 9/11 and re
meetings—afterward everyone would make sure th

43
h
ove their scarves. ‘As Amal, another
university student, put it ‘I knew I had to prepare for at least some kind of
specifically told me ‘Don’t go outside for a month or two. Wait till things die
le
because of ignorance.’ In this sense, considerations of whether and to what extent
‘interment of the psyche,’ or the awareness that one must become habitually
2008b, pp. 293-294)
ypothesis.
nant
r” and
on, in
n--
ht
llege
their cars. Several Muslim American community leaders recalled cases in whic
women debated whether they should rem
backlash because I was visually identifiable. My mother, who doesn’t cover,
down.’ I was like, ‘I shouldn’t hide, I shouldn’t be scared or restrain my lifesty
one should wear or remove a headscarf or go out in public generated an
concerned about hegemonic misinterpretations and mistranslations. (Naber,
13

In view of the narratives presented above, integrated threat theory and social
dominance theory emerge as more relevant theoretical lenses than the contact h
These theories, when applied to campus inter-group processes, emphasize potential
conflict and tension between ethnic groups that are institutionally rooted in the domi
structures of society –in this particular case, the U.S. government’s “War on Terro
the media’s racialization and demonization of Arabs and Muslims pre- and post-9/11.
Since the major focus of these theories is on structural discrimination and alienati
contrast to the central tenets of the contact hypothesis--equal status and cooperatio
they provide the rationale for why students who perceive discrimination on campus mig
retreat into ethnic and religious enclaves on campus.
In the next two sections, I review the rather small corpus of four-year co
studies that has discussed the relationship between perceived discrimination and same
ethnic campus friendships. Within the same literature, some investigators have looked
further into the inter-relationships among perceived discrimination, students’ strong
ethnic identity, and same ethnic campus friendships. In both these sections, I also
introduce my second, third, fourth, and fifth hypotheses.

44
Friendships?
Very few higher education studies have scrutinized the relationship between
perceived discrimination and same ethnic campus friendships. With the exception of
& Sidanius, 2003), most of these studies have discussed only the effects of perceived
discrimination on same ethnic peer interaction without identifying the variable
specifically as “same ethnic or in-group campus friends.” For this reason, I am limited to
the number of studies that will directly support this hypothesized relationship.
clustering” (in-group peer interaction) among African American college students in
providing them cultural support and a sense of belonging in an otherwise largely
unsupportive campus environment.
14
Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Hagedorn
(1999) also observed that African American students’ support from same ethnic
significant others seemed to offset the negative effects of discrimination on their
adjustment to the college. Relevant to the target population under study, Asmar (2003)
revealed that Muslim “communities on campus”
15
helped to shield Muslim students from
a discriminatory campus (and an even less benign off-campus environment).
16

Levin et al. have employed a sound research design in examining the relationship
between perceived discrimination and same ethnic campus friendships (i.e., Levin, Van
Laar, & Foote, 2006; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003). First, each of the two studies
looked at a different causal direction of the relationship between the level of perceived
discrimination and the number of same ethnic college friendships –that is, in the first
Is There a Relationship Between Perceived Discrimination and Same Ethnic Campus

Levin and Van Laar’s work (e.g., Levin, Van Laar, & Foote, 2006; Levin, Van Laar,
The early study of Loo and Rolison (1986) signaled the importance of “ethnic

45
nd in the
en

of college
discrimination were more likely to have a higher number of same
7

study, the number of same ethnic college friends was the dependent variable, a
second study, the independent variable. Second, they assessed the relationship betwe
perceived discrimination and the number of same ethnic college friends across four ethnic
groups, African American, Latino, Asian, and White, over a three-year period.
In both studies, perceived discrimination was measured by students’ responses to two
questions, “I experience discrimination at the university, because of my ethnicity” and
“other members of my ethnic group experience discrimination on campus.” College
friendships were measured similarly in both studies, “at [this university], how many of
your closest friends are Asian, African American, Latino, and Caucasian?”
The first study found that across all ethnic groups there was a small but significant
relationship between the level of perceived discrimination after the first year
and the number of same ethnic college friends during the second and third years of
college; even after controlling for diversity of precollege friends, gender, religion,
ancestral birthplaces, languages spoken at home, and SES. African American students
who perceived more
ethnic friends after the two to three year period than were the other three ethnic groups.
1
Conversely, the perception of discrimination on campus was not significantly related to
the number of cross ethnic campus friends across any of the four ethnic groups.
In their second study, Levin et al. (2006) also found strong support for the reverse
causal relationship, the higher number of same ethnic campus friends after the first year
of college predicted a higher level of perceived discrimination during the second and
third years of college. Similarly, African Americans who indicated a higher number of

46
Asian college students, strong ethnic identification
,
).
ngth
ial
identity among African American college
r
c
ntity
ampus
identity. On the other hand, Hamm, Brown, and
hnic

same ethnic college friends exhibited a significantly higher level of perceived
discrimination during the sophomore and junior years than did Latinos, Asians, and
Whites.
18
Additionally, for Latino and
was a significant mediator between the number of same ethnic college friends and
increased levels of perceived discrimination after the second and third year. This latter
finding is consistent with the literature on the relationship between strong ethnic group
identification and the attribution of higher levels of perceived discrimination (i.e.,
Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997; Ethier and Deaux
1994; Klandermans, 1997; Oyserman & Harrison, 1998; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998
O’Dougherty-Wright (2002), however, indicated a different causal path between stre
of ethnic identity and the perceived racial campus climate. She noted that a
discriminatory racial climate, as measured by negative inter-racial experiences and rac
bias, was a robust predictor of a strong ethnic
students, which in turn motivated them to seek social support from students within thei
own ethnic group.
Pellabon (2000) observed an inverse relationship between the strength of ethni
identity and intergroup contact—that is, as interethnic contact increases, ethnic ide
decreases. Pellabon added that increased inter-racial interaction and a favorable c
climate diminished the strength of ethnic
Heck (2005) maintained that strong in-group preferences were related more strongly to
having fewer cross ethnic friends than to a high ethnic identity, or perceptions of et
discrimination. Notably, Hamm et al. utilized a weak, one-dimensional measure of ethnic

47

raction (Lee & Davis, 2000; O’Dougherty-
new base of
in an
s
the evidence presented, I propose the following two

is a
identity, for example, two questions with a reportedly low inter-item correlation, which
may explain why they did not find a positive or negative relationship between ethnic
identity and cross ethnic friendships.
In general, most higher education studies associate positive inter-racial campus
experiences with openness to inter-racial inte
Wright, 2002; Steward, Jackson, & Jackson, 1990). However, there is a small strand of
educational research that defends same ethnic friendships as a manifestation of self-
preservation rather than self-segregation (Aleman, 1998; Levin et al., 2003; Loo &
Rolison, 1986; Postmes & Branscombe, 2002; Shaw & Coleman, 2000; Tatum, 1999;
Villalpando, 2003). Ethier and Deaux (1990) dubbed this self-preservation strategy
“remooring,”
19
because students regain their ethnic identity by establishing a
social support (e.g., involvement in ethnic organizations and same ethnic peers)
otherwise threatening campus environment.
In a review of the foregoing studies, most of the findings show support for the
relationship between perceived discrimination and the likelihood of same ethnic campu
friendships. A few studies have addressed the inter-relationships among ethnic group
identification, perceived discrimination, and propensities for forming same ethnic
friendships. Thus, based on
hypotheses:
Second hypothesis: Among Arab and Muslim students, there is a positive
relationship between the level of perceived discrimination on campus and the
percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friends. Conversely, there

48
us, and
ip
de same faith friends as an
s
ng
ion on
negative relationship between the level of perceived discrimination on camp
the percentage of different faith and different ethnicity campus friends.
Third Hypothesis: Among Arab and Muslim students, there is a positive relationsh
between the strength of ethnic identity and the percentage of same ethnic and/or
same faith campus friends.
In both statements of the second and third hypotheses, I inclu
option to same ethnic friends. Since 9/11, there has been resurgence among Muslim
Americans, particularly second generation, of asserting their religious identity over their
individual ethnicities (Peek, 2005). Similarly, Rippy, and Newman (2006) attributed the
higher rate of perceived discrimination among second-generation Muslim Americans, in
comparison to immigrant and convert Muslims, to a renewed sense of group
identification with Islam since 9/11. Based upon personal knowledge as a third-
generation Arab American, and upon the few studies that have observed in-group
preferences among Arab and Muslim college students (e.g., Asmar, 2004; Eid, 2003; Eid,
2007; Peek, 2005), I note that the same religious faith is as salient, or even more so, a
having the same ethnicity in choosing campus friends. I will elaborate on this perplexi
relationship between ethnic identity and religious identity in the subsequent sect
Ethnic Identity Theories.
I also am aware of the inherent causal directionality of both hypotheses. That is,
does the level of perceived discrimination or strength of ethnic identity increase the
number of same ethnic and/or same faith friends? Or, does the socialization process of
having same ethnic or same faith friends enhance the strength of ethnic identity, or

49
al. found similar
esizing that there is an interaction between the strength of ethnic

tudies
el
3,
there
on
er
nship
e.g.,
heighten the perceptions of discrimination on campus? To test adequately the
directionality of both hypotheses requires a longitudinal design as implemented by Levin
et al. (2003, 2006). Such a pursuit in methodological rigor does not fit within the time
constraints of this dissertation project. As indicated earlier, Levin et
results for both directions of the relationship between the level of perceived
discrimination and number of same ethnic campus friends.
I also am hypoth
identity and the level of perceived discrimination on the sense of belonging to college and
the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friendships. None of the s
cited per se has investigated the interaction of the strength of ethnic identity and the lev
of perceived discrimination on either of these two dependent variables. Levin et al. (200
2006), examined three of the same variables as this study, but undertook two different
sets of interactions. The researchers observed that among specific ethnic groups,
were small to moderate sized interactions between ethnicity and perceived discriminati
on the number of in-group campus friends, and ethnicity and in-group friends on the
sense of belonging. The theoretical justification for pursuing these two hypotheses of
interactions is as follows. First, various researchers have observed moderate to
moderately strong associations between ethnic identification and perceived
discrimination (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 1997; Ethi
& Deaux, 1994; Klandermans, 1997; Levin et al., 2006; Oyserman & Harrison, 1998;
Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). Second, there is considerable support for the relatio
between hostile campus climates and the reduced sense of institutional belonging (

50
relationships among ethnic identity,
erceived discrimination, number of in-group friends, and sense of belonging, it seems
n.
d an
campus
four.
ction. Eid
Asmar, 2003; Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Loo & Rolison, 1986).
Therefore, based on the evidence supporting the inter-
p
reasonable to propose the following two hypotheses of interactio
Fourth hypothesis: There is an interaction between the strength of ethnic identity and
the level of perceived discrimination on the percentage of same ethnic and/or same
faith campus friends.
Fifth hypothesis: There is an interaction between the strength of ethnic identity and
the level of perceived discrimination on the sense of belonging to the college.
Perceived discrimination is the independent variable in hypothesis two, an
interaction variable in hypotheses four and five. Same ethnic and/or same faith
friendships represent a cluster of dependent variables in hypotheses two, three, and
Students’ ethnic identity is the independent variable in hypothesis three, and an
interaction variable in hypotheses four and five. In the following three sections of this
chapter, I offer theoretical definitions of perceived discrimination, same ethnic and/or
same faith friendship cluster variables, and ethnic identity. However, one problem with
traditional theoretical definitions of ethnic identity is that they do not apply to what Eid
(2008) has characterized as Arab and Muslims’ ethno-religious identity constru
elaborates on the complex and fluid relationship between ethnic identity and religious
identity, explaining that Arabs and Muslims (immigrants and second generation alike)
often do not distinguish between the two identities. Therefore, I will review briefly
theories of ethnic identity in the psychological, sociological, and anthropological

51
nic
fer to when a student detects
initions in the four-year college literature, one can broadly
charact
institut
experie
admini
ethnici ienation from faculty, other
students, or administrative staff, frequency of racist events, failure to encourage open
racial, ethnic, and religious discussion (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Chang,
1999; Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado et al., 1998; Miller, Anderson, Cannon, Perez, & Moore,
1998; Rankin, 2005; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). In this study, my own theoretical
definition of perceived discrimination is students’ feelings of exclusion on the
community college campus that are generated by overt and covert prejudicial remarks
and actions by other students, faculty, and administration. The present practices of the
community college institution and administrative policies are included in “overt and
covert prejudicial actions.” Given that the target population is Arabs and Muslims, these
literature, and then arrive at a theoretical framework that might best embrace the eth
identity complexity of Arab and Muslim Americans.

Theoretical Definition of Perceived Discrimination on Campus
In a campus setting, perceived discrimination may re
cues in the campus climate that appear threatening or hostile against his or her ethnicity,
religious faith, gender, and sexual orientation, and so forth. Culling from various
theoretical and operational def
erized a discriminatory campus climate as: collegiate history of exclusionary
ional practices, a curriculum that ignores the historical and contemporary
nces of minority students, exclusion of minority students, faculty, and
strators, racially motivated hate crimes, verbal harassment relating to one’s
ty, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, feelings of al

52
,

d,
rm of
s is a
legitimate form of racism. Meaning you don’t have to hide it. Most forms of
racism you have to pretend that you are not a racist. Pretend that I am not Anti-
Anti-Arab
before September 11
th
. And the
community you see it in film. It is in books and attitudes. It is not even hidden. No
re and
every Arab and Muslim in the country knows it. (Chomsky, interview in Brothers

Arab and Muslim Americans are also exposed to racial “micro-aggressions.” (Solórzano,
Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Micro-aggressions are broadly defined as subtle insults or slights,
intentional or unintentional, which in this study predominantly target people’s ethnicity
and religion (Solórzano et al., 2000, p. 60; Sue et al., 2007, p.271). One example of a
micro-aggression was recounted to me by a Lebanese Sh’ia Muslim student at a
Michigan community college. During rehearsal of a school play, a group of Muslim
students took thirty minutes to break their fast. Upon their return, fellow, non-Muslim
cast members uttered disrespectful remarks about the break and threatened to exclude
them from participation in the play. Sue et al. have enumerated different types of racial
“overt and covert prejudicial remarks and actions” generally are directed against a
student’s race, ethnicity, and religion. This is not to say, that Arab and Muslim students
could perceive other sources of discrimination on campus, such as against their gender
sexual orientation, or disability, and so forth. The level of perceived discrimination refers
to the intensity of the exclusion felt by the targeted student.
In contrast to other ethnic minority groups, as Noam Chomsky once commente
the open expression of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias is treated as a “legitimate fo
racism” in the United States.
Anti-Semitism is no longer a legitimate form of racism, Anti-Arab bia
Semitic, I am not Anti-Black. You may be, but you don’t advertise it.
racism you are allowed to advertise. This was way
one will come out and say that I am an Anti-Arab racist, but it is everywhe
and Others, On Power, Dissent, and Racism, 2002 )

53
iors

his particular student’s case, the “micro-aggression” served to not only
ion, but in a personal sense, his religious identity.
Theoretical Definitions of Same Ethnic and/or Same Faith Campus Friends
r
icity
ds” is
campus

re
rab
dships from
one’s own ancestral country or same language speaking region (in the predominantly
micro-aggressions, one of which is micro-invalidations —“verbal comments or behav
that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality
of a person” (Sue et al., p. 6). In the previous account, the non-Muslim students were
culturally insensitive to the diet protocol of Ramadan fasting, which was outside of their
experiential reality, and thus, interpreted the Muslim students’ breaking of the fast as an
unnecessary interruption to the rehearsal of the play. According to what this Muslim
student disclosed to me, he considered the cast members’ behavior as being racist.
Because, in t
invalidate Islam as a relig

Different Faith and Different Ethnicity Campus Friends
In hypotheses two, three, and four, for the sake of brevity, the dependent
variables are stated in an abbreviated fashion as the “percentage of same ethnic and/o
same faith campus friends,” and the “percentage of different faith and different ethn
campus friends.” The “percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus frien
comprised of four cluster variables: the percentage of same ethnic and same faith
friends, the percentage of same ethnic and different faith campus friends, the percentage
of same religion and different faith campus friends, and the percentage of different faith
and different ethnicity campus friends. These ethnic/faith friendship group variables we
constructed to accommodate all the types of friendships that might occur among the A
and Muslim students. Same ethnic or ethnicity will refers to campus frien

54
ng
s
rvey.
from each other to define the broad, multi-dimensional construct of
thnic identity. In contrast to anthropological theory, early psychological and sociological
on similar
Theory
nd
Arabic speaking Middle East). Similarly, same faith signifies campus friends within
one’s own religion. Thus denominations or sects within the larger religion, for example,
Christianity or Islam, are considered the same religion. Different ethnicity signifies
campus friendships outside of one’s ancestral country or outside of one’s same language
speaking region. Different faith means campus friendships outside of one’s over-archi
religion (e.g., Christianity, Islam). In order to avoid any confusion surrounding the term
“ethnicity” or “faith,” the words, ancestry and religion are mostly used on the su

Ethnic Identity Theories
Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have developed or followed
different theories
e
theories focused on different types or stages of racial identity rather than
attributes belonging to a specific ethnic group. These specific types or stages were
predicated upon how individuals perceived their racial or ethnic identity, which
purportedly was reflected in their attitudes, values, and behavior (Helms, 1990).
Formulated after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Cross’s Nigrescence
identifies different progressive levels of Black identity: identification with the dominant
White culture and denial of Black cultural membership; a period of understanding a
exploration of Black racial identity; and a level of internalization and commitment to
Black racial identity (Helms, 1990; Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver, 2001).

55
ic

s argued that the components of Phinney’s ethnic identity
rab

bedded
he
previous
ries of origin, many Arab
Phinney’s Multi-group Ethnic Identity measure (MEIM) is patterned after her
ethnic identity theory, which incorporates one’s perceptions of attachment and belonging
to one’s ethnic group, positive and negative attitudes towards one’s ethnicity, and ethn
involvement or social participation and cultural practices. Phinney (1992) has maintained
that these three dimensions of her ethnic identity theory apply to most ethnic groups.
McNeill (2001), however, ha
theory might not be a generic fit in terms of how certain ethnic groups perceive
themselves. Although in this study I use Phinney’s scale to measure the strength of A
and Muslim’s ethnic identity, her theory does not fully accommodate the religious
component of ethnic identity, which Eid (2003) has observed is a salient characteristic of
Arab identity.
20

Finding an Ethnic Identity Theory that Works with Arabs and Muslims
For those born in the Middle East, religious affiliation is so profoundly em
in national identity that the difference between ethnic identity and religious identity
often becomes blurred. One clear example is an Arab Christian who may come from t
same ancestral country or Arabic-speaking region as an Arab Muslim, but who
nonetheless considers himself or herself ethnically different. Predicated upon a
legacy of religious and political dominance in their count
Christians have resisted association with an Arab identity, even in their host country
(Ahdab-Yehia, 1983; Kingsbury & Pounds, 1964; Maila, 2004; Sengstock, 1982). For
these religious minorities, an Arab identity is equated with being Muslim (El-Hamamsy,

56
s,
90% favored the more traditional classifications of “Chaldean,”

s between
that
.1)
survey results showed a moderately strong relationship between the ethnic identity scale
1977; Rabbath, 1977, see discussions on Iraqi Chaldeans, in Arab American Institute
Census Information, 2002; Baker et al., 2004; Lebanese Maronite Christians in Sidaniu
Levin, Henry, & Pratto, 2003). One exception might be some Orthodox Christians in
Lebanon and Syria, who historically have tended to embrace a pan-Arab identity, owing
in part to their past and present political loyalties with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party
(Maila, 2004; Naff, 1985).
In her ethnographic study of Chaldean-American ethnic identity, Sengstock
reported that only 10% of her sample preferred to be identified as “Arab American,”
while the remaining
“Iraqi Chaldean,” or “Iraqi Christian” (Sengstock, 1982). However, Sengstock observed
that during the era of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the percentage of Chaldeans who
identified as Arab more than doubled among those arriving to the United State
1967 and 1974, as compared to immigrants of preceding periods. Even though
Sengstock’s observations were based on a relatively small sample (N = 100), she
uncovered changing trends in a group’s perceived ethnic identity, which in one particular
case with a segment of the Chaldean community, might have been influenced by the
geopolitical situation in the Middle East. On the other hand, Baker et al. (2004) noted
post-9/11 many “Arab” Christians and Iraqi Chaldeans were inclined towards
disassociating with the Arab or Arab American identity.
Eid (2003) observes that religion serves as an “ethnic like” identity marker (p
among second-generation Arab Canadian Christian and Muslim college students. His

57
s
vely, sacrilization of ethnic identity
22
as
n of
y

ty
y
,
s
and specific measures of religious identity (b = .392, p < .01).
21
Gans (1994) termed thi
ethnicization of religious identity or, alternati
“symbolic religiosity” (pp. 577-591). In North America and Europe, the ethnicizatio
Muslim identity has not only emerged within the communities themselves as a means of
claiming space within Non Muslim territory, but also as an exclusionary process engaged
in by policy makers and the media (Metcalf, 1996; Shadid, 2006; Van Zanten, 1997).
Conversely, in the United States the conflation of Arab with Muslim has led erroneousl
to the Islamicizing of all Arab or Arab Americans--that is, that all Arabs are Muslims
(Suleiman, 2004).
As will become apparent in the characteristics of the Arab and Muslim student
sample presented in Chapter 3, people may articulate the meaning of their ethnicity
differently, often in relationship to other cultural categories, such as religion.
Conventional anthropological theories focusing on the objective definitions of ethnicity
(e.g., classifying a group of people solely on shared observable cultural traits, nationali
and language ) do not embody the current notion of ethnicity as being negotiated, sociall
constructed, and involving human agency and invention (e.g., Das Gupta,1997; Isajiw
1974; Levitt, 2001; Nagel, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1994). In contrast to the Geertzian
conceptualization of ethnicity as “primordial attachments”
23
(Geertz, 1973, pp. 259-260),
Barth (1969) argues that the ethnic boundary defined the group, not the ancestral
“cultural stuff” that it circumscribes (pp. 14-15). Barth’s main thesis was that ethnic
boundaries may shift as a group members retain, discard, and recreate cultural element

58
Arab American identity
after
s
.

ios that explain how students forge campus
than
lim both

ious

ity in
in response to changes in their immediate environment (i.e., ecological, economic, and
political) and to interethnic group contact.
24
Ajrouch’s study of second-generation Lebanese and Palestinian adolescents
(2004) illustrates the use of “symbolic boundaries” to recreate an
that is distinguishable from students who are “boaters” (recent Arab immigrants) and
from “White Americans.” Peek’s examination of Muslim university students (2005)
9/11 reveals how the political crisis precipitated the transition from ascribing Islam a
part of their personal identity to publicly affirming a Muslim (religious) identity that
asserted primacy over their individual ethnic identities (e.g., Pakistani and Syrian)
Contextual boundary making may explain how ethnic identity processes work in
the case of Arab and Muslim students negotiating their choice of campus friendships (see
Lamont on boundary theory, Lamont & Molnár, 2002; Lamont, Morning, & Mooney,
2002). In the following, I offer possible scenar
friendships by maximizing the sameness of their ethnicity or their religion rather
their differences.
25
For instance, if a Lebanese Christian befriends an Iraqi Mus
might de-emphasize the religious boundary between them and maximize their ethnic
similarity, for example, speaking the same language, Arabic, and sharing a common
cultural community means they might downplay or even edit out their different relig
faith (see Brewer & Miller, 1984, on de-categorization theory). Conversely, if an Arab
Muslim chooses a friend who is the same religion, for example, Pakistani Muslim, he or
she might view their ethnic difference as secondary, and subordinate the difference in
ethnicity to having the same faith. In this example religion operates as a quasi ethnic

59
tians,
g of
n

ious affiliation (or none) and the ethnicity or religion of the
erson with whom one comes into contact during a social interaction. In terms of
providing a theoretical definition for ethnic identity, I apply Phinney’s theoretical criteria.
I define ethnic identity as the (the intensity of) one’s attachment and belonging to one’s
ethnic group, attitudes towards one’s ethnicity, and involvement in ethnic organizations
and social participation in cultural practices.
In terms of providing a theoretical definition of ethnic identity that can
accommodate the complex ethnic identity of Arab and Muslim students, I will
incorporate religious identity components into the definition. Two of the religious
identity components will correspond with Phinney’s ethnic identity criteria, belonging
and behavior and practices. The two other religious components, belief in the strict
interpretation of the Holy Book and degree of religiosity, will also be included in the
definition of ethnic identity. For this target population, Read (2004) found moderately
strong correlations between one of her measures of ethnic identity, for example cooking
Arabic food, and these two religious identity variables. Thus, the strength of ethnic
the establishment of a campus friendship. A third example might be two Arab Chris
who negotiate their friendship on having the same ethnicity—Arab—as well as bein
the same religious faith. These two friends might assess their sameness as being based o
a single identity—an ethno-religious identity, “Arab Christian.”
Taking into consideration the foregoing discussion on ethnicity, I will adhere to an
objective definition of ethnicity as one’s ancestral country, geographical region and
language. But, I add the provision that the perception of one’s ethnicity is subject to
change vis à vis one’s relig
p

60
iosity (how

ta
ue
s will
Literature Review Summary
As can be gleaned from the literature, community college scholarship has not
focused on micro-level analyses of students’ social interactions on campus. There has not
been any published community college studies that have investigated the relationships
among campus friendships, institutional sense of belonging, and perceived
discrimination. At the four-year college level, Levin et al.’s longitudinal research is
prominent in terms of examining the dual effects of perceived discrimination on both the
number of in-group campus friendships and institutional sense of belonging (Levin et al.,
2003; Levin et al., 2006). Yet, apart from a few narrative studies that have dealt with
Muslim students’ post-9/11 campus experiences, there has not been any empirical study
concerning the relationship between perceived discrimination and Arab and Muslim
college students’ diverse peer interactions.
This study challenges the extant community college literature in the following
ways. First, it explores the degree of diversity of campus friendships among community
identity will be defined broadly by the degree of: intensity of one’s attachment and
belonging to one’s ethnic and religious group; involvement in ethnic and religious
organizations; participation in cultural activities of one’s ethnic group; relig
religious); and strictness in interpretation of one’s Holy Book. There is, however, a
caveat that attaches to this theoretical definition of ethnic identity. A factor analysis da
might indicate that these two constructs, ethnic identity and religious identity, are uniq
constructs. If these two constructs are found to be unique, the religious identity item
be not used in this study.

61
ich reopens the debate over the significance of social integration in
community colleges. Second, by introducing Arab and Muslim students as the target
population —an ethno-religious group that is highly vulnerable to campus
discrimination—it will provide an even greater test of the relevance of the contact
hypothesis or conflict theories in explaining the current climate of ethnic relations on
community college campuses. Third, in comparison to other ethnic relation studies in
higher education, this project is not solely looking at the influence of ethnicity on
students’ social relationships on campus, but it rather also takes into consideration the
confluence of students’ ethnicity and religion. Fourth, in the previous studies cited, the
researchers treated the campus experiences of Arab and Muslim college students as a
static unit of analysis. Alternatively, in this study, I have attempted to go beyond the
students’ reported perceptions of the campus climate to examine various dimensions of
their interaction with campus friends across a wide arena of campus activities.

college students, wh

62
Chapter 2 Endnotes

1
Arab American Institute reported a +/-4.5 margin or error, which is within the acceptable limits based on
their sample of 501. However, a larger sample might have produced a smaller margin of error and hence
more reliable results.

2
In this definition, I include the word “part” because certain investigators have remarked that minority
students might experience a sense of belonging in terms of their own subcultures rather than in the context
of the larger campus community (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Loo & Rolison, 1986). Yet, in a U.S.
Department of Education report (Hill, 2000), a student interviewee expressed that “minorities do not want
to ‘be a part of’ of the institutional community, but that they want to ‘be’ the community” (p. 18). For this
student, “the part of” divested a person from a sense of ownership.

3
This is not to suggest that all friendships are mutual (Cohen, 1983; Epstein, 1983). Cohen has outlined
four types of friendships: (a) mutual relationships versus one-sided relationships, (b) group versus dyadic
relationships, (c) strongly bonded versus weakly bonded relationships, and (d) stable versus short-term
relationships (p. 173). However, both Cohen (1983) and Epstein (1983) point to evidence that suggests that
mutuality increases the closeness of and influence from the friendship relationship.

4
In Smith and Moore’s study (2000), racial awareness and SES were positively related to the degrees of
closeness reported by Black students.

5
Levin, Van Laar, and Foote (2006) focused specifically on the relationship between the number of same
ethnic campus friends and sense of institutional belonging.

6
Guiffrida (2003) has observed that participation in Black student organizations initially may be less
beneficial in terms of providing racial comfort for African American students who come from
predominantly White home communities.

7
Hurtado and Carter (1997) did find that among Latina students who reported racial tension on campus,
those who belonged to ethnic student organizations did display a relatively higher level of sense of
belonging than their non-member counterparts did.

8
There has been minimal investigation into community college friendship groups in the published reports
from college institutional research offices, government administrative centers, and education associations
(e.g., Arnold, 1995; Mattice, 1994; Washington State Board, 1997; Willett, 2002).

9
The demise of the term “race’ among some academic circles--, as with American Anthropological
Association removed the term, race, as stated in their bylaws of the association’s journal, American
Anthropologist-- has muddled further the definition of ethnicity.

10
Prior to Allport, shortly after World War II, social scientists, for example, Watson and Williams, began
to theorize about inter group contact (Pettigrew, 1998; Brown & Hewstone, 2005). According to Pettigrew,
Allport’s contact hypothesis gained prominence because he expanded the theory by identifying the
situational conditions for inter-group contact.

11
The Social Identity Theory also has influenced Social Dominance theory. Like the contact theory, the
Social Dominance model acknowledges social comparison as one phenomena of inter-group behavior. That
is, as part of a group identity, individuals do compare their group (in-group) with other groups (out-group).
Yet, with Social Dominance theory, the structural asymmetry between groups does not encourage lower
status groups to compare themselves favorably with higher status individuals (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993).
For this reason, the sociological “Identity Theory” offers a more adequate explanation for characterizing
the nature of social relations between high and lower status groups. In Identity Theory, the basis of one’s

63

identity is the role that he or she occupies. Social interaction between individuals in a group is viewed as a
performance where each person’s role is negotiated and reciprocal to the others (Stets and Burke, 2000).
With Identity Theory, group identities focus upon the maintenance of social order rather than social change,
as in Social Identity Theory (Deaux & Martin, 2003). Similarly, in Social Dominance Theory, high and low
status groups derive their identities by the roles and counter-roles that they perform. For Sidanius,
structural asymmetry between groups also means discriminatory asymmetry, as high status groups are
obliged to behave discriminatively towards low status individuals in order to maintain social stability
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). Although Sidanius is cautious in not suggesting that hegemonic or subordinate
groups can never shift roles, he nonetheless maintains that the social dominance model group based
hierarchy will not cease.

12
In Social Dominance Theory, the in-group normally associated as being the dominant group is the one
inflicting the threat upon the surbordinate out-group (e.g., institutional terror). On the other hand, in
Integrated Threat Theory, the theory expresses threat as residing within the in-group, not the out-group.
This is not to say that in either case, the one who is inflicting the threat does not also feel threatened.

13
On anecdotal note, after 9/11 I was taking an Arabic language course at an Orange County California
community college. There were 10 students in class, two, of whom wore only the scarf (hijab) and a third,
the full dress (niqab) with an open-faced veil. After class, they always asked another student to escort them
to their car. One Iranian-American student asked her husband to accompany her to class the whole year
after 9/11. The decision to veil or unveil on campus, due to fear of reprisal by other students, was also
echoed by the veiled university women informants in Cole and Ahmadi’s study (2003).

14
It is noteworthy to mention that in this study the White students reportedly viewed ethnic clustering as
self-segregation.

15
Asmar (2003) observed that the Muslim students seemed to think of their “community on campus” as
transcending the immediate surroundings of the university, resembling more of a transnational community.
Specific findings of her national study of 175 Australian Muslim university students indicated that less than
a third of the Muslim students felt that they belonged to the university community (37% men, 27%
women), and a little less than half of them stated that people on campus seemed “negative in some ways”
toward Muslims (41% men, 55% women) (Asmar, 2004).

16
In Asmar’s 2001survey (2003), a quarter of the Muslims students reported that people off campus
seemed negative towards Muslims, and close to 60% felt “in some ways” that they were negative. With
respect to whether the campus valued them as Muslims, 50% of the Muslim students responded “in some
ways.” Yet close to 60% of the Muslim students (69% men, 50% women) stated that they felt more
comfortable interacting with other Muslim students. Among women who wore the hijab, a quarter thought
the university did not meet their needs as Muslims with respect to support and services (e.g., prayer
facilities), as opposed to none of the unveiled students.

17
Across all four ethnic groups, the relationship between level of perceived discrimination after the first
year of college and the number of same ethnic friends after the second and third year was, β = .13, p < .001;
African Americans, b = .17, p = .002; Asians, b = .07, p = .01; Latinos, b = .07, p = .01; and Whites, b =
.02, p > .05.

18
Across all four ethnic groups, the relationship between the number of same ethnic college friends
reported and the level of perceived discrimination during the second and third year, was, β = .10, p < .001;
African Americans, b = .52, p = .005; Latinos, b = .21, p = .02; Asian, b = .14, p = .01; and Whites, b = .15,
p = .03.

64

19
The notion is that the new base of social supp s the student’s strong ethnic identity rather
than his or her Latino home community.

sively the ethno-religious component in Jewish identity.
21
identity. Except for the Arab Christian group, religious identity was less associated with ritual observance

22
s
asked if Jews were a ethno-religious group or a religio-ethnic group. Or, for Greek Americans, does being
e
ancestry, language, customs, and religion, transmitted through the enculturation process (1973, pp. 259-

entary
water
25
I am discussing here campus friendships within the context of hypotheses two and three (percentage of
h. In
onses to survey item 72, an open-ended question asking how
redominant reason was same ethnicity or same religion.
ort maintain
20
Gans (1994) discussed exten

Eid (2003) found that Christians and Muslims’ occasional participation in religious social affairs was
linked to having a strong ethnic identity, but corresponded only with an average strength of religious
and religious service attendance than with religious endogamy--a preference that both Muslims and
Christians attributed to being able to relate culturally with one’s spouse rather than with necessarily sharing
the same God or religious beliefs.

