University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

RACING? TO TRANSFORM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: AN INSTITUTIONAL
CASE STUDY OF RACE-RELATED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN HIGHER
EDUCATION

by

Melissa Contreras-McGavin

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
(HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY)

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Melissa Contreras-McGavin

ii

Dedication

To Brad

iii
Acknowledgements
In some ways writing a dissertation is like the study of organizations. Both efforts
dig through multiple layers of complex information and take time and effort to
accomplish; neither could happen without the cooperation and support of many different
people. This dissertation in particular, if nothing else, is a testament to the power of
unconditional love, guidance, and support, and to what happens when little people are
allowed to dream big.
Honesty and openness are critical to studies such as this. For this reason, I am
eternally grateful to the Meadowbrier community. They were kind beyond words and
welcomed me to their campus. I hope this research is of value to them. Another
institution I am grateful to beyond measure is the University of Southern California.
When I got my first work permit at fourteen to start working at USC, I never could have
imagined having three degrees from this institution and no school debt. Another equally
important organization is the James Irvine Foundation, who with the guidance of Dr.
George Sanchez funded my doctoral education as part of the James Irvine Minority
Fellows program.
Similar to organizations, leadership is also an important part of dissertation
writing. Good leaders make all the difference in the world, as does having a good
dissertation advisor and mentor. Adrianna Kezar has been that and so much more over
the years. This project could not have happened without her patience, encouragement,
guidance, kindness, and support. Another important leader and academic mentor is Dr.
George Sanchez who was the very first person to tell me to get a Ph.D. and was there

iv
every step of the way, bumps and all, gracias. Finally, there is Larry Picus who represents
what positive support in leadership looks like. Thanks for being part of the committee
and bringing to it your encouraging energy.
In supporting roles behind the scenes of organizations and dissertations are many
people. There are the goddesses of academic support who work their magic for students
and always make sure everything is okay. Included among them are Tamara McKenzie,
Aba Cassell, Sonia Rodriguez, Sandra Jones, Kitty Lai, Dianne Flores, and others I may
not have mentioned. Without these women organizations would not function.
Teams are also integral to organizations and in the completion of a dissertation. I
was fortunate to have a host of different teams that made this research possible. On the
medical front I must acknowledge the efforts of my medical team without whom this
project would not have been completed, literally. Among them Dr. Fred Rosenfelt, Liz
Eastwood, Lorraine Fox, and Dr. Kendrick Slate. Thank you also to “Team Melissa,” my
amazing network of friends, loved ones, and colleagues who supported me in
unimaginable ways during the past few years and longer. There are too many to name,
but each member of this support team contributed to this dissertation through their hope
and care. Jesse’s Girls was an amazing writing team to be a part of. Dr. Zoe Corwin, Dr.
to be Rozana Carducci, Dr. Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman, and Dr. Patricia Literte, are all
brilliant women and sources of strength and inspiration. Another amazing woman not on
this team but who taught me so much about being a student and writer is my dear friend,
Dr. Julia Colyar. Thanks also to a group of people that was my academic home away
from home, The Department for American Studies and Ethnicity and my fellow Irvine

v
doctoral students. A research team that led me to this case study was from the Center for
Urban Education and was led by Estela Bensimon and Don Polkinghorne. It also included
some excellent people: Martha Soto, Lan Hao, Paz Oliverez, Georgia Lorenz, Edlyn
Peña, and Arlease Woods. Thanks also to my technical support team and dear friends
who make life so much better: Dr.Francisco Rivera, Karla Haynes, Priya Hanson, and the
MacIntosh Family.
At the heart of organizations and dissertations there is always a core group of
people who make everything possible. In this case it is my family. To my parents who
opened every door and gave everything to have me live the American Dream, I am so
proud to be your kid. Mom you were especially visionary in your dreams for me, thank
you for your courage and tenacity. To Colleen and Jim Jackson and Mary Hawes, who
have been incredibly supportive and kind throughout the years, it is a true pleasure to be
part of your clan. My furry children Dolly Anna, Pete, and Riley Allan McGavin also
deserve acknowledgement for their love and support especially during the writing
process. And last, but most of all not least, to my life’s change agent, husband, and
partner in everything, Bradley McGavin. Your patience, dedication, continued support of
all types, and sacrifices during this process have been unbelievable. Thanks for believing
in me as you have and for being there, words fail to express my gratitude and affection.

vi
Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Figures ix

Abstract x

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Important Definitions 7
Racial Diversity 7
Race 9
Whiteness 10
A Recent History of Race in Higher Education 12
Research Questions 16
Theoretical Framework 17
Theories-in-Use versus Espoused Theories 18
Theory of Defensive Routines 19
Critical Race Theory 20

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 22
HCU’s Leaky Pipeline 24
Espoused Theories 24
Espoused Theories at HCU 25
Theories-in-Use 26
Theories-in-Use at HCU 26
Theories of Action 27
Theories of Action at HCU 28
Analysis: Espoused Theories, Theories-in-Use & Theories
of Action at HCU 30
Theory of Defensive Routines 31
Theory of Defensive Routines at HCU 32
Analysis of the Theory of Defensive Routines at HCU 33
Critical Race Theory 34
The Central Tenets of CRT and RROC in Higher Education 36
Organizational Change and Critical Race Theory:
An Interdisciplinary Lens Applying the New Lens to Higher Education 43

Chapter 3: Methodology 45
Case Study Methodology 47
Case Selection and Sampling 48
Case Selection 50

vii
Pilot Study 50
Institutional Access 52
Meadowbrier College 53
Data Collection 54
Document Analysis 55
Participant Observations 56
Focus Groups 57
Semi-Structured Interviews 57
Data Analysis 58
Trustworthiness 58
Ethical Considerations 60
Study Limitations 61
Chapter Summary 63

Chapter 4: Presentation of the Data 64
Organizational Portrait and Socio-Historical Context 68
History and Inception 69
Central Organizational Climate 76
Climate 76
Dominant Organizational Culture and Values 77
Faculty Run 78
Religious Heritage 80
The Value for Students and Teaching 83
Prestige 86
Resource Dependence 87
The Organizational Stakeholders 91
The Meadowbrier Faculty 93
The Religious Elders 93
Mid-Level and Junior Faculty 95
Example of How Change is Approached by Faculty 97
The Administration 101
Example of How Change is Approached by Administrators 105
How does Organizational Change Happen at Meadowbrier? 108
Resistance 112
Inevitability 115
Unpacking Schein’s Multiple Organizational Layers 125
Surface Level Rhetoric 126
The Middle Organizational Layer:
Actions, Practices, and Beliefs about Surface Level Rhetoric 138
Diversity is Vaguely Defined 139
Diversity is Problematized 143
Diversity is Marginalized 148
Diversity is Manipulated 162
Diversity is Commodified 170

viii
HSI Status 171
Faculty Fellows Program 175
Diversity-Oriented Change Initiatives 178
Core Organizational Values 183
Chapter Summary 190

Chapter 5: Implications and Conclusions 195
Implications of the Research Question 196
How Does Organizational Change Occur at Meadowbrier? 199
The Impact of Individual Values 200
Power and Whiteness 202
Campus Identity and Undefined Diversity 204
The Veiled Nature of Race 206
Institutional Resources 208
Does Organizational Rhetoric Differ from Organizational Practices,
Attitudes, and Beliefs? 209
Theoretical Implications 212
Organizational Change Theories 220
Postmodern Organizational Drift 223
Practical Implications 225
Future Research 230
Conclusion 233

References 237

Appendices 242
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 242
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol 244
Appendix C: Observational Protocol 245
Appendix D: Deductive Data Codes 246

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1: Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Model 1 4

Figure 2: Racial Diversity within an Organization of Higher Education 5

Figure 3: Interdisciplinary Lens 18

Figure 4: Argyris and Schön Theories 31

Figure 5: Chart of CRT Tenets 35

Figure 6: Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Model 2 46

Figure 7: Document Analysis Model 55

x
Abstract
For more than four decades, efforts have been made to address persistent racial
inequalities in American higher education. In fact, many colleges and universities treat
matters of race including racism as issues of the past. Despite a host of efforts and
notions that progress has been made in remediating racial injustice, there is evidence that
racial equality is still elusive for many students. This dissertation explores the treatment
of racial diversity from a perspective of organizational change with the goal of
understanding how transformation related to race occurs. Using an interdisciplinary
theoretical framework, this study investigates practices that support and obstruct racial
diversity within colleges and universities. Through an organizational case study of a
small private college, this study sheds light on what is said about race versus what is done
about race. The findings from this study confirm there is a disconnect between the
college’s rhetoric about diversity and its actions, and that there are a number of subtle and
undetected ways that race and racism are perpetuated within higher education. A few
intended outcomes of this study are the recognition of how race is currently treated in
higher education and the advancement of race-related organizational change efforts.
1

Chapter 1:
Introduction

American society and higher education are in the midst of a critical socio-
historical moment in relation to the treatment of race. On a political front, the
nomination of Barack Obama, the first ever African-American presidential candidate
confronts the country with the challenge of how to treat, or whether not to treat at all, an
issue that has historically plagued and divided this country throughout its history - race.
In a well-known prediction, renowned African-American scholar W.E.B. DuBois noted
that the problem of the twentieth century would be the color-line. Through activism and
scholarship, DuBois committed to addressing racial inequalities in this country and
although great strides have been made over time, the color-line of which he spoke
remains a significant concern of the twenty-first century. Perhaps the color-line has
shifted in its social construction and context, however inequities persist within important
national venues such as the arena of American higher education.
In recent years, colleges and universities have spoken about the value of racial
diversity in higher education. Numerous studies have confirmed the significance of
racially diverse learning environments within colleges and universities (Chang et al.
2003; Hurtado et al., 1999; Bowen & Bok, 1998). Despite these efforts, a gap persists
between what is said about racial diversity and what is done about racial diversity within
some organizations of higher education. According to Cliff Adelman (1999), “The
rhetoric of diversity (and all the time we spend on it) is avoidance behavior that ...hides
the realities of inequities in education and helps us evade the hard work necessary to
overcome those inequities (p.36)”. This comment speaks to the deceptive nature of