I use the expression of “ethnicization of religious identity” or “sacrilization of ethnic identity” as Gan
questioned the primacy issue of whether religion or ethnicity classifies the group. For example, he
Greek take precedence over being Greek Orthodox even though the church serves as a means of
congregating with other Greek co-ethnics and expressing one’s secular ethnicity?

23
Geertz employed the term “primordial attachments,” which signifies “assumed givens” of culture, sam
260).
24
Barth (1969) gives a good example of how Sudanese Arab nomad groups, the Fur, converted to sed
group style and changed ethnicities because of scarcity of material resources (i.e., lack of available
and grazing).

campus friends of the same ethnicity/and or same faith). This is not to say that students do not forge
campus friendships based on other similarities, such as same major, same outside interests, and so fort
Chapter 4, I refer to the findings on resp
students choose their friends. The most p
Chapter 3

s
as
dent

isclosing— or were even denying— feelings of personal discrimination
n campus. As Swim, Cohen, and Hyers (1998) have pointed out, surveys tend to address
nts’ general perceptions of discrimination; whereas a focus group setting is more
ght
ist.
________________________________________________
Methods
Introduction to Methods
This study employed a mixed methods design, a 92-item survey, and three focu
groups. The survey results served as the primary source of testing the five hypotheses,
outlined in Chapter 2. Select survey items measured the following five indepen
variables and five dependent variables: (a) the number of campus friendships, (b) the
number of times spent with campus friends, (c) the degrees of closeness with campus
friends, (d) the level of perceived discrimination on campus, (e) the strength of ethnic
identity, (f) the sense of belonging to the college, (g) the percentage of campus friends of
the same ancestry and same religion, (h) the percentage of campus friends of the
same ancestry and different religion, (i) the percentage of campus friends of the same
religion and different ancestry, and, (j) the percentage of campus friends of different
religion and different ancestry.
Focus groups were conducted as a means of clarifying one particular concern that
arose in the survey results. Because I expected a higher level of perceived discrimination
than what was reported in the survey, I questioned whether Arab and Muslim students
were reticent in d
o
responde
likely to induce participants to reflect upon specific acts of discrimination that they mi
have perceived as being directed towards them or toward a co-ethnic/co-religion
65 86 / 86

66

who
s,
by
study. In the same section, I

ores of Arab and Muslim students with those of a non-Arab
rget sample. I will conclude the chapter with an explanation of the recruitment process
o gro pa s and e res llo u ting he three f cus
group sessions.

Sample
The target population was 753 Arab and Muslim community college students
from 20 Southern California community colleges and 5 Southeastern Michigan
Chapter 3 will begin by outlining the criteria used to define the Arab and Muslim
sample. I address the problem of classifying about 27% of the Arab descent students
did not identify with an Arab or Arab American identity. I illustrate how, for the sake of
brevity, I had to reclassify students’ self-reported ethnicities and religious affiliation
and then report the frequency distributions within the ethnic and religious groupings.
Second, I explain the procedures used in both the survey recruitment, and the
administration of the survey to the students. Third, I describe the survey instrument
identifying the survey items that measured the demographic variables, the independent
and dependent variables, and the control variables in the
elaborate on how I developed the scales for the measurement of the independent and the
dependent variables. I then discuss the scoring of the scales as well as the strengths and
limitations associated with their validity and reliability. In the case of two of the scales,
ethnic identity and perceived discrimination, I demonstrate the strength of their validity
by comparing the mean sc
and non-Muslim student group, the latter of which was surveyed at the same time as the
ta
f focus up rticipant th procedu fo wed in cond c t o

67
the

f the
ab
of Other Faiths, Arab Descent Muslim, and Non-Arab Descent Muslim (N = 753)

Total
Students
Total
%
community colleges. There were 409 females and 292 males. The sample consisted of
four subgroups: Arab descent Christians, Arab descent Muslims, non-Arab descent
Muslims, and Arab descent of other faiths (neither Christian nor Muslim).Because of
sensitivity of the question, I did not ask on the survey if a student was a citizen or a
naturalized citizen. For this reason, I use the term “descent” to apply to U.S. born as well
as non-U.S. born students. Forty-four percent of these students were first generation, 19%
1.5 generation, and 37% second generation (U.S. born). Four of the students in the
sample were F1statuses (international students). Fifty-two respondents did not indicate
their gender. The mean age was 20.3 years, SD = 2.04.
Table 1 below shows the frequency distribution of the four major subgroups o
sample. There were 496 Arab descent students (192 Arab descent Christians, 20 Ar
descents of other faiths, 284 Arab descent Muslims), and 257 non-Arab descent Muslims.
The highest percentages of students were Arab descent Muslims (38%) and non-Arab
descent Muslims (34%).
Table 1: Numbers and Percentages of Students by Arab Descent Christian, Arab Descent

Arab
Descent
Christian

%
Arab
Descent
Other Faiths

%
Arab
Descent
Muslim

%
Non-Arab
Descent
Muslim

%

N = 192 25 N = 20 3 N = 284 38 N = 257 34 N = 753 100

68

dy, if the respondent marked an Arab or Arab American ethnicity on the survey, I

For
a
an
I determined Arab descent by employing three different criteria: (a) identification
with an Arab or Arab American ethnicity; (b) born in an Arabic speaking country, or at
least one of the parents or grandparents was; and, (c) Arabic as the primary language
spoken with family, siblings, or friends. I derived these criteria of Arab descent from
contemporary Arab American studies (e.g., Aswad, 2003; Naber, 2008a; Read, 2008). In
this stu
used the first criterion to define Arab descent. I applied the second criterion of Arab
descent to respondents who wrote in an Arab nationality (e.g., Lebanese, Egyptian).
those students, who identified as “Middle Eastern,” “Caucasian,”
1
or “Chaldean” on the
survey, I based Arab descent upon whether they met the second and third criteria. I
specifically added the third criterion, “Arabic as the primary language spoken,” to
exclude those cases that identified with “Middle Eastern” or “Caucasian,” but were of
non-Arab ancestry who happened to be born, or their parents and grandparents were, in
an Arabic speaking country.
In the case of Chaldeans, or “Iraqi Chaldeans,” it was more problematic to assign
the Arab descent classification. Traditionally many Iraqi Chaldeans do not consider
themselves Arabs because they argue that they are Christian, their ancestral origin is in
ancient Babylonia, and their native language is Chaldean, an Aramaic dialect (Aswad,
2003; Maila, 2004; Sengstock, 1982). In Chapter 2, I reported that Sengstock found that
only 10% of the Chaldean Americans in her sample identified with being Arab or Arab
American (Sengstock, 1982). Yet, Sengstock also noticed a trend of association with
Arab identity among Chaldeans who immigrated to the United States after the 1967

69

haldeans’ previous disassociation with an Arab identity might be changing,

aker
ary
s as identifying with an
rab identity. In classrooms and walking around campus, I observed Chaldean students
,
al
l
dergird my argument for including them as being of
“Arab descent.” One advantage in incorporating Chaldeans into the sample was that it
Arab/Israeli War (Sengstock, 1982). In a more recent study, Hassoun (2005) submitted
that many C
particularly after certain members of their Michigan community reported that they were
victims of post-9/11 hate crimes. For example, the Detroit Arab American study (B
et al., 2004) reported that 45% of Iraqi Chaldeans identified with the “Arab American”
label.
In accordance with the second criterion of Arab descent, all of the Chaldean
respondents—or their parents—were born in Iraq (birthplace in an Arabic speaking
country). As far as the third criterion, Chaldeans wrote in Arabic/Chaldean as the prim
languages spoken with parents, siblings, or friends. This bilingual tendency corroborates
Sengstock’s earlier findings on Chaldean Americans in Michigan (Sengstock,1982).
Aswad’s study (2003) characterized some bilingual Chaldean
A
speaking to each other in Arabic rather than in Aramaic.
Apart from these two criteria for classifying Chaldean students as being of Arab
descent, I also took into consideration one of Sengstock’s important findings (Sengstock
1982). She had noted that many Chaldean Americans had adopted an Iraqi Arab cultur
orientation by either living in Iraq or by having Iraqi born parents (the majority of the
Chaldeans in this study were Iraqi born). A common cultural community can work as a
supplemental definition of Arab descent (Naber, 2008a). Therefore, Chaldeans’ cultura
affinity with Arabs served to un

70
helped
, I
Arab”
an” in order to draw attention to the wide variation in their self-reported
ps
s of

ss
to balance out the proportion of “Arab descent Christians” to Arab descent
Muslims.
Including Iraqi Chaldeans, there were 137 out of the 496 Arab descent students
who did not self-identify as Arab or Arab American. In the following paragraph
provide a summarized profile of the Arab descent students who did not identify as “
or “Arab Americ
ethnicities. I then present the frequency distribution of the three Arab descent subgrou
by self-reported ethnicity (Table 2). I follow with an equally comprehensive analysi
the non-Arab descent Muslim subgroup, which also represented a broad range of self-
reported ethnicities (Table 3). Prior to presenting each table, I explain how I arranged the
large number of self-reported ethnicities into fewer classifications so that it would be
easier to demonstrate the identity complexity of the sample.

Arab Descent Students Who Did Not Identify with an Arab or Arab American Ethnicity
Among the 496 Arab descent students, 137 respondents did not identify with an
Arab or Arab American ethnicity. About 1% of the Arab descent students identified as
Caucasian, 15% as Middle Eastern, 2% as a nationality from the Arab Middle East or
North Africa (e.g., Palestinian, Egyptian, Lebanese, and Algerian), 9% as a Christian
minority in the Arab Middle East (e.g., Egyptian Copts
2
and Iraqi Chaldeans), and le
than 1% as dual ancestries (e.g., Indonesian/Arab, South American Arab, Italian/Arab
American, and Iranian/Arab).

71
ced

ategories. Throughout the reclassification process, I
ade a concerted effort to preserve the integrity of the less commonly reported
thnicities. As seen in Table 2, I collapsed the Arab and Arab American categories into
ne category: Arab/Arab American. Originally, the separate “Arab” category was created
r respondents who might identify with “Arab” because they might not be U.S. born or
aturalized citizens. However, a cross- tabulations analysis revealed that 24% of U.S.
orn Arab descent students considered themselves “Arab” and 45% of the first and 1.5
enerations identified as “Arab Americans.” Therefore, it sufficed to have one ethnic
lassification, Arab/Arab American, because students’ choices of “Arab” or “Arab
merican” were not necessarily related to generational status. I retained the “Caucasian”
nd “Middle Eastern” categories because many “Arab descent Christians” and Arab
escents of other faiths identified with these two ethnicities, as compared to Arab descent
It is worth noting here that 120 of these 137 cases were “Arab Christians” or
“Arab descent Christians.” Throughout this dissertation study, I have cautiously pla
“Arab Christians” or “Arab descent Christians” within parentheses because 60% of the
“Arab Christians” has not associated with an Arab or Arab American ethnicity
(exception: if Arab Christians are cited in other studies, they are not placed within
parentheses).
Table 2, below, presents the frequency distribution of the three Arab descent
groups, “Arab descent Christians,” Arab descents of other faiths, and Arab descent
Muslims. Figure 1 reveals that among Arab descent students there were 16 self-reported
ethnicities. Since it was cumbersome to display all 16 self-reported ethnicities in Table 2,
I reclassified them into six ethnicity c
m
e
o
fo
n
b
g
c
A
a
d

72
ced
em in the Middle Eastern category. I kept “Chaldean” as a discrete ethnic group
classification because a substantial percentage of the Chaldean students identified with
this ethnicity (40%, N = 88). The remaining 60% of Chaldeans chose “Caucasian,”
“Middle Eastern,” or “Iraqi” as its ethnicity (note: these students were identified as
Chaldean because they had responded on the survey that their religion was “Chaldean” or
“Iraqi Catholic”). T aldean ents ntified Ca Mid
Eastern, remained in these two classifications. The few students who reported “Iraqi” as
their ethnicity were placed under the “Middle Eastern” category. I also created a “Mixed
Arab” category for the less than one percent of Arab descent students who reported dual
ancestries (e.g., Arab and Mexican).

Muslims. For 3% of the Arab descent students who reported a national identity, I pla
th
he Ch stud who ide with ucasian or dle

73
Table 2: The Numbers and Percentages of “Arab descent Christian,”Arab Descent
Muslim, and Arab Descent Other Faith Students by Self-Reported Ethnicity (N = 496)

Ethnicity
“Arab
descent
Christian”
N =

%
Arab descent
Other faith
N =

%
Arab descent
Muslim
N =

%
Arab/Arab
American

72

38

10

50

277

97
Caucasian

2 1 2 10 0 0
Iraqi Chaldean

35 18 0 0 0 0
Middle Eastern
(e.g., Egyptian
Copts,
Lebanese
Maronite,
Iraqi Chaldeans)

78

40

6

30

1

< 1
Mixed Arab

5 3 2 10 6 2
Subtotals

192 100% 20 100% 284 100%
Arab descent Total: 496 39% 4% 57%

74
Figure 1: What race or ethnicity do you consider yourself?
South Asian (Indian
4%
Middle Eastern
Arab
21%
Subcontinent)
21%
Chaldean
25%
5%
Arab/American
1/2 Arab American 1/2 Arab/1/2 Iranian Afghan
Afghani- American African African American/Somali
African-American African-American/Arab Albanian
Algerian Andalusian (Spanish) Arab
Arab/American Asian/Pakistani Assyrian
Bosnian Burmese Caribbean
Caucasian/Mediterranean Caucasian/White Central America
Chaldean Chaldean American Cham
Coptic East Asian Egyptian
Egyptian American Egyptian Copt European
Filipino/Palestinian Indian Indonesian
Indonesian/Arab Iranian Italian/Arab American
Kazakhstani Kurd Kurdish American
Lebanese Malaysian Mexican
Mexican/Arab American Mexican-American/Chicano Middle Eastern
Middle Eastern/Caucasian Other Other Latino/Hispanic
Pakistani Palestinian Persian
Sengalese Som alian South American/Arab
South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) Sudanese Vietnamese

75
ied

e Eastern
ans, but
a mosque and an Arab Antiochan church
in Houston. Read’s survey provided four classifications for ethnicity, for example Arab,
“Arab” seemed the most salient choice for this
.
f
e
Table 2 reveals the importance of religion in shaping Arab descent students’
perceptions of their ethnicity. Ninety-seven percent of Arab descent Muslims identif
as being Arab or Arab American, as compared to only 38% of “Arab descent Christians.”
A slightly higher percentage of Arab descent Christians (43%) claimed a Middl
ethnicity. Among the Arab descent students of other faiths, about 50% identified with
being Arab/Arab American, and 40% associated with the Middle Eastern identity.
The Detroit Arab American study
3
(Baker et al., 2004) also reported that Arab
Muslims were more likely to identify with being “Arab” than were Arab Christi
the percentage difference between both groups was not as striking as found in the present
study. In contrast, Read (2008) observed that an equal percentage of Arab Muslims and
Arab Christians associated with an Arab identity.
4
The difference in Read’s findings
might be explained by dissimilar regional samples, and the number of Arab-related
ethnicity categories on the surveys. Read sampled only 335 Arab Muslims and Arab
Christians who were congregation members of
American, Asian, and other, of which
target population. In comparison to the survey used in the present study, Read did not
offer a “Middle Eastern” category, and the “other” option was not placed in an open-
ended format so that the respondents were not able to write in their preferred ethnicity
On the other hand, if I had been able to obtain a larger size sample of “Arab
Christians,” there might have been less variation between the two groups in terms o
reporting an Arab/Arab American identity. Out of 496 Arab descent students, there wer

76
r
cruited
study.

ican
,
nd

d Asian). About two-thirds of the non-Arab Muslim students
entified with the five ethnic categories on the survey: Caucasian, African American,
39% “Arab Christians” and 57% Arab Muslims surveyed (excluding the 4% of Arab
descent students of other faiths). Since I anticipated that I might encounter a highe
number of Arab Muslims to survey on the community college campuses, I also re
“Arab Christians” at the local churches in Southern California. These students
represented 13% of the “Arab Christian” sample, and also comprised the first pilot
One source of the problem in recruiting “Arab Christian” community college
students is that many of them are third to fourth generation Americans, who more than
likely enrolled in four-year college rather than two year institutions (American
Community Survey, 2004; Naff, 1985; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 supplementary
survey). For instance, Lebanese Christians constitute one of the largest “Arab Amer
Christian” groups, who during the late 19
th
century immigrated to the United States in
larger numbers than their Muslim counterparts did (Naff, 1985). As previously noted
close to two-thirds of the students surveyed were first generation and 1.5 generation, a
a little over one-third was second generation.
Non-Arab Descent Muslim Students
Muslim students were determined by responding in the survey that one of the
sects of Islam was their religion (e.g., Sunni, Shiite). Referring again to Figure 1, the
Non-Arab descent Muslim students represented 40 ethnicities (e.g., Iranian, Afghani,
Kurdish, Turkish, Indian, Pakistani, Somali, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Bosnian, African
American, Latino, an
id

77
. The remaining
ird were students who associated either with national identities (e.g., Pakistani,
Mexican, Iranian, Afghani, Somali, and Vietnamese) or with ethnicities, such as
European, Eastern European, and African. For the sake of parsimony, I reduced the 40
ethnicities to 8 ethnic group classifications: African American, Asian, Caucasian,
European, Latino, Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian/Subcontinent India, and Sub-Saharan
African. Similar to the classifications adopted for the Arab descent group, these eight
ethnic categories accommodated a third of those cases with less comm
ethnicities. For exam
placed in the Southeast A t India class n. Likewise, Muslim
students who reported their ethnicities as European and Eastern European I regrouped
n “European” category. An African ethnicity or a national identity, such as
omali
ry. Latino

Latino, Asian, Southeast Asian/Subcontinent India, and Middle Eastern
th
only reported
ple, Muslim students who claimed Pakistani or Indian ethnicity were
sian/Subcontinen ificatio
u der the
S , was subsumed under the “Sub-Saharan African” category. Identities such as
Iranian, Afghani, or Kurd, were reclassified under the “Middle Eastern” catego
and Asian nationalities, Mexican, Central American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and so
forth, were assigned respectively to the “Latino” and “Asian” ethnic group
classifications. As aforementioned, two-thirds of the non-Arab Muslim students used the
ethnic group classifications provided on the survey, for example, Caucasian, African
American, Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian/Subcontinent India. Table
3 shows the frequency distribution of the Non-Arab descent Muslim subgroup by self-
reported ethnicity.

78
Students by Ethnicity (N = 257)
Ethnicity

N %
Table 3: The Number and Percentage of Non-Arab Descent Muslim

African American 18 7

Asian 8 3

Caucasian

13 5
European (e.g., Bosnian, Albanian) 5 2

Latino

8 3
Middle Eastern (e.g., Iranian, Afghani, Kurd 117 45 )

Southeast Asian/Subcontinent India 58 23

Sub-Saharan African 30 12

Totals 257 100

ble 3 illustrates the broad ethnic dive f non-Arab Muslims in this sample.
Th m students challenges the popular
m ption that all Muslims are of Arab descent (Joseph, 1999). Middle Eastern and
So tages o cities reported by the non-Arab
de 5% and 23%, respectiv f the t ple of students (N =
753), Middle Eastern ethnicity was reported by 38% of “Arab des hristians” and
62% by non-Arab descent Muslims who were predominantly Iranian, Afghani, and Kurd.
n African,
2%.
Ta rsity o
is diverse ethnic representation of Musli
isconce
uth Asian represent the largest percen f ethni
scent Muslim group, 4 ely. O otal sam
cent C
The less represented ethnicities of the non-Arab Muslim group was Sub-Sahara
12%; African American, 7%; Caucasian, 5%; Latino, 3%; Asian, 3%; and, European,

79
Table 4: The Number and Percentage of Non-Arab Descent Muslim
tudents by Ethnicity (N = 257)

N %
Table 4 synthesizes the frequency distributions for Arab and non-Arab Muslim students,
as reported in Tables 2 and 3.

S
Ethnicity
Arab descent Muslim

Arab/Arab American 284 52

Non-Arab descent Muslim

African American 18 4

Asian 8 1

Caucasian 13 2

European

5 1
Latino 8 1

Middle Eastern (e.g., Iranian, Afghani,
Kurd)
117 22

Southeast Asian/Subcontinent India 58 11

Sub-Saharan African

30 6
Totals 541 100

Table 4 indicates that among all Muslim students (N = 541) the largest
ercentages of ethnicities reported were Arab/Arab American, 52%; Middle Eastern
on-Arab), 22%; and Southeast Asian, 11%. Sub-Saharan Africans and African

p
(n

80
mericans
5
represented only 6% and 4%, respectively. Caucasian, European, Latino, and
ple,
Students’ Claimed Religious Affiliations
igious aff s on vey, 15
C her faiths,
6
for example
Je tual. 15 Ch n
de s” corresponded to 43% of l Arab descent
st e reported by 52% otal scent
students, and by 48% of non-Arab descent students (e.g., Africa rica sian,
Ira
Table 5 displays the frequency distribution of the Arab descent students and the non-
A le 5 r 7 re ations
of

A
Asian were the ethnicities that were the least represented in the Muslim student sam
ranging between 1% and 2%.

Figure 2 illustrates that students claimed 21 rel iliation the sur
hristian denominations, 5 Muslims sects, and 6 ot , Bahai,
wish, Druze,
7
Atheism, Agnosticism, Mystical, and Spiri The ristia
nominations and the 6 “other faith the tota
udents (N = 496). The five Muslim sects ar of the t Arab de
n Ame n, Cauca
nian, Latino, Southeast Asian, etc.).
rab descent Muslim students by religious affiliation. Tab eflects classific
the 21 religious affiliations.

81
Figure 2: What is your religion?
Agnostic
Ahmadi (Islam)
Armenian Orthodox
Atheist
Bahai
Chaldean
Catholic
Roman Catholic
3%
Baptist
Chaldean
Christian
Copt
Copt
4%
47%
2%
Sunni Muslim
Shiite Muslim
22%
12%
Maronite Catholic
Druze
Evangelical
Greek Orthodox
Jehovah Witness
Jewish
Lutheran
Mandaen
Maronite Catholic
Melchite (Greek Catholic)
Methodist
Muslim
Muslim (Shiite)
Muslim (Sunni)
Muslim convert to other
Muslim Shiite/Unitarian
Mystic
Other
Presbyterian
Protestant
Roman Catholic
Spiritual
Undecided

82
Table 5: The Number and Percentage of “Arab descent Christian” Students, Arab
Students by Religious Affiliation (N = 753)

Descent Students of Other Faiths, Arab Descent and Non-Arab Descent Muslim

Religious Affiliation N %

Catholic (Maronite, Roman, Greek, and Chaldean)

132

69

Orthodox Christian (Coptic, Greek, Antiochan) 40 21

Other Christian denominations (Evangelical, Lutheran,
Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist)

20

10

“Arab descent Christian” Total

192

25

Sunni Muslim

358 66

Muslim (another sect than Sunni or Shiite, or no sect

18

3

specified)

Arab descent and Non-Arab descent Muslim Total 541 72

Other faiths (Bahai, Druze, Judaism, Agnosticism and

Atheism)

20

3

Arab descent of other faiths Total

20

3

TOTALS

753

100

predominant “Arab Christian” sects reported. “Arab Christian” students who identified
mination, or specified only “Christian,” was placed under
“other Christian denominations.” I retained the two Muslim sects, Sunni and Shi’ite. I
As seen in Table 5, the Catholic and Orthodox classifications encompass the
with another Christian deno

83
d
at they belonged to another Islamic sect, or wrote in “Muslim” as their religion. Three
pe he total Arab descent sample claimed “Bahai, ze,” ,
A which corresponds to the category “Other
fa
rab descent Christians” and 72% Arab
de oteworth ble t there are
ov us den and 31%,
re h globally reported for both
sects (Congressional Research Service Reports, 2004, www. fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745,
ent

ct
ain a
,
main
up
created the generic category “Muslim” for 3% of the Muslim students who responde
th
rcent of t ” “Dru Judaism
gnosticism, and Atheism as their faiths,
iths.”
The student sample represented 25% “A
scent and non-Arab descent Muslims.” Also n y in Ta 5 is tha
er twice as many Sunni Muslim students as Shiite M lim stu ts (66%
spectively), which coincides with the proportion of ad erents
pdf.)
As stated in Chapter 1, I decided to treat the four major subgroups, “Arab desc
Christians,” Arab descent of other faiths, Arab descent Muslims, and non-Arab descent
Muslims as one group, Arabs and Muslims, when I analyzed the five hypotheses. The
main reason was that my study required a sample of 650 to 800 students, which was
calculated for the prediction that the hypothesized relationships would yield a small effe
size.
8
Unlike gaining information about more predominant ethnic groups in the United
States, for example, African American or Latino, it was not easy to access and obt
sample of 753 Arab and Muslim students from 25 community colleges. In addition
because of the accessibility issue, I could not assure an even distribution of the three
subgroups, “Arab descent Christians,” Arab descent Muslims, and non-Arab descent
Muslims. For this reason, I did not advance a set of hypotheses that stated between gro

84
roups.
re
tively large and ethnically diverse sample of
unity
urvey Recruitment

I recruited 753 Arab and Muslim students from 15 community colleges across
our counties in Southern California and from six community colleges in two counties of
outheastern Michigan. At the majority of the community colleges, the Institutional
esearch Departments issued me written approval to survey their student body. At five of
e community colleges, the Vice President of Student Services authorized the survey
roject on campus. Table 6 presents the frequency distributions for Arab and Muslim
tudents surveyed at the 21 community colleges by county.
differences,
9
so that it did not justify disaggregating the sample into four separate g
Independent of the main analysis, however, I did carry out a comparative subanalysis of
three of the four subgroups for hypotheses one and two in order to explore whether the
would have been any significant variations in the results between these subgroups (see
endnote,
10
Chapter 3).
Overall, I managed to collect a rela
Arab and Muslim students. I achieved this aim by surveying students from 21 comm
colleges in two demographically different regions of the United States, Southern
California and Southeastern Michigan. In the next two sections, I will elaborate on the
recruitment strategies and procedures utilized in conducting the survey at these 21
community colleges.

S

f
S
R
th
p
s

85
by County (N = 753)

ollege N %
Table 6: Number and Percentage of Arab and Muslim Students Surveyed at the 21
Community Colleges

C
Los Angeles Community Colleges (4) 138

18
Orange County Community Colleges (6) 152

20
Riverside County Community Colleges (2) 26 3

San Diego County Community Colleges (4) 176 24

Wayne County, Michigan Community College (1) 200 27

Oakland County, Michigan Community Colleges (4) 61 8

Total Colleges (21) 753 00 1

I selected community colleges by using one, two, or all three of the following
criteria. First, there were a sizeable percentage of Arab descent students, Southeast Asian,
and African students of the Muslim faith. Second, their Muslim student associations,
student organizations were active on campus. Third, Arabic
d Farsi language courses were regularly offered in the curriculum. In one of the five
Mich
Arab, Iranian, or Pan African
an
igan community colleges, a third of the student population was of Arab American
descent. There were relatively large concentrations of Iraqi Chaldeans in 4 of the
Michigan community colleges, and in 2 of the 15 Southern California community
colleges. There were six other community colleges in Southern California that had
sizeable representations of African, Iranian, and Southeast Asian descent students who
were predominantly of the Muslim faith. The eight remaining community colleges in

86
active Muslim Student organizations, and one of the community
college
ncy distributions for eight survey

Southern California had scattered pockets of Arab descent students. Half of the 21
community colleges had
s had a Desi “Southeast Asian Club” and a Pan African Club. Only one of the
community colleges had an Arab Student Union organization. Ten community colleges
offered Arabic language courses, and Farsi language classes were taught at one of the
Southern California community colleges.
Students were surveyed at seven on-campus locations, and five off-campus
locations, for example, four places of worship and one local cultural event (i.e., Arab
American festival). Table 7 below indicates the freque
locations. I combined the five off-campus locations into one location designated as
“places of worship.” Since there were only 10 community college students surveyed at
the Arab American festival, it made sense to include them in with the places of worship.

87
ercentage of Arab and Muslim Students Surveyed at Eight
Locations (N = 753)
Survey Locations N %
Table 7: Number and P

Library 184 25

Cafeteria 55 7

11 general studies courses (history, anthropology,
sociology, biology, chemistry, & physics)

4 33
11 ESL courses (levels 1, 2, 3, & 4) 107 14

20 Language courses (Arabic & Farsi) 230 31

Student Organizations (e.g., Muslim Student
Organization, Desi Club, & Pan African Club)

79 11
Other campus sites (outside library) 9 1

Places of worship (3 churches, 1 mosque) and
Arab American festival

56 7
Total 753 100

I obtained approval from course instructors to administer the survey to studen
the 42 classe

ts in
s. Both the instructors and I determined which classes to survey based upon
the n
o
lims,
umber of students with Middle Eastern and Arabic origin surnames in attendance.
11

As shown in Table 7, about a third of the respondents was surveyed in 18 Arabic and tw
Farsi language classes, because they offered easier access to students of Arabic, Muslim,
and Iranian heritages. In the Arabic classes particularly, there were non-Arab Mus

88
the
ntage
s
est

ate
never
converts included, who were taking the course in order to be able to read and interpret
Koran in Arabic.
12

At 6 of the 21 community colleges, I chose English as a second language (ESL)
classes because they had sizeable enrollments of native Arabic speakers. Fourteen percent
of the students surveyed were from ESL classes at mostly the intermediate and advanced
levels. Although I was only able to obtain 4% of the sample from general studies
courses, my intention had been to recruit students from subject area classes other than
Arabic so that the sample would be less biased towards students with a high perce
of classmates from the same ethnicity or same faith.
Eleven percent of the respondents were surveyed at student ethnic and religiou
organizations. I contacted faculty advisors and presidents of these student clubs to requ
permission to survey student members at their scheduled weekly meetings. Libraries and
cafeterias turned out to be resourceful places to recruit students (32% in total),
particularly in the case of three community colleges, where there were restrictions on
surveying students in classrooms. At campus locations, such as the library, outside the
library, or cafeteria, I approached the students directly to see if they wanted to particip
in a survey. At the places of worship, I received an authorization from the student
youth leaders to recruit community college students who attended their parish. Whe
possible, at each of the 21 community colleges, I made an effort to recruit and survey
students uniformly from most of all of the campus locations, classrooms, student
organizations, cafeterias, and libraries.
13

89
Surv

e
r the exempt research guidelines outlined by the University
the

lar
aged
ry
ey Administration
After receiving permission to survey the students from either the course instructor
or the student club’s faculty advisor, we agreed on a date and time for the survey
administration. In other survey locations, where I asked the student directly to participat
in the study, the survey was administered immediately on site. Prior to the survey
administration in all locations, I distributed an information sheet to all survey
participants, as specified unde
of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board. The information sheet explained
purpose of the study, described the procedures of the survey, and detailed the benefits to
and compensation for participation. For their participation, students were given six-dol
food cash cards from Subway Sandwiches. I instructed the survey participants to read
carefully through the Institutional Review Board information sheet, and if they had any
questions to ask me before they took the survey. All survey participants were encour
to take the information sheet home with them in case they had further questions about the
survey project and forgot to ask them during the survey administration session. My
contact phone number and email address were stated on the information sheet in
accordance with the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
guidelines.
At seven of the eight survey locations, the students generally took from 15 to 30
minutes to complete the survey after I have given them about a 10-minute introducto
explanation of the project and instrument. In the case of the 11 ESL classes, the students
spent up to 45 minutes, depending on their level of English competency.
14
In the

90
udent in educational

that
introductory phase of discussing the survey project to the participants, I reiterated the
importance of the students’ participation in the survey.
I began my discussion by explaining that I was a doctoral st
policy at the University of Southern California, and I was conducting survey research for
my dissertation, which was based upon a similar topic that my doctoral advisor had been
pursuing for the past 10 years. I elaborated upon the paucity of published research
focused on campus social interactions among community college students, with even
fewer studies looking at Arab and Muslim students. Particularly because it was a
classroom setting, I was careful to point out first the significance of the survey to all
community college students, regardless of their ancestry or faith, because I could not
single out and survey only the Arab and Muslim students in the class. However, I did
relate to students that I was of Lebanese or Arab American heritage, which explained m
interest in recruiting Arab and Muslim students to participate also in the survey.
In the last five minutes of the introduction, I summarized the cautionary points
outlined in the information sheet. I reminded the students that their participation was
voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. I emphasized that if they felt uncomfortable
about certain items, they could choose not to answer them. I pointed out that their
completion and return of the questionnaire constituted consent to participate in the
research project, which also was stated at the bottom o
y

f the last page of the survey. I
rme info d the students that for their participation in the survey they would receive a six-
dollar Subway coupon, redeemable at any Subway Sandwich store in the United States.

91

ld
ot want
nts inquired about the meaning of same ancestry or different ancestry, I
structed the students that it could refer to either their nationality or to an ethnic group
ave examples for the students’ clarification, but
t what
s of
d students
I ended my introduction by briefing the students on terms, instructions, and any
questions in the survey that might not be clear to them. For example, in question three—
“What race or ethnicity do you consider yourself?”— they were instructed to answer
honestly about how they perceived themselves, for example, in terms of their ancestry,
nationality, or racial designation. If students inquired as to what ethnicity that they shou
choose, I responded that it was their decision. As the principal investigator, I did n
to influence their responses.
The response categories for the questions about ethnic/faith friendship groups
read on the survey as “same ancestry and same religion,” “same ancestry and different
religion,” “same religion and different ancestry,” and “different religion and different
ancestry.” If stude
in
with which they identified. I only g
always reminded them that their responses should reflect what they thought, and no
they thought that I expected. Less than 5% of the respondents were confused as to what
ethnicity to indicate on the survey. For example, a few of the Iraqi Chaldeans did not
know whether to mark “Middle Eastern” or write in “Iraqi” or “Chaldean.” I concluded
the briefing with an explanation of how to estimate the percentages for the samenes
ancestry and religion in questions, 37-40, 44-47, 58-61, and 67-70. I instructe
to assign percentages only to the response categories (e.g., same ancestry and same
religion, etc.), in which their campus friend or friends fit. If their campus friends fell into
only one, two, or three of the four response categories, the respondents were to place

92
up to
later
stions.
r instance, the set of questions that inquired about the number of times that
was
Some students could not connect the two questions and, as a
hey
the

“0%s” in the remaining categories. All assigned percentages were intended to add
100% (the problems associated with assigning percentages are discussed below in a
section concerning the four ethnic/faith friendship group scales).
During the survey administration, the students were allowed to ask any que
After administering the survey to a third of the 753 participants, I discovered that some
students had difficulty understanding the internal logic of the set of contingency
questions. Fo
the student spent in a named activity with a fellow student (e.g., studying, talking on
campus, and dining, etc.), and if this student was their friend (see survey items, 34, 35,
41, 42, 48, 49, 55, 56, and 63-65 in the survey instrument, Appendix A). If the student
did not spend any time with another student(s) in the named activity, he or she logically
could not have a “student” friend or friends in the name activity. The student then
supposed to fill in “0” for the number of friends in the named activity, and to move on to
the next block of questions.
result, gave disparate answers (e.g., they indicated that they did not spend any time
studying with any students in their class, but then responded that the students that t
studied with were their friends). Therefore, with the remaining two-thirds of the survey
respondents, I spent an additional three minutes in the introductory phase to explain the
contingency format of these five blocks of questions.
It must be noted that two pilot studies were conducted prior to administering
survey to the 753 students. The first pilot study was comprised of three Arab and three
Southeast Asian Muslim community college students in Michigan, and the second was 15

93
contingency questions.
However, in the first pilot session, there were d
categories of “all,” “most,” “half,” “some ” and “none” to the number of campus
friends who were of the same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different
religion, same religion and different ancestry, and different religion and different
ancestry. Therefore, in the second pilot study, these categories were switched to assigning
percentages to each of the ethnic/faith friendship groups. The second pilot group did not
seem to have a problem with assigning the percentages to each friendship group after the
instructions were explained to them. The survey instrument is presented in fuller detail in
the next section.

Survey Instrument
The survey instrument consisted of 92 items (refer to survey instrument in
Appendix A). Survey respondents indicated the name of the college that they attended on
the first line of the survey. If students attended multiple community colleges in the area,
they were instructed to put the name of the college at which they were taking the survey.
The survey location was recorded on each survey taken because I had neglected to
include it as a survey item. Survey items 1-7, 13-17 referred to the following
demographic variables: gender, age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, father’s level of
educational attainment, mother’s level of educational attainment, main language spoken
with parents, main language spoken with siblings, main language spoken with friends,
California community college students of Egyptian Coptic descent. The students in both
pilot studies did not appear to have problems with these set of
ifficulties with assigning the response
,” “few,

94
rresponded to
n

da,

hnic identity, and level of perceived discrimination. The

respondent’s birthplace, parents’ birthplaces, maternal and paternal grandparents’
birthplaces, and generational status. Student background variables co
survey items 8-12, 31, and 32. These items were the number of hours a student worked,
the number of units taken per semester, choice of attainment goals, the number of
semesters enrolled in the college, the intent to enroll in the college the next semester, the
number of friends made on campus, and how many of these campus friends were know
previously.
As explained in Chapter 4, correlations and ANOVA were performed on the
demographic and student background variables in order to determine which ones to use
as possible controls in the regression analyses. Similar student background variables have
been employed as controls in higher education studies, because they were shown to have
a direct effect upon various educational outcomes (e.g., Adelman,1992; Bailey &
Weininger, 2002; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Borglum & Kubala, 2000; Cabrera, Castañe
Nora, & Hengstler, 1992).
Sixty survey items referred to the five independent variables and five dependent
variables in the study. The five independent variables were the number of campus
friendships, the number of interactions with campus friends, the degree of closeness of
campus friends, strength of et
five dependent variables were the sense of belonging to college, campus friendships of
the same ancestry and same religion, campus friendships of the same ancestry and
different religion, campus friendships of the same religion and different ancestry, and
campus friendships of a different religion and different ancestry. Scales were developed

95
Introduction to Campus Friendship Scale
The Campus Friendship Scale was designed to test the first hypothesis, which
stated that campus friendships, as measured by the number of campus friends, the
frequency of interaction with campus friend(s), and degree of closeness of campus
friend(s), have a positive relationship to sense of belonging to the college. The Campus
Friendship scale consisted of three combined measures: the number of campus friends,
the number of times spent with a campus friend (frequency of interaction), and the
degrees of closeness of the campus friendships. The first campus friendship measure
consisted of the number of campus friends across five activities: classmate friends whom
the student studies with, campus friends “outside of the class” whom the student studies
with, talking to friends on campus about topics unrelated to classes and studies, dining
with campus friends, and participating with campus friends in on and off-campus
activities. Survey items corresponding to the number of campus friends across the five
activities were questions 35, 42, 49, 56, and 65. These survey items asked the respondent
to report the number of campus friends that he or she had in each of the five activities: 0
(no friends), 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 + friends. Specifically, I framed the three campus friendship
measures within a broad context of student activities, because there is ample evidence
that community college students, like four-year college students, establish campus
for each of these 10 variables. The survey items corresponding to each of the scales will
be identified and discussed in the Scales subsection below.

Scales

96
; San
ber
er the past 14 days or month that a student spent with a campus friend

pread
. In
an
e
ate
nd across six activities. In an effort to avoid
friendships in various academic and social settings (Mattice, 1994; Maxwell, 2000b
Diego Community College District, 1994; Smith & Moore, 2000).
The second campus friendship measure corresponded on the survey to the num
of times in eith
across six activities. The six activities were: classmate friends whom the student studies
with, campus friends “outside of the class” whom the student studies with, talking to
friends on campus about topics unrelated to classes and studies, dining with campus
friends, and participating with campus friends in on-campus activities, and participating
with campus friends in off-campus activities. The number of times measure was s
across six activities instead of five because the question asking about the number of times
participating in on-campus and off-campus activities was divided into two questions
the case of the activities of talking and dining,
15
which might occur more frequently th
in the other four activities, students were instructed to recall “in the past 14 days” the
number of times spent rather than “in the past month.”
The survey item numbers referring to the number of times measure are 34, 41, 48,
55, 63, and 64. For each of the six activities, there were seven response categories: non
(no times spent in the activity), one time, two times, three times, four times, five to ten
times, and almost every day.
One limitation of the number of times measure was that it was an indirect estim
of the student’s time spent with a campus frie
asking the respondent a similar question twice across the six activities, I derived the
number of times spent with the campus friend measure from the responses to the number

97

of
of the amount of time a student
pends with a campus friend in a given activity. The number of times spent with another
tudent across the six activities could not have been replaced by the more specific
uestion asking the number of times spent with a campus friend, because as I explain
head I needed to obtain a baseline measure of the level of social interaction on the
community college campus.
The third campus friendship measure was the degree of closeness of friends across
the same five activities as the other two measures: classmate friends whom the student
pus friends outside of the class whom the student studies with, talking to
riends on campus about topics unrelated to classes and studies, dining with campus
iends, and participating with campus friends in on- and off- campus activities. The set
f degree of closeness items was constructed as “contingency questions” (Babbie, 2004),
hich required that the respondents answer only if in the previous question they indicated
at they had at least one campus friend. If they did not have at least one campus friend in
e named activity, they were instructed to skip to the next question. The survey items
ssociated with the degrees of closeness measure were numbers, 36, 43, 50, 57, and 66.
of times spent with another student. The rationale was that the question asking a student,
for example, “how many of these classmates that you study with are your friends?” was
referencing the “same classmates” in the previous question, concerning the number
times spent studying with them. The inherent problem is that even though a campus
friend might be a classmate, he or she might not have been present all of the times that
the student reported studying with classmates. For this reason, the number of times
measure must be treated solely as a rough approximation
s
s
q
a
studies with, cam
f
fr
o
w
th
th
a

98
comfortable in talking to campus friends about personal problems and/or school
pr close,” mewhat close,” and
“very close.
stages taken before developing the Campus Friendship Scale required a
long and thoughtful process of recoding the response categories of each of the three
campus friendship variables. It became apparent that I had to establish a baseline for the
le t the college for the three campus friendship measures. Across
the five friendship activities, there were clearly three distinct groups of students’
responses. F e with
ot quent hey had no campus
fri e or mor r week or month with
another student in a named activity, but they also had no campus friends; third, there
were the students, who stated that they also spent at least one time or more per week or
month with another student in a named activity, and the student was a campus friend(s).
Si ses were used a baseline comparison
with those of the third group of students with campus friends, they are treated as separate
re dship iables, for example, the
nu ent with c pus friend(s), and the
degrees of closeness to campus friend(s).
Below, Table 8 demonstrates how I recoded the three groups of students’ responses
to gain, for clarity, the two response categories labeled
In each of these five questions, closeness is described to the respondent as feeling
oblems. The survey response categories were “not “so
”
The first
vel of social interaction a
irst, there were students who responded that they did not spend any tim
her students in a given or named activity, and conse ly, t
ends; second, students who spent at least one tim e pe
nce the first two groups of students’ respon for
sponse categories for each of the three campus frien var
mber of campus friends, the number of times sp am
the 16 campus friendship items. A

99
no tim

“ e spent with other students” and “time spent with other students, but no friends,”
refer to these students who reported no campus friends in a named activity (e.g., dining
with another student), and is meant to differentiate this (no friend) classification of
students the meaning will be clear from the group of students who had campus friends in
a named activity. These two response categories are not to be confused with the number
of times measure that corresponds to the number of times weekly or monthly that a
student spent with a campus friend in a named activity.

100
Ta

N an activity (e.g., dining)

ble 8: Coding Protocol for Students’ Responses to the 16 Campus Friendship Items
umber of campus friendships in Code
No time spent with another student in an activity and no campus
f

riend(s)
0
T
n
1
ime spent with another student in an activity, but
o campus friends

1 campus friend in an activity

2
2 s in an activity

campus friend 3
3 s in an activity

campus friend 4
4 s in an activity

campus friend 5
5+ campus friends in an activity

6
Number of times per month (or 14 days) spent with a
campus friend in an activity

N tivity and no campus frien o time spent with a student in an ac d(s) 0
T ivity, but no campus friends

ime spent with a student in an act 1
1 ivity

time spent with campus friend(s) in an act 2
2 s friend(s) in an activity

times spent with campu 3
3 times spent with campus friend(s) in an activity

4
4 times spent with campus friend(s) in an activity

5
5 – 10 times spent with campus friend(s) in an activity

6
Almost every day spent with campus friend(s) in an activity

7
Degrees of closeness to campus friend(s) in an activity
No time spent with a student in an activity and no campus friend(s) 0
Time spent with a student in an activity and no campus friends

1
Not close to campus friend (s) in an activity

2
Somewhat close to campus friend(s) in an activity

3
Close to campus friend(s) in an activity

4
Very close to campus friend(s) in an activity 5

101

easures for each student activity. Tables 9.1 to 9.5 refer to the frequency distribution of
the num of studying with classmates, studying with
students outside of one’s class, talking with students on campus about topics unrelated to
clas on d off-ca pus activities. Across all
five 40% of Arab and Muslim students did not
spend any time with another student(s). Depending on the activity, either in the past 14
days or the past month, between 5 and 11% of students spend at least one time with
another student(s), but this student(s) is not their campus friend. In viewing all five
activities, between 8 and 12% of Arab and Muslim udents
friend. About half of Arab and Muslim students reported between two and five plus
cam iends in all five activities. The highest percentage of campus friends (1 to 5+)
reported were in the activities of studying with classmates (68%), and talking with
students on campus about topics unrelated to classes and studies (74%).

Tables 9.1– 9.16 show the frequency distributions of the three campus friendship
m
ber of campus friends in the activity
ses and studies, dining, and participating in
activities, as low as 13% and as high as
an m
st reported at least one campus
pus fr

102
Activity
Percent
Table 9.1: Frequency Distribution For Number of Campus Friendships in the
of Studying with Classmates

Number of campus friends

N
No time spent studying with classmates

136 20
0 friends (at least one time spent in th
studying
e past month
with classmates , but are not friends)
72 11
1 Friend

85 12
2 Friends

111 16
3 Friends

115 17
4 Friends

57 8
5 + Friends

102 15
Total 678 100.0

Non sequitur values (omitted) 7

52
M

issing values from System 23 3
Total (omissions and missing values) 10%

75
TOTAL SAMPLE 7 53

103
h Students Outside of One’s Class
Percent
Table 9.2: Frequency Distribution for Number of Campus Friends in the Activity of
Studying wit

Number of campus friends

N
No time spent studying with othe
are outside
r students
of one’s class
40 that 250
0 friends (at least one time spent in t
with students that are outside of one’s cl
are not friends
he past m nth
ass,
33 5 o
but
1 Friend

67 11
2 Friends

79 13
3 Friends

66 11
4 Friends

42 7
5 + Friends

79 13
Total 616 100%

Non sequitur values (omitted)

1 15 14
Missing values from System

23 3
Total (omissions and missing values)

137 18%

TOTAL SAMPLE 753

104
the

N ercent
Table 9.3: Frequency Distribution For the Number of Campus Friends in
Activity of Talking About Topics Unrelated to Classes and Studies

Number of campus friends

P
No time spent talking with students
about topics unrelated to classes and
studies

88

13
0 friends (at least one time spent in
the past 14 days talking with
students about topics unrelated to
d studies, but are not

74

11
classes an
friends)
1 Friend

69 10
2 Friends

119 18
3 Friends 108 16

4 Friends

65 9
5 + Friends

153 23
Total 676 100%

Non sequitur values (omitted)

43 6
Missing values from System

34 4
Total (omissions and missing values)

77 10%
TOTAL SAMPLE 753

105
of Dining
Number of campus friends N Percent
Table 9.4: Frequency Distribution For the Number of Campus Friends in the Activity

No time spent dining with other
students
264 38
0 friends (at least one time spent in
the past 14 days with other students,

32

5
but are not friends

1 Friend 67 10

2 Friends

84 12
3 Friends 70 10

4 Friends 61 9

5 + Friends

108 16
Total 686 100 %

Non sequitur values (omitted)

43 5
Missing values from System

34 4
Total (omissions and missing values)

77 9%
TOTAL SAMPLE 753

106

ds

t
Table 9.5: Frequency Distribution For the Number of Campus Friends
in the Activity of Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities

Number of campus frien N Percen
No time spent participating with other
students in on and off-campus activities

258

39
0 friends (at least one time spent in the
past month spent participating with ot
students in on
her
and off -campus activities,
not friends)
38

6
but are

1 Friend

55 8
2 Friends

83 13
3 Friends 2

80 1
4 Friends

55 8
5

+ Friends 93 14
Total

662 100%
Non sequitur values (omitted)

43 7
Missing values from System

34 5
T

otal (omissions and missing values) 77 12%
TOTAL SAMPLE 753

Tables 9.6 – 9.11 correspond to the frequency distribution of the number of times
ent with campus friends in the following six activities: studying with classmates,
udying with students outside of one’s class, talking with students on campus about
pics unrelated to classes and studies, dining, participating with students in on-campus
ctivities, and participating with students in off-campus activities. Between 38% and 47%
sp
st
to
a

107

ampus friends in the following four activities: studying with classmates, studying with
students outside of one’s class, pus activities and participating in
o ivities. For the same four activities 21% o e students spent time
m rom 5 to 10 times to almost every day in the
p that in the past 14 days they spent four times
or less with their campus friends in such activities as talking on campus and dining. For
the same two activities, 12 to 31 percent report that they spent from 5 to 10 times to
a ery day in the last 14 days. As compared to the other five activities, it seems
that students are more likely to spend the most time, for example from five times to
almost every day in the past 14 days, in talking with their campus friends about topics
unrelated to classes and studies.

of the students, responded that in the past month they spent four times or less with their
c
participating in on-cam
ff-campus act , 5 to f th
ore frequently with their campus friends, f
ast month. About 45% of the students state
lmost ev

108

Number of times spent N Percent
Table 9.6: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent in the Past Month
with Campus Friend in the Activity of Studying with Classmates

With campus friend
No time spent studying with classmates 143 21

At least one time spent in the past month

78

11 studying with classmates, but are not
friends
1 time 68 10

2 times 87 13

3 times

98 14
4 times 70 10
5 – 10 time

s 90 13
Almost every da

y 57 8
Tota

l 691 100%
Non sequitur values (omitted

) 51 7
Missing in the System

11 1
Total (omissions and missing value

s) 62 8%
Total Sample 753

109
Past Month with
de of One’s Class
end

N Percent
Table 9.7: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent in the
Campus Friend in the Activity of Studying with Students Outsi

Number of times spent with campus fri
No time spent studying with students that are

241

40 outside of class
At least one time spent in the past month
with students that are outside of their cl
studying
ass, but are
ds

35

6
not frien
1 time

81 13
2 times 89 15

3 times 69 11
4 times 43 7
5 – 10 times 27 4

Almost every day 23 3

Total 608 100%

Non sequitur values (omitted) 107 14

Missing in the System 38 5

Total (omissions and missing values)

145 19%
Total Sample 753

110
ss
nd Studies

pus friend N Percent
Table 9.8: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Times Spent with a Campus
Friend in the Past 14 Days in the Activity of Talking About Topics Unrelated to Cla
a
Number of times spent with cam

No time spent talking with students about topics
83

12
unrelated to class and studies
At least one time spent in past 14 days talk
students about topics unrelate
ing with
d to class and studies,
not friends

83

12
but are
1 time

75 11
2 times 104 16
3 times 72 11
4 times 47 7
5 – 10 times

74 11
Almost every day

138 20
Total

676 100%
Non sequitur values (omitted)

31 4
Missing in the System

46 6
Total (omissions and missing values)

77 10%
Total Sample 753

111
N Percent
Table 9.9: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Spent with
Campus Friend in the Past 14 Days in the Activity of Dining

Number of times spent with campus
friend
No time spent dining with students

270 39
At least one time spent dining in past 14
days with students who are not friends

33

5
1 time 101 14
2 times 103 15
3 times 64 9
4 times 42 6
5 – 10 tim

es 40 6
Almost every day 40 6

Total

693 100%
Non sequitur values (omitted) 29 4

Missing in the System

31 4
Total (omissions and missing values) 60 8%

Total Sample 753

112
Friends in the Past Month in the Activity of Participating in On-campus Activities
Number of times spent with campus friend N Percent
Table 9.10: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Times Spent with Campus

No time spent participating with other students
in on-campus activities

275

40
At least one time spent in the past month
participating with students in on campus

114

17
activities, but are not friends
1 time 89 13

2 times 88 13

3 times 53 8
4 times 25 4

5 – 10 times 17 2

Alm

ost every day 22 3
Total

683 1 00%
Non sequitur values (omitted)

53 7
Missing in the System

17 2
Total (omissions and missing values)

70 9%
Total Sample 753

113
able 9.11: Frequency Distribution for the Number of Times Spent with a Campus
es
Number of times spent with campus friends

N Percent
T
Friend in the Past Month in the Activity of Participating in Off-campus Activiti

No time spent participating with other students in
off campus activities

293

43
At least one time spent in the past month
participating with students in off campus
activities, but are not friends

72

10

1 time 97 14
2 87 times 13
3 45 times 7
4 33 times 5
5 – 10

27 4 times
Almost every day

25 4
To

679 10 tal 0%
Non

49 7 sequitur values (omitted)
Missing i

25 3 n the System
Total (omissions and missing values)

74 10%
Total Sample 753

114
seness to
ampus friends in five activities. In the case of three activities, 45% of Arab and Muslim
students do not have campus friends—that is, they do not spend time with another student
in do spend time, but indicate no campus friends. Of the Arab
an nds in given act ity, a third to about half
of t clos nd “clos to these campus friends.
The largest percentage of the students (69%) feel the closest to their campus friends in
the ac out topics unrelated to classes and studies.

T Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to
Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Classmates

Degrees of closeness to campus friends

N Percent
Tables 9.12–9.16 refer to the frequency distribution of the degrees of clo
c
the named activity or they
d Muslim students who report campus frie
their responses fall in between “somewha
a iv
e” a e”
tivity of talking ab
able 9.12:

No mates

132 20 time spent studying with class
At least on h
studying with classmates, but are not friends

72

11
e time spent in the past mont

N

40 12 ot close
Somewhat Close

184 16
Close

138 17
Very close

95 8
Total

661 15
100.0

Non sequitur values (omitted)

53 7
Missing values from System

39 5
Total (omissions and missing values)

92 12%
TOTAL SAMPLE 753

115
e Degrees of Closeness to Campus
riends in the Activity of Studying with Students Outside of One’s Class

rees of closeness to campus friends N Percent

Table 9.13: Frequency Distribution for th
F
Deg

No time spent studying with students
that are outside of the class
233 39
At least one time spent in the past month
studying with students that are outside of
their class, but are not friends

6 3
Not close 13 2

Somewhat Close 99 17

Close

130 22
Very close

86 14
Total

661 100%
Non sequitur values

(omitted) 127 17
Missing values from System

32 4
Total (omissions and missing values)

159 21%

116
es and Studies
N Percent
Table 9.14: Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to Campus
Friends in the Activity of Talking About Topics Unrelated to Class

Degrees of closeness with campus friends

No time spent talking with students abou
unrelated to class and studies
t topics
79

13
At least one time spent in the past 14 days
with students about topics unrelated to cla
talking
ss and

74

12
studies, but are not friends
Not close

50 8
Somewhat Close

202 32
Close

152 24
Very close

82 13
Total

639 100%
Non sequitur values (omitted)

60 8
Missing values from System 54 7

Total (omissions and missing values) 114 15%

TOTAL SAMPLE

753

117
Campus Friends in the Activity of Dining
Degrees of closeness to campus friends N Percent
Table 9.15: Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to

No time spent dining with students

254 39
At least one time spent in the past 14 days
dining with students, but are not friends

32 5
Not close

17 3
Somewhat Close

122 19
Close 122 19

Very close

100 15
Total 647 100%
Non sequitur va

lues (omitted) 37 5
Missing values from System

69 9
Total (omissions and missing values) 108

14%
TOTAL SAMPLE 753

118
s
in the Activity of Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities
Degrees of closeness to campus friends N Percent
Table 9.16: Frequency Distribution for the Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friend

No times spent participating with other
students in on- and off-campus activities

257

40
At least one time spent in the past month
participating with students in on and off

38

6
campus activities, but are not friends

Not close 51 8

Somewhat Close

107 16
Close 92 14

Very close 105 16

Total 650 100%

Non sequitur values (omitted)

62 8

Missing values from System
41 6

issing v

10

Total (omissions and m alues) 3 14%

TOTAL SAMPLE

753

O
t
o near five dship
uestions. I labeled these illogical responses as “non sequitur.” A non sequitur
es

mission of Cases
In each of these 16 ables, I designated a category for students’ responses that I
mitted because they did not follow the li pattern of the sets of frien
activity q
response represented a class of responses in which students indicated “none” to the tim
spent with a fellow student in a specific activity (e.g., studying with classmates), but also

119
your friends?” (q. 35).
16
Another example of a “non
quitur response” was where the respondent disregarded the skip pattern after having
d the
ext question about the degrees of closeness to the campus friend. About 10% of all the
students’ responses to these 16 questions we inary
analysis had shown that their inclusion would have diminished on strength
of the relationship between the sense of belonging and two of the three campus friendship
measures: the number of campus friends and the degree of closeness of campus
riendships.
17
ary to perform a data reduction
a ch na V ati e th three
v num p shi umber of times spent with a campus
friend, and the degrees of closeness to a campus friend. The initial construction of the
Campus Friendship Scale consisted of three subscales, the number of campus friends, the
number of times spent with a campus friend, and the degrees of closeness to a campus
friend. I created each of the three subscales by summing the scored responses to the
questions that corresponded with the number of campus friendships, the number of times
spent, and the degrees of closeness across the five activities (or six activities in the case
of the number of times spent). Summed scores seemed preferable over the use of mean
scores, because they captured a wider range in variation in the reporting of the number of
they have marked greater than “0” to the following question, “how many of these
classmates that you study with are
se
reported that he or she did not have any friends in a specific activity, and answere
n
re coded as non sequitur. A prelim
ly slightly the
f
Construction of the Campus Friendship Scale
Before generating this scale, it was not necess
nalysis, su
ariables—
as factor a
ber of cam
lysis with
us friend
arimax rot
ps, the n
on, becaus ere were only

120
ampus friends, the number of times spent with campus friends, and the degrees of
rent activities. For instance, a student might
have a lesser or greater num s in one activity than in a ddition, the
st fe d s s ctivities. On
th e ar udent had the same fri p of
friends for all th es, which conceivably might inflate the summed score for the
number of campus friendships.
mpus hip Scale, I ercorrelations between the
.
Total Number of Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends Across Five Activities and
the Total Nu of T ent Camp iends ix A

t s
Total num
pus friends
across five
activities

ber of
with
friends across six
activities
Total num
of closen h
campus friends across
five activities
c
closeness to campus friends across the diffe
ber of friend
egrees of closenes
gued that the st
nother. In a
all five a
end or same grou
udent might
e other hand,
el varying
it could b
to a friend acros
e activiti
After creating the Ca Friends ran int
three subscales, in which I discovered evidence of multi-collinearity. As shown in Table
10 below, correlation coefficients between the three subscales, ranged from .877 to .892
able 10: Intercorrelations Between the Total Number of Campus Friendships, the T
mber imes Sp With us Fr Across S ctivities

Dependen Variable
ber of
cam
Total num
times campus
ber of degrees
ess wit
Total num
frien
ber of camp
ds across five activities 1 .892**
N = 7

.880**
N
us
N= 748

48 = 748
Total number of times with
rie ss
ities

.892**
N = 748

1
N = 749

.877**
N = 748
campus f
six activ
nds acro
Total number of degrees of
closeness with campus
friends across five activities

.880**
N = 748

.877**
N = 748

1
N = 748
**p < .01
ables 11.1 – 11.6 further show that the extremely high intercorrelations between the
ree campus variables occurred particularly within the same activities rather than across
T
th

121
Table 11.1: r Betwe Ac es
Number of C rie

Number of
campus friends
w
your
yo with
Number of
friends
outside
of your class and
you study with
Number of campus
ho you talk
topics
unrelated to class and
studies
Number of
s friends
ou dine wi
Number o
pus fr
you
participate with in
on- and off-
campus activities
activities. Correlation coefficients ranged from .700 to .891 for same activities, and from
.230 to .511 for across activities.

Zero Orde
ampus F
Correlations en the Five tivity Variabl of the
nds
ho are in
class and
u study
campus
who are
friends w
to about
campu
who y th
cam
who
f
iends

1.0

.549**

.400**

.379**

.373**

Table 11.2: Zero Order Correlations Between the Six Activity Variables of the
Number of Times Spent with Campus Friends

Number of
ti t
with campus
friends who
a

y with
Number of
times spent
with campus
friends who
are outside of
your class
and you
study with
Number of
times spent
with campus
friends who
you talk to
on campus
about topics
unrelated to
class and
studies
Number of
times spent
with campus
friends who
you dine
with
Number of
times spent
with campus
friends who
you participate
with in
on-campus
activities
Number of
times spent with
campus friends
who you
participate with
in off -campus
activities
mes spen
re in your
class and
you stud

1.0

.386**

.218**

.294**

.264**

.256**

122

ampus
iends who
are in your
class and you
pus
ds w
utsi
ur
c ss and
u
camp nds
wh
top ed
udies
ampus
o
campus ds
w
p
on an
activities
Table 11.3: Zero Order Correlations Between the Five Activity Variables of the
Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends

degrees of
closeness to
degrees of
closeness to
degrees of
closeness to
degrees of
closeness to
degrees of
closeness to
c
fr
study with
cam
frien
are o
of yo
ho
de

class and st
la
you st
with
dy
us frie
o you talk ab
ics unrelat
out
to
who y
c friends
u dine with
frien
ho you
articipate with in
d off-campus

.490**

.342**

.356**

.35 *

1.0 6*

Table 11.4: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Campus Friends and Number
of Times Spent with Campus Friends in the Activities of Studying (classmate friends),
Studying Outside of Your Class, Talk on Campus About Topics Unrelated to Class and
Studies, Dine, and Participate in On- and Off-campus Activities

ti
study
t
study talk dine
-
campus
activities
tim pus
activities

# of
me
# of
imeout
# of
time
# of
time
# of
time on
# of
e off-cam
# f
st
.775** .489** .248** .337** .328** .316** riends
udy
#
ou
.4 friends
t study
11** .852** .328** .510** .360** .359**
# friends
ta
.282** .478** .758** .467** .360** .371**
lk
# friends
di
.2
ne
67** .482** .416** .842** .349** .464**
# friends
on/
campus
.268** .360** .346** .475** .660** .762**
off
**p

< .01

123
egrees
of Closeness to Campus Friends in the Activities of Studying (classmate friends),
Studies, Dine, and Participate in On- and Off-campus Activities

f-
s
activities
Table 11.5: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Campus Friends and D
Studying (outside of your class), Talk on Campus About Topics Unrelated to Class and

degrees of
closeness
studying
degrees of
closeness out
studying
degrees of
closeness talk
degrees of
closeness dine
degrees of
closeness
on-/of
campu
# friends .806** .492** .339** .341** .297**
study
# friends .495** .866** .448** .500** .365**
out study
# friends
talk
.330** .485** .775** .450** .369**
# friends
dine
.336** .511** .486** .878** .422**
# friends .353** .409** .469** .482** .835**
on/off-
campus
**p < .01

124

Table 11.6: Zero Order Correlations Between Number of Times Spent with Campus
(classmate friends), Studying (outside of your class), Talk on Campus About Topics
# of # of
study
# of # of
ne
# of time
on-campus
activities
# of
time off-campus
activities
Friends and Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends in the Activities of Studying
Unrelated to Class and Studies, Dine, and Participate in On- and Off-Campus Activities

time
study
time
out
time talk time di
degrees of
closeness

.760**

.436**

.230**

.310**

.297**

.323**
studying
degrees of
closeness
out
studying
.370** .841** .325** .488** .334** .363**
degrees of
closeness

.284**

.442**

.739**

.473**

.365**

.381**
talking
degrees of
closeness
dining

.287**

.441**

.392**

.859**

.336**

.433**
degrees of
closeness
cam

.259**

.311**

.288**

.410**

.617**

.711**
on/off-
pus
v acti ities

**p < .01

125
ur,

or
of
er
ted the new Campus Friendship Scale by computing mean scores from the
Since highly intercorrelated predictor variables violate the assumption of
statistical independence in regression analysis (Howell, 1997; Mandel, 1982; Pedhaz
1997), the logical alternative was to combine the three subscales into one campus
friendship scale. In reviewing some of the literature on friendship scales, multiple
measures of friendship were not combined into one scale (Buhrmester, 1990;
La Gaipa, 1977; Matsushima & Shiomi, 2002; Nielsen, Jex, & Adams, 2000; Patterson
& Bettini, 1993; Sharabany, 1994; Smith & Moore, 2000). Four of the 7 studies focused
on one friendship dimension, intimacy or closeness, with the development of either one
scale or subscales to measure the construct (Buhrmester, 1990; Nielsen, Jex, & Adams,
2000; Sharabany, 1994; Smith & Moore, 2000). In the remaining studies, the researchers
utilized multiple dimensional scales, and generated separate factors or subscale scores f
each dimension of friendship. The important point is that none of the researchers
in these studies reported any evidence of multicollinearity between their measures
friendship, for which if they had, one of their alternatives might have been to combine
highly correlated measures into one scale.
In creating a uni-dimensional campus friendship scale, summed scores no long
served as a meaningful interpretation of students’ campus friendships. Therefore, I
construc
responses to the 16 friendship activity items.
The mean for the Campus Friendship Scale was 2.45, SD = 1.44, with scale
values ranging from 0 to 5.92. A higher mean score would suggest that the student has a
higher number of campus friendships, spends a greater amount of time with his or her

126

Introduction to the Sense of Belonging Scale
e first
hypothesis, sense of belonging to the college. The sense of belonging scale referred to
seven items on the survey: “I see myself as part of the campus community” (q. 73);
“T mpu t I feel comfortable
getting involved with” (q. 76); “It is easy to make friends” (q. 78); “I have become
acq culty and/or staff at my campus” (q. 79); “I really like my
instructors on this campus” (q. 88); “I am proud to be associated with this college”
(q.89); “Overall, I feel a sense of belonging to this college” (q. 90). Each of these seven
items has been widely used by educational researchers to measure the sense of belonging
to high school or a four-year college (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007; Goodenow &
Gr awford, 1994; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Maestas, Vaquera, &
Muñoz-Zehr, 2007; Velasquez, 1999). Depending on the items selected for their sense of
bel il rang rom .70 to
.94.
elongin scale, I ook into
consideration both face and construct validities. A common prob e sense of
bel undant because only the face
v
campus friends, and experiences a higher degree of closeness to campus friends across
the five student activities. The Cronbach alpha reliability was .94, which fell within the
high range of the .72 to .92 alpha reliabilities reported in the seven studies cited above.
The Sense of Belonging Scale measured the dependent variable of th
here are many clubs, organizations and activities at my ca s tha
uainted with many fa
ady, 1993; Hoyle & Cr
onging scales, these investigators have reported alpha reliab ities ing f
In selecting the seven scale items for the sense of b g t
lem with som
onging scales is that many of the scale’s items are red
alidity of the measure is considered. For example, in the three studies cited above

127
(Hoyle
f

cale, it
f the alpha reliability from .77 to .75.
ive of the seven scale items were included (items 76, 78 79, 88, and 89) because they
f belonging to a school (construct
n
at
rotation indicated that the seven items loaded on two factors. It must be noted that the
& Crawford, 1994; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Maestas et al., 2007), the
investigators derived their scale items from Bollen and Hoyle’s Sense of Belonging
subscale (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990), which either contained the words “sense of belonging”
or similar language like “feeling like a member of” or “part of the community.”
For my scale, I retained the two items from Bollen and Hoyle’s Sense of Belonging
subscale, “I see myself as part of the campus community” and “Overall I feel a sense o
belonging to the college community,” but eliminated the survey item, “I feel that I am a
member of the campus community.” Apart from being a repetitive item in the s
bore relatively small sized correlations, ranging from .132 to .186 with four of the seven
selected items, and slightly decreased the strength o
F
signified logical associations with the concept o
validity). These five survey items specifically referred to involvement in campus
organizations, ease of making friends, acquaintance with faculty and staff, satisfactio
with instructors, and pride of association with the college. One recent study found th
faculty/student relations variables, similar to items 79 and 88, had moderately strong
correlations with sense of belonging to the university
18
(Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen,
2007).
The inclusion of these five scale items provided a broader and less one-
dimensional measure of sense of belonging than found in some of the previously cited
studies. In Table 12 shown below, a Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax

128

mpus that I feel comfortable getting involved
with” a
Table 12: Factor Loadings of 7 Scale Items for Sense of Belonging Scale

1 2
I see myself as part of the campus community (item 73) .63 .23
loading of the seven items on two factors occurred after the two items, “there are many
clubs, organizations, and activities at my ca
nd “I really like my instructors on this campus” were entered into the Varimax
rotation.