2
progress related to racial diversity in American Higher education. While indeed some
progress has been made in producing and supporting racial diversity in higher education
since desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement, exclusionary and racist practices
(e.g. racial stereo-typing and marginalization based on race) continue within colleges and
universities (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Ibarra, 2001; Chang et al., 1999, Hurtado et al., 1999).
In response to these practices, this study proposes to examine the gap between what
organizations say about racial diversity and how they actually treat and pursue racial
diversity. In this dissertation I suggest that as colleges and universities have been
diversifying racially, they have simultaneously and disconsciously developed more subtle
and insidious ways to treat race. Consequently, within modern organizations of higher
education there now exist institutionally racist manipulations that occur at even the most
diverse of institutions. Shedding light on these nefarious and often imperceptible
practices is but one goal of this study. The larger objective is to understand how effective
organizational change related to racial diversity takes place within institutions of higher
education.
A first step in addressing this ambitious task is calling attention to this gap as it is
vital in helping practitioners within colleges and universities rethink how they address
issues of racial diversity and equity. By examining how the divergence between the
espoused rhetoric related to race and practices related to race develops, practitioners will
have a deeper understanding of how to produce durable and effective organizational
change. On the organizational level, calling attention to this disconnect assists
organizations in fulfilling their publicly stated commitments to racial diversity. Over the

3
past few decades organizations have invested valuable time, effort, and resources on
strategic plans, retreats, the establishment of diversity committees and statements, and
consultants to help diversify their campuses. Yet the current state of higher education for
minorities does not reflect the hard work many campuses have espoused and undertaken
(Ibarra, 2001; Bonilla-Silva 2004). Consequently, the timing and focus of this study are
opportune and appropriate.
Over the years, many approaches have been used in the pursuit of racial equality
and diversity within colleges and universities. This began with legal mandates that called
for desegregation in the 1950’s, the implementation of affirmative action in the 1960’s
and 1970’s, and eventually efforts to transform campus climates in the 1980’s and
1990’s. Numerous strategies have been used to diversify student bodies and faculties.
The problem that remains in higher education is that racial marginalization persists and
racial minorities today continue to face challenges related to access and retention in
higher education. Renner (2003) suggests it is currently more difficult for black and
Latino students to enter and graduate college than it was thirty years ago. As a result,
now more than ever there is a need to understand effective ways of producing and
supporting racial diversity within colleges and universities. New efforts to move beyond
rhetoric and into action are needed for genuine and lasting progress to be made in higher
education. In this study, I suggest a first step in doing this is exploring what
organizations say about racial diversity and the challenges they face in bringing their
diversity related efforts to fruition.

4
The focus of this study is identifying how organizational change related to racial
diversity takes place on an organizational level. Although the literature in higher
education identifies elements that are important to support racial diversity within campus
climates (Hurtado et al, 1999; Smith et al., 1997), no studies exist that document the
disconnect between what organizations say about race and how they transform their
actions, if at all. This study will assume a cultural approach to studying higher education
and will specifically use Schein’s (1985) multi-layered model of organizations as a guide.
Considered as one of the most well regarded theorists of cultural change (Kezar, 2001),
Schein introduced a model of organizations that consists of multiple layers. He explains
that because organizations are multi-dimensional, organizational change occurs on
different levels. The outermost layer consists of artifacts such as espoused theories and
organizational rhetoric. The middle layer consists of organizational values, standards,
and principles. At the center-most layer are core assumptions and inherent beliefs that
drive how organizations behave.
Figure 1: Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Model 1

This concept is useful to this study because, as Schein (1985) explains, it is
possible to produce transformation on various organizational levels without impacting the
values which drive everyday practices such as how racial diversity is addressed. As a

Espoused
Organizational Rhetoric
and
Theories

Organizational
Actions
Core Organizational
Beliefs

5
result, I suggest that many of the strategies used to address and promote racial diversity in
higher education have been limited to surface levels of organizations. What this means is
that despite solid efforts and good intentions, the hard work being done about these issues
is not affecting the organizational levels where deep-rooted organizational change
originates and is influenced. Perhaps what has not yet occurred, as evidenced by
persistent educational inequities and the limited success of current interventions, is a
deep-rooted shifting of values and core assumptions about racial diversity which drive
organizations of higher education. The following diagram depicts a hypothetical example
of the organizational structure of a college and situates where and how racial diversity is
addressed on different levels.

Figure 2: Racial Diversity within an Organization of Higher Education

This illustration exemplifies the subtle nature of the gap between organizational rhetoric
and actions. Although not entirely obvious, there is a disconnect between each of the
organizational levels depicted. The outer-most layer represents organizational rhetoric
Diversity is communicated through:
• the mission statement
• recruitment publications
• presidential speeches

Actions related to Diversity:
• Establishing a multi-
cultural center
• Hiring a minority recruiter
• Study abroad programs
• Urban service learning
projects
Assumptions related to Diversity:
• All students have the same
opportunities
• Racism is no longer a problem
• Colleges are meritocratic
systems

6
and shows when and how this organization discusses racial diversity. The next level
represents actions taken by the institution to pursue or sustain diversity and articulates
how it pursues the commitment espoused in the outer-most level. These practices are
problematic in addressing racial diversity due to their limited ability to deeply transform
or address the inner-most layer of the organization—core attitudes and assumptions. As
will be described later in this proposal, matters of race and racial diversity are complex
and difficult to detect. This study suggests addressing the inner-most layer of
organizations is needed to change organizational practices.
For example, in this case the organizational mission and recruitment materials
describe a fundamental value for diversity. To substantiate these claims the college has
hired a person to assume the duty of producing diversity among students and has funded
a center where diverse campus constituents can congregate and have their needs met.
Indirectly these actions are out of synch with a) the rhetoric that has been espoused about
racial diversity, as well as b) the core beliefs that influence campus practices. While the
organization claims to appreciate diversity, its actions suggest diversity is limited in its
scope on campus (i.e. the multi-cultural center), and is the responsibility of one single
campus constituent (i.e. the campus recruiter). Therefore, although there is an alleged
value for campus diversity, it is not a campus-wide effort or occurrence. Furthermore,
rather than genuinely value diverse campus constituents as espoused in the mission, many
minorities are judged and labeled academically inferior because they were recruited by
the minority recruiter. This reflects a contradiction in what is stated about the value of
diversity on campus and the core organizational assumption that colleges are

7
meritocracies and all students should be evaluated similarly. This example sheds light on
the innocuous and undetectable emergence of a gap between organizational rhetoric,
actions, and core beliefs and assumptions.

Important Definitions
In this section I review a few key definitions that underpin this study. These terms
serve two important functions. First, they contextualize this study and lay a foundation
for the discussion of organizational change related to race within colleges and
universities. Second, providing precise language assists institutional actors in unraveling
any confusion about racial diversity in higher education and in examining the gap
between what is said and done within their organizations. Cornel West (1993)
emphasizes the importance of speaking clearly when discussing matters related to race.
Therefore, this section will define three important terms: diversity, race, and whiteness.
It is important to focus on these terms since they are in many cases not understood, or
misrepresented.

Racial Diversity
In this study the term “diversity” represents racial diversity, including
traditionally underrepresented minorities such as African-Americans, Latinos, and Native
Americans. This term is important to this study for two reasons. First, it is the term
institutions of higher education have used to address issues of race, racism, and issues of
race-related educational equality. Diversity is what colleges and universities seek in

8
response to these issues. The second reason this term is significant to this study is the role
it plays in concealing the gap between organizational rhetoric and actions. Indirect terms
like diversity, which can be interpreted to mean a number of things (i.e. diversity of
thought, regional diversity, gender diversity, socio-economic diversity, and racial
diversity), are useful in obscuring the treatment of important matters specifically related
to race and racial diversity. For example a campus can emphasize their value for
diversity in their mission statement but what do they mean? In describing the process of
racial formation, Omi and Winant (1994) warn against the danger of reductionism. By
this they refer to the practice of reducing the relevance and treatment of social issues such
as racial diversity by oversimplifying their interpretations or meanings. Using a catchall
term such as diversity can intentionally or unintentionally have reductionist
consequences.
Because one of the goals of this study is to accurately describe the treatment of
racial diversity on campus, it will be important to use precise language. Sefa Dei,
Karumanchery, and Karumanchery-Luik (2004) explain that language within discourse
assists in naming, identifying, and defining oppressive practices such as racism.
Therefore, the use of language in this study is intended to bring matters of racial diversity
in higher education to a fore and examine them justly. In this study, the term racial
diversity will be inextricably linked to the terms race and racism. While this study is
intended to speak directly to the treatment of race and race-related organizational change
within colleges and universities, this cannot be legitimately done without acknowledging
the roles of race and racism or racist practices. Disentangling these terms from each

9
other and treating them separately is an act of reductionism and poses the potential to
confuse how racial diversity, race, and racist practices are addressed within colleges and
universities.
Another way this study will attempt to access the treatment of racial diversity is
by folding the term race back into the conversation on racial diversity. Race, both as a
term and as an institutional variable, is typically treated delicately and infrequently
(Bonilla-Silva; Nkomo1992). As a means of addressing racial diversity, this study will
tease out race from embedded organizational instances and bring it to a fore where it can
be accurately addressed. In order to do this, the term race will be used to signify what
colleges and university typically call racial diversity.

Race
For the purposes of this study, race is defined as deeply embedded socially
constructed perceptions and identities. Often these non-biological categories are imposed
on minorities and used in ways that subjugate them to the dominant majority (Scheurich,
2002). Another useful definition of race comes from Brown et al. (2003) who note:
Race is a relationship, not a set of characteristics that one can ascribe to one group
or another. Racial inequality stems from a system of power and exclusion in
which whites accumulate economic opportunities and advantages while
disaccumulation of economic opportunity disempowers black and Latino
communities. (p.229)

Thus race is more than just a static or genetic state of being. It is a lived and often
socially imposed way of life. Within colleges and universities where hierarchy and
stratification are traditional ways of being (Ibarra 2001; Lipsitz 1998), the enactment of

10
race is a way of preserving and perpetuating the status quo and established power
dynamics.
Shedding light on the enactment of race and racism within colleges and
universities is challenging for a number of reasons. Beyond the complexities associated
with traditional organizational change, Omi and Winant (1994) explain addressing race
tends to invoke feelings of “bitterness, pain, paranoia, and aggressiveness” (p.ix). As a
result, institutions and their actors often avoid engaging these issues and are attracted to
romantic notions that suggest matters of race and racial marginalization are relics of the
past. Beyond the difficulties of vague language, colorblindness, and rigid organizational
structures that preserve the status-quo (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Lipsitz 2001), there also
exists a lack of theoretical tools to identify racist practices. One of the contributions of
this study is intended to be a theoretical lens for identifying the treatment of race and
racist practices that are systemically embedded in colleges and universities. Developing
both an appropriate discourse and a race-centered theoretical lens will allow
organizations to shed light on where and how race is treated in ways that impede or
support organizational transformation.

Whiteness
The concept of whiteness is also significant in this study as it is the antonym to
race and plays an important part within most organizations and especially in American
higher education. Decuir-Gunby (2006) explains that although legally whiteness is
vaguely defined, those determined to be non-white are often deemed inferior.

11
Historically, the categorization of race has occurred by determining who is not white
based phenotypes including skin color, hair texture, and facial features. In other words,
“whiteness is a socially constructed identity based on mutually agreed-upon
characteristics” (Leonardo, 2002, p.31). Ultimately proving or disproving whiteness
correlates directly with certain social advantages including power, privilege, and material
possessions which construct what is known as white privilege. George Lipsitz (1998)
describes the possessive investment in whiteness which refers to the accrual of wealth
and power as a result of the protection of whiteness and its privileges.
Whiteness, as will be illustrated in the data, plays a silent but significant role to
the context of this study. Some scholars (Brown, Carnoy, Currie, Duster, Oppenheimer,
Shultz, Wellman, 2003) point to the relationship between whiteness and power and
interrogate how such power is preserved and perpetuated. Within the context of this
study, whiteness serves a definite role in explaining specific ways organizational change
occurs or is obstructed at the selected institution. As a theoretical notion, whiteness
offers an entirely new perspective from which to examine organizations and their routine
practices. Again, because whiteness is a long-standing part of the organizational norm, it
is not until the past few decades that scholars have had the ability and willingness to
identify and name the existence and proliferation of this practice. A major contribution
of this study will be the exploration of the dynamics of whiteness as they relate to
diversity related organizational change efforts. An intended outcome of this study is the
inclusion and consideration of whiteness in conversations about colleges and universities.

12
A Recent History of Race in Higher Education
Part of understanding the gap between how race is discussed versus how it is
addressed or in what ways race-related organizational change can occur entails placing
race in a historical context (Omi &Winant, 1994). Race and racism have played a
constant and sometimes dramatic role in the history of higher education. Often they have
been relegated to the backdrop of historical contexts and only during certain historical
moments have they received the attention they deserve. Understanding the history of
race within organizations of higher education is important to transforming colleges and
universities and serves to lay the foundation for this study. While current practices that
perpetuate racism and oppression are subtle and nuanced (Bonilla-Silva, 2003), it should
not be forgotten that at one point in recent history such practices were openly accepted
and normalized.
A review of the treatment of race in higher education over the past fifty years
chronicles an important shift in how race and racism are enacted. Since the Brown v.
Board of Education decision of 1954, race and racism have gone from being openly
accepted social norms to subtle embedded practices and attitudes that drive modern
colleges and universities. Referred to as colorblind racism or “racism without racists”
(Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Brown, Carnoy, Currie, Duster, Oppenheimer, Shultz, Wellman,
2003; Bell, 2004), modern practices are no longer traditional forms of “old-fashioned”
racism. Instead, these new practices signify the evolution of a new sophisticated and
more insidious brand of racism.

13
During the 1950’s and until the Brown decision, race was openly recognized as a
divisive mechanism in educational organizations. Prior to this point in educational
history, race and the politics of racial segregation determined who had educational
opportunities and who did not (Bell, 2004). After the call for desegregation, educational
institutions at all levels were obliged to comply with desegregation efforts. In spite of
their compliance, many institutions failed to transform their values and beliefs about race.
A false assumption created by the Brown decision was that because the Supreme Court
outlawed racial segregation, it would also lead to the elimination of racist practices in
education.
The 1960’s and 1970’s represent a historical context within organizations of
higher education that were rich with energy and leadership and ripe for progress. Many
of the activists involved in Brown helped advocate for racial equality and the
advancement of minorities in higher education (Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Nemeth Tuttle,
Ward, Gaston-Gayles, 2004). Adding to the momentum of this time was the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and organizations such as the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Together these
efforts and organizations identified racial injustice and worked openly in producing social
change at all levels. This progress would have many lasting effects, however, the
momentum for organizational change that existed during these decades would subside.
Following the height of the Civil Rights movement came a serious backlash
toward the acknowledgment of race and racism in society during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
This backlash was manifested in colleges and universities where many Civil Rights

14
victories had been won and was a precursor to a major shift in the treatment of race. In
an analysis of racism and organizations of higher education, Chestler and Crowfoot
(1989), provide an important observation that reflects the state of race in higher education
at this time. They note that throughout the 1980’s, campuses across the country
experienced a re-emergence in overt acts of racism and discrimination. In response to
this and under pressure many campuses created race-related interventions that called
attention to the need to continue addressing race and racism within colleges and
universities. Gone were the days of genuine racial progress and anti-racist activism of the
1960’s.
By the1990’s, as a backlash to race-related legal decisions including The Regents
of the University v. Bakke
1
and interventions such as Affirmative Action, a major shift in
the treatment of race took place. Race and its related challenges took on a new and less
transparent role within colleges and universities. Having developed surface level
interventions, educational organizations learned how to adequately address concerns and
criticisms related to racial inequality while (consciously or not) preserving their beliefs
and assumptions about race. This retrenchment represented an increased resistance to the
awareness of issues such as race and embedded racist practices. Without acknowledging
race or color, organizations devised new approaches to perpetuate oppression and white
privilege under the guise of racial awareness and sensitivity (Bonilla-Silva, 2003).
Further evidence of the backlash against racial progress and the deep-rooted
commitment to preserving the dominant power structure and its practices in higher

1
This case, which involved Allan Bakke, a white man who was denied from the University of California
Davis Medical School, ruled that racial quotas in admission processes violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act
which prohibited racial discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding.

15
education are two cases filed against the University of Michigan in 1997 which were
eventually heard by the Supreme Court. Gratz versus Bollinger and Grutter versus
Bollinger exemplify how the law and language can be used in ways that defend and
preserve dominant social norms and promote racial color-blindness. Each case argued
white students had their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law
violated because of racial preferences used in admissions practices at the University of
Michigan. In June of 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled the practices referred
to in the Gratz case were problematic and not constitutional, however the Grutter case
proved they had tailored methods and compelling interests in seeking racial diversity. As
a result of these cases, higher education was forced to revisit the role of race within
colleges and universities and the means by which diversity is obtained. While some
members of the Supreme Court agreed on the need for the “tailored use” of race-
conscious policies, the overarching message from these decisions was a call for color-
blindness and the elimination of race-related policies within the span of twenty-five
years. Hence this ruling set a time clock on colleges and universities to level the
proverbial playing field and work toward a state of color-blindness.
A consequence of such legal rulings, the co-optation and manipulation of race-
related language, and an outdated and distorted understanding of racism, issues of race
have been successfully blurred within organizational contexts (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Sefa
Dei, Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik (2004) explain there is power in not being
able to see race and that color-blindness is not coincidental. By not recognizing
embedded practices of racial marginalization, organizations are not responsible for

16
changing these behaviors. It is easier to exist in ways that are not uncomfortable and
problematic when issues as emotionally charged and complex as race are eliminated or
entirely excluded from institutional agendas. Assisting in the perpetration of this
confusion are many individuals and organizations who claim to favor racial justice and
advancement and who work toward limiting race-related progress and efforts. The result
of this is confusion and frustration over the ever-present yet seemingly imperceptible
challenge of race within organizations of higher education.