Sense of Belonging Scale Items Factor Factor

There are many clubs, organizations, and
activities at campus
th (item 76) .79 .01

my campus (item 79)

I really like my instructors on campus (item 88) .01 .78
I am proud to be associated with this college (item 89)
.21

.87

Overall, I feel a sense of belonging to this college
.33

.81

_______________________________________________________________________
I feel comfortable getting involved wi
It is easy to make friends on campus (item 78) .67 .14

I have become acquainted with many faculty/staff at

.71

.18

(item 90)

129
m, “I see myself as part of the campus community, the other three items
ms
ngly
Agree a le
the sense of
, I
The first four items displayed high loadings on factor 1, ranging from .63 to .79.
Factor 1 accounted for 39% of the total variance, with eigenvalue >1 at 3.12. The last
three items clustered on factor 2, with factor loadings that ranged from .78 to .87. Factor
2 explained 16% of the total variance, with an eigenvalue >1 at 1.32. With the exception
of the survey ite
with high loadings on factor 1 identified with a sense of belonging that was related to
social interaction with other students and faculty on campus. Whereas, the three ite
with high loadings on factor 2 were associated with the affective and emotive
components of sense of belonging, pride, satisfaction, and comfort. The Cronbach alpha
reliability for the Sense Belonging Scale was .77.

Construction of the Sense of Belonging Scale
I created the Sense of Belonging Scale by computing the mean scores from
students’ responses to the seven survey items. Students were asked if they Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Not sure, Agree, or Strongly Agree with the seven statements.
Strongly Disagree was coded as 1, Disagree as 2, Not Sure as 3, Agree as 4, and Stro
s 5. Based on a five-point scale, the mean value of the Sense of Belonging sca
was 3.80 and SD = .63, N = 703. A higher mean score on the sense of belonging scale
indicated a higher sense of belonging to the community college. I omitted 39 cases
because they showed evidence of a response set, non-attending responses to
belonging items. In an effort to maintain thematic consistency to the survey instrument

130

t,
s, 2003;
t
grouped together 19 attitudinal items, for example, sense of belonging and perceived
discrimination, (items 73-91).
19
I had formatted on the survey questionnaire these items’ response categories,
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, in the same direction, which may have promoted
non-attending response behavior by the students when filling out the questionnaire
(Barnette, 1999). The pattern of these nonattending responses consisted of assigning the
same response category to all or most of the 19 items (e.g., Strongly Agrees, Disagrees,
Not Sures, etc.). The criterion that I used to omit the thirty-nine cases was if the student
designated the same response category to 13 or more of the 19 items.

Introduction to the Ethnic Identity Scale
Ethnic identity is both an independent variable in the third hypothesis, and an
interaction variable with perceived discrimination in the fourth and fifth hypotheses.
Ethnic identity also will be introduced as a control variable to determine if it might have
an effect on the hypothesized relationship between campus friendships and sense of
belonging to the college community. Several investigators have reported medium sized
correlations between ethnic identity and sense of belonging to the university. (LeCoun
1987; Mitchell & Dell, 1992; Moran,Yengo, & Algier, 1994; Parker & Flower
Sidanius, Levin, Van Laar, & Sinclair, 2004). Parker and Flowers (2003) found tha
higher levels of sense of belonging were related to a higher status of racial or ethnic
identity. Pertinent to this study, Ethier and Deaux’s ethnographic study (1994) linked
campus connectedness to inter-relationships among ethnic identity, making same ethnic

131
tity
f belonging to the college. Thus, controlling for ethnic identity
ng
e
multi-
signed her
nd
, the MEIM is unlike
any

tory
friends, and joining on-campus Hispanic clubs. In some of these studies, ethnic iden
was under examination as a mediating variable between student membership in ethnic
organizations and sense o
clarifies and elaborates the relationship between campus friendships and sense belongi
to the college.
I measured ethnic identity by six survey items. The strength of ethnic identity was
determined across three dimensions: ethnic identity achievement, affirmation and
belonging, and ethnic behavior and practices. The six survey items were taken from the
14-item Ethnic Identity subscale of Phinney’s Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure Scal
(MEIM). The Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure has been frequently used in
cultural research, namely high school students and college students. Phinney de
instrument with the intention that it would be administered to a wide range of racial a
ethnic groups in the United States (Phinney, 1992). In this respect
m race or ethnic specific identity scales (e.g., African Americans, Black Racial
Identity Attitude Scale [Helms & Parham, 1990]; Asian Americans, Suinn, Lew Asian
Self Identity Acculturation Scale [Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987]).
In a review of 12 published studies using the MEIM, a group of investigators
reported that the Ethnic Identity subscale, in particular, demonstrated respectable levels
of internal consistency and moderately strong construct validity based upon explora
factor analyses (Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Stracuzzi, & Saya, Jr., 2003).
The following were the six survey items that I borrowed from Phinney’s Ethnic
Identity subscale:

132
,
aditions, and customs” (item 18); (b) “I am active in organizations or social groups that
include mostly members of my own ethnic group” (item 19); (c) “I have a clear sense of
my e nic b o d it to (it ); th ot h
my ill b affe n ) h tro
sen be g to y o n p d p t t
practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or s” (item 24). A seventh
item, number 22), “I am happy that I am a member of the ethnic group I belong to” was
elim d b con nt i m
h y 1 o de o th c y
Achievem e e n t s hin co
“Ethnic Iden ation and
ommitment to learning about one’s ethnic background and developing a clear meaning
of on
secon
at are
one’
deriv
Belon
ride, being
(a)“I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history
tr
th ackgr und an what means me” em 20 (d) “I ink a l about ow
life w e cted by my eth ic group membership” (item 21 ; (e) “I ave a s ng
se of longin m wn eth ic grou ” (item 23); an , (f) “I articipa e in cul ural
custom
(
inate from the scale ecause it resembled in te tem nu ber 23.
T ree of the surve items 8, 20, and 21 c rrespon d t e Ethni Identit
ent dim nsion of Phinn y’s Eth ic Iden ity Sub cale. P ney nceives of
tity Achievement” as the result of a person’s continual explor
c
e’s ethnicity (Phinney, 1992, p. 161). Survey items 19 and 24 originated from the
d component of her Ethnic Identity subscale, Ethnic Behavior and Practices.
According to Phinney, there are two dimensions of Ethnic Behavior and Practices th
common to most ethnic groups, the involvement in social activities with members of
s group and participation in cultural traditions (Phinney p. 159). Item 23
es from the third component of the Ethnic Identity subscale, Affirmation and
ging. Affirmation and Belonging encompasses a wide array of positive feelings
about belonging to an ethnic group and attitudes toward the group: ethnic p
happy with one’s group membership, and attachment to one’s ethnic group (Phinney, p.

133
ny
t response
1982; Likert, 1932; Rossi, Wright, & Anderson, 1983). Yet other studies
T
ntity
k,
ight
159). After reviewing a variety of items from different measures of ethnic identity,
Phinney maintained that she arrived at the three components that were most common
across all ethnic groups.
In my survey instrument, I did not include seven items from Phinney’s Ethnic
Identity Subscale because they were semantically similar to the six scale items.
Specifically, two of these seven items were negative phrasings of items 18 and 20. Ma
survey researchers and psycho-metricians have recommended mixing negatively and
positively worded items in order to guard against nonattending and acquiescen
sets (Anastasi,
have demonstrated that combined negative and positive item reversals did not
appreciably reduce response bias, but instead lowered internal consistency, or
generated different loading factors (Barnette, 2000; Pilotte & Gable, 1990; Knight,
Chisholm, Marsh, & Godfrey, 1988; Schriesheim & Hill, 1981).
he six ethnic identity items were entered into a Principal Components factor
analysis with Varimax rotation in order to determine if all these items loaded on one
Ethnic Identity factor, as reported by Phinney (1992). I also added four religious ide
items into the factor analysis. Zero order correlations revealed moderate to moderately
strong correlations between the three religious items and three ethnic identity items, as
shown in Table 13. In Chapter 2, I cited specific studies that pointed to religion as
serving as an “ethnic-like” identity marker for Arabs and Muslims (e.g., Eid, 2003; Pee
2005). Therefore, it made sense to consider if any of the religious identity items m
load on the same factor as the ethnic identity items.

134
Items
Survey
4

* .276** .134**
EI

EI21 .312** .357** .283** 1 .326** .311** .324** .238** .233** .127**
EI23 .224** .336** .466** .326** 1 .462** .375** .547** .294** .374**
.155**
Table 13: Bi-variate Correlations for 6 Ethnic Identity Items and 4 Religious Identity

Items

EI18 EI19 EI20 EI21 EI23 EI24 RI25 RI27 RI28 RI29

EI18 1 .360** .340** .312** .224** .250** .201** .229** .115** .04
EI19 .360** 1 .292** .357** .336** .379** .563** .279*

20 .340** .292** 1 .283** .466** .328** .307** .426** .211** .299**

EI24 .250** .379** .328** .311** .462** 1 .409** .380** .211**

RI25 .201** .563** .307** .324** .375** .409** 1 .469** .444** .329*
RI27 .229** .279**
*

.463** .238** .547** .380** .469** 1 .463** .491

RI28 .115** .276** .211** .233** .294** .211** .444** .463** 1
**
.445**

RI29 .044 .134** .299** .127** .374** .155** .329** .491** .445** 1
Key:
history, traditions and customs. (Ethnic Identity Achievement)
y
own ethnic group. (Ethnic Behavior)
(Ethnic Identity Achievement)
(Ethnic Identity Achievement)

Belonging)
music, or customs. (Ethnic Behavior)

my own religious group.
RI28: In general, would you say that you are very religious.
religion is the literal word of God.”

EI18: I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its
EI19: I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of m
EI20: I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means to me.
EI21: I think a lot about my life with be affected by my ethnic group membership.
EI23: I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. (Affirmation and
EI24: I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food,
RI25: I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of
RI27: I feel a sense of belonging to members of my religious group.
RI29: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The holy book of my

135
2 to
ic
nse of my
thnic background and what it means to me” and item 21, “ I think a lot about how my
.283. Of the two items, 20 and 21, corresponding to the Ethnic Identity Achievement
dimension, item 19, referring to the Ethnic Behavior dimension yielded a slightly higher
c 20 (rs = .357 and .292, p < .01,
respec
s were moderately strong,
with coefficients ranging from .444 to .491 (highlighted in bright blue) The slightly lower
c , reflecting the sociability component of religion, and item
29, corresponding to spiritual errancy, was understandable (r = .329, p < 0.01).
trong associa between t of the
r hlighted in brig ellow). T orrelation
between ethnic identity item, 24 and religious identity item, 25, was not su rising,
b bers of one’s ethn nd religious
groups (r = .409, p < .01). The equally strong correlation between ethnic identity item 20,
a logical, because bo ems dealt with identity
a , p <.01). Ethnic identity item, 24 and religious
identity item correlation (r = .380, p < .01), which
ltural practices of ethnic groups, for example, music,
Most of the intercorrelations among the six ethnic identity items ranged from .31
.466. Surprisingly, the intercorrelations were slightly lower for items within the Ethn
Identity Achievement dimension. For example, item 20, “I have a clear se
e
life will be affected by my ethnic group membership," the correlation coefficient was
orrelation with item 21, than item with item
tively).
The intercorrelations among the three religious item
orrelation between item 25
As predicted, there was a moderately s tion hree
eligious items and ethnic identity items (hig ht y he c
rp
ecause they both refer to social involvement with mem ic a
nd religious identity item, 27, appeared th it
nd belonging to one’s group (r = .463
, 27, revealed a medium sized
suggested that the cu food, and

136
traditio

ts

d
h
imilar to ethnic identity items
erican Muslims (Eid, 2003; Read, 2004).
Collectively, these four religious items tried to capture what Eid (2003) had delineated as
ns, are related in some way to religious group membership. The last correlation
found between item 23 and 29 was the most intriguing, because it linked a strong sense of
belonging to one’s ethnic group and fundamental beliefs concerning the strict
interpretation of one’s Holy Book (r = .374, p < .01). The bi-variate correlations between
items 19 and 25, and items 23 and 27, were not highlighted, because the coefficien
appeared inflated, due perhaps to the similar wording of all four items.
As indicated in Table 14, the four survey items, 25, 27, 28, and 29, comprised the
religious identity measure. Two of the religious items, 25 and 27, were reworded
statements of ethnic identity items, 19 and 23, which corresponded with Phinney’s
dimensions of involvement in organizations with one’s group and affirmation of— an
belonging to— one’s group. I borrowed items 28 and 29 from Read’s religiosity index
used in her survey study on Arab American Christian and Muslim women (Read, 2004).
In Read’s study (2004), item 29, agreement or disagreement with the statement
that one’s Holy Book was the literal word, displayed medium to strong associations wit
survey items relating to ethnic relationships and practices, s
19 and 24.
20
In contrast, this study found that there was a stronger correlation between
item 29, spiritual inerrancy, and item 23, a sense of belonging to one’s ethnic group (see
Table 13, above). Item 30, the frequency of religious service attendance, was excluded
because it was not as highly correlated with the other three religious items. Additionally,
other studies have shown that it is not uniformly a strong predictor of religious identity,
particularly among Arab Canadian and Arab Am

137
ts of religious identity,
21
for example,

s

Ethnic Identity and Religious Identity Items
the subjective, objective, and social componen
personal sense of belonging to a religious group, ritual beliefs and observance, and
participation in social events with members of the same religious group.

Table 14: Factor Loadings of 6 Ethnic Identity Items and 4 Religious Identity Item

Factor
1
Factor
2
I have spent time trying to find out more about my
-.08

.71

I am active in organizations or social groups that .19 .71
ethnic group (item 18)

I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and
hat
.37 .52

group, such as special food, music, or customs
(item 25)

In general, would you say that you are very
religious (item 28) .72 .10

The holy book of my religion is the literal
work of God (item 29) .82 -.05

include mostly members of my own ethnic group
(item 19)

w it means to me (item 20)

I think a lot about my life will be affected by my
ethnic group membership (item 21)
.11

.64

I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic
group (item 23)
.57

.47

I participate in cultural practices of my own ethnic
(item 24)
.28

.62

I am active in organizations or social groups that
include mostly members of my religious group

.53

.49

I feel a sense of belonging to members of my
religious group (item 27)
.76

.30

138
The Varimax rotation showed that for five of the six ethnic identity items, the
highest loadings were on factor 2, ranging from .52 to .71. This result seemed to suggest
a single factor for ethnic identity, which both Phinney (1992) and Ponterotto et al. (2003)
had found with their respective student samples. For these specific five items, the size of
their factor loadings fell within the same range, as reported by Phinney. The four
religious items had the highest loadings on factor 1 (.53 to .82). Ethnic identity item 23,
“I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group,” showed higher loadings on
factor 1, the same factor as the four religious items (.57). It is interesting to note
that for ethnic identity item 23 and religious identity item 25, there were not sizeable
differences between the loadings on either factor 1 or factor 2. It is not clear whether
these items genuinely reflected the nuanced relationship between religious identity and
ethnic identity, as discussed in Chapter 2,or were artifacts that resulted from their similar
wording to items 27 and 19 . It is curious that the counterpart items, 19 and 27, were not
divided closely between the two factors, but rather displayed high loadings on single
factors (.71 on factor 2 and .76 on factor 1, respectively).
Overall, the factor analysis seemed to indicate that ethnic identity and religious
identity were two unique constructs. Moreover, when religious identity items were omitted
from the factor analysis, all six ethnic identity items clustered together on a single factor.
Similarly, when the six ethnic identity items were not included in the factor analysis, all
four religious items loaded on one factor. Based on these results, the four religious items
were not included in the Ethnic Identity Scale.

139
was
inney reported a higher alpha reliability coefficient for her four-year college
d
d
ively
4).
1,
trongly Disagree, 2, Somewhat Disagree, 3, Somewhat Agree, and 4, Strongly Agree).
23

The Construction of the Ethnic Identity Scale
The Ethnic Identity Scale was constructed from mean scores, which were derived
from the responses to the six ethnic identity items (item numbers 18-21, 23-24 in Table
12). Based on a five-point scale, the response categories were as follows: Strongly
Disagree (coded 1), Disagree (coded 2), Not sure (coded 3), Agree (coded 4), and
Strongly Agree (coded 5). The Cronbach alpha reliability for the ethnic identity scale
.75.
22
Ph
sample, .90. Like the majority of the students in the present study, Phinney sample
students from ethnically diverse urban campuses. The lower Cronbach alpha found
in this study may be attributable to not utilizing 7 of the 14 items of the Multi-Group
Ethnic Identity Measure Scale (MEIM).
The Ethnic Identity Scale’s mean value was 4.0, SD = .69 (N = 748), which indicate
that Arab and Muslim students had a remarkably strong ethnic identity. As Figure 3
illustrates, below, Arab and Muslim students’ high ethnic identity scores were
represented by a negatively skewed distribution, with 58% of the cases falling between
the mean (4.0) and above. Based on a four-point scale, Phinney also reported a relat
high mean score for her small urban college sample (mean = 3.04, SD = .59, N = 13
Her response categories also were slightly different from the ones used in this study (
S

140

n
re other explanations for the extremely high mean scores found
r A ab and Muslim students. Several investigators have provided ample evidence for

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00

It might be argued that Arab and Muslim students’ ethnic identity scores were
inflated due to a response bias, such as a halo effect, stemming from the close positioning
of the survey items on one page. As an exploratory task, I counted the number of cases i
which a score of 4 (Agree) or 5 (Strongly Agree) was assigned across five or all six of
the items. Scores of 4s and 5s were associated with strong ethnic identity. The counts
revealed that 30%, or 224 of the 748 cases, had either scores of 4 (Agree) or 5 (Strongly
Agree) across five or all six of the survey items.
However, there a
fo r
1.00

80
60
40
20
0

Mean =4.00
Std. Dev. =0.689
N =748
Figure 3: Frequency Distribution for Ethnic Identity Scale

141
e prevalence of extreme response style
24
among African Americans, Latinos, and
man & O’ Malley, 1984;
Clarke, 2000; Hui & Triandis, 1989; Marín, Gamba, & Marín,1992). Extrem
style refers to the tendency of a respondent to assign an extreme score at either end of the
rating scale. At this time, there do not appear to be any studies that have investigated the
relationship between survey item extrem of certain ethnic
g
ethnic groups, Phinney and her associates have observed
s variations in mean ethnic ident c ; Phin A ri
1990; Phinney & Tarver,1988). In her small urban sample cited above, Phinney (1992)
found that African American s ts h i ic ethnic id y s s
( .43, N = 11) n Asians (mean = 3.02, SD = .45, N = 35), Hispanics
( ), Whites (mean = 2.86, SD = .60, N = 23), and Mixed
(mean = 2.62, SD = .68, N = 8). Although the focal group of the study was Arab and
hite (see ethnicity breakdown for non-Arab and non-Muslim sample in Table 15).
th
natives from Mediterranean countries (Arce Ferrer, 2006; Bach
e response
order and e response style
roups.
Among different
izeable ity s ores (Phinney, 1992 ney & lipu a,
tuden ad s gnif antly higher entit core
mean = 3.46, SD = tha
mean = 3.07, SD = .62, N = 58
Muslim community college students, I collected simultaneously the same ethnic identity
data from 567 non-Arab and non-Muslim students. This second group represented
primarily the following four ethnic groups, African American, Latino, Asian, and
W

142
N Percentage
Table 15: Number and Percentage of Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students by
Ethnicity

Ethnicity

African American 52 9

Latinos 135 24

Asians 119 21

South Asians 21 4

Pacific Islanders 2 <1

Native American 1 <1

Caucasian (U.S.) 208 37

Eastern European Caucasian

12 2
African 12 2

Bi-racial (Asian/Caucasian,
Asian/African American)

5

<1
Total 567 100%

comparison g a useful context for evaluating the ex y
high ethnic identity scores f f Arab and Muslim students. Tables 16
and 17, on the following pages, present the means, standard deviations, and significant
mean differences in the scores on ethnic identity between Arab and Muslim students and
the ison group of no slim st . Below ns, stan
deviations, and mean score differences were only presented for the ethnicities in both
groups that showed 18 or m result, 160 were om in Tab and
151 cases in Table 17.

Such a roup provided tremel
ound in over 50% o
compar n-Arab and non-Mu udents mea dard
ore cases. As a cases itted le 16

143
Table 1 ,
(N = 691), and non-Arab and non-Muslim Groups (N = 468)

6: Means and Standard Deviations for Ethnic Identity Scores, Arab and Muslim

Non- Arab
Non-Muslim
Mean N SD

Arab and Muslim Mean N SD

African American 3.78 52 .59 African Muslim 3.89 30 .61

Asian 3.50 109 .63 Arab/Arab American

3.97 372 .66
Caucasian 3.19 157 .79 Iraqi Chaldean**

4.06 36 1.01
European*

3.73

18

.81

Middle Eastern

4.05

196
(mostly Eastern European)

.68
Latino
3.61

132

.69
Southeast Asian
(Indian Subcontinent)

3.91

57

.81

Group Mean/
Subtotal/Group SD
3.50 468 .74 Group Mean/
Subtotal/Group SD
4.00 691 .68

Totals Non-Arab and
Non-Muslim and Arab and Muslim

N

SD

1,159

.76

from Eastern Europe, I did not combine them with the predominantly U.S. born, Caucasian subgroup. I included the
in these two tables because, in contrast with their Caucasian counterparts, their mean ethnic identity scores were nearly
as high as African Americans.
respondents identified with “Middle Eastern “ethnicity.

* Europeans represented very few cases in the Non-Arab and Non-Muslim sample. As they were largely immigrants
m

** In this study, there were 88 Iraqi Chaldeans. Only 36 self-reported as “Iraqi Chaldean”, most of the remaining 52

144
s
(N = 691), and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim students (N = 468)
Table 17: Mean Differences in Ethnic Identity Scores Between Arab and Muslim student

Non-Arab,
Non-Muslim

Arab and Muslim
Mean

Difference
SD

Error
Obs.

Prob.
African American

Arab/Arab American -.187 .091 .04*
African American

Middle Eastern -.267 .096 .01*
Asian

African .391 .126 .00**
Asian Arab/Arab Ameri

can .466 .074 .00*
A

Iraqi Chaldean .563 .134 .00** sian
Asian

Middle Eastern .546 .080 .00**
Asi
(Indian Subcontinent)
an Southeast Asian .412 .099 .00**
Caucasian Arab/Arab American .773 .065 .00**

Caucasian African .689 .120 .00**
Caucasian

Iraqi Chaldean .868 .129 .00**
Caucasian Middle Eastern .853 .070 .00**

Caucasian

Southeast Asian
(Indian Subcontinent)

.719

.092

.00**
European Middle Eastern .315 .151 .04*
(Eastern European)
Latino African .276 .122 .03*

Latino

Arab/Arab American .352 .069 .00**
Latino Iraqi Chaldean .449 .131 .00**

Latino Middle Eastern 431 .075 .00**
Latino Southeast Asian (Indian
Subcontinent)
.297 .095 .00**
*p < .05, **p > .01

145

Table 16 shows that the overall mean score for the non-Arab and non-Muslim
group was considerably lower than the Arab and Muslim group (non-Arab and non-
Muslims, mean = 3.50, SD = .74; Arab and Muslims, mean = 4.0, SD = .68). Similar to
Phinney’s findings, this study bore that African American students showed a higher score
on ethnic identity than their Latino, Asian, and Caucasian counterparts did. But the mean
scores, corresponding to the five subgroups of Arabs and Muslims, exceeded all four of
the ethnic groups from the non-Arab and non-Muslim group. Within the Arab and
Muslim group, Iraqi Chaldeans and Middle Easterners reflected the highest mean scores
on ethnic identity (mean = 4.06, SD = 1.01,and mean = 4.05, SD = .68, respectively).
However, a post hoc analysis (LSD) indicated that the mean scores of Iraqi Chaldeans
and Middle Easterners were not significantly different from those of the other three
subgroups in the Arab and Muslim sample.
Table 17 indicated that all five subgroups of the Arab and Muslim group displayed
appreciably higher mean scores on ethnic identity than did Caucasians, Asians, Latinos,
and Europeans (p < .01); except the mean score differences between African Muslims
and Latinos and Middle Easterners and Europeans were only at the .05 level. Arab/Arab
Americans and Middle Easterners had significantly higher mean scores on ethnic identity
than African Americans at the .05 level (Arab/Arab American, mean = 3.97, SD = .66;
Middle Eastern, mean = 4.05, SD = .68; African American, mean = 3.78, SD = .59).
Overall, the significant difference between the mean scores of the two student groups
suggested that the Ethnic Identity Scale was a valid predictor of Arab and Muslim

146
s,
cale

try”
y group organizations” (item 81); “I feel
iscriminated against by students, because of my religion” (item 82); “I feel
discriminated against by faculty, because of my ancestry” (item 83); “I feel discriminated
against by faculty, because of my religious faith” (84); “The administration discriminates
against my ethnic group” (item 86); and, “The administration discriminates against my
religious faith” (87). All nine items were adapted from Maxwell’s 1998 survey, which he
administered to 1,164 students from an urban community college in Southern California.
The only exception is that Maxwell’s 1998 survey did not contain the three religious
discrimination items, numbers 82, 84, and 87, I made some changes in the wording of
students’ strong ethnic identity. The sample size of the target group and the comparison
group combined were 10 times larger than Phinney’s 1992 sample. Together, the two
student groups represented a broad sampling of ethnicities by which to test the validity
and reliability of the Ethnic Identity Scale. In light of these significant group difference
it does not seem likely that the Arab and Muslim students’ high ethnic identity scores
were a result of extreme response bias.

Introduction to the Perceived Discrimination S
Perceived discrimination is both an independent variable in the second hypothesis
and an interaction variable with ethnic identity in the fourth and fifth hypotheses. The
Perceived Discrimination Scale consisted of nine survey items: “The campus attracts
ethnic diversity”(item 75); “The campus encourages open racial, ethnic, and religious
discussion” (item 77); “I feel discriminated against by students because of my ances
(item 80); “The administration supports minorit
d

147
m 77, I added the word “religious.” For
“ancestry which as I explained
id not un rstand th word ethnicity” or did not
specific “ethnic group,” for example, Arab-
American. Items 80, 83, and 86, questions relating to feeling discriminated against by
ty, and administration, d to one’ nici
perceive ination (e.g., Faircloth & Hamm,
2005; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Levin, Van Laar, & Foote, 2006).
mpted to tap overt and covert forms of perceived
p level. Items 80, 82, 83, and 84 asked direct
statements about feeling personally discriminated against because of one’s ethnicity or
and 87 aimed at measurin rceived crim nation against one ethnic
between p ceived di rimination at the personal or
the group level has been found to be particularly significant in terms of what students
vey.
There has been compelling evidence to suggest that respondents are more likely to
Maxwell’s survey items, 77, 80, and 83. For ite
items, 80 and 83, I used the word ” instead of ethnicity,
earlier if I had students who either d de e “
identify themselves as being part of a
other students, facul ue s eth ty, have been used in other
school-based studies on measuring d discrim
The nine items atte
discrimination at the personal and grou
religion. Items 86 g pe dis i
or religious group. The distinction er sc
might report on a sur
perceive a higher level of discrimination directed at their group than at themselves (e.g.,
Crosby, 1984; Rippy & Newman, 2006; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Taylor, Wright,
Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990).
The remaining items, 74, 77, and 81, do not refer directly to perceived
discrimination, but are positive statements about the campus climate, for example.
institutional support, openness to racial and religious discussion and campus diversity.

148

e in
25
Therefore, the
ed
e
The rationale for including the three positively worded items was that they might
counterbalance the succession of discrimination phrased items, which might lead students
either to underestimate or overestimate their perceptions of discrimination on campus.
Other studies also have created multiple variables under a campus climate measur
which there is a mix of positive and negative worded items (e.g., Arnold, 1995; Hurtado
& Carter, 1997; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Mattice, 1994).
assumption was that these three positively worded items might elicit the suppressed
attitudes towards discrimination on campus .
The six discrimination worded items and the three campus climate items seem
to suggest two different measures of perceived discrimination.
26
I therefore submitted the
nine items to a Principal Components factor analysis with Varimax rotation in order to
determine if they loaded on the same factor or different factors. Table 18 revealed that th
six discrimination worded items and the three campus climate items loaded on two
different factors, factors 1 and 2, respectively.

149

actor 2.
ctively, of the total variance explained
(eigenvalues > 1 at 4.21 and 1.69). The Cronbach alpha was .83. Using the data
fromMaxwell’s sample (N = 614), a factor analysis demonstrated the same results. That
is, the three ethnic-based discrimination items, 80, 83, and 86 (there were no religious
based discrimination items in Maxwell’s survey), and the three campus climate items

Table 18: Factor Loadings on 9
Perceived Discrimination Items

Perceived Discrimination Items

Factor
1
Factor
2
The campus attracts ethnic diversity (item 75)
.10

.75
The campus encourages open, racial, ethnic, and

religious discussion (item 77) .05 .82
I feel discriminated against by students, because
of my ancestry (item 80)

.78

-.03

The administration supports minority group
.11

.71

Items 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, and 87 loaded on factor 1, and items 75, 77, and 81 on f
Factors 1 and 2 accounted for 47% and 19%, respe
organization (item 81)
I feel di against,
because of my religion (item 82)

.77

.01

scriminated
I feel discriminated against by faculty, because of
my ancestry (item 83)

.88

.10
I feel discriminated against by faculty, because of
my religion (item 84)

.87

.07
The administration discriminates against my
ethnic group (item 86)

.82

.11
The administration discriminates against my
religious group (item 87)

.85

.12

150
loaded
e total variance (exigent values > 1 at 2.31 and 1.39). However, I found a considerably
lower al lity statistic for the six items ( Ret to my survey data, I
reran the alpha reliability tests on only six of the perceived discrimination items,
excludin scrimination items ime, I obtained the same alpha,
.67 as found with Maxwell’s sample.
The redundancy of the similarly worded, religious-based discrimination items,
and their close proximity to the ethnic-b ination items might have inflated the
Cronbach alpha to .83. As discussed earlier, the close placeme t of similarly themed
items on ncourage n tending responses, or produce a halo effect
with som dents. Barnette (1999 ved that the prevalence of certain patterns
of non-a responses in 5% of the
Therefo the same 39 cases (5% of th le), which also had displayed the
same response pattern to the sense of belonging items (refer to page 29). The removal of
items did not exhibit a decrease in the alpha, the Cronbach reliability still
was constructed from means scores that were
Agree (coded 2), Not Sure (coded 3), Disagree (coded 4), and Strongly Disagree (coded
on two different factors. Factors 1 and 2 explained, respectively 38% and 23% of
th
pha reliabi σ = .67). urning
g the three religious di . This t
ased discrim
n
the same page can e on-at
e respon ) obser
ttending sample could inflate the alpha as high as 20%.
re, I removed e samp
the 39
remained.83.

Construction of the Perceived Discrimination Scale
The Perceived Discrimination Scale
generated from students’ responses to each of the nine survey items. For the six
discrimination-phrased items, the response categories were, Strongly Agree (coded 1),

151
oded
the six discrimination-phrased
ems. The three campus climate items were coded as follows: Strongly Disagree (coded
5). In this way, the mean scores for all nine items could be interpreted in the same
direction.
27
The reverse c also help to spot cases in which there were
logical inconsistencies in the responses to the nine items.
f crimination scale was 2.21, SD = .70, N =
7 p 2.21 indicated higher levels
o t -one percent of Ara usl den m an
s 2.21. A re of 2.21 is not strikingly high, it is again
u alize th omparing the A Mu ro n score
on perceived discrimination for non-Arab and non-Muslim students. The group mean
score on perceived discrimination was recognizably lower for non-Arab and non-Muslim
students, mean = 1.94, SD = .574, N = 555. Table 19, below, shows the m an perceived
discrimination scores for Arab and Muslim, and non-Arab and non-Muslim students. In
Table 19, note that means scores are reported only for more largely represented
subgroups within each of the two student groups.

5). Since the three campus climate items were stated in positive terms, I reverse c
their response categories so that they would pair up with
it
1); Disagree (coded 2); Not Sure (coded 3); Agree (coded 4); and Strongly Agree (coded
oding of items
The mean value or the perceived dis
03. Based upon a five- oint rating scale, a score higher than
f perceived discrimina ion. Fifty b and M im stu ts had a e
core higher than lthough a mean sco
seful to contextu is score by c rab and slim g up mea
e

152
s
(N = 572) and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students (N = 447)

Table 19: Mean Perceived Discrimination Scores for Arab and Muslim Student

Identity N Mean SD
Arab and Muslims

Arab/Arab American 337 2.23 .668

Middle Eastern 178 2.22 .706

Southeast Asian 57 2.00 .705

Totals 572

Non-Arab and Non-Muslims

African Americans

46 2.03 .637
Latinos

133 1.83 .417
Asians

113 2.18 .538
Caucasians

155 1.81 .517
Totals 447

As shown in Table 19, the Arab/Arab American and Middle Easterners exhibited higher
meanscores on perceived discrimination than all four of the ethnic groups in the non-
student group. Southeast Asians Muslims showed only higher
ean scores than Latinos and Caucasians.
In Table 20, below, a post hoc comparison revealed that the mean scores for
Arab/Arab Americans and Middle Easterners were significantly higher than for African
Arab and non-Muslim
m

153
Americans, Latinos, and Caucasians, but not for Asians.
28
However, Asians had
significantly higher scores than South Asian Muslims.

Table 20: Mean Differences in Perceived Discrimination Scores Between
Arab and Muslim Students (N =572) and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students (N =447)

Arab and Muslim

Non-Arab and
Non-Muslim

Mean
Diff.

SD
Error

Obs.
Prob.

Arab/Arab American

African American .209 .086 .01*
Arab/Arab American Caucasian .420 .059 .00**

Arab/Arab American Latino .401 .063 ..00**

Middle Eastern African American .219 .090 .01*

Middle Eastern Caucasian .410 .066 .00**

Middle Eastern

Latino

.400

.069

.00**

Southeast Asian Asian -.412 .099 .00**

*p < .05, **p , .01.
Among Arab and Muslim students, there were within group differences on
perceived discrimination. Iraqi Chaldeans, and African Muslims exhibited higher mean
scores than Southeast Asians, Arab/Arab Americans, and Middle Easterners (Iraqi
Chaldeans, mean = 2.35, SD = .685, N = 30, p < .05; African Muslims, mean = 2.60, SD
= .952, N = 29, p < .01). African Muslims displayed the highest mean score of all the
ethnic subgroups within the Arab and Muslim student group.

154
One drawback to converting these nine items into a scale is that it obscures the
wide variation in the Arab and Muslim group’s responses to each of the items. For
example, in Figures 4.1-4.9, a higher percentage of Arab and Muslim students felt
discriminated against because of ancestry and religion (16% and 18%, respectively) by
other students than by either faculty or administration (faculty, 11%, ancestry11%,
religion; administration, 12%, ancestry, 11%, religion). In comparison to Arab and
Muslim students, non-Arab and non-Muslim students were two to four times less likely to
ents that they felt discriminated against by other students, faculty,
and administration, because of their ancestry and religion. Twelve percent of Arab and
Muslims disagreed that the administration supported minority organizations, as compared
to 7% of non-Arab and non-Muslims. Forty percent of Arabs and Muslims, and 49% of
non-Arab and non-Muslims were unsure if the administration supported minority
organizations. Less than 10% of both student groups disagreed that the campus attracted
ethnic diversity and encouraged open racial, ethnic, and religious discussion. In sum,
looking at each of the nine items individually gives a clear picture of where the students’
higher rates of perceived discrimination are than what is revealed by the mean score on a
ale.
agree with the statem
sc

155
Fig ure 4.1 : Feel dis criminated ag ains t by s tudents
becaus e of my ances try
0
20
10
30
50
40
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
A rab and M u s lims N = 688 Non-A rab and Non-M u s lims N = 551

0
20
40
50
10
30
60
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Figure 4.2: Feel discriminated by students,
because of my religion
Arab and Muslims N = 687 Non-Arab and Non-Muslims N = 553

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strongly Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Figure 4.3: Feel discriminated against by faculty,
because of my ancestry
Agree Disagree
Arab and Muslims N = 686 Non-Arab and Non-Muslims N = 538

156
Figure 4.4: Feel discriminated by faculty, because of my religion
50
0
10
20
40
30
Strongly A gree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Arab and M uslims N = 682 Non-Arab and Non-M uslims N = 538

0
10
30
50
20
40
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
my ethnic group
Figure 4.5: the administration discriminates against
Arab and Muslims N = 648 Non-Arab and Non-Muslims N = 522

0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Figure 4 .6: The adminis tration dis criminates ag ains t
my religious faith
Agree Disagree
A rab and M uslims N = 643 Non-A rab and Non-M us lims N = 518

157
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly
Agree
Agree N ure rongly
Disagree
ns
ot S Disagree St
Figure 4.7: The administration supports minority group
organizatio
Ar = 681 ab and Muslims N Non-Arab and Non-Muslims N = 547

0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly
Agree
A gree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Figure 4.8: The camp ttracts e c diversity us a thni
Arab and M uslims N = 690 Non-Arab and Non-M uslims N = 551

0
10
20
30
40
Strongly Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Figure 4.9: The campus encourages open racial, ethnic, and
religious discussion
Arab and Muslims N = 688 Non-Arab and Non- uslims N = 551 M

158
Introduction to Four Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales
The four ethnic/faith friendship group variables were campus friendships of the
same ancestry and sam e ancestry and different religion, same religion and
different ancestry, and different religion and different ancestry. They were the dependent
variables in the second, third, and fourth hypotheses. The four ethnic/faith friendship
group variables w ured by the stu ’ self-report of how many of their campus
iends were of the same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different religion,
ligion in t dents did no understand fully the meaning of both terms.
With re ” there peopl t not identity with a
particular ethnic group, but relate to the word “ancestry” as the country of their familial
origin.
On the survey, students had been presented with five different situations in which
they were to indicate the number of campus friends they participated with in the situation,
how often they p ed, and how clos y were to ese campus friends. These
activities include g in class, study ith stu class, talking
n campus, dining, and participating in on and off-campus activities. If the students
rt
llowing four response categories: same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and
different religion, same religion and different ancestry, and different religion and
e religion, sam
ere meas dents
fr
same religion and different ancestry, and different religion and different ancestry.
On the survey, I substituted here the words “ethnicity” and “faith” with ancestry and
re he event that respon t
spect to the term “ethnicity, are e who migh
articipat e the th
d studyin ing w dents outside of one’s
o
responded that they had campus friends in any of these five activities, they were to repo
the percentage of these campus friends, for each activity separately, that fell into the
fo

159
different an f students had friends whom they studied with inside
of class, they were to estimate the percentage of these friends who were from the same
ancestry and same religion, and so forth The four ethnic/faith friendship group
variables— same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different religion, same
religion and different ancestry, and different religion and different ancestry—
corresponded to the following 20 survey item 7, 38, , 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53,
4, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, and 70.
nto which their friend or friends fit. If their friends
fell into only one, two, or three of the four response categories, the respondents were to
place “0%s in the remaining categories. All assigned percentages had to add up to 100%.
As a reminder, the words “TOTAL 100%
cestry.
29
For example, i
s, #3 39, 40
5
I instructed students to assign percentages only to the response categories (e.g.,
same ancestry and same religion, etc.) i
” were printed below the four response
categories of each block of the five fri ship group activity questions. Many students
did not correctly fill out this section o survey ause they did not make the
connection to calculate the percentage(s) based upon the number of campus friends they
had previously repo ve activities. For example, if respondents
nswered that they had one friend whom they studied with in class, they should have
ts, particularly those with varying levels of competency in math
and Eng of friends n each of th four response categories rather
than to struggle with percentages. In about ten percent of the cases, students assigned
percentages that either totaled to less than or more than 100%. I reproportioned
end
f the bec
rted for each of the fi
a
logically assigned a 100% to only one response category. In retrospect, it would have
been simpler for studen
lish, to report the number i e

160
respondents’ perc if the totals were een 75% d 99%, or 100% and 200%. I
omitted 33 cases with total percentages tha ll outside se two parameters. I also
omitted cases with no campus friends across ities, and illogical (non
sequitur) responses to the 16 friendship activity questions (frequency distributions,
eans, and standard deviations for the 20 ethnic/faith friendship group items are in
ables 21.1 – 21.20, and Table 22, below).
r Percentage of Same Ancestry and Same Religion
ampus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Classmates (by percentage category)

Percentage y
a n
campus friends
N Percentage
entages betw an
t fe of the
the five activ
m
T

Table 21.1: Frequency Distribution fo
C
of same ancestr
nd same religio
0 79 18

.01-.24 85 19

.25-.49 106 24

.50-.74 91 20

.75-100 84 19

TOTAL 445 100%

161
Table 21.2: Frequency Distribution for Per d Different
Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying With Classmates (by percentage
category)

Percentag ancestry
and di ligion
campus friends
N

Perc
centage of Same Ancestry an
e of same
fferent re

entage
0 154 35

.01-.24 143 32

.25-.49 121 27

.50-.74 21 5

.75-100 2

1
TOTAL 441 100%

Table 21.3: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Religion and Different
Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Classmates (by percentage
category)

Percen me
religion and ancestry
campus friends

N

Percen
tage of sa
different tage
0 120 27

.01-.24 149 34

.25-.49 120 27

.50-.74 33

8
.75-100 18 4

TOTAL 440 100%

162
Table 21.4: Frequency Distribution for Perce ge of Differ t Religion and Different
Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Classmates (by percentage
category)

Percentage of different
religion and different
ancestry campus friends

N

Percentage
nta en

0 89 20

.01-.24 143 33

.25-.49 98 22

.50-.74 58 13

.75-100 52 12

TOTAL 40 100 4 %

Table 21.5: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same Ancestry and Same
Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of ying with S ents that are Outside of
One’s Class (by percentage category)

Percen me
ancestry a eligion
campus friends

N

rcentage
Stud t d u
tage of sa
nd same r Pe
0 47 15

.01-.24 58 18

.25-.49 97 31

.50-.74 57 18

.75-100 56 18

TOTAL 315 100%

163
Table: 21.6 Frequency Distribution for the centage of e Ancestry and Different
Religion in the Activity of Studying with Stud
percentage categ

Percentag ancestry
and different religion
campus friends

N

Percentage
Per Sam
ents That are Outside of One’s Class (by
ory)
e of same
0 104 33

.01-.24 105 34

.25-.49 8 3 27

.50-.74 15 5

.75-100 3 1

TOL 1 TA 310 00%

Table 21.7: Frequency Distribution for Percentage of Same Religion and Different
Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity o udying w tudents That are Outside of
One’s Class (by percentage category)

Percentag religion
and different ancestry

N

Percentage
f St ith S
e of same
campus friends

0 64 20

.01-.24 114 37

.25-.49 91

29
.50-.74 27 9

.75- 15 5

100
TOTAL 311 100 %

164
Table 21.8: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Different Religion and
Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Studying with Students That are
ne’s y percentage cat y)
Percentage of different religion
and different ancestry

N

Percentage
Outside of O

Class (b egor
campus friends
0 69 22

.01-.24 98 32

.25-.49 82

26
.50-.74 34 11

.100 26 8

75-
TOTAL 9 0% 30 10

Table 21.9: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same Ancestry and
Same Religion Campus Friends in the Activ
opics Unrelate ses and Studies (by percentage category)
Percentage of same
ancestry and same religion

N

Percentage
ity of Talking on Campus About Other
T d to Clas

campus friends
0 93 19

.01-.24 84 18

.25-.49 118 24

.5.74 99

0- 21
.75-100 84 18

TOTAL 78 0% 4 10

165
Table 21.10: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage of Same Ancestry and Different
Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Talking on Campus About Other Topics
(by percen category
Percentage of same
ancestry and different religion
campus friends

N

Percentage
Unrelated to Class and Studies

tage )
0 175 37

.01-.24 164 35

.25-.49 110 23

.50-.74 21 4

.75-100 4 1

TOTAL 474 100%

Table 21.11: Frequency Distribution for the Percentage o Same Religion and Different
Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Talking on Campus About Other Topics
Unrelated to Classes and Studies (by percentage category)
Percentage of same religion
f

and different ancestry

N

Percentage
campus friends
0 123

26
.01-.24 159

33
.25-.49 127 27

.54 40

0-.7 8
.75-100

26 6
TOTAL 5 % 47 100

166
Table 21.12 Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Different Religion and
Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Talking on Campus About Other
Topics Unrelated to Classes and Studies (by percentage category)
Percentage of different
religion and different
ancestry campus friends

N

Percentage

0 88 19

.01-.24 153 32

.25-.49 119 25

.50-.74 63 13

.75-100 51 11

TOTAL 474 100%

Table 21.13: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same Ancestry and Same
Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Dining (by percentage category)

Percentage of same
Ancestry and same

N

Percentage
religion campus friends

0 69 18

.01-.24 73 20

.25-.49 83 22

.50-.74 70 19

.75-00 80 21 1

TOTAL 100 375 %

167
Table 21.14: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same Ancestry and Different
Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Dining (by percentage category)

Per same
Ancestry and different
religion campus friends
N Percentage
centage of
0 158 42

.01-.24 106 28

.25-.49 85 23

.50-.74 21 6

.75-100 2 1

TOTAL 372 100%

Table 21.15 Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same Religion and
ifferent Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of Dining (by percentage category)
Percentage of same religion
and different ancestry
campus friends

N

Percentage
D

0 99 26

.01-.24 118 32

.25-.49 96 26

.50-.74 29 8

.75-100 31 8

TOTAL 373 100%

168
Ta e Percentage of Different Religion and
Dif y of Dinin y percentage category)

N

Percentage
ble 21.16: Frequency Distribution for th
ferent Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activit g (b
Percentage of different religion
and different ancestry

campus friends

0 105 28

.01-.24 113 30

.25-.49 86 23

.50-.74 38 10

.75-100 32 9

TOTAL 374 100%

Table 21.17: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same Ancestry
nd Same Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of Participating in On-
and Off-campus Activities (by percentage category)
Percentage of same

a

ancestry and same religion

N

Percentage
campus friends
0 60 17

.01-.24 74 22

.25-.49 83 24

.50-.74 59 17

.75-100 67 20

TOTAL 343 100%

169
Ancestry and Different Religion Campus Friends in the Activity of

different religion campus friends
Table 21.18: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same
Participating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage category)
Percentage of same
ancestry and

N

Percentage
0 131 38

.01-.24 100 29

.25-.49 85 25

.50-.74 20 6

.75-100 5 2

TOTAL 341 100%

Table 21.19: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Same
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus F
Participating in On- and Off-campus Activ

riends in the Activity of
ities (by percentage category)

Percentage of same religion
and different
ancestry campus friends

N

Percentage
0 90 26

.01-.24 99 29

.25-.49 93 27

.50-.74 37 11

.75-100 23 7

TOTAL 342 100%

170
able 21.20: Frequency Distribution For the Percentage of Different
Religion and Different Ancestry Campus Friends in the Activity of
articipating in On- and Off-campus Activities (by percentage category)

Percentage of different
religion and different ancestry
campus friends

N

Percentage
T
P
0 93 27

.01-.24 93 27

.25-.49 90 27

.50-.74 35 10

.75-100 30 9

TOTAL 341 100%

171
T s For the Percentages of Campus
Friendships of Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different
Re y, and Different R on a ffer
An

N

)
d
ation
able 22: Means and Standard Deviation
ligion, Same Religion and Different Ancestr eligi nd Di ent
cestry in Each of the Five Student Activities

20 Ethnic/Faith Group Items
Mean
(%
Standar
Devi

Study with campus friends, who are classmates,
Who are of the same ancestry and same religion

445

95

.99 37. 31
Study with campus friends, who are class
Who are of the same ancestry and different religion
mates,
441 35

.57

14. 15
Study with campus friends, who are classmates,
Who are of the same religion and different ancestry

440

24

.31 19. 21
Study with campus friends, who are classmates,
Who are of the different religion and different ancestry

440

73

.28 28. 30
Study with campus friends, who are outside of one’s class,
315

49

.79 Who are of the same ancestry and same religion 38. 31
Study with campus friends, who are outside of one’s class,
Who are of the same ancestry and different religion

310

86

.74 14. 15
Study with campus friends, who are outside of one’s cl
Who are of the same religion and different ancestry
ass,
311

21

.47 22. 22
Study with campus friends, who are outside of one’s clas
Who are of different religion and different ancestry
s,
309

21

.03 25. 27
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies, who are
of the same ancestry and same religion

478

37.34

32.32
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies, who are
of the same ancestry and different religion 474 13.41 15.92
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
Who are of the same religion and different ancestry 475 21.22 23.40
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
Who are of different religion and different ancestry

474

28.70

29.13
Dine with campus friends, who are of the same ancestry
And same religion

375

39.53

34.19
Dine with campus friends, who are of the same ancestry
and different religion 372 13.53 16.36
Dine with campus friends, who are of the same religion
and different ancestry

373

23.25

26.12
Dine with campus friends, who are of different religion and
different ancestry 374 24.26 27.76
Participate in on and off campus activities with campus
friends who are same ancestry and same religion

343

37.21

32.81
Participate in on and off campus activities with campus
friends who are same ancestry and different religion 341 14.86 17.57
Participate in on and off campus activities with campus
friends who are same religion and different ancestry 342 23.17 25.28

Participate in on and off campus activities with campus
friends who are different religion and different ancestry 341 25.05 28.01

172

V
friendship group variables. The rationale for using factor analysis was to determine if the
ems a

). For example, item 51, a student who talks with a campus friend of the same
ancestr nd
r
sponse
scores,
nse

, if one score is high, then the other
scores

nd
Construction of the Four Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales
The first step was to perform a Principal Components Factor Analysis with
arimax rotation on the 20 survey items that corresponded to the four ethnic/faith
it ssociated with each of the four ethnic/faith friendship group variables loaded on
their own unique factor, or combined with another factor. Zero order correlations had
indicated that the highest intercorrelations occurred between the five activities for each of
the four ethnic/faith friendship group variables (correlation coefficients ranging from
.600 to .823
y and same religion, is highly correlated with item 58,dining with a campus frie
of the same ancestry and same faith, (r = .776, p < 01). Before discussing the facto
analysis in Table 23, it is necessary to point out that the four friendship group re
categories constitute a forced-choice format. Due to the forced-choice design, the
or in this case, the percentages, which are assigned to the four friendship group respo
categories, are ipsative, signifying that they sum to a constant – 100%. Because of the
inter-dependence of ipsative scores, for example
must have lesser values; there has been much debate if factor analysis is even
suitable for forced choice measures (Cattell, 1944; Comrey & Lee, 1992; Cornwell &
Dunlap, 1994; Saville & Wilson, 1991). One advantage of a forced choice format is that
it minimizes response bias because respondents are required to stop and think where a
how they will distribute the scores or percentages across the response categories
(Thomas, Thomas, & Schaubhut, 2008).

173
ly.
ll
but their highest loadings are on factor 1. The three factors had
igenvalues greater than 1, and explained 75% percent of the total variance, which
xploratory factor analysis (Coovert & McNelis, 1988, Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Table 23, below, shows that the two measures, same religion and different
ancestry, and same ancestry and different religion, load on factors 2 and 3, respective
Same ancestry and same religion, and different religion and different ancestry load on a
three factors 1, 2, and 3,
e
conforms to two general rules concerning the number of factors to retain in an
e

174
Table 23: Factor Loadings of 20 Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Items
20 Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Items

Factor
1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Study with campus friends that are classmates, who
are of the same ancestry and same religion
-.753 -.264 -.213
Study with campus friends that are outside of one’s class,
who are of the same ancestry and same religion
-.756 -.424 -.289
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
who are of the same ancestry and same religion
-.793 -.444 -.249
Dine with campus friends, who are of the same
ancestry and same religion
-.714 -.452 -.272
Participate in on and off-campus activities with campus
friends, who are same ancestry and same religion
-.763 -.448 -.298
Study with campus friends that are classmates,
who are of the same ancestry and different religion
.036 -.073 .753
Study with campus friends that are outside of one’s class,
who are of the same ancestry and different religion
.005 -.029 .862
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
who are of the same ancestry and different religion
.010 -.051 .865
Dine with campus friends, who are of the same
ancestry and different religion
.012 -.018 .906
Participate in on- and off-campus activities with campus
friends, who are the same ancestry and different religion
-.079 -.027 .897
Study with campus friends that are classmates and
who are of the same religion and different ancestry
-.046 .727 .067
Study with campus friends that are outside of one’s class,
who are of the same religion and different ancestry
-.065 .837 -.062
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
who are of the same religion and different ancestry
.005 .910 -.072
Dine with campus friends, who are of the
same religion and different ancestry
-.028 .869 -.137
Participate in on and off-campus activities with campus
friends, who are the same religion and different ancestry
.017 .874 -.096
Study with campus friends that are classmates, who
are a different religion and different ancestry
.795 -.218 -.254
Study with campus friends that are outside of one’s class,
who are a different religion and different ancestry
.802 -.236 -.158
Talk with campus friends about topics unrelated to studies,
who are a different religion and different ancestry
.877 -.265 -.179
Dine with campus friends, who are a different religion
and different ancestry
.861 -.214 -.116
Participate in on and off-campus activities with campus
friends, who are a different religion and different ancestry
.862 -.224 -.104

A closer examination of Table 23 indicates that all the factors are bipolar, and one
measure, same ancestry and same religion, is weighted negatively on all three factors.
Dunlap and Cornwall (1994) explain that these bipolar factors do not reflect genuine
fundamental relationships between the variables, but are rather an artifact created by the

175
ipsative structure of the measures. For this reason, they do not recommend submitting
ipsative measures to a factor analysis. Yet, Saville and Willson (1991) have argued that
factor analysis of ipsative measures can deliver sound interpretable results.
For the purposes of creating the four ethnic/faith friendship group scales, the
factor analysis was useful in validating at least three factors. Each of the three
ethnic/faith friendship group measures loaded on its own factor, with correlation
coefficients ranging from .714 to .910. The fourth factor was suppressed because, in a
forced choice format, the values of the three measures predetermine the value of the
fourth measure. As a result, the five friendship group activity items associated with the
measure, campus friends of the same ancestry and same religion, loaded on the same
factor as the five items corresponding to campus friends of a different religion and
different ancestry.
Optimally, since rotated factors should exhibit positive loadings (Comrey & Lee,
1992), a facile solution would be to remove the measure, campus friends of the same
ancestry and same religion. However, this was not a feasible alternative, given that close
to 40% of students’ campus friendships were of the same ancestry and same religion (see
Table 24).
In addition, when Arab and Muslim students were asked why they chose their
campus friends (item 72), for example, same major, same outside interests, same
heritage, same religious beliefs, and so forth, 38% of the 570 written responses
referenced the theme of same culture, same heritage, and same religious beliefs.
Therefore, I retained all four friendship group measures and created the four scales,

176
based on theassumption that the factor analysis would have produced four factors if
the measures were normative, and not ipsative.
I constructed the four ethnic/faith friendship group scales by computing the mean
percentage scores from the students’ responses to the items that corresponded with each
of the four ethnic/faith friendship group variables. Table 24 indicates below that across
the five student activities, on the average 39% of the campus friendships were of the
same ancestry and same religion, 13% were the same ancestry and different religion,
21% were the same religion and different ancestry, and 27% were of a different religion
and different ancestry. For the four ethnic/faith friendship group scales, the Cronbach
alpha reliabilities were .94, same ancestry and same religion; .91, same ancestry and
different religion; .90, same religion and different ancestry; and, .93, different religion
and different ancestry.

Table 24: Mean Percentage Scores For the Four Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales,
Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same Ancestry and Different Religion, Same Religion
and Different Ancestry and Different Religion and Different Ancestry

Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales N Mean

(%)
Standard
Deviation
Campus friendships of the same ancestry
and same religion
635 38.67 31.44
Campus friendships of the same ancestry
and different religion
631 13.47 15.05
Campus friendships of the same religion
and different ancestry
631 21.51 20.11
Campus friendships of a different religion
and different ancestry
631 27.24 27.62

177

Qualitative Methods
Focus Groups
I conducted three focus groups in order to provide in-depth explanations for
some of the survey results found, particularly with respect to perceived
discrimination on campus. There also were methodological concerns about the
survey, such as if students clearly understood the contingency format of the
campus friendship activity questions. Students from two focus groups were
recruited from ESL and Arabic language classes at two community colleges in
Southeastern Michigan. After these students had completed the survey, I read
aloud a recruitment form, which briefly explained the nature of my dissertation
study and ended by requesting their participation in a focus group. I recruited the
community college students for the third focus group from a contact at a Southern
California social service organization whose clientele is primarily Arab and
Muslim families. The participants from the third focus group received the same
recruitment form through the contact at the social service organization.
There were four students each in the two focus groups and eight students in the
third focus group. Except for six students in the third focus group, all participants
previously had taken the survey at their respective community colleges. Before we began
the focus groups, I gave the Institutional Review Board information sheet to the
participants. This information sheet again explained the purpose of the study, but also
detailed the procedures of the focus group, the risks, benefits, and compensation. For

178
their participation, each student was given $6.00 food cash cards from Subway
Sandwiches.
The two focus groups lasted 45 minutes. The duration of the third focus group
was one hour and a half. Initially, the focus group script contained 18 questions (see copy
of focus group script in Appendix B). The questions covered the following topics: (a)
clear understanding of the format of the campus friendship activity questions; (b) feelings
of discrimination on campus; (c) ethnicity and faith of campus friends; and, (d) sense of
belonging to the college. However, since time did not allow me to ask all the questions, I
had to distribute the 18 questions across the three focus groups. Therefore, for the first
two focus groups, I asked questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 18. For
questions 1 through 6, which inquired about understanding the internal logic of the
campus friendship activity questions, I gave students copies of the survey as a reference
for their responses.
For the third focus group, I did not ask them questions 1 through 6. Instead, I
spent more time probing them on all the items relating to perceived discrimination, and
the significance of having same ethnic and/or same faith friends on campus (questions 7-
11, and 16). Similar to focus groups 1 and 2, they were asked about the role of campus
friendships on the sense of belonging, and the confluence of both these variables on
staying in school and fulfilling their academic goals (questions 13, 15, 17, and 18). I
discuss the results of the three focus groups in Chapter 4.

Chapter 3 Endnotes

1
There were a few cases who identified as “Caucasian” or “Middle Eastern,” but indicated that English was
the primary language spoken with parents, siblings, and friends rather than Arabic. These respondents,
however, stated an Arab country as the ancestral birthplace (second criterion), and were affiliated with
religions indigenous to the Arab Middle East, for example, Muslim, Maronite Catholic, or Antiochan
Orthodox. Here, combined information about their ancestral birthplace and religious affiliation ensured that
they fit the criteria of Arab descent, and were not of European ancestry, who had been born in an Arab
country or their parents and grandparents were.

2
Students who identified with being “Egyptian Copt” were not subjected to the third criteria of Arab
descent, primary language spoken with parents, siblings or friends, because in Egypt their native
language is Arabic.

3
The Detroit Arab American study (Baker et al., 2004) sampled 1,016 Arab Christian, Arab Muslims, and
Iraqi Chaldeans. Although their report does not indicate all the different ethnicities that the respondents
reported, it seems that they asked the respondents if they identified with the “Arab American” label, and if
not, is “there any other term like ‘Arab American’ that better describes you” (2004, p. 15). Sixty-one
percent of Christians, 82% of Muslims, and 45% of Iraqi Christians (predominantly Chaldean) identified
with the “Arab American “ label. Thirty percent of Christians from Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt responded
that they preferred an alternative identity label.

4
However, Read presents an additional finding that when both Arab Christians and Arab Muslims were
asked, “[W]hat group do you think other people think you belong to?” (2008, p. 312), 54% of Arab
Muslims and only 25% of Arab Christians responded “Arab.”

5
African American and Southeast Asian Muslims are largely under-represented in this sample. In the
United States, African Americans comprise about a third of all Muslims, as both indigenous and converts
Haddad, 2002; Muslim Life, 2001). Globally, the largest percentages of Muslims are in Pakistan and
Indonesia (Joseph, 1999).

6
I refer to “other faiths” because it takes in non-religious belief systems, such as Atheism and
agnosticism.

7
Although technically the “Druze” religion is an offshoot of Islam, there has been a theological debate
about whether its followers are Muslims. Among the many differences is that Druze do not follow the Five
Pillars of Islam (Andary, 1997; Dana, 2003; Muakasa, 2004).

8
In order to achieve small effect sizes, r
2
= 01 to .04, the minimum sample size recommended is 400
(Cohen, 1988; W. G. Hopkins, 1997).

9
In an earlier proposal, I included a group of hypotheses that predicted differences among Arab Christians,
Arab Muslims, and non-Arab Muslims on the dependent variables, sense of belonging, and the four
ethnic/faith friendship group variables. The Dissertation Committee, however, recommended that I reduce
the number of proposed hypotheses. Also, there was discussion that there might not be a large variation
between these three subgroups on the dependent variables seeing that all three subgroups were principal
victims of post-9/11 backlash.

10
FIRST SUBANALYSIS FOR SECOND AND FIRST HYPOTHESES

Findings: For the “Arab” Christian group:

There is a small, statistically significant relationship between the level of perceived
discrimination and the percentage of same ancestry and same religion campus friends (r = .195,

180
p < .05, N = 135). There is a small, statistically significant negative relationship between level of
perceived discrimination and same religion and different ancestry friends –meaning as the level of
perceived discrimination increases, the percentage of same religion and different ancestry of friends
decreases (r = -.176, p < .05, N = 135), Similarly, there is a medium sized, but significant negative
relationship between level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of different religion and
different ancestry friends (r = -.236, p < .01, N = 135).

Findings: For the Arab Muslim group:

There is only a small statistically significant relationship between the level of perceived discrimination
and the percentage of same ancestry and different religion-- meaning that as the level of perceived
discrimination increases, the percentage of same ancestry and different faith campus friends increases
as well (r = .178, p < .01, N = 231).

As you will see in endnotes 1, Chapter 5, I supplied an explanation as to how Arab and Muslim
students interpreted “same religion.” Question 91 on the survey asks the students if they consider as
their same religion, the same sect or the larger “overarching” religion. For example, if I am a Catholic
and you are a Greek Orthodox, are they the same religion or are they different religions as they both
suggest 2 different sects, the same with Shia and Sunni Muslims.

For all students, Arab Christians, Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims, 50-52% state that the same
religion means “same sect” not larger “overarching religion”, a third were not sure, which is more than
likely didn’t understand the question, even though in most survey sessions, I did explain to students by
example what this question meant. Seventeen percent of students disagreed with the statement that
same sect is same religion.

Using the same comparison groups, Arab descent Christians and Arab descent Muslims, I compared
them on the first hypothesis: the relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging.

Findings: Arab descent Christians

There was no significant relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging.

Findings: Arab descent Muslims

There was a moderate sized, significant relationship between campus friendships and sense of
belonging (r = .253, p < .01, N = 260. When I broke them down between Arab Shia and Arab Sunni,
the rs were similar for both groups, Arab Shia and Arab Sunni.

When you combine all “Arab Christian” and Arab Muslims, the following are the findings for
hypotheses 2 and 3.

There is a small, statistically significant relationship between the level of perceived discrimination and
the percentage of same ancestry and same religion campus friends (r = .112, p < .05, N = 364). There is
a small but significant relationship between level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of
same ancestry and different religion friends (r = .167, p < .01, N = 360). There is a small, significant,
but negative relationship between level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of different
religion and different ancestry friends (r = -.155, p < 01, N = 360).

There is a small, significant relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging (r = .170,
p < .01, N = 427).

181

SECOND SUBANALYSIS FOR SECOND AND FIRST HYPOTHESIS

Now, I looked at the non–Arab Muslim subgroups with respect to these two hypotheses. The number
of students in this group were 257, the largest ethnicities represented were Southeast
Asian/Subcontinent India, N = 58, and Iranians, Kurds, and Afghani who identified with “Middle
Eastern” ethnic category, N = 117. The remaining were Africans, N = 30, African American, N = 18,
Caucasian, N = 13, Eastern European = 5, Latino = 8, and Asian = 8.

I ran separate analyses on Southeast Asians, Middle Eastern (Iranian, Kurd and Afghani), African
American, and Africans.

Findings for second hypothesis: For each of these four ethnic/Muslim groups:

There was no significant relationship between the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage
of campus friends in any of the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.

Findings for first hypothesis:

Only with African Muslims and Middle Eastern (non-Arab) Muslims was there moderately high
significant relationship between campus friendships and sense of belonging (r = .392, p < .05, N = 29,
r = .275, p < .01, N = 101).

THIRD SUBANALYSIS OF SECOND AND FIRST HYPOTHESIS

I combined the four non-Arab Muslim subgroups into one non-Arab Muslim group.

Second hypothesis: There was no significant relationship between level of perceived discrimination
and the percentage of campus friends in any of the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.

First hypothesis: There was a medium-sized, significant relationship between campus friendships and
sense of belonging (r = .291, p < .01, N = 205).

__________________________________________________________

FOURTH SUBANALYSIS FOR SECOND AND FIRST HYPOTHESES

For these two hypotheses, I ran a fourth subanalysis between Christians (all Arab descent in this
sample), and Muslims (Arab and non-Arab).

Findings for second hypothesis: For Christians (Arab descent)

There was a small significant relationship between level of perceived discrimination and the
percentage of same ancestry and same faith (r = .195, p < .05, N = 135). A small negative relationship
between level of perceived discrimination and percentage of same religion and different ancestry
(r = -.176, p < .05, N = 135) . Similarly, a negative, significant relationship between level of perceived
discrimination and the percentage of different religion and different ancestry friends (r = -.236, p < 01,

182
N = 135). These figures match the same as the first subanalysis above as “Arab Christians” are the
same as Christians in this study.

Findings for second hypothesis: For Muslims (Arab and non-Arab)

There was no significant relationship between level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of
campus friends in any of the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.

Findings for first hypothesis: Christian –there was no significant relationship between campus
friendships and sense of belonging.

Findings for first hypothesis: Muslims-there was a moderately strong relationship between campus
friendships and sense of belonging (r = .288, p < .01, N = 504).

____________________________________________________________________

In Chapter 4, I report the following for the target population, which is the combination of Arab
Christians, Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims:

First hypothesis: There is a small to medium size correlation between campus friendships and sense of
belonging (r = .217, p < .01, N = 702).

Second hypothesis: Given the size of the sample, there is no relationship between the level of
perceived discrimination and the percentage of campus friends who are of the same ancestry, but
different religion (r = .087, p < .05, N = 593).

In light of the sample size, there is a no genuine relationship between the level of perceived
discrimination and the percentage of campus friends who are of a different religion and different
ancestry (r = -.093, p < .05, N = 593).

After reviewing the four subanalyses and the main analysis of results, you can clearly see that the
relationships stated in hypothesis two reached statistical significance with the Arab portion of the sample,
but not for the non-Arab Muslims.. Significant relationships were found for Arab Christians and Arab
Muslims, not for the non-Arab Muslim group. When both Arab descent Muslims and non-Arab Muslims
were combined there was no significant relationship between the level of perceived discrimination and the
percentage of campus friends across the four ethnic/faith friendship groups
Apart from the Middle Eastern “Non-Arab Muslims” and Southeast Asian Muslims, the non- Arab
Muslim sample is very scattered in number among the six other ethnicities. Even though there seems to be
observable differences between the Arab (Christian and Muslim) and non-Arab Muslim group, particularly
with respect to the second hypothesis, this is not the case when you compare both groups’ findings for
hypothesis 1. When you combine Arab descent and non-Arab descent Muslims, the correlation coefficient
is also similar, r = .288, p < .01. For the Arab descent Christians, there is no relationship between campus
friendships and sense of belonging. In fact, the correlation coefficient decreases in size when Arab
Christians are added to the Arab descent Muslim sample, r = .170, p < .01). Clearly, the relationship
between campus friendships and sense of belonging is stronger for the Muslim group than the (Arab)
Christians. Whereas, the relationship between perceived discrimination and the four ethnic/faith campus
friendship groups are stronger with the combined Arab descent groups (Muslim and Christian) and not non-
Arab Muslims. That is the hypothesis one is related to same ethnicity and hypothesis two, same religion.
The sub analyses are only here to inform and do not correspond with any of the hypotheses in the
study. Apart for the salience of same ethnicity in the strength of the relationships for hypothesis one and
same religion for hypothesis two, these differences balance out. In numbers, there are clearly more
Muslims than Christians and more Arab Muslims to Arab Christians. For this reason, I adhere to my
original rationale for including the Non-Arab Muslim students in with the Arab Christian and Arab

183
Muslim sample insofar as it helped to reach my sample size requirement of 650 +. In addition, since 9/11
Arab Christians along with Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims were targets of discrimination. Like Arab
Muslims, Arab Christians also had Arab names and surnames, many had accented speech, spoke Arabic,
and were born in the Arab Middle East.