Research Questions
In order to understand how to support and perpetuate racial equity in higher
education, we must study the process by which organizational change related to racial
diversity occurs within organizations of higher education. Consequently, it is important
to develop useful research questions. This study will be guided by one overarching
research question and a set of sub-questions:
• How does organizational change related to race occur within an organization of
higher education?
• Is organizational change related to racial diversity at this institution treated
differently from other organizational change efforts? If so, how?
• What practices exist on this campus that either support or obstruct
organizational change related to racial diversity?
• Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity as described in publications
and through organizational artifacts such as speeches and statements from

17
institutional constituents differ from organizational practices, attitudes, and
beliefs? If so, in what ways?

My first question, the meta-question, is intended to isolate specific practices that
produce or sustain effective and deep-rooted forms of organizational change related to
racial diversity. For this reason the case study is about one of the most racially diverse
institutions of its type. The second question attempts to differentiate approaches used to
pursue generic organizational change and those efforts related to racial diversity. The
goal here is to understand if race-related organizational change is a unique process. The
third question identifies elements that either support or obstruct organizational change
related to racial diversity. For example, what practices support or obstruct the successful
treatment of racial diversity? The final question directly interrogates the gap between
what institutional actors say about racial diversity and what they do.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is constructed of three layers. In this
section I provide a brief introduction to each theory and explain how these serve to probe
race-related organizational change within organizations of higher education. In concert
these theories will examine the rhetoric an organization espouses about race and
organizational change, what it does about these issues and what core beliefs and attitudes
exist that drive their race-related practices. The first theory, Theories-In-Use versus
Espoused Theories, comes from the field of organizational change and will be used to
study what organizations espouse about racial diversity. The second theory from the same

18
field is the theory of Defensive Routines. This theory will be useful in examining how
organizations perceive themselves and how these perceptions impact their actions and
organizational change efforts. The final theory which underpins this study is Critical
Race Theory which has its roots in the legal field and is dedicated to examining systemic
ways race and racism are enacted.
Figure 3: Interdisciplinary Lens

Theories-in-Use versus Espoused Theories
Argyris and Schön’s (1974) “theories-in-use versus espoused theories” contends
there is a disconnect between what organizations do versus what they say. This is
relevant to matters of racial equity in higher education since it is not uncommon for
colleges and universities to espouse a desire for increased racial representation, yet
simultaneously take actions that prevent these from occurring. In Theory in Practice:
Increasing Professional Effectiveness, Argyris and Schön explain “theories-in-use”
which serve as mechanisms for control. They are, “a means of getting what we want” and
“maintaining constancy”. In other words, everyday practices and implicit behaviors
perpetuate the status quo and provide a sense of comfort and security within
Theories in Use
Versus
Espoused Theories
The Theory of
Defensive Routines
Critical Race
Theory

19
organizational environments. “Espoused theories” serve another purpose which is also
related to control. What organizations say they do and the values they espouse serve to
manage how others perceive them. Therefore if a college publically states a value for
diversity they believe they are perceived as being socially conscious and equitable. Both
of these theories combined are what Argyris and Schön refer to as theories of actions and
are useful in understanding how it is organizations fall short of fulfilling their intended
objectives related to race and organizational change.

Theory of Defensive Routines
Similarly using his Theory of Defensive Routines, Argyris (1985) explains how
routines exist that are meant to protect the organizational status quo. He defines defensive
routines as: “thoughts and actions used to protect individuals’, groups’, and
organizations’ usual way of dealing with reality” (p.5). These routines are significant in
relation to race and organizational change because they are used to avoid embarrassment.
In organizations where race is not genuinely valued or part of the institutional agenda,
defensive routines are consciously or unconsciously used to avoid public scrutiny.
Examples of this can take many forms including blaming organizational leaders for the
lack of progress in achieving racial equity or ascribing to theories and policies that are
not race-friendly. Meritocratic notions that inspire policies such as those that oppose
affirmative action or special out-reach efforts targeted at minority students illustrate how
the status quo is preserved in ways that do not tarnish the image of organizations.

20
Critical Race Theory
The primary component of the theoretical framework I propose in this study is
Critical Race Theory (CRT). This theory is underpinned by the following six notions:
• Racism is embedded in social systems
• Claims of objectivity and color-blindness should be rejected
• An emphasis is placed on the importance of history and context
• People of color and their experiences are valued
• Theoretical interdisciplinarity is used to promote racial justice
• The need to eliminate racial oppression with an end goal of eliminating all forms
of oppression
Together these elements create a lens through which organizations can be studied from an
uncommon and much needed race-centered perspective. Other major elements of Critical
Race Theory include the recognition of whiteness and its relation to power and material
property.
CRT assumes race and racism are ingrained parts of American society (Lawrence,
1997) and traditional notions which contend racism is caused by “ignorance and
misunderstanding” are refuted (Chubbuck, 2004). Instead this lens focuses on structural
racism and considers elements such as the transmission of wealth and power and
hegemonic institutions such as colleges and universities as perpetuating oppression.
Since such practices take place within organizational contexts they must be recognized in
order for transformative race-related interventions aimed at producing justice and
equality to take hold.

21
A final important assumption of CRT is the link between theory and activism in
an effort toward conscious collective action (Cho & Westley, 2002). The underlying
objective of CRT is to produce change by addressing the needs of oppressed groups and
recognizing racism and all other forms of social injustice. Achieving this objective
involves “speaking simple truths, making communities of color the audience for CRT,
creating a home for difficult conversations, and defining boundaries by knowing who
‘we’ are and who ‘they’ are” (Lawrence, 2002, p. xv-xix).Within organizations of higher
education, such conversations are rare because race remains a complex and problematic
topic that is rarely discussed genuinely or effectively. Because one of the goals of this
study is to address matters of race in higher education effectively, the following chapter
is dedicated to building an interdisciplinary theoretical lens by which to examine these
issues.

22
Chapter 2:
Theoretical Framework

In this section, I draw from the literature on Organizational Change and Critical
Race Theory to propose a theoretical framework intended to shed light on the gap
between the rhetoric espoused by organizations of higher education and their actions. A
recurring theme in the construction of this text is mirroring the various layers of
organizations. Therefore, I will build my theoretical lens using a number of theories that
are relevant in addressing the research questions that I have put forth.
The first is Argyris and Schön’s notion of “espoused theories versus theories-in-
use” which is actually a compellation of theories that identify the gap between what
organizations say versus how they act. The second theory is Chris Argyris’s theory of
defensive routines which explains how organizations justify the gap between their
rhetoric and actions. Together these two theories unpack the difficulties of organizational
change. Overlaying Critical Race Theory onto these theories is useful in examining
organizational change specific to race. Another way of understanding this framework is
that the first theory serves to address the two outermost layers of organizations, their
rhetoric and their actions. The second theory also addresses the second or middle layer of
organizations, their values and practices which were described in Schein’s model of
organizational culture. The third and deepest layer of organizations is addressed by the
final theory which sheds light on core assumptions and beliefs that drive organizations
and cause the separation between what is said and done about race and change in
organizations of higher education.

23
A central concept of organizational change is that we cannot change what we
cannot see (Meyerson, 2004). For this reason, the research of Chris Argyris and Donald
Schön plays a significant role in this study as it identifies the chasm between the
espoused rhetoric of organizations and their practices. The intention behind this research
is to understand how to stimulate actions within organizations that challenge the status
quo. A traditional approach to organizational change entails discovering an
organizational problem, devising an intervention, implementing an intervention, and
monitoring its implementation (Argyris and Schön, 1974). What is not addressed in this
process is the inability of organizational actors to produce change due to undetected
organizational obstacles that block transformation. These obstacles, such as beliefs and
attitudes that in many instances originate with institutional actors, are often unrecognized
and significantly influence organizational practices and outcomes related to race.
Argyris and Schön attribute the gap between organizational intentions and actions
to differences in espoused theories, theories-in-use, and theories of action. Stated more
clearly they assert there is a difference between what organizations say (espoused theories),
what they do (theories-in-use), and what they should do or are capable of doing (theories of
action). In order to further understand this concept, this section will describe each of these
theories which together explain the overarching theory of “espoused theories versus
theories-in-use” as well as the persistent gap between organizational thought and practice.
To illustrate these theories in progress and inspired by the narrative tradition of Critical
Race Theory (MacKinnon, 2002;Montoya, 2002; Solorzano& Yosso, 2002) this section

24
will begin with a fictional narrative of a race-related organizational issue. Then each theory
will be explained and related to the example.

HCU’s Leaky Pipeline
A recent internal review of organizational strengths and weaknesses at Highly
Competitive University (HCU) revealed a lack of racial minorities and women in the
School of Engineering. Established in 1898, HCU is one of the nation’s top universities
and is especially well-regarded in the Science, Math, and Engineering fields. In response
to a current trend by funding agencies to improve success rates of minorities and women
in these fields as well as a general desire to improve their national rankings, HCU has
committed to a closer study of their Math, Science, and Engineering pipeline for women
and minorities. Currently HCU has two minority faculty, Andres Neumeyer from
Argentina and Sanjay Redi from India. Otherwise all of the faculty are white men with
the exception of the one female faculty member who is also white.

Espoused Theories
Espoused Theories are the concepts that organizations publically offer as their
values, assumptions, and actions. It is what they say they are about. Espoused theories
relate to self-esteem and help portray organizations in a particular light of their own
choosing. Most espoused theories are out of synch with the ways institutions behave,
which Argyris and Schön refer to as a dilemma of incongruity. This means the espoused
organizational theory is inconsistent with their theories-in-use. For example, if questioned

25
few people or organizations would acknowledge they behave in racist ways. Instead a
common answer is that they are not racist and favor equality. This answer is an example
of how an organization chooses to be perceived. However, in spite of this declaration
practices of racial discrimination persist.

Espoused Theories at HCU
The organizational mission at HCU directly mentions a strong appreciation for
racial diversity and tolerance. The President of HCU often explains in his speeches that
it takes many different ways of thinking, diversity of thought, to make a university great.
Also at HCU racism is not tolerated under any circumstances and many campus wide
diversity efforts are in place to prevent discrimination. Beginning with a campus
multicultural center where minority students can be together, HCU has invested time and
resources into meeting the needs of their minority populations. Among the strides made
in this area HCU hired an African-American Dean in Student Affairs who will also serve
as an instructor and liaison with minority students. Also next year the administration
(overriding the faculty senate) has decided to celebrate Black History Month. Depending
on next year’s results they may celebrate Latino or Asian heritage months as well. All of
these celebratory events are directly inspired by one of HCU’s favorite traditions—the
international food fair.

26
Theories-in-Use
Theories in use are what Argyris and Schön (1974) describe as the assumptions
that help organizational actors “remain blind” to their ineffective practices such as those
that impede progress and transformation related to race. These are patterns of behaviors
that are tacit or implicit and that are learned early in life and continue to be held.
Examples of race-related theories-in-use include meritocratic notions of the “bootstrap”
mentality, meaning if individuals regardless of color, gender, or class, work hard enough
they can achieve anything or that education is not meant for everyone. Institutional actors
have many theories-in-use that shape their daily behaviors within their organizations.
These assumptions are designed to help them achieve goals and desires and as a result
often preserve the status quo. In many instances theories-in-use are in conflict with each
other and are manifested through actions. Individuals cannot explain their theories in use
to others since they are not aware of them and most often can only be observed by others.

Theories-in-Use at HCU
At a faculty meeting discussing the new commitment to increasing the
representation of women and minorities in Math, Science, and Engineering faculty were
asked to fill out a survey and comment on ideas they thought precluded these types of
students from pursing degrees in their fields and ideas for solving this problem. The
answers were very telling. Many faculty explained that women and minorities tended to
excel in other academic fields and therefore did not have an inherent interest in Science,
Math, and Engineering. They tended to “do better in the soft-sciences like Literature, Art,

27
and Education”, which implied an unspoken but shared sense of biological superiority by
the Science, Math, and Engineering scholars. Also, some faculty pointed out the fact that
culturally many of the students, namely African-Americans and Latinos did “not value
Math, Science, and Engineering the same way other cultures did as evidenced by the
large numbers of Asian students (of both genders)” in their departments. Also, some of
the faculty and departmental counselors noted it was cruel and unfair to set poor
minority students up for failure in these fields. These are students who desperately need
their educations and should not be unnecessarily challenged in fields they tend not to
succeed in anyway. One of the major themes resulting from the survey was that the
Sciences are very difficult and are designed so that “the cream will rise to the surface”
and to “weed out those who cannot compete” or are not “prepared to compete at this
level or within this type of institution or field”. The main suggestions for addressing the
minority/gender pipeline issue were: to recruit top international students who have
always done well and are better prepared academically than domestic minorities, to have
more honest advising and cut out students before they enter the pipeline and fail, and to
use money raise by alumni for a minority bridge program similar to the ones at other top
campuses instead of using it for minority themed housing.

Theories of Action
Theories of Action represent the skills and strategies necessary to effectively
produce change. Examples of these include individual and institutional reflection,
consciousness-raising, long-term accountability measures, establishing cultures of

28
evidence that use data to achieve institutional benchmarks, and re-training faculty to
teach differently. These new ways of thinking and practices are difficult to learn because
they replace theories-in-use, or traditional assumptions and ways of being or doing
things. Theories of action are central to producing organizational change and for helping
individuals to understand and effectively address matters of race within organizations.
One of the reasons Argyris and Schön offer to explain the difficulty in adopting theories
of action is a natural tendency by individuals to protect and preserve their natural habits
and ways of being. The difference between theories-in-use and theories of action is useful
in explaining the theoretical obstacles that prevent organizational change in higher
education. Although theoretically there are many organizational efforts intended to
support race-related transformation, many of these efforts are obstructed by theories-in-
use that create a gap between organizational thoughts and practices.

Theories of Action at HCU
After reading the surveys, the Provost at HCU decided to bring in the same
outside consulting group who designed the minority bridge program at a nearby
institution. As a result of this effort, the neighboring organization was awarded two
separate grants including one by the National Science Foundation for success in
educating women and minorities. His hope was that by using this group and
implementing similar efforts, HCU would garner media attention, address outside
pressure and concerns, and hopefully acquire some research grants. The first step taken
by the outside consulting group was to plan and host a major retreat. During this retreat

29
faculty and staff in the Science and Engineering Schools were asked to look at data about
their minority student populations. Upon studying the data many realized that the
minority students at HCU are extremely competitive as evidenced by their SAT test scores
and that they come from some of the nation’s top high schools. Many of these students
were also not impoverished or from poor high schools as was previously assumed.
The next assignment for the faculty was to conduct focus groups with minority
students in their fields. When possible they were also asked to share a meal with these
students. These exercises were valuable to some faculty members and administrators and
not at all useful to others. Those who learned something new did so as a result of
interacting with students and listening to their answers during the focus groups. They had
their previous assumptions and beliefs either challenged or altered. One comment many
faculty made was about their new found appreciation for alternative forms of research.
The qualitative inquiry methods imposed on them during their research on the students
was eye opening and more complex than they had anticipated. Few faculty members truly
engaged in these exercises because of time constraints and a lack of genuine interest or
commitment; however the handful that did came away with new information they could
use to inform their practices at HCU. As a result of this new learning some faculty also
formed an ad hoc diversity committee to monitor job searches and the admissions
process to these fields.

30
Analysis: Espoused Theories, Theories-in-Use & Theories of Action at HCU
This narrative exercise was useful in operationalzing the concepts of espoused
theories, theories-in-use and theories of action. Although the institutional mission and
President directly mention the significance of diversity, these statements only represent a
mild and surface level commitment to the idea of diversity in a vague and broad sense. A
multicultural center, an African-American Dean, and an international food fair do not
equate to a true commitment to racial advancement or equality. Beyond their public
pledge to diversity the actions of HCU as illustrated by their Theories-in-Use do not
support diversity. Attitudes and stereotypes about the Sciences being more rigorous and
not a place for students “who aren’t properly prepared” or qualified are problematic to
diversity. Preconceived notions about certain cultures not valuing education in the same
way as others, or about students being better off in less rigorous fields based on their
socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds also directly work against increasing racial
diversity in the Sciences at HCU. Such rigid assumptions directly impact organizational
decisions and actions and are difficult, but not impossible to change as exemplified by the
Theories of Action examples. Contrary to the rhetoric of organizations and the attitudes
and behaviors they manifest that prevent change, there are actions that can be taken to
truly address HCU’s leaky pipeline. Included in these are reflecting on practices,
examining institutional data, interacting with the individuals most being affected by the
decisions, and raising important and honest dialogues intended to probe problematic
practices. The examples of Theories of Action show the range of alternatives that can be
used to produce organizational change when the commitment is there. The chart below is

31
useful in drawing distinctions between the theories Argyris and Schön offer to explain
organizational practices.

Figure 4: Argyris and Schön Theories

Espoused Theories

Theories-in-Use

Theories of Action
What is said is being done What is being done What can be done
Intentional Action Unintentional Action Deliberate Action
Appears to change the
Status Quo
Preserves the Status Quo Supports Change
Conceals Actions Governs Actions Changes Actions
Causes incongruity with
Theories-in-Use and
Theories of Action
May not be compatible with
Espoused Theories
Eliminates incongruity with
Espoused Theories

The gap between theory and practice illustrated by the HCU narrative is what
Argyris and Schön call the conflict between espoused theories and theories-in-use. To
further understand how it is organizations can say one thing and behave in a different
way it is useful to also examine The Theory of Defensive Routines.

Theory of Defensive Routines
Developed by Argyris (1993) and resulting from his collaboration with Schön, the
Theory of Defensive Routines explains how organizations and individuals justify their
actions. Organizational instances where individuals experience embarrassment or threats
can limit their willingness and ability to learn new theories of action. Addressing race and
racial inequality is a prime example of this. When individuals or organizations are
threatened they resort to defensive practices or routines that assist them in deflecting
blame and help them rationalize these occurrences. This theory contends that individual

32
defensiveness inhibits practice and reflection on practice and thus obstructs
transformation. Issues of embarrassment, threat, and shame which are all common
organizational factors work against producing change and subvert inquiry. In order for
organizational change to happen organizations must unfreeze their defensive reasoning,
particularly in relation to race.

Theory of Defensive Routines at HCU
One year after kicking off their effort to probe the pipeline in the Sciences for
women and minority students at HCU much of the fervor and energy for change and
improvement subsided. With the exception of a few faculty members and the committee
established to investigate diversity related data in the Sciences, not much changed. As
part of their efforts the consulting group hired to help address these issues hosted
another half day retreat that was compulsory for all faculty in Science, Math, and
Engineering. During this retreat another survey was filled out and small group
conversations were held. This meeting and the survey revealed a general sense of
discontent with the Provost and administration at HCU. The faculty and staff in these
areas felt it was the duty of Student Affairs and The Office of Admissions to address why
there were so few minorities in the Sciences .If recruiters brought in more and better
students of color to feed the pipeline many faculty felt they wouldn’t have to be burdened
by taking time from their research(which they noted brought in grant money)to address
these issues. Another point made was that these faculty could do little to remedy poor
high school preparation of all students regardless of race or class. To substantiate their

33
arguments faculty referred to national data on underachievement in these areas. What
happens before college is entirely out of their control they argued. Other faculty noted
that if they had improved technology in their classrooms and labs students would perform
better. The consensus was that the lack of women and minorities in the Sciences at HCU
was an institutional issue to be dealt with broadly and not the responsibility of the faculty
and staff in Math, Science, and Engineering.