11
Many Muslims have Arabic origin names.

12
Similar to this study, Husseinali’s (2006) found that in Arab foreign language classes, about half of the
language learners were Arab descent and non-Arab Muslims, and the remaining half were students from
different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

13
As I pointed out, on some community college campuses, there were, for example, no active Muslim
Student Associations, no Arabic or Farsi language courses, restricted access to surveying classrooms, ESL
classes without Arabic or Muslim heritage students, or lack of students congregating frequently in the
cafeteria.

14
There were 107 ESL students in the study. Due to some of these students having limited English skills,
some of their responses might not be accurate. In some cases, I had to translate a few terms, for example
ethnicity or ethnic identity, or the instructors spent additional minutes explaining the definition of these
words. The instructions and procedure were uniform for all survey participants except for two ESL classes,
in which the instructor felt it was necessary for their comprehension to use an overhead projector to
administer the survey to them.

15
A clear understanding of the word “dined with” in survey questions 55-57 posed a problem with a
number of students. For those students who asked me the meaning, I explained to them it meant to “ have
dinner with.” If the survey is repeated, this wording should replace “dining with.”

16
In two of the three focus groups I conducted, I inquired as to why some students did not respond
logically to these two questions. Responses from the focus groups ranged from respondents not reading the
question carefully, placing the set of questions on one page, to not wanting to admit that they do not have
friends that they studied with (or hung out with in any of the five activities). I found that many of the focus
group members did not understand the nature of my question, which led me to assume that the survey
respondents also might not have connected the internal logic of the set of questions while answering them.
The issue of about placing the set of friendship activity questions on one page cannot adequately explain
the failure to make the logical connection between two of the questions. It is only on page 6 that this
block of questions are separated and continued on to the following page.

17
The following are the correlations between the sense of belonging and the three campus friendship
measures with the inclusion of the non sequitur responses: total number of campus friends, (r =. l93); total
times spent with campus friend (r = .231); and, total number of degrees of closeness (r = .170). When
excluding the non sequitur responses, the correlations between sense of belonging and the three campus
friendship measures were: total number of campus friendships (r = .218), total times spent with a campus
friend (r = .224), and total degrees of closeness with a campus friends (r = .199).

18
Freeman et al.’s study found .56 and .47 correlations, respectively, between university acceptance
(students’ perceptions of peer and university personnel support), pedagogical caring, and university
belonging. Curiously, given that the investigators found moderately high correlations, they did not
incorporate these two variables into their sense of belonging scale. An important finding of their study was
that they isolated two separate constructs of belonging, university belonging and class belonging. A
hierarchal regression analysis indicated that university acceptance was significantly more important than
class belonging in explaining the variance in university belonging ( β=.46, p < .001).

184
19
Babbie (2004) advises caution in randomizing the order of survey items because, as I have implied, it
will be confusing for respondents to shift their attention back and forth across topics. His main
recommendation is that if item order is a concern in the study, the survey researcher should administer
different versions of the survey, and preferably conduct a pretest with the different forms.

20
Read (2004) reported the following correlations between spiritual inerrancy, for example, agreement or
disagreement with the statement that the Holy Book is the literal word of God, and two ethnic identity
measures: number of social groups and organizations shared with other Arabs, r = .262, p < .01 and cook
Arabic meals, r = .344**, p < .01.These two ethnic identity measures were similar to items 19 and 24 on
the Ethnic Identity Scale in this study.

21
Allport and Ross (1967) characterized this socializing component of religion as having an “extrinsic
orientation” to religion.

22
For the comparison group, non-Arab and non- Muslim students (N = 560), the Cronbach alpha reliability
statistic was considerably lower, at .68.

23
At the time of Phinney’s 1992 article, the MEIM had been in development for five years. She had revised
the instrument multiple times, and retested it on larger samples of ethnically diverse college students (Ns =
596), and high school students (N = 417).

24
Extreme response style refers to the tendency of respondents to choose an upper or lower region on a
rating scale regardless of the scales content (Arce-Ferrer, 2006). Some of these investigators have theorized
that a collectivist cultural orientation coupled with unfamiliarity with multiple ordered response categories
might influence a respondent to contextualize the meaning of a statement, for example, they might interpret
the item as being face threatening or face building. Consequently, in relating the question to their cultural
n rms, they will want to appear as acquiescent and, therefore, are more likely to choose either one of the
extreme response categories, for example, Strongly agree or Strongly disagree. It is conceivable that a
collectivist cultural orientation has guided Arab and Muslims’ survey responses because a third of them are
first generation and more likely to be traditional. Also, fifty percent of the sample came from Middle
Eastern countries on the Mediterranean Sea (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine), a regional area that Arce-
Ferrer (2006) cited as having respondents with high extreme response style.

25
Boughan (1992) experimented with two different campus climate scales. One scale consisted of positive
statements about the campus climate. The second scale contained items that referred to specific acts of
discrimination on campus, which the respondent experienced personally or witnessed it occurring to
another student. Boughan found that the latter scale was a more sensitive measure of detecting campus
discrimination.

26
The correlations between the six discrimination worded items and the three campus climate items were
small, ranging from .087 to .167. There were stronger inter-correlations among the three campus climate
items: campus attracts ethnic and religious diversity and campus encourages open racial, ethnic and
religious discussion, r = .480; campus attracts ethnic diversity and administration supports minority group
organizations, r = .294; campus encourages open racial, ethnic, and religious discussion and administration
supports minority group organizations, r = .382.

27
Barnette (2000) observed that a survey format of bi-directional response categories with all positively
worded statements decreased the frequency of acquiescent responses and increased the level of internal
consistency. I did not follow through with this recommendation because I was concerned that a reversal in
the response format might confuse the students and further delay the completion of the survey

28
The following subgroups of the Arab and Muslim group were not listed in Tables 19 and 20 as there
were fewer than 50 cases, but Iraqi Chaldean, African, and Southeast Asian Muslims, displayed higher
o

185
scores on perceived discrimination than their non-Arab and non-Muslim counterparts, African Americans,
Latinos, Caucasians, and Asians . The means and standard deviations for both groups are as follows: Iraqi
Chaldean, mean = 2.34, SD = .68, N = 31; African Muslims, mean = 2.60, SD = .95, N = 29; African
Americans, mean = 2.03, SD = .64, N = 46; Latinos, mean = 1.83, SD = .42, N = 133; Caucasians, mean =
1.81, SD = .52, N = 155; and Asians, mean = 2.18, SD = .574, N = 108). African Muslims showed a
significant mean difference at .05 than the Asians.

29
Because most studies have revealed that same ethnic friendships generally are comprised of intimate
friends, survey questions usually ask the respondent to calculate the number of “close” or “best friends”
from one’s same ethnic group (Epstein, 1983; Hallinan, 1985; Kao & Joyner, Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998;
Levin et al., 2003; Levin et al., 2006). Instead, I chose to establish two independent measures, one for the
variation in closeness among students’ campus friends, and the second, for the percentage of campus
friends that fall within and outside of one’s ethnic and religious groups.

186
Chapter 4
__________________________________________________

Results
First Hypothesis
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of each test of the five
hypotheses in the study. I begin with the first hypothesis that refers to Arab and Muslim
students’ campus friendships, as defined by the number of campus friends, the number of
times spent with campus friends, and the degrees of closeness to campus friends, have a
positive relationship to their sense of belonging to college. In support of the first
hypothesis, a bi-variate correlation indicated a slightly medium-sized association between
the combined campus friendship scale and sense of belonging to the college (r = .217, p <
.01). Comparable studies, which have dealt with the effects of peer influence and sense of
school belonging, have reported correlation coefficients, ranging from .16 to .43
(Hoyle & Crawford, 1994; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Velasquez, 1999). McClusky-Titus
& Oliver’s study (2001) is the only exception where extremely strong correlations were
observed between sense of belonging and students’ social relations (r = .891, p < .01). As
pointed out in Chapter 2, the size of the correlation coefficient might have been inflated
due to that the two variables were not independent measures. Also, it was logical that
peer relations were close, because the students lived in the same dormitory. All four of
these studies employed a few of the same scale items for the sense of belonging as those
in the present study.

187
Additionally, I performed zero-order correlations and ANOVA analyses with 21
variables on the dependent variable, sense of belonging, in order to determine what
variables to consider using as controls in the regression equation (see Tables 25 and 26,
endnote,
1
Chapter 4). As shown in Tables 25 and 26, 20 of the 21 variables showed either
no significance or a statistically significant, but an extremely small-sized correlation with
sense of belonging. Not surprising, there was a significant, moderate-sized correlation
between ethnic identity and sense of belonging (r = .246, p < .01). In Chapter 2, I cited
evidence that ethnic identity might have an effect or a mediating role between campus
friendships and the sense of belonging to the college. Therefore, based upon theoretical
justification and statistical strength of the relationship with sense of belonging, I entered
ethnic identity as a control variable into the regression analysis shown below.

Table 27: Multiple Regression Analysis of Campus Friendships Predicting Sense of
Belonging to the College, Controlling for Ethnic Identity

Model 1 B Standard
Error B
β (Beta) R
2
R
2
Change

Ethnic Identity

.226

.034

.246**

.060

.060

Model 2

Ethnic Identity
Campus
Friendships
.201

.080
.033

.016
.219 **

.185**

.094

.033
Multiple R .306
Note. Bi-variate correlation between sense of belonging and campus friendship, r = .217, p < .01
**p < .01

188
Table 27 indicates that campus friendship is significantly associated with sense of
belonging, even after controlling for ethnic identity ( β = .185, p < .01). The positive un-
standardized B value indicates that the higher the student’s mean score on the campus
friendship variable, the higher the student’s score on sense of belonging, B = .080. The
two variables collectively explained nine percent of the variance in sense of belonging,
R
2
= .094. The largest changes in the R
2
value were associated with ethnic identity (R
2
change = .06, F (1, 678) = 44.86, p < .00001) and campus friendship (R
2
= .03, F (1, 674)
= 25.74, p < .0001). Among Arab and Muslim students, campus friendships do increase
their sense of belonging, but ethnic identity has a slightly stronger effect upon their sense
of belonging than do campus friendships.
In order to confirm whether combining the three campus friendship measures
into one scale had diminished its effect on sense of belonging, I ran a second regression
analysis. Table 28, below, demonstrates the individual effects of each of the three
campus friendship variables on the sense of belonging.

189
Table 28: The Regression of Sense of Belonging to the College on the Total Number of
Campus Friends the Total Number of Times Spent with Campus Friends, and the Total
Number of Degrees of Closeness to Campus Friends

Note. Total number signifies summed scores of each subscale
**p < .01

As illustrated in Table 28, when the total number of times spent and total number
of degrees of closeness variables were entered into the regression equation, there were no
significant changes in the total variance in sense of belonging. The campus friendship
composite variable had revealed the same R
2
value of .047 as the total number of
campus friendship variable when the control variable, ethnic identity was removed from
the regression equation. Thus, there was no difference in the strength of the relationship
between campus friendships and sense of belonging whether a composite or three
separate measures were used.

Independent
Variables
R R
2
R
2
Change F change Sig. F
Change
Total number of
campus friends

.218**

.047

.046

34.80

.000
Total number of times
spent with campus friends

.229

.053

.005

3.817

.051
Total number of degrees
of closeness with campus friends

.230

.053

.000

.244

.622

190
Results of the Second Hypothesis
The second hypothesis maintains that among Arab and Muslim students, there
is a positive relationship between the level of perceived discrimination on campus and
the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friends. Table 29, below, does
show statistically significant, but extremely small sized relationships between the level
of perceived discrimination and the percentage of same ancestry and different religion
campus friends (r = .087, p < .05), and the percentage of different religion and different
ancestry campus friends (r = -.09, p < .05). However, given the relatively large sample
size, the strength of these two relationships is negligible. Thus, a conservative
interpretation of the findings presented in Table 29 is that there is no relationship
between perceived discrimination and the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.
Table 29: Bi-variate Correlations Between Perceived Discrimination and Four
Ethnic/Faith Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of Same Ancestry and Same Religion,
Same Ancestry and Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and
Different Religion and Different Ancestry

Ethnic/Faith Friendship Groups Perceived
Discrimination
Percentage of same ancestry and same religion
N = 597

.080†
Percentage of same ancestry and different religion
N = 593

. 087*
Percentage of same religion and different ancestry
N = 593

-.051
Percentage of different religion and different ancestry
N = 593

-.093*
*p < .05, † p < .10

191
An obvious question is why there is little variation in the level of perceived
discrimination in relation to the percentage of campus friends across the four
ethnic/faith friendship groups. In both studies, Levin et al. (2003, 2006) reported
correlation coefficients only slightly higher between perceived discrimination and the
number of same ethnic campus friends, after controlling for precollege perceived
discrimination (ßs= .10 to .13).
3
However, among the four ethnic groups in their second
study (i.e., African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Whites), Levin et al. (2006)
obtained standardized coefficients as high as .52 for African Americans. It is important
to note that in both studies there was a separate variable for discrimination worded
items. Following the logic that I might obtain a larger variance on perceived
discrimination, I decided to test hypothesis two using two separate scales, one
containing all six discrimination worded items and the second, the three campus climate
items. Below in Table 29A and 29B reflect the results for hypothesis two with the two
separate scales.
As shown in Table 29A, the revised perceived discrimination scale did not produce
an appreciable change in the variance of the level of perceived discrimination in relation
to the percentage of campus friends across the four across the four ethnic/faith friendship
groups. Yet, in contrast to the findings reported in Table 29, the strengths of the
relationship between the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of campus
friends of the same ancestry and different religion, and different religion and different
ancestry exceeded .100. There was a statistically significant, positive relationship
between the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of same ancestry and

192
different religion campus friendships (r = .109, p < .01). A negative, small-sized
correlation was also found between the level of perceived discrimination and the
percentage of campus friends of a different religion and different ancestry (r = -.110, p <
.01). There were no relationships between the level of perceived discrimination and the
percentage of campus friends of the same ancestry and same religion, and the same
religion and different faith. Levin et al.’s study (2003; 2006) found similar sized
correlation coefficients in their two studies for the relationship between perceived
discrimination and the number of same ethnic campus friends, after controlling for
precollege perceived discrimination. In their 2003 study, Levin et al. did not report any
relationship between perceived discrimination and the number of campus friends outside
of one’s ethnic group.
Table 29A: Bi-variate Correlations Between Perceived Discrimination and Four
Ethnic/Faith Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of Same Ancestry and Same Religion,
Same Ancestry and Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and
Different Religion and Different Ancestry

Ethnic/Faith Campus Friendship Groups Perceived
Discrimination
Percentage of same ancestry and same religion
N = 597

.054
Percentage of same ancestry and different ancestry
N = 593

.109**
Percentage of same religion and different ancestry
N = 593

-.019
Percentage of different religion and different ancestry
N = 593

-.110 **
** p < .01

In Table 29B, the creation of a second scale, campus climate, did not yield any
increase in the size of the correlation coefficients reported in Table 29. In light of
sample size, there are no significant associations between campus climate and the four

193
ethnic/faith friendship groups. In terms of statistical significance found, campus climate
is related to the percentage of campus friends of the same ancestry and same religion (r
= .087, p < .05) and same religion and same ancestry (r = -.087, p < .05), but not to the
other two campus friendship groups. The opposite findings were reported in Table 29A
below. In Chapter 5, I will provide possible reasons for why little variance was
observed in perceived discrimination in relation to four ethnic/faith friendship groups.

Table 29B: Bi-variate Correlations Between Campus Climate and Four Ethnic/Faith
Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same
Ancestry and Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and Different
Religion and Different Ancestry.

Ethnic/Faith Campus Friendship Groups Campus
Climate
Percentage of same ancestry and same religion
N = 597

.087*
Percentage of same ancestry and different ancestry
N = 593

-.029
Percentage of same religion and different ancestry
N = 593

-.088*
Percentage of different religion and different
Ancestry N = 593

.012
*p < .05

Results of the Third Hypothesis
The third hypothesis asserts that there is a positive relationship between the
strength of ethnic identity and the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus
friends. As Table 30 indicates below, there were no significant correlations found
between ethnic identity and same ethnic and/or same faith campus friends. Therefore,
this finding did not support the third hypothesis, because there was no relationship
between ethnic identity and the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.

194

Table 30: Bi-variate Correlations Between Ethnic Identity and Four Ethnic/Faith
Friendship Groups, Campus Friends of Same Ancestry and Same Religion, Same
Ancestry and Different Religion, Same Religion and Different Ancestry, and Different
Religion and Different Ancestry

Ethnic/Faith Friendships Ethnic
Identity
Percentage of same ancestry and same religion
N = 632

.074
Percentage of same ancestry and different religion
N = 628

. 004
Percentage of same religion and different ancestry
N = 628

-.023
Percentage of different religion and different ancestry
N = 628

-.062

From the above findings, ethnic identity was not a strong predictor of students
choosing campus friends in any of the four ethnic/faith friendship groups.
4
Alternatively,
among four- year college students Levin et al. (2006) had found that the number of same
ethnicity campus friends had a direct, incremental effect upon ethnic identity. That is, the
more same ethnic friends a student had after the first year of college, the higher the level
of ethnic identification after the second and third years of college (controlling for
precollege ethnic identification).

Results of Fourth and Fifth Interaction Hypotheses
The last two hypotheses in the study focused on the interactions of ethnic identity
and perceived discrimination on the two dependent variables, the sense of belonging and

195
the four ethnic/faith friendship group variables. Specifically, the fourth hypothesis stated
that there is an interaction between the strength of ethnic identity and the level of
perceived discrimination on the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus
friendships. The fifth hypothesis proposed that there is an interaction between the
strength of ethnic identity and the level of perceived discrimination on the sense of
belonging to the college.
For the testing of the interaction of ethnic identity and perceived discrimination on
both dependent variables, I performed ANOVA, which required transforming ethnic
identity and perceived discrimination from continuous variables to categorical variables:
weak ethnic identity, average ethnic identity, and strong ethnic identity, and low
perceived discrimination, average perceived discrimination, and high-perceived
discrimination. A disadvantage of categorizing continuous variables is the
loss of variation in scores, despite thoughtful consideration in assigning the range of
mean scores to low, average, and high categories. In the case of ethnic identity, this case
was particularly challenging, because this target population was heavily skewed toward
strong ethnic identity.
Tables 31, 32, 33, and 34 present the ANOVA analyses on the interaction of
ethnic identity and perceived discrimination on the percentage of campus friends of the
same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different religion, same religion and
different ancestry, and different religion and different ancestry. Table 31A, 32A, 33A,
and 34A provide the means and standard deviations for the interaction effects of ethnic
identity and perceived discrimination in each of the four analyses. As shown in Tables

196
31, 32, 33, and 34, there were no interaction effects of perceived discrimination and
ethnic identity on the four ethnic/faith friendship group variables. Therefore, the results
did not lend support to the fourth hypothesis.
However, Tables 32 and 34 indicated a statistically significant main effect for
perceived discrimination on campus friends of the same ancestry and different religion, F
(2, 582 = 5.809, p < .003), and campus friends of a different religion and different
ancestry, F (2, 582 = 6.70, p < .001. In Table 32B, a pairwise comparison shows that in
comparison to the low and average-perceived discrimination groups, the high-perceived
discrimination group has significantly higher mean scores on the dependent variable, the
percentage of campus friends of same ancestry and different religion (mean = 10.97, low
perceived discrimination; mean = 12.46, average perceived discrimination, and mean =
16.49, high perceived discrimination). Simply put, the higher the level of perceived
discrimination, the higher the percentage of campus friends of the same ancestry and
different religion. Conversely, as shown in Table 34B the low-perceived discrimination
group had the highest mean scores of all three groups on the percentage of campus
friends of a different religion and different ancestry (mean = 34.57, low perceived
discrimination; mean = 27.61, average perceived discrimination, and mean = 23.28, high
perceived discrimination. Thus, the lower the level of perceived discrimination, the
higher the percentage of campus friends of a different religion and different ancestry.

197
Table 31: Analysis of Variance for the Interaction Between Perceived Discrimination
and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same Ancestry and Same
Religion

df

MS

F

η
2

P

Perceived Discrimination

2 2860.497 2.918 .010 .055
Ethnic Identity

2 2772.063 2.828 .010 .060
Perceived Discrimination * Ethnic Identity

4 516.363 .527 .004 .716
Error 586 980.248

Table 31A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between Perceived
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same
Ancestry and Same Religion

Perceived Discrimination Ethnic Identity Mean Standard
Deviation
N
Low Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 24.67 29.14 31

Average Ethnic Identity 36.59 32.26 69

Strong Ethnic Identity 39.23 31.49 112

Total 36.24 31.66 212

Average Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 31.63 33.04 43

Average Ethnic Identity 37.83 33.22 65

Strong Ethnic Identity 39.20 28.87 90

Total 37.11 31.25 198

High Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 40.97 31.10 36

Average Ethnic Identity 40.35 26.70 57

Strong Ethnic Identity 43.97 33.75 92

Total 42.27 31.10 185

Total Weak Ethnic Identity 32.73 31.72 110

Average Ethnic Identity 38.13 30.93 191

Strong Ethnic Identity 40.71 31.42 294

Total 38.41 31.41 595

198

Table 32: Analysis of Variance For the Interaction Between Perceived Discrimination
and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same Ancestry and
Different Religion

Variance
df

MS

F

η
2

P

Perceived Discrimination 2 1293.396 5.809 .020 .003

Ethnic Identity 2 458.711 2.060 .007 .128

Perceived Discrimination * Ethnic Identity 4 92.706 .416 .003 .797

Error 582 222.656

Table 32A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between Perceived
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same
Ancestry and Different Religion

Perceived Discrimination Ethnic Identity Mean Standard
Deviation
N
Low Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 8.71 12.73 29

Average Ethnic Identity 12.60 15.96 70

Strong Ethnic Identity 11.60 14.84 112

Total 11.53 14.94 211

Average Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 12.45 15.04 41

Average Ethnic Identity 14.01 17.85 65

Strong Ethnic Identity 10.91 13.44 91

Total 12.26 15.33 197

High Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 15.91 13.77 36

Average Ethnic Identity 18.70 16.76 56

Strong Ethnic Identity 14.84 14.21 91

Total 16.24 15.03 183

Total Weak Ethnic Identity 12.60 13.77 106

Average Ethnic Identity 14.87 16.76 191

Strong Ethnic Identity 12.39 14.21 294

Total 13.23 15.03 591

199

Table 32B: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels of Perceived
Discrimination on Campus Friends of a Same Ancestry and Different Religion

(I) Perceived
Discrimination
(J) Perceived
Discrimination
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error

Sig.
Average Perceived Discrimination -1.489 1.638 .364

Low Perceived
Discrimination High Perceived Discrimination -5.517** 1.682 .001

Low Perceived Discrimination

1.489 1.638 .364 Average
Perceived
Discrimination
High Perceived Discrimination -4.029* 1.630 .014

Low Perceived Discrimination -5.517** 1.682 .001

High Perceived
Discrimination Average Perceived Discrimination 4.029* 1.630 .014

*p <.05, ** p < .01

Table 33: Analysis of Variance for the Interaction Between Perceived Discrimination
and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same Religion and
Different Ancestry

df

MS

F

η
2

P

Perceived Discrimination 2 759.609 1.833 .006 .161

Ethnic Identity 2 190.955 .461 .002 .631

Perceived Discrimination * Ethnic Identity 4 624.039 1.506 .010 .199

Error 582 414.351

200
Table 33A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between Perceived
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Same
Religion and Different Ancestry

Perceived Discrimination Ethnic Identity Mean Std. Deviation N

Low Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 24.31 23.11 29

Average Ethnic Identity 20.88 20.42 70

Strong Ethnic Identity 22.05 20.74 112

Total 21.97 20.90 211
Average Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 28.80 25.90 42

Average Ethnic Identity 19.68 19.64 65

Strong Ethnic Identity 23.37 23.21 91

Total 23.31 22.84 198
High Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 16.94 10.82 36

Average Ethnic Identity 23.35 15.44 56

Strong Ethnic Identity 19.89 18.87 91

Total 20.05 16.56 183
Total Weak Ethnic Identity 23.59 21.57 107

Average Ethnic Identity 20.89 18.76 190

Strong Ethnic Identity 21.79 20.97 294

Total 21.83 20.38 591

Table 34: Analysis of Variance For the Interaction Between Perceived Discrimination
and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of the Different Religion and
Different Ancestry

df

MS

F

η
2

P

Perceived Discrimination 2 5153.091 6.698 .022 .001

Ethnic Identity 2 1816.211 2.361 .008 .095

Perceived Discrimination * Ethnic Identity 4 905.830 1.177 .008 .320

Error 582 769.405

201
Table 34A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between Perceived
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Percentage of Campus Friends of Different
Religion and Different Ancestry

Perceived Discrimination Ethnic Identity Mean Standard
Deviation
N
Low Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 42.72 36.64 30

Average Ethnic Identity 33.14 30.91 70

Strong Ethnic Identity 27.84 26.49 112

Total 31.70 29.86 212

Average Perceived
Discrimination
Weak Ethnic Identity 26.91 23.56 41
Average Ethnic Identity 28.79 32.47 64

Strong Ethnic Identity 27.14 28.48 92

Total 27.63 28.80 197

High Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 27.73 26.08 36

Average Ethnic Identity 20.29 20.13 55

Strong Ethnic Identity 21.82 25.16 91

Total 22.53 23.96 182

Total Weak Ethnic Identity 31.62 29.15 107

Average Ethnic Identity 27.93 29.12 189

Strong Ethnic Identity 25.77 26.77 295

Total 27.52 28.01 591

202
Table 34B: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels of Perceived
Discrimination on Campus Friends of a Different Religion and Different Ancestry

(I) Perceived
Discrimination

(J) Perceived
Discrimination

Mean
Difference

Std.
Error

Sig.
Average Perceived Discrimination

6.95 * 3.03 .022 Low Perceived
Discrimination High Perceived Discrimination 11.29** 3.11 .000

Low Perceived Discrimination -6.95 * 3.031 .022 Average
Perceived
Discrimination

High Perceived Discrimination

4.334

3.036

.154

Low Perceived Discrimination -11.289* 3.115 .000 High Perceived
Discrimination

Average Perceived Discrimination

-4.334

3.036

.154
*p <.05, ** p < .01

Table 35, below, shows the analysis of variance for the interaction between
perceived discrimination and ethnic identity on the sense of belonging to the college.
Table 35 A refers to the means and standard deviations for the interaction effects of
ethnic identity and perceived discrimination on the sense of belonging to the college. As
shown in Table 35, the analysis of variance indicated no interaction between the level of
perceived discrimination and the strength of ethnic identity on the sense of belonging to
the college. Yet, there were significant main effects for ethnic identity, F (2, 691) =
23.01, p < .0001), and perceived discrimination, F (2, 691) = 8.01, p < .0001).

203
Table 35: Analysis of Variance For the Interaction Between Perceived Discrimination
and Ethnic Identity on the Sense of Belonging to the College

df

MS

F

η
2

P

Perceived Discrimination 2 2.905 8.011 .023 .000

Ethnic Identity 2 8.326 23.015 .062 .000

Perceived Discrimination * Ethnic
Identity
4 .373 1.030 .006 .391

Error 691 .363

Table 35A: Means and Standard Deviations For the Interaction Between Perceived
Discrimination and Ethnic Identity on the Sense of Belonging to the College

Perceived Discrimination

Ethnic Identity

Mean
Standard
Deviation

N

Low Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 3.66 .665 39

Average Ethnic Identity 3.90 .637 76

Strong Ethnic Identity 4.06 .660 132

Total 3.95 .665 247
Average Perceived Discrimination
Weak Ethnic Identity

3.41

.535

56

Average Ethnic Identity 3.71 .602 80

Strong Ethnic Identity 3.96 .576 98

Total 3.74 .613 234
High Perceived Discrimination Weak Ethnic Identity 3.46 .606 45

Average Ethnic Identity 3.70 .486 68

Strong Ethnic Identity 3.75 .603 106

Total 3.68 .578 219
Total Weak Ethnic Identity 3.50 .601 140

Average Ethnic Identity 3.77 .584 224

Strong Ethnic Identity 3.93 .630 336

Total 3.79 .631 700

204
Table 35B: Pairwise Comparisons of Weak, Average, and Strong Ethnic Identity
on Sense of Belonging to the College

(I) Ethnic
Identity
(J) Ethnic
Identity

Mean
Difference

Std.
Error

Sig.
Average Ethnic Identity -.261** .065 .000 Weak
Ethnic Identity

Strong Ethnic Identity

-.413**

.061

.000

Weak Ethnic Identity .261** .065 .000 Average
Ethnic Identity

Strong Ethnic Identity
-.152** .052 .004

Weak Ethnic Identity .413** .061 .000 Strong
Ethnic Identity
Average Ethnic Identity .152** .052 .004
*p <.05, ** p < .01

Table 35C: Pairwise Comparisons of Low, Average, and High Levels of Perceived
Discrimination on Sense of Belonging to the College

(I) Perceived
Discrimination
(J) Perceived
Discrimination
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error
Sig.
Average Perceived Discrimination .178** .059 .003 Low Perceived
Discrimination High Perceived Discrimination .233** .061 .000

Low Perceived Discrimination -.178** .059 .003 Average
Perceived
Discrimination
High Perceived Discrimination

.055 .059 .351

Low Perceived Discrimination -.233** .061 .000 High Perceived
Discrimination Average Perceived Discrimination -.055 .059 .351
*p <.05, ** p < .01

205
In Table 35B, pairwise comparisons indicated that average and strong ethnic
identity students had significantly higher mean scores on sense of belonging to the
college than low ethnic identity students. The strong ethnic identity group had the highest
means scores of both groups (mean = weak ethnic identity, 3.51; mean = 3.77, average
ethnic identity; and mean = 3.92, strong ethnic identity). This finding suggests that as the
strength of ethnic identity increases, the higher the sense of belonging to the college. In
Table 35C, pairwise comparisons revealed that students with average and high levels of
perceived discrimination had significantly lower mean scores on sense of belonging to
the college than students with low levels of perceived discrimination (mean = 3.87, low
perceived discrimination; mean = 3.69, average perceived discrimination; and mean =
3.64, high perceived discrimination). The higher the level of perceived discrimination,
the lower the sense of belonging to the college.

Qualitative Results
In each of the three focus groups, we discussed different topics related to the main
variables in this study. Since Arab and Muslim students’ mean scores on perceived
discrimination were lower than expected, I spent more time with focus group members in
probing them if they felt discrimination against one’s ethnicity and religion was present
on their respective campuses. Moreover, I inquired if some students might feel reluctant
about answering survey questions relating to discrimination on campus. In Chapter 5, I
will address the corpus of literature that provides reasons for minorities’ denial and
minimization of discrimination against them. In the following paragraphs, I have

206
selected several comments that support certain themes that emerged during these focus
groups.
In the beginning of the focus group sessions, several of the students responded
indifferently to questions concerning the campus climate. Only a few came up with
concrete answers for why some students might be reluctant to report discrimination on
the survey. There is this prevailing sense among some students that they are not that
enthusiastic to talk about issues of discrimination. It almost seems that these students
have grown accustomed to the vilification against Arabs and Muslims in the United
States. Other students appear to have internalized the image of being a national security
risk, as in one student scribbling across a survey “I am not a terrorist.”
Midway through the focus groups, many students started to open up about
personal discrimination or discrimination against their ethnic and religious groups.
Although I asked the students specifically about discrimination on campus, a few referred
to incidences outside of school. In the following, one female Iraqi Muslim spoke about
how Muslim names generated suspicion and weird looks when she visited the Social
Security Office and the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles. Although she did not
wear a hijab, she referred to the experiences of women who wore headscarves (hijab) at
the governmental offices. About a third of all focus group members cited Muslim names
and dress as major sources of discrimination. “When I get my license Social Security or
ID and look at my Muslim name, they tell me you have to do this and that. They just
looked weird for the attitude, wearing the hijab they go crazy” (female, Iraqi Muslim,
ESL student at a Michigan community college, age, 20+). This same young woman

207
expressed fear and apprehension when someone asks her directly, whether on a survey or
in another context, about being mistreated by students, administration, and faculty,
because of her ethnicity or religion.
Sometimes I feel uncomfortable when someone asks…sometimes when I answer
I feel afraid of their reaction, what they might say, some of them think we are
bad people, because of the war in my country…sometimes I feel uncomfortable.
(female, Iraqi Muslim ESL student in a Michigan community college)

I became acquainted with one Egyptian American student through the Muslim
Student Association at one of the local Orange County, California community colleges.
Since she was unable to attend a focus group, I sent her a set of questions over the
Internet. The following are her responses to three questions regarding discrimination by
students, faculty, and administration on campus:
Q: Has anyone on campus ever made direct or indirect comments to you, relating
to your ethnicity or religion, which has made you feel uncomfortable?
A: No, any comments showed interest in my culture, not offense. Except one time a girl
told me I have too much pride and asked what’s so great about being Egyptian, and
claimed that we all walk around showing off our pride (I had an Egyptian patch on my
pants).
Q: In the classroom or on the campus, have you heard any racist remarks, or seen
any hateful actions directed towards another student or students, who are of your
same ancestry or same religion?
A: No, but I can note that professors have been respectful when mentioning my religion,
Islam.

208
Q: A large percentage of students have responded that they are “unsure” about the
campus climate, particularly as it relates to whether the campus administration
supports ethnic and religious diversity, or is supportive of student minority
organizations, like the Muslim Student Organization, Pan African, or Desi clubs.
Why might students feel reluctant to report that other students, faculty, or
administration, because of their ancestry and religion, treated them unfairly?
A: It could sound like they are making a big deal out of it. Since one can only be sure of
it when they have witnessed it, and discrimination is a very tough conviction, it is often
difficult to be persuaded that someone has committed it, without evidence (and there
usually isn’t evidence besides the victim’s testimony).
This student refers to another student disrespecting her nationality/ethnicity
(Egyptian), but makes a point that faculty has shown consideration for her religion, Islam.
This comment is consistent with students’ survey responses indicating a much lower level
of perceived discrimination toward their ethnicity or religion by faculty than by other
students. Her remark that “making a big deal out it” (reporting discrimination) coincides
with findings that persons are not likely to admit discrimination if they are not sure if
they have been targeted— due to being viewed by others as a complainer or overly
sensitive (Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). In another focus group at an Arabic class in
Michigan, one Egyptian Muslim male maintained that some students who claim
discrimination are “making up stories for sympathy.” In the same focus group, a
Rumanian classmate suggested that students might not acknowledge discrimination on a

209
survey because “they feel like writing it on paper has no power, but by telling you
(meaning collective “you”), someone with power, it may make a difference.”
Generally, I found that Muslim Student Association members seem more
empowered than their non-member Muslim counterparts are. Because they appear secure
in their religion and make a dedicated effort to educate non-Muslims about Islam. For
example, MSA members reach out to non-Muslims by inviting them to iftars (Ramadan
dinners), sponsoring lectures on Islam, campus talks on global issues, and charitable
drives. Since many MSA members have been targets of hate crimes, they have become
more knowledgeable in responding to issues of discrimination on campus.
In informal conversations, a few MSA members have been quite candid about
their experiences of discrimination on campus. One male MSA member, who is in the
same MSA as the previous female informant, recounted how during a club rush week,
one student approached him and yelled out “your prophet is a molester” (refers to Aisha,
Mohammed’s under-aged wife). As cited in Chapter 2, an MSA member from Michigan
recalled that during Ramadan, a few Muslims broke the fast during a play rehearsal, and
the non-Muslim cast members chastised them for taking a dinner break. Again, there is a
recurring theme about disrespect for one’s religion whether the discriminatory comments
are expressed overtly or, in the latter case, as a kind of “micro-aggression.”
As discussed, one emerging theme is imperviousness to feeling discrimination,
which almost seems as a defensive reaction against a fear of disclosure. In the third focus
group, a male community college student of dual ancestry (Palestinian and Anglo) exudes
a confident attitude that discrimination against Arabs and Muslims is not an endemic

210
problem at least not in California. He acknowledges, however, that some people, who
have been previously targeted, might choose to distance themselves from discussing the
topic.
I think it depends on the person also, maybe many people would take it personally
if someone was looking at them or just the wrong way and just scratch his head
and point directly at this person and think that they are being discriminated. And I
think in terms of that topic it depends on the person. Some people might think and
have a strong character they don’t really care. I don’t think there is much
discrimination in, well, especially in California where there is a large variety of
different backgrounds. I don’t think it’s that high (referring to the level of
discrimination) as the media shows us or wants us to think…maybe people did
not want to answer. They wanted to stay away from the topic. They were scared
and intimidated. They were afraid maybe I am discriminated, and I don’t want to
do anything with it. (male community college student, 20 + years, dual ancestry,
Palestinian-Anglo)

This male student does not think there is much discrimination in schools or
other public spaces, except for airports. He recalls how the airport security and customs
checked his and his family’s passports and bags, particularly on the return from Kuwait.
People would check my passports, or my mom’s, my dad’s, more than any other
passengers or when you pass through customs, when you come from Kuwait, we
have passed through customs everything, and we would wait to get our bags and
then there were still police just coming directly to us, anyone else looking Middle
Eastern to check our passport, it has happened so many times. (male community
college student, age 20 + years, dual ancestry, Palestinian-Anglo)

In this same group, a female student admitted that she has heard about
“discrimination pieces” from people she knows, but did not feel Arabs would talk about
it, particularly as many “Arabs do not look Arab…I don’t consider myself looking Arab.
I can be mistaken for Spanish or Mexican. I could be mistaken for white, you know what
I mean.” She states that she has never experienced discrimination. Throughout the focus
group, she also gave the general impression that discrimination was not a problem for

211
Arabs until we started talking about how in informal gatherings people recall brushes
with discrimination. This exchange jogged her memory that in her community college
there had been many instructors who had uttered discriminatory remarks against
Muslims.
I think when you are talking to people, I think you are asking more of the
topic…but I didn’t realize that in my school. But, then it reminded me that at my
school you know I have heard a lot of teachers that have talked about Muslims,
speaking of them like they are the devil…one (teacher) was really bad… he said
they are the worst people in the world. (female community college student, age,
20+, Lebanese Muslim)

In continuing this discussion about discrimination on campus, I asked the
members of the third focus group if they felt uncomfortable with the campus climate, did
they gravitate towards students of their same ancestry or same religion? One male
member of the group responded same religion, but when I asked him if this included
same ancestry, he agreed. Since this focus group was comprised of all Arab Muslims, it
was possible that same ancestry was naturally assumed. An Arab American female
remarked that she “liked to be around Middle Eastern (students), like Armenians, because
we are the same besides culture and religion…we hold on to our culture.”
Based on students’ comments, discrimination by other students and faculty occurs
intermittingly. An obvious conclusion is that there exists very little discrimination against
Arab and Muslim students on the community college campuses. Students also spoke
about sensing discrimination outside of the campus setting, for example at social security
offices or department of motor vehicles. I recall one student who after class was very
disturbed and pulled her Arabic language instructor aside (he was a Muslim convert) to
discuss how the FBI had contacted her parents to carry out an investigation in their home.

212
I noticed that this same person disagreed with feeling discriminated against on the survey.
Another student had a father whose warehouse had been ransacked and merchandise
confiscated by the FBI. The faculty advisor of the Muslim Student Association doubted
that this student would fill out the survey, but he ended up doing so.
It is possible that some of the survey respondents and focus group members are
suppressing or even repressing their feelings of discrimination for a number of reasons.
One focus group member mentioned the fear of responding to questions about
discrimination on a survey. Another student remarked that maybe some people might
understate discriminatory acts or incidences because without concrete evidence or
witnesses they appear that they are exaggerating (making a big deal out of something).
In any case, when discrimination is experienced on campus, below are the emergent
themes from the three focus group sessions.

Disrespect for one’s religion, Islam

Muslim names and Muslim dress

Impervious to Discrimination and suppression of feelings of
discrimination

Fear and Feelings of Intimidation

Social cost of reporting perceived discrimination
(viewed as being a complainer or over sensitive)

Forming self segregated clusters on campus, same ancestry and
same religion or same regional culture based upon sensing a
uncomfortable campus climate

213
Chapter 4 Endnotes
1
In tables below, bi-variate correlations and one-way analysis of variance are presented for twenty-one
variables that were considered for having possible effects on the sense of belonging.

Table 25: Correlations Between Sense of Belonging and Many Variables

Variable Belonging
N = 703
Gender
N = 657

. 015
Age
N = 701

.057
Father’s educational background
N = 698

-.097*
Mother’s educational background
N = 698

-.092*
Number of weekly hours work
N = 700

.02
Number of units taken per semester
N = 697

.060
Number of semesters enrolled in the college
N = 683

.121**
Planning to enroll in this college the next semester
N = 698

-.079*
How many friends have you made on campus
N = 694

.367**
How many of your friends on campus did you know
before you enrolled in this college
N = 695

.193**
Ethnic Identity
N = 700

.246**
Survey location (0 = other survey locations,
1 = Arabic and Farsi language courses)
N = 703

-.124**
Same language spoken with parents and campus friends
(0 = Different language, 1= Same language)
N = 703

.093*
College LA/Orange (0 = other community colleges,
1= LA/Orange community colleges)
N = 703

.032
College MI (0 = Other community colleges,
1= Michigan community colleges)
N = 703

.000
College SD (0 = Other community colleges,
1= San Diego community colleges)
N = 703

.009
Generational status 1 (0 = 1.5 and second generations,
1 = first generation)
N = 660

.028
Generational status 1.5 (0 = first and second generations,
1 = 1.5 generation)
N = 660

. 020
Generation status 2
nd
(0 = first and 1.5 generations,
1= 2
nd
generation)
N = 660

-.045
*p < .05, **p < .01.

214

Table 26: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Sense of Belonging, Ethnicity and Religious
Affiliation as Possible Controls (N = 699)

Source

df F η
2
P

Ethnicity

10

2.21

.033

.016*

Religious Affiliation

6

1.65

.015

.131
*p < .05

Looking at Tables 25 and 26 reveals were certain demographic and student background variables
that were predicted to have an effect upon the dependent variable, the sense of belonging to the college, for
example, age, gender, father and mother’s educational background, ethnicity, religious affiliation, number
of weekly hours of work, number of semesters enrolled in the college, survey location, community college
attended, and ethnic identity. Only significant correlations at .01 were examined in determining control
variables. Although the variables, survey location and number of semesters enrolled, are significantly
correlated with sense of belonging (r = -.124, p < .01, and r = .121, p < .01, respectively), the size of the
correlation coefficients are trivial given the relatively large-sized sample. It is interesting that there was a
negative correlation between the survey location and the sense of belonging. This finding suggests that
students who were administered the survey in locations other than Arabic or Farsi classes reported a higher
sense of belonging (note: survey takers from Arabic and Farsi classes served as the reference group for the
dummy variable). This seems counter-intuitive as one might expect that Arab and Muslim students would
feel a higher sense of belonging in classes where there is a higher likelihood of interacting with peers from
their same ethnicity or same faith. There was a significant, medium-sized correlation between ethnic
identity and the sense of belonging to the college (r = .246, p < .01), which coincides with the evidence
presented in other studies (e.g., Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Levin et al., 2003). Therefore, based on theoretical
justification and the statistical strength of the relationship with the sense of belonging, I selected ethnic
identity as a control variable
The two variables, the number of friends that a student has made on campus and the number of
friends on campus that the student knew prior to enrollment on campus, also were significantly correlated
with the sense of belonging (r = .367, p < .01, and r = .193, p < .01, respectively). Particularly, the first
variable displayed a strong association with the sense of belonging. However, since both variables
appeared to be similar measures of the sense of belonging, they were not considered as controls. The survey
item, number of friends that a student has made on campus, initially was placed in the survey as a reliability
check for the set of questions relating to the number of campus friendships. The question concerning if a
student knew any of these campus friends previous to enrollment was designed to serve as a validation for
whether the number of campus friendships reported might be actually friendships made on campus or
previously established. Curiously, there were no significant relationships found between sense of
belonging and generational status, same language spoken with parents and campus friends. Numerous
studies have underscored the significant effects of generational status and bilingualism on school adaptation
at all levels of education (Bankston & Zhou, 1997; Bailey & Weininger, 2002; Lohfink, 2005; Matute-
Bianchi, 1991; Suarez-Orozco, 1991; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Portes & Rumbaut,
2001; Portes & Zady, 1996; Trickett & Birman, 2005; White & Kaufman, 1997).

2
If the correlations were larger sized, I could have performed a regression analysis. Guion’s caution
against performing regression analyses on ipsative variables, which are not independent from each other, is
not relevant here for two reasons: (a) they are dependent variables and (b) each of the four ethnic/faith
friendship group variables would have been entered into their own separate regression analysis.

215

3
In both Levin et al.’s studies (2003, 2006), the researchers did not report Pearson r correlations only
betas coefficients. However, since the reported betas were similar to the size of the Pearson r coefficients
in the present study one can assume that the value of the Pearson r correlations were indeed larger.

4
In the studies of Read (2008) and Eid (2003), which focused on Arab American working women and
Arab Canadian CEGEP students, respectively, the number of same ethnicity friends was incorporated into
the ethnic identity scale, based upon its moderately strong intercorrelations with other items in the scale.

216
Chapter 5
______________________________________________________
.
Discussion
Arab and Muslim community college students interact regularly with other
students across various activities: studying, talking on campus about topics unrelated to
studies and classes, dining, and participating in on-campus and off-campus activities.
Studying and talking on campus seem to be the two most common activities. In such
engagement, 42% of the students have established three or more campus friends, spent
the most time in the last 14 days or month, and expressed achieving a moderate degree
of closeness. The majority of Arab and Muslim students have initiated these friendships
on campus. Only about 17% of the students reported that they knew many of their
campus friends before enrolling in the community college. These findings pose a
challenge to the commonly held claim that there is little social interaction on community
college campuses (e.g., Astin, 1993; Dougherty, 1992).
Campus friendships contribute significantly to Arab and Muslim students’ sense
of belonging to the college even after controlling for ethnic identity. Put more simply, the
study found that students who have more friends, interact more frequently with them, and
feel closer with them, are more likely to feel a part of the campus community. Feeling a
part of the campus community is associated with an ease of making campus friends,
willingness to join student clubs, organizations, and activities, establishing rapport with
faculty and staff, and experiencing pride of association with the college. In broader terms,
the support for hypothesis 1—which asserts that there is a positive relationship between
campus friendships and students’ sense of belonging to the college—may imply that Arab

217
and Muslim students have appreciable contact with other ethnic groups and have greater
integration into the wider campus community. These kinds of positive outcomes are
associated with the central tenets of contact theory and multi-cultural perspectives. In the
words of one Chaldean student summarizing a sense of campus community, “We are all
from different cultures, religions, and interests, but still have the same blood flow.”
Although Arab and Muslim students engage in a variety of campus activities with
other students, a closer examination reveals that collectively the majority of these campus
friends are of the same ancestry and same religion, same ancestry and different religion,
and same religion and different ancestry. Only a little over a quarter percent of the
students’ campus friends are of a different religion and different ancestry (refer to Table
24).
1
Furthermore, out of 570 written responses to an open-ended question, which asked
students to tell a little about why they had chosen their campus friends, the predominant
theme among 20 thematic categories was sameness of culture, heritage, and religious
beliefs (38%). This set of survey results suggests an alternative picture in which Arab and
Muslim students are not as well integrated as expected, and instead are forming ethnic
and religious enclaves on campus.
That Arab and Muslim students gravitate towards campus friends of the same
ethnicity and/or same faith is further validated by participatory observations of their
social interactions on campus, for example, study groups in the library and having lunch
with their friends in the cafeteria. In Chapter 2, I advanced the concept that students
might negotiate their campus friendships by shifting their social identity boundaries to
minimize ethnic or religious differences between themselves and peers. For example, an

218
Iraqi Christian has an Egyptian Muslim friend with whom he studies. They clearly have
different religious faiths, but they are bound by a common culture—they both identify
with being Arab, Arabic speaking, or regionally from the Middle East—so within the
context of the friendship their religious differences are minimized. One cafeteria lunch
group consisted of students of Lebanese descent from different religions and sects, for
example, Maronite Christian, Sunni and Shia Muslims, but apart from the religious
boundaries that divided them, they viewed themselves as “all Lebanese.” Likewise, at a
Desi Club on campus, Indian Hindus, Pakistani, and Indian Muslims clearly identified
with their separate religions and ethnicities, but the commonality among them was
situated around the larger regional identity—being Desi (South-Asian). The importance
of having the same regional-ethnic identity was echoed in the remark of a focus group
member who preferred to hang around with Middle Eastern students, because apart from
differences in religion, as this student put it, “we are all the same.”
Ethnic clustering has been linked to inter-ethnic group conflicts on campus.
Some researchers have illuminated the benefits of ethnic clustering in that it offers
cultural support and a campus connectedness to ethnic minorities in an otherwise hostile
campus climate (Asmar, 2003; Ethier & Deaux, 1990; Loo & Rollin, 1986). One
implication found in the present study is that a degree of interethnic and interfaith tension
on the community college campuses has a small impact on the ability of some students to
feel a connection to the college. Although there was no support for the two interactions
proposed in hypotheses four and five, the analysis found that as the level of perceived
discrimination increased, students’ sense of belonging to the college decreased.

219
Moreover, when compared to their non-Arab and non-Muslim counterparts, Arab and
Muslim students were two to four times more likely to feel discriminated against by other
students, faculty, and administration because of their ethnicity or religion. Yet, contrary
to the results found in two four-year college studies (Levin et al., 2003; 2006) no
significant relationship was found between the level of perceived discrimination and the
percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friends (hypothesis two)—even
though the survey used similarly worded, ethnic-based discrimination items.
One pivotal question is why there was little variation in the level of perceived
discrimination in relation to the percentage of campus friends across the four ethnic faith
friendship groups--particularly given that national and independent surveys for the same
target populations reported strikingly higher rates of discrimination in school, the
workplace, and public spaces (Arab American Institute, AAI, 2007; Muslims in the
American Public Square, 2004; Cainkar, 2008; Read, 2008
2
). New information has
arisen out of a lawsuit against a Homeland Security operation, code-named Operation
Frontline, which revealed that immigrants from Muslim countries were 1,280 times more
likely to be investigated than immigrants from other countries—in spite of the fact that
the number of arrests made under national security related charges were zero
(http://www.adc.org/PDF/frontline.pdf). That Barack Obama’s nomination in the 2008
election spurred such a dogged investigation of his Muslim roots blatantly illustrates the
extent to which mainstream American society openly sanctions anti-Arab and
Islamophobic discourse.

220
One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that less overt racial tension and
conflict exists on community college campuses, which may explain why many individual
community college reports contain optimistic evaluations of the campus climate (e.g.,
Arnold, 1995; Clements, 1997; Hart, Lutkemeier, & Gustafson, 2002; Howard
Community College, 1998; Mattice, 1994; Milwaukee Area Technical College, 1988;
San Diego Community College District, 1994; Washington State Board, 1997). Clearly
there are institutional and demographic differences to consider between community
colleges and elite, four-year, research universities, the latter of which are highly selective
and predominantly White, possibly accounting for the higher rates of campus
discrimination reported by minority students (Ethier & Deaux, 1990; Hurtado & Carter,
1997; Levin et al., 2003). On the other hand, community colleges are feeder institutions
to four-year colleges and universities, and have a disproportionately higher number of
ethnic minorities and first generation immigrants. Because of these observable
differences in structural diversity, as compared to an elite research university, community
colleges are more likely to provide a critical mass
3
that might neutralize the effects of
perceived campus discrimination. In the present study, with the exception of one
community college in Southeast Michigan comprised of approximately 30% Arab
Muslims, critical mass consisted of scattered pockets of Arab and Muslim students on
campus. Many of these students congregated in friendship groups of four to six at the
cafeteria or library. As a handful of researchers have maintained, same ethnic friendships
might serve the function of self-preservation rather than self-segregation (Alemán, 1998;
Shaw & Coleman, 2000; Tatum 1999; Villalpano, 2003).

221
A second consideration is that, unlike four-year resident universities, community
colleges are commuter campuses. Borglum and Kubala (2000) found that close to 40% of
community college students spend between one to four hours on campus with two-thirds
of them having less than a half hour between classes. Based on these observations, it
seems safe to infer that community college students might encounter discriminatory acts
less frequently than if they attended a four-year resident university where their schedules
might keep them on campus for more extended periods of unscheduled time. In view of
these recognizable differences between the two institutions, community college
researchers should be cautious in their comparisons with the campus discrimination rates
cited in the four-year college literature.
Arab and Muslim community college students may also be under-reporting
perceived discrimination on campus. Compelling evidence indicates that persons are
sometimes reluctant to acknowledge discrimination because of the social cost involved in
signalling a false alarm.
4
Several studies have demonstrated that minorities who
continually label events and actions as discriminatory are viewed by non-minorities as
being complainers and over-sensitive (Crosby, 1984; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Kaiser &
Miller, 2001; Swim et al., 1998). This finding jibes with the sentiment of one focus group
member’ from the present study that unless one can prove discrimination occurred, the
targeted person appears to be “making a big deal out” of the incident. Another source of
under-reporting discrimination might lie in the sensitivity of the measures in the campus
climate in the study, which I will put forth in the section on Methodological
Considerations and Limitations.

222
The survey data showed minimal variation in the strength of ethnic identity in
relation to the percentage of campus friends across all four ethnic/faith friendship groups.
Most Arab and Muslim students had remarkably strong ethnic identities and campus
friends that were of the same ethnicity and/or same faith. The few students who had
relatively low ethnic identity also reported many same ethnic and/or same faith campus
friends. Therefore, there was no support for hypothesis three as the strength of ethnic
identity bore no association with the percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus
friends.
Because close to 40% of campus friendships were of the same ancestry and same
faith, it may be that Arab and Muslim students attribute more salience to religious
identity than ethnic identity in their choice of campus friendships. However, bi-variate
correlations performed between religious identity
5
and the percentage of campus friends
across all four ethnic/faith friendship groups failed to generate co-efficients that were
significantly different in size from those corresponding to ethnic identity. The results
showed that neither ethnic identity nor religious identity had a significant relationship to
the choice of Arab and Muslims’ campus friendships.
Again, conflicting findings from the four-year college research may be
attributable to the absence of a critical mass of ethnic minority representation in which
sharing a common ethnic identity invokes a more meaningful connection with forging
campus friendships (e.g., Ethier & Deaux, 1998; Levin et al., 2003; Loo & Rolison,
1986).

223
Methodological Considerations and Limitations
Due to the multicollinearity found among the three campus friendship variables, I
had to construct one campus friendship scale. This limitation prevented me from
determining the separate effects of the three campus friendship variables on sense of
belonging. If I were to redo the survey, I might vary the order of the items corresponding
to the three campus friendship variables in order to assess whether the item position
might have contributed to the multi-collinearity. I would also devote a separate set of
questions to measuring the frequency of interaction of campus friends instead of deriving
an estimate from the time spent with other students across each of the activities. Because
many of the questions were placed together for thematic consistency, additional minutes
should have been allotted prior to survey administration in order to explain the internal
logic of some of the questions. While the forced-choice format of the twenty friendship
group items furnishes a safeguard against response bias, it might have been much clearer
for the respondents to write in the number of friends for each of the four response
categories rather than using percentages. This format would have provided a smoother
transition for students to calculate the number of campus friends from the previous
question and assign the number(s) to each of the four friendship group response
categories.
A follow-up study should include religious identity as an independent variable, as
religion represents a salient component of this target population, the influence of which
is greatly underscored in current scholarly discourses on the racialization of Arab and
Muslim Americans
6
(e.g., Eid, 2003; Gualtieri, 2001, 2008; Jamal, 2008; Joseph,

224
D’Harlingue, & Wong; Naber, 2008; Read, 2004). Religious identity needs to be
thoroughly examined as a theoretical construct, and carefully developed as an empirical
measure with meticulous attention to both face and construct validities. Religion and
religious identity plays a significant role in the every day lives of Arab and Muslims
students, as evidenced by their strikingly high mean scores on the religious identity
scale–slightly higher than their mean ethnic identity scores. As a source of comparison,
non-Arab and non-Muslim students exhibited significantly lower scores on religious
identity than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. Equally important is the further
exploration of the ethno-religious component of Arab and Muslim identity. Even though
a bi-variate correlation showed a moderately strong relationship between Arab and
Muslim students’ ethnic identity and religious identity (r = .555, p < .01), a factor
analysis determined that the two constructs were unique.
As I discussed in Chapter 2, current theories of ethnic identity do not
accommodate a nuanced relationship between ethnic and religious identity. Innovations
in ethnic identity theory are essential to laying the foundation for a scale that will
incorporate and measure the religious dimensions of ethnic identity. New theoretical
approaches to ethnic identity that seek to explain the intersection between ethnic and
religious identity could also be applied to similarly ethnicized religious groups, such as
Mormons and Jews.
One shortcoming of the perceived discrimination scale was its absence of
questions focusing on a broad range of specific discriminatory behaviors that students
might encounter frequently on campus through interactions with other students, faculty,

225
staff, and administration. One focus group member observed that for a future study I
should redo the discrimination questions by asking about specific types of incidents,
perpetrators, severity, and frequency of occurrence. Notably, when researchers have
presented college students with a wide selection of specific racist events and remarks
through which they are instructed to report the frequency of their personal or indirect
experiences over a given time period, respondents displayed moderate to high levels of
perceived discrimination (Boughan, 1992; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Ladrine &
Klonoff, 1996; Moradi & Hasan, 2004). For example, in including a detailed list of 18
different types of racial bias in his community college campus survey, Boughan (1992)
reported that 38% of the students encountered at least 1 of the 18 types of discrimination.
One caveat to substituting a behavioral index of perceived discrimination, as
opposed to a subjective measure, for example, I feel discriminated against because of
my ethnicity, is that a high mean score may not necessarily signify that the respondent
feels discriminated against. Rather, a possible interpretation might be that discrimination
is experienced on a continuum. In other words, the respondent might convey that he or
she has encountered only occasional acts of discrimination, which does not necessarily
mean that discrimination is a frequent or continual occurrence.
Equally significant are measures that identify more subtle forms of
discrimination, that is, racial micro-aggressions, which might be more frequently
encountered on community college campuses. Measures should also contain items that
tap into both personal and group discrimination. Convincing evidence suggests that
minorities might deny or minimize personal discrimination while more readily

226
acknowledging discrimination against their group
7
(Allport, 1954; Crosby, 1984;
Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Taylor, Ruggiero, & Louis, 1996; Taylor, Wright,
Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). On future research I would devote the survey solely to
perceived discrimination, thus allowing for a greater breadth of questions that would
satisfy these aforementioned concerns.

Conclusions
Lamentably, U.S. higher education studies have taken very little interest in topics
concerning Arab and Muslim students, even after 9/11. One could interpret this absence
in the literature as more an innocuous oversight than an emblem of institutional racism.
After 9/11, Arab and Muslims almost exclusively became the central focus of the
government’s forensic and national security studies. It is hoped that this study has paved
the way for ethnic relation studies by investigating one of the least examined but most
stigmatized student minorities. As no ethnic group is an island, entire of itself, this study
sends a signal to ethnic relations researchers to incorporate Arab and Muslim students
into their post-secondary studies so that they can be compared with other minority
groups. For survey researchers, inclusion would entail providing discrete ethnicity and
religious group categories on the survey that are relevant to these two target populations.
Community college researchers need to tailor their assessments of campus climate
to fit the institutional type and the student demographic profile. In stark contrast to four-
year elite colleges or research universities, community colleges maintain an open door
admission policy and have a larger ethnic minority representation, which might account

227
for why their students tend to report lower rates of campus discrimination. Campus
climate measures must include items that not only draw out more subtle forms of
discrimination, but also inquire into a wide scope and frequency of discriminatory
behaviors. It is far too easy to dismiss the campus climate as having few inter-ethnic or
inter-faith conflicts, particularly if a sizeable number of students is unsure about or
hesitant to disclose on a survey that they feel discriminated against. More importantly,
it seems unfathomable that the retreat of significant numbers of Arab and Muslim
students into same ethnic and/or same faith friendship groups has made them impervious
to all forms of discrimination. Arguably, it is the researcher’s moral responsibility to keep
restructuring the questions in order to chisel away the barriers of silence, reticence, and
defensiveness so that the suppressed voices of Arab and Muslim students as well as those
of all minorities may be heard.

228
Chapter 5 Endnotes
_____________________________________________________________________

1
There is also the possibility that some of these students interpreted “different religion” as different sect
(e.g., Sunni Muslims and Shi’a Muslims, and the different “Arab” Christian groups, Maronites, Antiochan-
Orthodox, and Coptic Orthodox). In the second pilot study, a few Egyptian Coptic community college
students raised this issue. In response to their feedback, I added a survey item that asked if one considered
someone of one’s same religion as the same denomination or the same larger religious group. Close to 50%
agreed or strongly agreed that the same religion signified a person of the same denomination and not of the
larger religious group; a third were not sure (it is possible they did not comprehend the question), and 17%
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Thus, a safe assumption is that many of the responses
might have been more evenly distributed among the friendship group categories if more students had
interpreted same religion as the overarching same religion and not necessarily the same sect.

2
Both Arab American Institute and Read phrased their ethnic and religious discrimination questions
similarly to the present study, except the former did not ask who the perpetrator of the discrimination was
(e.g., students, faculty, workers, people on the street).

3
Researchers have defined critical mass differently in relation to the likelihood of choosing a same ethnic
friend. (e.g., Chang, 1999; Hallinan & Smith, 1985; Levin et al., 2003; Quillian & Campbell, 2003). For
example, based on a large sample of seventh to twelfth graders (NELS data), Quillian and Campbell (2003)
observed that same race friendship occurred when one own’s race represented either less than 10% or
greater than 60% of the school’s student body. In Levin et al.’s study (2003), the researchers attributed the
high incidence of close, same race friendships among African American college students to their low 6%
representation.

4
Swim et al. (1998) have added that false alarms can lead to persons distancing themselves from
encounters and situations that might elicit discrimination, which in a campus community might translate to
students interacting only with same ethnic peers.

5
Religious identity was measured by the Religious Identity Scale. The Religious Identity Scale was created
by computing the mean scores of the students’ responses to the four religious items stated in Table 14, p.
103 (item numbers 25, 27, 28, and 29). The response categories were: Strongly disagree (coded 1),
Disagree (coded 2), Not sure (coded 3), Agree (coded 4), and Strongly agree (coded 5). The Alpha
Cronbach reliability for the Religious Identity Scale was .76. The mean religious identity score for Arab
and Muslims (N = 741) was found to be strikingly high at 4.03, SD.80, signifying a strong religious
identity. In comparison , the mean religious identity score was 3.11, SD = 1.12 for the non-Arab and non-
Muslim student group (N = 567). Although such claims are speculative, social desirability might have
accounted for Arab and Muslims’ extremely high mean score on religious identity. It is noteworthy that I
found a moderately high correlation between the Ethnic Identity Scale and the Religious Identity Scale, r =
.555, p < .01. On the other hand, Read (2004) reported substantially lower correlations between her ethnic
identity and religiosity scales (r = .165, p < .01), despite finding strong intercorrelations among selected
measures of both indices

6
As it relates to one of the dependent variables in this study, Eid (2003) and Read (2004) found moderate to
moderately strong associations between measures of religious identity and the choice of same ethnic among
Arab Christians and Arab Muslims. It must be noted that Eid’s target population was Arab Canadian
CEGEP students, which is somewhat to community college students in the United States. With respect to
students’ sense of belonging, Asmar (2003) also indicated a positive relationship between religious group
membership and Australian Muslim college students’ sense of community on campus. Similar to ethnic
identity, a strong religious identity could serve as a mediator between campus friendships and a sense of
belonging to the campus.

229
7
Ruggiero et al. (1996) has shown that when minority members perceive group discrimination, they access
stereotypes, which in turn induces them to respond quicker to questions regarding discrimination against
one’s group. Many social psychologists have utilized response times to measure the activation of
stereotypes (e.g., Devine, 1989; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994; Snyder & Miene, 1994).
Taylor, Ruggiero, & Louis, (1996) have noted ethnic group differences in reported rates of personal and
group discrimination, which they attributed to one group having increased visibility.

230
References

___________________________________________________

Abdulrahim, S. (2008). “Whiteness” and the Arab immigrant experience. In A. Jamal &
N. Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/22, from invisible
citizens to visible subjects (pp.46-80). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship
quality. Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 165-173.

Adams, R.G., Blieszner, R., & De Vries, B. (2000). Age, gender, and study location
effects on definitions of friendship in the third age. Journal of Aging Studies,
14(1), 117-133.

Adelman, C. (1992). Moving into town and moving on: The community college in the
lives of traditional-age students. U.S. Department of Education (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED496111)

Ahdab-Yehia, M. (1983). The Lebanese Maronites: Patterns of continuity and change.
In S.Y. Abraham & N. Abraham (Eds.), Arabs in the new world: Studies on
Arab-American communities (pp. 148-162). Detroit, MI: Wayne State
University.

Ajrouch, K. (2004). Gender, race, and symbolic boundaries: Contested spaces of identity
among Arab American adolescents. Sociological Perspectives, 47(4), 371-391.

Akram, S. (2002). The aftermath of September 11, 2001: The targeting of Arabs and
Muslims in America. Arab Studies Quarterly, 24(2/3), 61-118.

Alemán, A., & Martinez, M. (1998, November). Intentional communities: Do they foster
integration or separation? Paper presented at the Ashe Symposium, Miami,
Florida.

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Perseus Books.

Allport, G., & Ross, M.J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.

231
Alsultany, E. (2008). The prime-time plight of the Arab Muslim American after 9/11. In
A. Jamal & N. Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11:
From invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 204-228). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5
th
ed.), New York: Macmillan.

Andary, N. (1997). On Druze identity. Los Angeles: The American Druze Society.

Antonio, A. L. (2001a). The role of inter-racial interaction in the development of
leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher
Education, 42(5), 593-616.

Antonio, A.L. (2001b). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The
Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 63-89.

Antonio, A.L. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self confidence
and educational aspirations in college. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4),
446-471.

Arab American Institute, Census 2000, Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http:
www.aaiusa.org

Arab American Institute, Report 2002, Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http:
www.aaiusa.org

Arab American Institute, Census 2007, Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http:
www.aaiusa.org

Arce-Ferrer, A. J. (2006). An investigation into the factors influencing extreme-response
style: Improving meaning of translated and culturally adapted rating
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 374-392.

Arnold, C.L. (1995). Chabot College campus climate survey results: Fall 1994.
Hayward, CA: Chabot College Office of Institutional Research (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED402982)

Asmar, C. (2003). A community on campus. In A. Saeed & S. Akbarzadeh (Eds.),
Muslim Communities in Australia (pp. 139-160). Sydney, Australia: University
of New South Wales Press.

Asmar, C. (2004). Unwelcome sisters? An analysis of findings from a study of how
Muslim women (and Muslim men) experience university. Australian Journal of
Education, 48, 47-63.

232
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Aswad, B. (2003). Arab Americans. In R. Scupin (Ed.), Race and ethnicity: An
anthropological focus on the United States and the world (pp. 267-287). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson
Wadsworth.

Bachman, J.G., & O’Malley, P.M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to
extremes: Black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly,
48(2), 491-509.

Bailey, T. & Weininger, E. (2002). Performance, graduation, and transfer of immigrants
and natives in City University of New York community colleges. Educational
evaluation and policy analysis, 24(4), 359-377.

Baker, W., Howell, S., Jamal, A., Lin, A., Shryock, A., Stockton, R., et al.
(2004). Preliminary findings from the Detroit Arab American Study, Executive
Summary Report.

Balibar, E. (1992). Is there a ‘Neo-Racism’? In E. Balibar & I.Wallerstein (Eds.), Race,
nation, class: Ambiguous identities (pp. 17-28). London: Verso.

Bankston, C.L., & Zhou, M. (1997). The social adjustment of Vietnamese American
adolescents: Evidence for a segmented assimilation approach. Social Science
Quarterly, 78(2), 508–523.

Barnette, J. J. (1999). Non-attending respondent effects on internal consistency of
self-administered surveys: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 38-46.

Barnette, J.J. (2000) Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey
internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using
those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
60(3), 361–370.

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497-529.

233
Bean, J., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional student
attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.

Berger, J.B. (1997). Students’ sense of community in residence halls, social integration,
and first year persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(5), 441-
452.

Berndt, T.J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence.
Child Development, 53(6), 1447-1460.

Bers, T.H., & Smith, K.E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The
influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in
Higher Education 32(5), 539-556.

Bollen, K.A., & Hoyle, R.H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479-504.

Booker, K. C. (2007). Likeness, comfort, and tolerance: Examining African American
adolescents’ sense of school belonging. The Urban Review, 39(3), 301-317.