Analysis of the Theory of Defensive Routines at HCU
This example of Defensive Routines enacted illustrates the subtle ways in which
an organization skirts the responsibility of changing to address racial inequality and
produce race-related organizational change. According to all accounts over the past year,
HCU made concerted efforts to increase the representation of women and minorities in
Science, Math, and Engineering. The end results, however, suggest the issue was
explored mildly and at a surface level. Organizational practices that were questioned
were defended for the most part, or obscured, by the placement of blame on students,
their cultures, HCU, and the national K-12 system. The dilemma of incongruity
represents the gap between what an organization espoused versus their actions continues
to be perpetuated in spite of guidance which provided new and alternative theories of
action. In this case race-related change is possible, yet the current organizational
structure, practices, and assumptions prevent genuine transformation.
Up to this point this section has focused on explaining the disconnect between
what organizations say and their practices. Argyris and Schön’s theories have been useful

34
in explaining the practices of institutions and their actors and how their theories-in-use
shape the contexts in which they operate. This section has also been useful in explaining
the significance of espoused theories in creating and preserving organizational images
and perceptions as well as the status quo. As noted, the antidote to theories-in-use and
espoused theories are theories of action which are difficult to teach and implement.
I will now turn my attention to the third theory that contributes to the proposed
theoretical framework for this study. Having discussed the difficulties of organizational
change as well as how it is the gap between theory and practice unfolds, it is now
appropriate to introduce a theory intended to shed light on the treatment of race
embedded within systems. critical race theory will be applied with the goal of
illuminating the process of how race-related organizational change in higher education is
supported or obstructed. Prior to overlaying CRT onto the Argyris and Schön theories
and completing this theoretical lens I will introduce CRT and examine its central tenants.

Critical Race Theory
Critical Race theory (CRT) is an important approach to transformation that began
as an intellectual and political movement in the late 1980’s. By all written accounts, CRT
was not formed as an intentional movement but rather began as a confluence of attention
and energy among minority legal scholars (Crenshaw, 2002). Grounded in Critical Legal
Studies (CLS) of the 1970’s and the civil rights movement of the 1960’s (Valdes et al
2002; Crenshaw 2002), CRT’s primarily socio-academic intervention is to challenge
hegemonic power relations in an effort to eliminate racial oppression. CRT’s broader

35
goal is eradication of all oppression. This effort entails fundamental social change not just
adjustments to currently stratified social systems (Lawrence, 2002). In addition, for racial
justice to prevail power and resources must be redistributed and the current state of
inequity and racial bias must be acknowledged. CRT provides a framework to pursue
these goals.
Using the six key tenets of CRT will be useful in explaining how it is this theory
assists in understanding race-related organizational change efforts in higher education.
Matsuda et al. (1993) identify six tenets they assert underpin CRT. These include: 1) the
belief that racism is endemic to America, 2) the rejection of legal claims of neutrality,
objectivity, color-blindness, and meritocracy, 3) the need for a historical and contextual
analysis of the law 4) the value of people of color and their experiences in law and
society, 5) the importance of theoretical interdisciplinarity in order to promote racial
justice, and 6) the need to eliminate racial oppression with an end goal of eliminating all
forms of oppression (p.6). Each of these theoretical assumptions is important to the
construction of this study’s theoretical lens because of their ability to address the
complexities associated with race-related change and higher education.
Figure 5: Chart of CRT Tenets
Traditional Assumptions about
Race and Organizational Change
CRT Assumptions about
Race and Organizational Change
Racism is perpetrated by individuals and
occurs in isolated instances.
Racism is systemically perpetrated on
multiple levels and is a social fact and
reality.
It is possible to be neutral and objective.
Institutions such as the government, legal
system, and corporate America are
objective and unbiased.
There is no such thing as neutrality and
objectivity. Organizations approach the
world with their own set of preconceived
notions and biases.
History and context are not useful in
explaining everyday occurrences.
Everyday occurrences cannot be
understood outside of their historical and

36
contextual settings.
People of color have a tainted and
victimized understanding of the world.
People of color offer important and often
different views of society and the world at
large. Many times they are silenced or not
heard.
Knowledge used to understand issues
should be precise and well-regarded in the
mainstream academic literature. It should
be narrow in focus, discipline specific, and
should yield one right answer.
It is useful to approach issues using
interdisciplinary theories to present
multiple understandings and perspectives.
Organizational racism is a problem of the
past and no longer exists.
Racism and all oppressive forms must be
named and eliminated.
Figure 5 Continued: Chart of CRT Tenets

The Central Tenets of CRT and RROC in Higher Education
Introducing Critical Race Theory to the study of organizations is innovative for
many reasons. Primarily, CRT challenges the main-stream organizational change
research and serves to dismantle and question traditional practices. Beyond accepting the
harsh reality of racism it also flatly rejects the mechanisms, such as organizational color-
blindness, which organizations use to defend and perpetuate their actions. CRT represents
a theoretical seizing of power from dominant organizational practices and shifts this
power imbalance by giving voice and listening to traditionally unempowered
organizational constituents such as people of color. Rather than seeking one truth, CRT is
open to multiple truths and offers a willingness to entertain multiple theoretical
perspectives in an effort to produce racial justice and equality.
Using CRT to study race within colleges and universities is pioneering since most
theories used to produce organizational change in higher education are borrowed from the
business world. Birnbaum (1988) reminds us that although colleges and universities share
some common traits with businesses, they are not the same and for this reason theories

37
and models borrowed from other fields tend not to work in higher education. Successful
change strategies in higher education tend not to be formulaic and are specifically
designed to address the specific issue at hand (Kezar, 2001). For this reason, this study
will use the central tenets of CRT as a means of detection and analysis in understanding
the treatment of race within organizations of higher education.
The first and most striking tenet of CRT is its acceptance of race and racism as
endemic parts of American organizations including organizations of higher education. In
their central text on racial formation, Omi&Winant (1994) remind us:
In the U.S., race is present in every institution, every relationship, every
individual. This is the case not only for the way society is organized—spatially,
culturally, in terms of stratification, etc.—but also for our perceptions and
understandings of personal experience (p.158).

Race therefore, is an embedded, though often unrecognized part of social reality. In an
analysis of how race has been written in the study of organizations, Nkomo (1992)
explains race and racism have been silenced and ignored. In a perusal of important
organizational research Cox& Nkomo (1990) note that race is either treated as a neutral
organizational factor or it is treated as an irrelevant organizational component. As a result
of this exclusion and treatment of race within the study of organizations a theoretical tool
intended to recognize the embedded treatment of race is long overdue.
The second tenet of CRT, the rejection of neutrality, objectivity, and color-
blindness, also lends itself nicely to exploring the treatment of race within colleges and
universities. Using a lens that implicitly dismisses all of the organizational practices that
are used to rationalize, justify, and perpetuate race-related organizational practices is
extremely useful. Bonilla-Silva (2003) describes a frustration at the foggy nature of race

38
within organizations. However, using the CRT tenets race and racism are not only
accepted as present, the practices (i.e. color-blindness or false notions of neutrality) that
conceal them are also uncovered.
The third tenet of CRT which calls for historical and contextual accuracy is also
important to untangling race from organizational recesses. When instances of systemic
racism are not situated properly within their social and historical contexts it allows them
to be manipulated and distorted. For example Omi & Winant (1994) point to the example
of former President Regan who perpetuated a false notion of race and racism as being
historical artifacts of the past. During his presidency Regan inaccurately isolated racism
as occurring during past historical moments in an effort to draw attention away from
racial tensions facing his administration. Lawrence et al (1993) note the importance of
accurately depicting the history of marginalized groups because it helps link biased
systems and practices to their social outcomes. Individuals do not operate in vacuums,
they operate in complex and often inequitable systems. Outcomes such as disadvantages
in education, housing, health care and political representation are influenced by very real
policies and practices (Matsuda et al, 1993). To reveal these practices this study offers a
race-centered framework and provides a context to the socio-historical treatment of race
and organizational change in higher education.
The fourth tenet of CRT is implicit to the theory: giving voice and value to people
of color and their lived experiences. In this case this refers to the experiences of
minorities within colleges and universities. Although this seems relatively simple it needs
to be emphasized because so many subtle and nuanced mechanisms have been developed

39
to eclipse their experiences. In describing the challenges of Latino graduate students
navigating colleges and universities Ibarra (2001) recounts the challenges they face
related to their identities. In organizations of higher education minorities must learn to
strike a balance between their cultural identities and those they use to navigate dominant
structures. Many times organizational values and practices are out of synch with students’
cultural values which causes confusion and frustration. In his research Ibarra refers to this
as multicontextuality which he asserts is a hidden dimension of higher education.
Acknowledging these dimensions and the difficulties and pressures associated with living
and functioning in systems that were created for and by others is why it is so important to
hear and understand the experiences of racial minorities when designing organizational
change efforts. Through the use of CRT, this study will hear the voices of groups that
traditionally exist at the margins of their organizations.
The fifth tenet of CRT which is reflected in the structure of this study is the call
for theoretical interdisciplinarity. This tenet serves as a response to West’s (1993) call for
new theoretical frameworks to address race. By introducing theories developed outside of
organizations and the field of organizational studies it is possible to isolate practices that
otherwise remain hidden. Different theoretical lenses that are critically conscious and
intended to shed light on issues of oppression and domination, such as race, and that call
into question the status quo are useful to the study of organizational change (Kincheloe &
McLaren, 1998).
Using such theoretical approaches makes the sixth tenet of CRT—the elimination
of racism and all forms of oppression— a more realistic goal. Through efforts, like this

40
study, which attempt to use theory to inspire praxis and organizational change, progress
in naming and eventually combating racial inequality can be made. To clarify how this is
done, in the next section I will fuse CRT with the previously discussed theories of
organizational change (Espoused Theories, Theories -in-Use, Theories of Action, and
Defensive Routines) and provide a Critical Race Theory analysis of Highly Competitive
University.
As the new Dean of Students, Professor Smart is concerned with the lack of
progress related to increasing racial diversity at HCU. During her first year at HCU Dr.
Smart witnessed a number of organizational episodes related to the treatment of race that
went unattended. Due to her recent arrival Dr. Smart decided to take a backseat and
observe the campus and its treatment of race for one year. One of the advantages the
Dean had in this exercise was her firsthand knowledge of Critical Race Theory which she
had studied during law school and prior to receiving her Ph.D. As a black woman and
with the theoretical lens provided by CRT Dean Smart carefully reflected on the previous
year.
Beginning with her appointment, Dean Smart realized she was expected to
represent all minorities on campus. One of the issues under her purview was the
administration of the multicultural center which would normally be the duty of a lower
level staff person. Because of her commitment to racial justice Dean Smart used this
opportunity to get to know the minorities on campus and learn their experiences. After
interacting with students, staff and faculty it became clear HCU was not fulfilling its
frequently touted commitment to diversity. Another indicator of this was how HCU dealt

41
with an initiative to increase the representation of women and minorities in the Sciences.
Rather than genuinely reflect on the issues as an organization, the issues were skirted,
blame was place on a number of factors, and the initiative made little if any progress.
During her one year review with the President of HCU Dean Smart brought up
her concerns. After receiving glowing reviews on her high level work and on “how well
she assimilated into the culture of HCU” the President asked her for her comments and
feedback. At this time she explained the different instances of race-related issues she had
witnessed as well as her concerns. Her intentions were to shed light on how race was
enacted at HCU. Immediately the President concurred with her and offered her extra-
funding for the multicultural center to add extra events. Upon leaving this meeting Dean
Smart realized the long road ahead of her at HCU.

Organizational Change and Critical Race Theory: An Interdisciplinary Lens
By adding CRT to the previously discussed theories of organizational change the
theoretical lens for this study is complete. The application of this lens to the HCU
narrative focuses the analysis of this example to the subtle ways that race and racism
occurred throughout. Using the CRT lens to examine subtle organizational practices
revealed a number of practices that created a gap between what HCU espoused about race
and organizational change and what it actually did.
A first example of the difference between Espoused Theories and Theories-in-Use
is the institutional mission at HCU. Although the mission communicated a commitment
to racial diversity, the HCU hiring practices did not reflect this commitment. Not only did

42
HCU have very few faculty and administrators of color, those they did have were hired as
token representatives for their respective ethnic groups (i.e. Dean Smart). Other faculty
members considered as minority hires were not traditionally underrepresented minorities.
Instead they were international faculty and did not bring with them the same experiences
as black or Latino faculty would. HCU’s definition of diversity was also lacking when
examined using the CRT based lens. Diversity was spoken of in terms of diversity of
thought and racial tolerance. Missing from the conversation was the direct mention of
race or the acceptance of difference. A final and nuanced example of the lack of
commitment to race-related change was the actual motive that drove the Provost to hire a
consulting group. The institutional change efforts were inspired by the potential for
funding, improved rankings, and by competition, not by the genuine investment or
interest in addressing racial inequality in the Sciences.
In this narrative there were opportunities for race-related change that could have
resulted from the Theories of Action that were mentioned. The consulting group
illustrated a number of practices including reflection and consciousness-raising which did
not catch on. One practice, the use of data, was co-opted by the Science faculty and used
as a defensive routine. Rather than use data to better understand their practices and
students, the faculty used data to prove minority students were not prepared for their
courses. In spite of efforts to address their existing Theories-in-Use, faculty continued to
blame the students for their lack of success and turned the attention away from them and
toward the HCU administration and system of public education.

43
Applying the New Lens to Higher Education
Rather than presenting a number of static organizational theories and then
overlaying them with Critical Race Theory, the goal of this section was to animate the
possibilities for understanding race-related organizational change. The narrative format
used in this section was intended to weave together the different theories that makeup this
proposed theoretical framework. This approach was also another way to insert CRT into
this study. MacKinnon (2002) suggests: “storytelling is a key contribution of CRT…it is
a means of grasping and exposing dominant realities and sharing subordinate ones”
(p.72). Stories are told that offer alternative perspectives. “It helps us understand what
life is like for others, and invites the reader into a new and unfamiliar world” (Delgado &
Stefanic, 2000, p.41). Therefore, in building the theoretical lens for this study I
simultaneously applied the theory.
Within education organizations, CRT is emerging as an important theoretical
research framework (DeCuir & Dixson 2004, p.27). DeCuir and Dixson also point toward
the work of Duncan (2002) and Lynn, Yosso, Solorzano and Parker (2002) as examples
of CRT applied in educational settings. Further, they suggest that educational researchers
have yet to fully utilize CRT. The primary way CRT has been applied in education has
been through the use of counterstories. Other major theoretical elements of CRT such as
the interrogation of whiteness, the rejection of liberalism, or the systemic permanence of
racism have yet to be explored (2004).Thus this study which looks at race-related
organizational change serves to further the movement and use of CRT in higher

44
education. The next section provides a detailed methodological design for conducting a
study using this theoretical tool.

45
Chapter 3:
Methodology

In a study that seeks to shed light on race-related organizational change in higher
education, research methods are particularly significant. While race and racism have
garnered much attention in recent history, they remain difficult topics to investigate and
often make for uncomfortable conversations. A study related to race is further burdened
by the need to select research methods suited to the exploration of raw and often taboo
subject matters within organizations such as systemic oppression and marginalization.
Exacerbating this is the complex nature of organizations and organizational change. As
previously noted, organizations are constructed of multiple layers and are difficult to
transform - particularly colleges and universities. At this point it is useful to reintroduce
Edgar Schein’s (1985) notion of organizations and their cultures as this model plays a
central role in the selection of the research site and related research methodologies.
Using a visual depiction of Schein’s understanding of organizations is a useful
prelude to this section because it illustrates the multiple layers of an organization that
must be examined. Unlike traditional notions of organizations which fail to situate
different organizational levels that influence change, the following model provides a clear
depiction of the broad organizational structure of the selected college. The outermost
layer consists of artifacts such as espoused theories and organizational rhetoric. The
middle layer consists of organizational values, standards, and principles. The central
layer is composed of core assumptions and inherent beliefs that drive how organizations
behave. Due to their complexities, interrogating these different organizational levels will
be easier by employing a range of methodologies.

46
Figure 6: Schein’s Multi-Layered Organizational Model 2

Because of complex nature of organizations as well as the deeply embedded nature of
race within organizations, the success of this study in producing useful and accurate data
will require carefully selected methods to probe each layer of the organization. The value
of this study also relies heavily on asking appropriate research questions at a suitable site.
As previously noted, this study is guided by the following research questions:
• How does organizational change related to race occur within an organization of
higher education?
• Is organizational change related to racial diversity at this institution treated
differently from other organizational change efforts? If so, how?
• What practices exist on this campus that either support or obstruct
organizational change related to racial diversity?
• Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity as described in
publications and through organizational artifacts such as speeches and
statements from institutional constituents differ from organizational practices,
attitudes, and beliefs? If so, in what ways?
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research methods I used to conduct
this study. I begin by providing an overview of case study methodology and explaining

Espoused
Organizational
Rhetoric and
Theories

Organizational
Actions
Core
Organizational
Beliefs

47
why this approach was appropriate for this study. Next, I explain the selection of my
research site and sample. Included in these sections are specific details about how I
identified and accessed my research site and participants. Having explained the
framework for this case, I describe how I collected and analyzed data. As a responsible
researcher, it is also my duty to discuss the ethical implications of this study as well as
limitations to this study and my personal issues of researcher subjectivity. I conclude this
section with a chapter summary.

Case Study Methodology
A case study approach is appropriate in this study for a number of reasons. Aside
from having a long history in fields such as education where studies explore in-depth
issues related to personal views and contextual factors, case studies have the ability to
examine the complex and multi-layered nature of organizations. This approach also
lends itself nicely to examining an organization’s rhetoric about race and organizational
change using Schein’s model. I hypothesize all three levels of an organization (espoused
values, artifacts, and basic underlying assumptions) reflect and impact how race and race-
related change are addressed on a campus. Surface level rhetoric represents how an
organization wants to be perceived in regard to issues such as racial diversity and their
commitment to organizational change in this area. Organizational artifacts reflect the
actions an institution takes to produce race-related organizational change. Finally,
underlying assumptions represent an organization’s deep-rooted beliefs and the core
values that drive and explain their actions.

48
A case study is also well suited to this study because it explores all of these
dimensions as well as serving to refine theoretical considerations and complexities in
need of further probing (Stake,1995). In his own study of educational change, Mills
(1993) explains the ability of case study research in foreshadowing the problems to be
explored in the case. He notes case studies provide, “a foundation for questioning the
evidence that is uncovered in the course of the research” (p.105). By choosing to use an
instrumental case study which was intended to shed light on issues or phenomenon over
time, I hoped to draw attention to the process of race-related organizational change.
Once this process was identified, I was able to probe the specific ways it did or did not
occur over time. The objective of this study was not generalization or replication but
rather the observation of a specific phenomenon.

Case Selection and Sampling
Within the field of case study research there exist various case study designs. I
conducted a purposefully selected instrumental case study. Miles and Huberman (1994)
identify over a dozen strategies of purposeful sampling which are used in making
decisions about the way studies are conducted. In this case, purposeful sampling
involved criteria established to assist in the selection of the site and case study
participants. By meeting the designated criteria, an institution was determined to be
either appropriate or inappropriate for this study. The criteria used in the construction of
this case included the following elements:
• A willingness to participate in the study

49
• An organizational culture receptive to discussing racial diversity
• A commitment to organizational change as evidenced by campus initiatives
• A racially diverse campus climate and population
• An espoused mission and commitment to organizational change related to race
These criteria were important for the following reasons. A willingness to participate
in this study suggested an institution agreed to being studied and was not coerced into
addressing difficult subjects like race. In order to study race and race-related change in
any organization, it is preferable to examine an organization where such issues are openly
discussed. Although as was mentioned in the preceding chapter, race and racism tend to
be embedded within organizational structures, some organizational cultures lend
themselves more to being studied due to their openness and public position related to
racial diversity. Such a climate can be identified through their campus population, their
organizational change efforts, and often it is written into their organizational mission.
Together all of these elements served to identify the organization best suited for this
study.
A final note about the importance of sampling relates to context. Creswell (1998)
explains the context of a case “involves situating the case within its setting, which may be
a physical setting or the social, historical, and/or economic setting for the case” (p.61). In
a study related to race this can be a challenge since race and racism are difficult to detect
within organizations (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Therefore, the context of this case should
have been in an environment that appeared committed to organizational change and racial
diversity. It should also have been a site where discussions of racial diversity or

50
organizational change would not be foreign to the setting or its organizational
constituents. The challenge in this study was teasing out the deep rooted and
systemically embedded practices related to race which were directly related to the
organizational context.

Case Selection
One of the most significant steps to conducting a case study is the selection of the
case itself (Stake, 1995). I studied an institution that is well-known for its racial diversity
and commitment to organizational change. My intention in doing this was to examine:
a) if there was a gap between what was said about race and organizational change and the
actions taken to produce race-related organizational change, and b) how embedded
organizational values and practices can inhibit or support race-related organizational
change. By focusing on one carefully selected institution, I hoped to observe critical
interactions related to the intersection of organizational change and race.

Pilot Study
In order to select an appropriate site for this case study, I conducted a brief multi-
site pilot study. The goal in conducting the pilot study was to identify an institution of
higher education with racial diversity and a commitment to organizational change related
to racial diversity. I began with a preliminary document analysis intended to identify the
institutional rhetoric related to racial diversity and organizational change. I searched
institutional documents (newspapers, campus catalogues, and student handbooks) for

51
evidence of racial diversity and a commitment to race-related organizational change.
Using this process, two sites were selected based on their involvement with a number of
well-known diversity initiatives. I visited each campus three times and conducted
campus observations as well as informal interviews with receptive organizational actors.
Both campuses are well-known for their racially diverse student populations as well as
for having a number of diversity related grants and campus initiatives.
The first campus, Campus A, is a medium-sized private four year liberal arts
college located in Southern California. The second campus, Campus B, is a small private
four year liberal arts college also located in Southern California. Members from each
campus extended an invitation to visit and expressed interest in potentially participating
in the pilot study. Upon arriving on Campus A, it became evident that with the exception
of the person who extended the invitation, few organizational constituents were interested
in discussing race or their organizational change efforts. Contrary to their student
recruitment publications, the campus climate was not welcoming or seemingly excited
about diversity. Because of my commitment to conducting this study in a hospitable
environment willing to be studied, I eliminated Campus A from the list of prospective
campuses.
Campus B’s visit proved to be more engaging. The climate at Campus B
appeared to be quite open and friendly and, above all, very diverse. In one day I was able
to speak with five different organizational constituents representing a number of positions
on campus. During each informal interview there was a mention of the campus
commitment to diversity or of their organizational change efforts. Based on the racially

52
diverse environment and fruitful experience at Campus B, I selected it as my designated
research site.

Institutional Access
The next step in conducting this study was obtaining official access to conduct the
study at Campus B. To do this, I contacted the Dean of Students with a description of
this study and proposed timeline and they agreed to participate in this study. Although
access had been granted by the institution and its top level administrators, Stake (1995)
reminds researchers that “most educational case data gathering involves at least a small
invasion of personal privacy”. For this reason, an initial group of potential participants
was identified by the Dean of Academic Affairs to participate in the study. Based on
these recommendations, which were intended to provide the necessary entrée to the
organization, organizational constituents were asked for other participant
recommendations. This facilitated the snowball sampling of study participants and
ensured a wider pool of prospective study participants. Based on these recommendations,
a pool of study participants was developed representing every aspect of the institution
including high ranking administrators, faculty, staff, and students. Ultimately, there were
over 40 participants in this study including faculty members, students, administrators, and
staff members. Potential study participants received a description of the study goals and
methods. They also had the opportunity to ask questions prior to committing to
participate in this study. In order to be part of the study, organizational constituents were

53
required to sign a consent form sanctioned by the institutional review boards of both the
host institution as well as the University of Southern California.

Meadowbrier College
The selected research site for this case study is Meadowbrier College, a small
private four year liberal arts college located on the outskirts of Los Angeles.
Meadowbrier College is situated in the hills of a small town founded by a religious sect
and some farmers. The area is a bucolic respite from the busy cosmopolitan
surroundings. Founded in 1887, Meadowbrier College is rich in history and has many
traditions. Always known as a welcoming community, Meadowbrier, now non-sectarian
since the 1940’s, prides itself in its values of freedom of conscience, integrity, justice,
internationalism. In the campus mission there is a direct mention of a value for diversity
and the campus tone reflects a deep respect for personal growth and community as well
as the opposition of conflict. In fact, consensus building is a core part of their mission
and institutional philosophy. Students on campus number fewer than twelve hundred and
for the most part all are known by name by their professors and administrators. Students
come to Meadowbrier from over forty states within the U.S. as well as a number of
countries. Well regarded as a liberal arts college, students who attend Meadowbrier
pursue a number of academic disciplines.
For the purposes of this study, Meadowbrier stood out during the pilot study
because of its emphasis on community and diversity. During a preliminary document
analysis which included recruitment materials, the course catalogue, and the student

54
handbook, there were repeated instances that mentioned diversity and differing cultural
perspectives. The overall campus rhetoric is one that values difference and harmony
among cultures. Institutional momentum related to these issues was also evident in the
grants and projects related to diversity taking place at Meadowbrier. Another factor in
choosing this location for this case study was the initial receptivity by campus
constituents. There seemed little hesitation to participate in the pilot study or discuss
issues of racial diversity and their organizational change efforts.
The population at Meadowbrier that was interviewed included faculty, students,
staff and administrators. Particular attention was paid to interviewing individuals who
are active in diversity initiatives and organizational change efforts. The demographic
profiles of the prospective study participants were varied. Most faculty at Meadowbrier
are white men and women. The majority of undergraduates are Hispanics with the
second largest population being white students. Meadowbrier also has a less well
represented population of Asian and African-American students as well as a large number
of international students. Staff and administrators are primarily white, Hispanic, and
Asian with few African-Americans.

Data Collection
In order to unpack the multiple layers that comprise an organization, it was useful
to employ different research methods. To conduct this case study, I employed:
document analysis, participant observations, focus groups, and semi-structured
interviews. Each method was intended to examine a different organizational level and

55
simultaneously served to validate the authenticity of the data that was collected.
Protocols were developed using relevant literature designed to assist with each form of
data collection and are listed as appendices
2
. Below is a diagram that uses Schein’s
organizational model to explain the designated method of data collection selected to
explore each organizational level.
Figure 7: Document Analysis Model

Document Analysis
Document analysis will serve to explore the outermost level of the organization
which represents the espoused theories and rhetoric. In an effort to familiarize myself
with the campus and lay the foundation for this study, I collected and reviewed a number
of documents. Documents were either physically collected on campus or the result of a
request to the administration for relevant documents they wanted included in this study.
Using student newspapers, campus guides, the student handbook, the course curriculum
and catalog, I searched for the espoused rhetoric related to race and organizational
change. In this preliminary phase, I also read the grant proposals for all recent initiatives

2
Please see appendices A-C for samples of the protocols.
Document
Analysis
Observations and
Focus Groups

Interviews

56
related to racial diversity and organizational change on this campus. Documents were
catalogued into an annotated bibliography and were kept with other data.

Participant Observations
As indicated in the diagram, participant observations were conducted to examine
the middle layer of the institution which consists of organizational values, principles, and
actions. Observations were scheduled to allow the discreet observation of committee
meetings, classes, campus events, and daily activities on campus. The goal was to
observe the treatment of race on campus, specifically actions associated to race-related
organizational change. In some cases, observations revealed contradictions between what
institutional actors espoused and how they behaved. These instances were documented
and probed more deeply when possible through follow up interviews or further
observations. To gain access to these meetings and events, participants were asked to
provide the researcher with an invitation or entrée to certain institutional interactions.
Examples of these interactions included Title V
3
grant committee meetings and the
campus curriculum meeting which determined which courses were taught. Other
observations attempted to be organic