Borglum, K. & Kubala, T. (2000). Academic and social integration of community college
students: A case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
24(7), 567-576

Boughan, K. (1992). Student perceptions of the racial climate at Prince George’s
Community College, Spring 1992: A preliminary report. Largo, MD:
Prince George’s Community College, Office of Institutional Research.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346925)

Branscombe, N., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination:
Individualistic versus group level-strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),
Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 243-266). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Branscombe, N., Schmitt, M., & Harvey, R. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135-149.

Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical
perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in
contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.

234
Brewer, M. B., von Hippel, W., & Gooden, M. P. (1999). Diversity and organizational
identity: The problem of entrée after entry. In D.A. Prentice & D.T. Miller (Eds.),
Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 337-363).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brothers and Others, On Power and Dissent: A Conversation With Noam Chomsky
[Motion Picture]. (2002). United States: Typecast Pictures.

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact: The
effects of group membership salience. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 37, 255-343.

Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup
contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 741-764.

Bukowski, W.M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during
pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the
Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,11(3),
471-484.

Burhmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and
adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development,
61(4), 1101-1111.

Bushman, B., & Bonacci, A.M. (2004). You’ve got mail: Using e-mail to
examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 753-759.

Cabrera, A.F., Castañeda, M.B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2),
143-164.

Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. (1999). Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between
White students and African American students. Journal of Higher Education,
70(2), 134-160.

Cainkar, L. (2008). Thinking outside the box, Arabs and race in the United States. In
Amaney Jamal and Nadine Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and
after 9/11, from invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 46-80). Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.

Cattell, R.B. (1944). Psychological measurement: Normative, ipsative, interactive.
Psychological Review, 51(5), 292-303.

235
Chang, M.J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially
diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development,
40(4), 377-395.

Clarke, I., III (2000). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 15(1), 137-52.

Clements, E., (1997). Creating a campus climate that truly values diversity. Bedford,
MA: Middlesex Community College.

Cohen, J. (1983). Commentary: Selection and influence. In J.L. Epstein & N. Karweit
(Eds.), Friends in School: Patterns of Selection and Influence in Secondary
Schools (pp. 167-173). New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohler-Esses, L. (2007, November). The new McCarthyism [Electronic version]. The
Nation. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071112/cohler-esses

Cole, D. (2003, October). 9/11 and the LA 8. [Electronic version]. The Nation. Retrieved
July 2, 2008, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031027/cole.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94 (Suppl.), 95-120.

Comrey, A.L., & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. (2
nd
ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Congressional Research Service Reports (2004). Retrieved March 15, 2008, from
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745.pdf

Conklin, N., & Faires, N. (1987). Colored and Catholic: The Lebanese in
Birmingham, Alabama. In E. J. Hooglund (Ed.), Crossing the waters (pp.69-84),
Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Coovert, M.D., & McNelis, K. (1988). Determining the number of common factors
in factor analysis: A review and program. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 48(3), 687-692.

Cornwell, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring
ipsative data: A response to Saville & Willson. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 67(2), 89-100

236

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist,
27(3), 371-386.

Crosnoe, R. (2000). Friendships in childhood and adolescence: The life course and new
directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 377-391.

D’Augelli, A.R., & Hershberger, S.L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a
predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus
climate. Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67-81.

Dana, N. (2003). The Druze in the Middle East: Their faith, leadership, identity and
status. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.

Das Gupta, M. (1997). What is Indian about You?: A gendered, transnational approach to
ethnicity. Gender and Society, 11(5), 572-596.

Davis, R. (1991). Social support networks and undergraduate student academic-success
related outcomes: A comparison of Black students on Black and White
campuses. In W.R. Allen, E.G. Epps, & N.Z. Haniff (Eds.), College in Black and
White: African American students in predominantly White and in historically
Black public universities (pp.143-157). Albany, NY: State University of New
York University Press.

Deaux, K., & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonal networks and social categories: Specifying
levels of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2),
101-117.

Democracy Now! (2007, November 2). The case of the LA8: U.S. drops twenty-year
effort to deport Arab Americans for supporting Palestinian national rights.
Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/2.d

Devine, P.G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.

Dougherty, K.J. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment.
Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 188-214.

Eid, P. (2003). The interplay between ethnicity, religion, and gender among second-
generation Christian and Muslim Arabs in Montreal. Canadian Ethnic Studies
Journal, 35(2), 30-60.

Eid, P. (2007). Being Arab: Ethnic and religious identity building among second
generation youth in Montreal. Montreal: Mc Gill-Queen’s University Press.

237

El-Hamamsy, L.S. (1977). The Assertion of Egyptian Identity. In S.E. Ibrahim and N.S.
Hopkins (Eds.), Arab Society in Transition (pp. 50-75). Cairo, Egypt: The
American University in Cairo.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Group
identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus
individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3),
617-626.

Elliott, A. (2008, April 28). Critics cost Muslim educator her dream school. The New
York Times. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/4/28/
nyregion/28school.html

Epstein, J. (1983). The influence of friends on achievement and affective outcomes. In
J.L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in School: Patterns of Selection and
Influence in Secondary Schools (pp. 177-200). New York: Academic Press.

Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in Ivy: Assessing identity and perceived
threat. Sex Roles, 22(7-8), 427-440.

Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change.
Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(2), 243-251.

Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J.K. Swim & C. Stangor
(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 301-323). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Faircloth, B., & Hamm, J.V. (2005). Sense of belonging among high school students
representing 4 ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 293-309.

Feagin, J.R., & Sikes, M.P. (1994). Living with racism: The black middle-class
experience. Boston: Beacon Press Books.

Fine, G.A. (1980). The natural history of preadolescent male friendship groups. In H. C.
Foot, A.J. Chapman, & J.R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in
children (pp. 293-320). New York: John Wiley.

Fleischer, M. (Producer). (1937). Popeye Meets Ali Baba [Motion Picture]. (Available
from Arab Film Distribution, 3131 Western Avenue, Suite #514, Seattle,
Washington 98121)

238
Free Sami Al-Arian. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm

Freeman, T., Anderman, L., & Jensen, J. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshman
at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education,
75(3), 203-220.

Furman, W., & Robbins, P. (1985). What’s the point? Issues in the selection of treatment
objectives. In B. Schneider, K.H. Rubin, & J.E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s
peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 41-54). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Gans, H. (1994). Symbolic ethnicity and symbolic religiosity: Toward a comparison of
ethnic and religious acculturation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 17, 577-592.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among
adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the
Schools, 30(1), 79-90.

Goodenow, C., & Grady, K.E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’
values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of
Experimental Education, 62(1), 60-71.

Gualtieri, S. (2001). Becoming “White”: Race, religion, and the foundations of
Syrian/Lebanese ethnicity in the United States. Journal of American Ethnic
History, 20(4), 29-58.

Gualtieri, S. (2004). Strange fruit? Syrian immigrants, extralegal violence, and racial
formation in the Jim Crow South. Arab Studies Quarterly, 26(3), 63-85.

Gualtieri, S. (2008). Strange fruit? Syrian immigrants, extralegal violence, and racial
formation in the United States. In A. Jamal and N. Naber (Eds.),
Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11: From invisible citizens to visible
subjects (pp. 147-169). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Guiffrida, D.A. (2003). African American student organizations as agents of social
integration. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 304-319.

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

239
Hallinan, M.T. (1983). Commentary: New directions for research on peer influence.
In J. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in School: Patterns of Selection and
Influence in Secondary Schools (pp. 219-231). NY: Academic Press.

Hallinan, M., & Smith, S. (1985). The effects of classroom racial composition on
students’ inter-racial friendliness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 3-16.

Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and
subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 36(2), 173-190.

Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African
American, Asian American, and European American adolescents’ selection of
similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 209-219.

Hamm, J., & Faircloth, B. (2005). The role of friendship in adolescents’ sense of school
belonging. In N. Way & J. Hamm (Eds.), New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 107 (pp. 61-78). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hamm, J., Brown, B., & Heck, D. (2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and
school characteristics in African American, Asian-Descent, Latino, and White
adolescents’ cross-ethnic friend nominations. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 15(1), 21-46.

Hart, K., Lutkemeier, J., & Gustafson, C. (2002). Analysis of Shasta College student
survey results, Fall 2002. Redding, CA: Shasta College Planning and Research
Office.

Hartup, W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. New Directions in Child
Development, 60, 3-22.

Hassoun, R. (2005). Arab Americans in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.

Helms, J. E. (1990). An overview of Black racial identity theory. In J. E. Helms (Ed.),
Black and White Racial Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 9-32).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Helms, J. E., & Parham, T.A. (1990). The relationship between black racial identity
attitudes and cognitive styles. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and white racial
identity: Theory, research and practice (pp. 119-31). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

240
Hill, B.D. (2000). Factors influencing underrepresented minority student leadership on a
predominantly White Christian campus. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED457761)

Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salamone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of
belonging” in first year college students. Journal of College Student Retention,
4(3), 227-256.

Hopkins, W.G. (1997). A new view of statistics. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/sscorr.html

Howard Community College. (1998). Student satisfaction: The 1998 YESS survey
results (Report 101). Columbia, MD: Howard Community College.

Howell, D.C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology. (4th ed.). Belmont CA:
Duxbury.

Hoyle, R.H., & Crawford, A.M. (1994). Use of individual-level data to investigate group
phenomena. Small Group Research, 25(4), 464-485.

Hubbard, B. (2008, July 11). Ex-professor in terror probe freed on bond. Washington
Post, p. A7.

Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme
response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296-309.

Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New
York: Free Press.

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539-569.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70(3), 324-345.

Hurtado, S., Dey, E., & Treviño, J.D. (1994, April). Exclusion or self segregation across
racial/ethnic groups on college campuses? Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans.

Hurtado, S., Engberg, M.E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002). Students’ precollege
preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher
Education, 43(2), 163-186.

241
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A.R., & Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus
climate. The Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-251.

Husseinali, G. (2006). Who is studying Arabic and why?: A survey of Arabic students.
Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 395-412.

Isajiw, W.W. (1974). Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1, 111-124.

Jamal, A. (2008). Civil liberties and the otherization of Arab and Muslim Americans. In
A. Jamal & N. Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11:
From invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 114-130). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.

Joseph, S. (1999). Against the grain of the nation—The Arab. In M.W. Suleiman (Ed.),
Arabs in America, building a new future (pp. 257-272). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Joseph, S., D’Harlingue, B., Wong, A., & Wong, H. (2008). Arab Americans and Muslim
Americans in the New York Times, before and after 9/11. In A. Jamal & N. Naber
(Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11: From invisible citizens to
visible subjects (pp. 229-275). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Kaiser, C.R., & Miller, C.T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making
attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology and Bulletin,
27(10), 1357-1367.

Kao, G. & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends: Activities
among inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and intra-ethnic adolescent friends. The
Sociological Quarterly, 45(3), 557-573.

Kember, D., Lee, K., & Li, N. (2001). Cultivating a sense of belonging in part-time
students. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(4), 326-341.

Kingsbury, R.C., & Pounds, J.G. (1964). An atlas of Middle Eastern affairs. London:
Methuen and Company.

Kinney, D. (1999). From “Headbangers” to “Hippies”: Delineating adolescents’ active
attempts to form an alternative peer culture. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 84, 21-35.

242
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.

Knight, R.G., Chisholm, B.J., Marsh, N.V., & Godfrey, H.P. (1988). Some normative,
reliability, and factor analytic data for the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 203-206.

Kubitschek, W., & Hallinan, M. (1998). Tracking and students’ friendships. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 61(1), 1-15.

Ladrine, H., & Klonoff, E.A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial
discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health
consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 144-168.

La Gaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multi-dimensional approach to friendship. In S. W.
Duck (Ed.). Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249-270).
London: Academic Press.

La Gaipa, J. (1979). A developmental study of the meaning of friendship in adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence, 2(3), 201-213.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.

Lamont, M., Morning, A., & Mooney, M. (2002). Particular universalisms: North
African immigrants respond to French racism. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
25(3), 390-414.

Laughlin, M., Liberto, J., & George, J. (2005, December 7). 8 times, Al-Arian hears
not guilty [Electronic version]. The St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved July 2, 2008,
from
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/07/Tampabay/8_times_Al_Arian_hea.shtml

LeCount, D. W. (1987). American Indian students in college. In D. J.Wright (Ed.),
Responding to the needs of today’s minority students. New directions for student
services, 38 (pp. 65–79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, R. M., & Davis, C., III. (2000, Jan/Feb.). Cultural orientation, past multicultural
experience, and a sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 110-115.

Leo Frank wrote his own alibi. (1915, August 15). [Electronic version]. The New York
Times Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-
free/pdf

243
Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Foote, W. (2006). Ethnic segregation and perceived
discrimination in college: Mutual influences and effects on social and academic
life. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1471-1501.

Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of in-group and out-group
friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 76-82.

Levitt, Peggy (2001). The Transnational villagers. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.

Lewis, Bernard. (1990, September). The roots of Muslim rage. The Atlantic Monthly,
266, 47-90.

Lewis, J. (1987). Do Black students on a White campus value the university’s efforts to
retain them? Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 176-177.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,
140, 1-55.

Lohfink, M.M., & M B. Paulsen. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence
for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(4), 409-428.

Loo, C.M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a
predominantly white university. Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 58-77.

Louch, H. (2000). Personal network, integration: Transivity and homophily in strong tie
relations. Social Networks, 22(1), 45-64.

MacCrae, C.N., Milne, A.B., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy saving
devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(1), 37-47.

Maestas, R.,Vaquera, G.S., & Muñoz-Zehr (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging
at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3),
237-256.

Maila, J. (2004). The Arab Christians: From the eastern question to the recent political
situation of the minorities. In A. Pacini (Ed.), Christian communities in the Arab
Middle East (pp. 25-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mandel, J. (1982). Use of singular value decomposition in regression analysis. The
American Statistician, 36(1), 15-24.

244

Marín, G., Gamba, R., & Marín, B. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence
among Hispanics: The role of acculturation and education. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 23(4), 498-509.

Matsushima, R., & Shiomi, K. (2002). Self-disclosure and friendship in junior high
school students. Social behavior and personality: An International Journal,
30(5), 511-521.

Mattice, N.J. (1994). Campus climate survey. Santa Clarita, CA: College of the Canyons.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374854)

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1991). Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performance
among immigrants and non-immigrant Mexican descent students. In M. Gibson
and J. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of
immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 205-247). New York: Garland.

Maxwell, W.E. (2000a). Student peer relations at a community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(3), 207-217.

Maxwell, W.E. (2000b). Ethnicity, friendship patterns, and student social integration.
EOPS, Cerritos College.

Maxwell, W.E. (2000c). Study patterns and race among students. EOPS, Cerritos
College.

Maxwell, W.E., & Shammas, D. (2004, April 27). Racial climates, diversity and
clustering, and success among urban community college students. Presentation at
the Council for the Study of Community Colleges. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Maxwell, W.E., & Shammas, D. (2005, March 25). Racial climates, same- race, and
cross-race relations among urban community college students. Paper presented
at the CIES Conference. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

Maxwell, W.E., & Shammas, D. (2005, April 9). The effect of racial and social
relations upon academic outcomes among community college students.
Presentation at the Council for the Study of Community Colleges. Boston,
Massachusetts.

Maxwell, W.E., & Shammas, D. (2007). Research on race and ethnic relations among
community college students. Community College Review, 34(4), 344-361.

McClusky-Titus, P., & Oliver, R. (2001). The relationship between community
development and academic achievement of undergraduate students in residence
halls. College Student Affairs Journal, 20, 12-21.

245
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

McNeill, B. (2001). An exercise in ethnic identity awareness. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development. 29, 274-279.

Metcalf, B.D. (1996). Making Muslim space in North America and Europe. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Miller, M.H., Anderson, R., Cannon, J., Perez, E., & Moore, H. (1998) Campus racial
climate policies: The view from the bottom up. Race, Gender, & Class,
5(2), 139-151.

Milwaukee Area Technical College (1988). MATC student opinions regarding
discrimination and MATC institutional attitudes toward women and minorities.
Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee Area Technical College. (ERIC Document
Reporduction Service No. ED300064)

Mitchell, S.L., & Dell, D.M. (1992). The relationship between black students’ racial
identity attitude and participation in campus organizations. Journal of College
Student Development, 33, 39-43.

Miville, M.L., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1992). Post-war attitudes toward Arab-Americans: A
university campus dilemma. Research Report #10. College Park, Maryland:
University of Maryland Counseling Center.

Moradi, B., & Hasan, N. (2004). Arab American persons’ reported experiences of
discrimination and mental health: The mediating role of personal control.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(4), 418-428.

Moran, J. J., Yengo, L., & Algier, A. M. (1994). Participation in minority oriented
co-curricular organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 143-153.

Muakasa, S. (2004). Comprehensive bibliography of the Druze religion. New York:
Druze Research and Publications Institute.

Murray, N. (2004). Profiled: Arabs, Muslims, and the post-9/11 hunt for the
enemy within. In Elaine C. Hagopian (Ed.), The targeting of Arabs and Muslims.
Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Muslims in the American Public Square. (2002). Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.projectmaps.com/AMP2004report.pdf

246
Muslim Life. (2001). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://usinfo.state.gov/
products/pubs/muslimlife/demograp.htm, 2001

Muslim Student Association meeting (personal communication, October 2006).

Naber, N. (2000). Ambiguous insiders: An investigation of Arab American invisibility.
Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(1), 37-61.

Naber, N. (2006). The rules of forced engagement. Cultural Dynamics, 18(3), 235-268.

Naber, N. (2008a). Introduction: Arab Americans and U.S. racial formations. In A. Jamal
& N. Naber (Eds.). Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11, from
invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 1-45). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.

Naber, N. (2008b). Look, Mohammed the Terrorist is Coming! cultural racism, nation-
based racism, and the intersectionality of oppressions after 9/11. In A. Jamal & N.
Naber (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11, from invisible
citizens to visible subjects (pp. 276-304). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.

Naff, A. (1985). Becoming American: The early Arab immigrant experience.
Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and
culture. Social Problems, 41(1), 152-176.

Napoli, A., & Wortman, P. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the relative
importance of academic and social integration among community college
students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 4(1), 5-21.

Napoli, A., & Wortman, P. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to retention and early
departure of two year community college students. Research in Higher
Education, 39(4), 419-455.

Nielsen, I.K., Jex, S. M., & Adams, G.A. (2000). Development and validation of scores
on a two-dimensional workplace friendship scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 628-643.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students. Research
in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3
rd
ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.

247

O’Dougherty-Wright, M., & Littleford, L. N. (2002, January). Experiences and beliefs as
predictors of ethnic identity and intergroup relations. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 30(1), 2-20.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. New York:
Routledge.

Orlando, C.E. (2000). The collegium: Community as a gathering place. New Directions
for Higher Education, 109, 33-41.

Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review
of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.

Oyserman, D., & Harrison, K. (1998). Implications of cultural context: African
American identity and possible selves. In J.K. Swim and C. Stangor (Eds.),
Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 281-300). San Diego: Academic Press.

Parker, M., & Flowers, L. (2003). The effects of racial identity on academic
achievement and perceptions of campus connectedness on African American
students at predominantly White institutions. College Student Affairs Journal,
22(2),180-194.

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L., Serra, & Terenzini, P.T. (1996).
Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of
college. Journal of Higher Education 67(2), 174-195.

Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes.
Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Pascarella, E.T., Smart, J.C., & Ethington, C.A. (1986). Long-term persistence of two-
year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1), 47-71.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman year
persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: Path analytic
validation of Tinto’s model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 215-226.

Patterson, B., & Bettini, L. (1993). Age, depression, and friendship: Development of a
general friendship inventory. Communication Research Reports, 10(2), 161-170.

Pedhazur, E. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and
prediction. (4
th
ed.). London: Wadsworth, Thompson Learning.

248
Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology
of Religion, 66(3), 215-242.

Pellebon, D.A. (2000). Influences of ethnicity, interracial climate, and racial majority in
school on adolescent ethnic identity. Social Work in Education, 22(1), 9-20.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1997). Generalized inter-group contact effects on prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173-185.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Inter-group contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1),
65-85.

Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent
meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and
discrimination (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Phinney, J.S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.

Phinney, J. S., & Alipuria, L. L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four
ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13(2), 171-183.

Phinney, J., & Tarver, S. (1988). Ethnic identity search and commitment in Black and
White eighth graders. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(3), 265-277.

Ponterotto, J.G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S.O., Stracuzzi, T., & Saya, R., Jr. (2003).
The Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM): Psychometric review
and further validity testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
63(3), 502-515.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second
generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Portes, P.R., & Zady, M.F. (1996). Socio-psychological factors in the academic
achievement of children of immigrants: Examining a cultural history puzzle.
American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 489-501.

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N.R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental
composition on subject well-being in African Americans. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(3), 735-751.

Powers, D.A., & Ellison, C.G. (1995). Interracial contact and black racial attitudes:
The contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74(1), 205-226

249

Purnick, J. (2005, February 28). Some limits on speech in classrooms [Electronic
version]. New York Times. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/ nyregion/28matters.html

Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. (2003): Beyond Black and White: The present and future
of multi-racial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review,
68(4), 540-566.

Rabbath, E. (1977). The Common Origin of the Arabs. In S.E. Ibrahim & N.S. Hopkins
(Eds.), Arab Society in Transition. (pp. 5-48). Cairo, Egypt: The American
University in Cairo.

Rankin, S. (2005). Differing perceptions of how students of color and White students
perceive campus climate for under-represented groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(1), 43-61.

Read, J. G.. (2004). Culture, class, and work among Arab-American women. New York:
LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Read, J.G. (2008). Discrimination and identity formation in a post- 9/11 era, a
comparison of Muslim and Christian Arab Americans. In A. Jamal & N. Naber
(Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11, from invisible citizens to
visible subjects (pp. 276-304). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Renford, R. (2002, January 24). No Man’s Land. [Electronic version]. The Tampa
Weekly Planet. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from
http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/1/24/2002

Rippy, A.E., & Newman, E. (2006). Perceived religious discrimination and its
relationship to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of
Muslim Mental Health, 1(1), 5-20.

Roach, H. (Producer). (1925). Grief in Baghdad [Motion Picture]. (Available from Arab
Film Distribution, 3131 Western Avenue., Suite 514, Seattle, Washington
98121)

Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D., & Anderson, A.B. (1983). Handbook of Survey Research.
New York: Academic Press.

250
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D.M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How
disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 826-838.

Ruggiero, K.M., & Taylor, D.M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do
not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and
perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 373-389.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House.

Samhan, H. (1987). Politics and exclusion: The Arab American experience. Journal of
Palestine Studies, 16(2), 11-28.

Samhan, H. (1999). Not quite white: Race classification and the Arab American
experience. In M. Suleiman (Ed.), In Arabs in America: Building a new future,
(pp. 209-226). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

San Diego Community College District. (1994). Campus climate student survey, Spring
1994. San Diego, CA: San Diego Community College District.

Sarason, B., Sarason, I.G., & Pierce, G.R. (1990). Social Support: An interactional view.
New York: Wiley.

Saville, P. & Wilson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative
approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64, 219-238.

Schriesheim, C.A., & Hill, K.D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response bias by item
reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 41, 1101-1114.

Sengstock, M.C. (1982). The Chaldean Americans. Staten Island, NY: The Center for
Migration Studies.

Shadid, W. (2006). Public debates over Islam and the awareness of Muslim identity in the
Netherlands. European Education, 38(1), 10-22.

Shaheen, J. (1984). The TV Arab. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Shaheen, J. (2001). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. New York: Olive
Branch Press.

251
Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: conceptual underpinnings,
psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11(3), 449-469.

Shaw, K.M., & Coleman, A.B. (2000). Humble on Sundays: Family, friends, and faculty
in the upward mobility experiences of African American Females. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 31(4), 449-470.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O., Sherif, C., White, J., & Hood, W.R. (1954) Inter group conflict
and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: The University
Book Exchange.

Shryock, A. (2008). The moral analogies of race: Arab American identity, color politics,
and the limits of racialized citizenship. In A. Jamal & N. Naber (Eds.), Race and
Arab Americans before and after 9/11, from invisible citizens to visible subjects
(pp. 81-113). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Sidanius, H., Levin, S., Henry, P. J., & Pratto, F. (2003). Social dominance orientation,
right wing authoritarianism, and support for intergroup violence and terrorism in
the United States and Lebanon. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,
6(4), 353-368.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of
social dominance. In P.M. Sniderman & P.E. Tetlock (Eds.), Prejudice, politics,
and the American dilemma (pp. 173-211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves on the
college campus: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87(1), 96-110.

Skahill, M.P. (2002). The role of social support network in college persistence among
freshman students. College Student Retention, 4(1), 39-52.

Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations
of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Smith, S. & Moore, M. R. (2000). Intra-racial diversity and relations among African-
Americans: Closeness among Black students at a predominantly White
university. American Journal of Sociology, 106(1), 1-39.

252
Snyder, M., & Miene, P. (1994). On the functions of stereotype and prejudice.
In M. P. Zanna and J.M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice:
The Ontario Symposium, 7 (pp. 33-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro-
aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American
college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1984). The role of ignorance in inter-group relations.
In N. Miller & M. Brewer. (Eds), Groups in contact: The psychology of
de-segregation (pp. 229-257). New York: Academic Press.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice.
In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 225-246).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa (1998).
Prejudice towards immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory
analysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559-576.

Stets, J., & Burke, P. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63 (3), 224-236.

Steward, R. J., Jackson, M.R., & Jackson, J.D. (1990). Alienation and interactional styles
in a predominantly White environment: A study of successful Black students.
Journal of College Student Development, 31, 509-515.

Stockton, R. (1994). Ethnic archetypes and the Arab image. In E. McCarus (Ed.), The
development of the Arab American identity (pp. 119-153). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

Suarez-Orozco, M. (1991). Immigrant adaptation to schooling: A Hispanic Case. In
M. Gibson and J. Ogbu (Eds.), In minority status and schooling: A comparative
study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 37-61). New York: Garland.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.M.B., et al.
(2007). Racial micro-aggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.

Suinn, R. M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew Asian
Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 47, 401-407.

253
Suleiman, M. (1999). Introduction: The Arab immigrant experience. In M. Suleiman
(Ed.), Arabs in America: Building a new future (pp. 1-21). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Suleiman, M. (2004). Image making and invisible minorities: A case of Arab American
students. In G.S. Goodman and K. Carey (Eds.), Critical multicultural
conversations (pp. 79-91). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Swim, J.K. Cohen, L.L., & Hyers, L.L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and
discrimination. In J.K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s
perspective (pp. 38-60). San Diego: Academic Press.

Taguieff, P. (1988). La force du préjugé: Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles.
Paris: La Découverte.

Tatum, B.D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New
York: Basic Books.

Taylor, C.M., & Howard-Hamilton, M.F. (1995). Student involvement and racial
identity, attitudes among African American males. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 330-336.

Taylor, D.M., Ruggiero, K. M., & Louis, W.R. (1996). Personal/group discrimination
discrepancy: Towards a two-factor explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 28, 193-202.

Taylor, D.M., Wright, S., Moghaddam, F.M., & Lalonde, R.N. (1990). The personal-
group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a
target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3),
254-262.

Thomas, K.W., Thomas, G. Fann, & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and
women at six organizational levels. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 19(2), 148-166.

Thomas, S.L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding
student integration and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5),
591-615.

Tinto, V.(1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
undergraduate population. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 375-391.

254
Trickett, E. J., & Birman, D. (2005). Acculturation, school context and school outcomes:
Adaptation of refugee adolescents from the former Soviet Union. Psychology in
the Schools, 42(1), 27-38

U.S. Congress. (1929). Congressional Record. 71
st
Congr., 1
st
sess., April 29, 638.

United States of America vs. Al-Arian, 514, F.3d 1184 (United States Court of Appeals,
2008). Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.usc.edu/
us/Inacademic

Van Beuren, A.J. (Producer), Foster, J., & Davis, M. (Directors). (1930). Gypped in
Egypt (Available from Arab Film Distribution, 3131 Western Avenue, Suite #514,
Seattle, Washington 98121).

Van Zanten, A. (1997). Schooling immigrants in France in the 1990s: Success or failure
of the Republican model of integration. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly,
28(3), 351-374.

Velasquez, P. (1999, November). The relationship between cultural development, sense
of belonging, and persistence among Chicanos in higher education: An
exploratory study. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, San Antonio, Texas.

Villalpano, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and
Latino/a critical theory analysis of a study of Chicano/a college students.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 619-646.

Walsh, S. (2002, September 6). A university vows to fire a professor facing death threats
in the wake of September 11. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(2), p. A22.

Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Education Division.
(1997). The effect of race and ethnic background on students’ community and
technical college experience (Research Report 97-5). Olympia, WA: Author.

Way, N., & Chen, L. (2000). Close and general friendships among African American,
Latino, and Asian-descent American adolescents from low income families.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2), 274-302.

Way, N., Gingold, R., Rotenerg, M., & Kuriakose, G. (2005). Close friendships among
urban, ethnic-minority adolescents. In New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development 107 (pp. 41-59). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Weiss, R.S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto
others (pp. 17-26). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

255

Weisz, C., & Wood, L. (2005). Social identity support and friendship outcomes: A
longitudinal study predicting who will be friends and best friends 4 years later.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 416-432.

White, M.J., & Kaufman, G. (1997). Language usage, social capital, and school
completion among immigrants and native born ethnic groups. Social Science
Quarterly, 78(2), 385–398.

Wilson, R. & Byrne, R. (2008, June 6). Closely watched tenure case at Columbia U. is
still unsettled. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(39), p. A13.

Worrell, F., Cross, W., Jr., & Vandiver, B. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current status and
challenges for the future. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
29(3), 201-212.

Wright, S.C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S.R. (1997). The extended
contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.

Yazbek Haddad, Y. (2002). Introduction. In Y. Yazbeck Haddad (Ed.), Muslim
minorities in the West, visible and invisible (pp. v –xviii). Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira Press.

Zogby, J. (Executive Producer). (2008, June 27). Viewpoint with James Zogby
[Television broadcast]. Washington DC: Abu Dhabi Channel.

Zureik. E. (2002). [Review of the book Facts on the ground: Archaeological practice
and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society]. The MIT Journal of Middle East
Studies, Crossing Boundaries New Perspectives on the Middle East, 2. Retrieved
July 2, 2008, from http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200210/zureik.
htm#_ftn1

256
Appendix A
U___________________________________________________________________

Survey Instrument

257

Appendix B
U___________________________________________________________________

Focus Group Script

ULead in to questions 1-6U:
Please refer to pages 6 – 10 on the community college survey. These specific
questions ask about whether you interact frequently with other students on campus in
such activities as studying with classmates, talking on campus about things unrelated to
classes and studies, dining with, and participating in on and off campus sponsored
activities. For example, on page 6, students were asked in the last month, “how many
times did you study with students in your classroom”. A number of students responded
“none of the time”. However, in the next question, “on the average how many of these
classmates that you study with are your friends”, the same students, who responded
“none of the time” to question 34, answered that 1 or more of these students that they
studied with were their friends.

1. Why do you think students might answer that they do not study with any students in
their classrooms, but in the next question, their response suggests that they have
classmates that they study with who are their friends.
2. (If need prompting to understand what question 1 means) Is it possible that the
students did not understand that the two questions are related, and that in order to
answer question 35, you need to refer to how you answered question 34?
3. What do you consider a friend on campus?
4. Do you have any students in your classroom that you study with and are your
friends?
5. Do you study with any students, who are not in your classroom, and you consider
them your friends?
6. Is it possible that you will consider the classmate “more as a friend”, and tend to
ignore the fact that they also are just a “student” in class?
Lead in to questions 7-11:

Between 11 and 18% of community college students surveyed have responded that
they felt discriminated against by other students, faculty or administration, because of
either their ethnicity or religion. Generally, students’ comments were favorable about the
campus climate.

7. Has anyone on campus ever made direct or indirect comments to you, relating to
your ethnicity or religion, which has made you feel uncomfortable?
8. Has anyone on campus ever treated you aggressively, through either words or
gestures, because of your ethnicity or religion?

258
9. In the classroom or on the campus, have you heard any racist remarks, or seen any
hateful actions directed towards another student or students, who are of your same
ancestry or same religion.

A large percentage of students have responded that they are “unsure” about the
campus climate, particularly as it relates to whether the campus administration supports
ethnic and religious diversity, or is supportive of student minority organizations, like the
Muslim Student Organization, Pan African, or Desi clubs.

10. Why might students feel reluctant to report that other students, faculty or
administration, because of their ancestry and religion, treated them unfairly?
11. Or why might they hesitate to criticize if the campus did not encourage open
discussion on racial and religious issues facing Arab and Muslim students?
Lead in to questions 12-18:

Some students have reported that they feel connected to the college campus, while
others do not.

12. In what specific ways do you feel connected or not connected to the campus?
13. Have you made any significant friends on campus?
14. If so, what led you to choose your “campus” friends?
15. Do you feel that having friends on campus has made you feel more “connected” to
the college?
16. Do you think having friends of your same ancestry or same religion helps you to
feel more connected to the campus?
17. Have any of your campus friends helped you to fulfill your academic goals?
18. Have any of your campus friends contributed to you staying in college?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Finance in the California community college: Comparative analysis and benchmarking of instructional expenditures

PDF

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

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

Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i

PDF

Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

A new lens to examine and increase sense of belonging of Latin* students from postsecondary institutions in the midwestern United States

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Exploring racialized experiences of Asian Pacific Islander Desi students through Asiancrit theory…

PDF

Factors affecting the success of older community college students

PDF

Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Diversity for whom? Institutional requisite for combating Islamophobia and the racialization of Muslim college students

PDF

Gender and sexuality in Dutch, British, and US politicial debates on multiculturalism, Islam, and Muslims between 1999 and 2006

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

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

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Shammas, Diane (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)

Publication Date 03/02/2009

Defense Date 10/30/2008

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

Tag Arabs,campus climate,campus friendships,campus surveys,community college students,Discrimination,ethnic identity,Ethnic relations,interfaith relations,intergroup relations,inter-racial contact,Muslims,OAI-PMH Harvest,religious identity,sense of belonging to college,social interaction,two-year colleges

Place Name California (states), Michigan (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maxwell, William E. (committee chair), Astor, Ron Avi (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member)

Creator Email dianeshammas@yahoo.com,dshammas@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1990

Unique identifier UC1315633

Identifier etd-Shammas-2619 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-154533 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1990 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Shammas-2619.pdf

Dmrecord 154533

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Shammas, Diane

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu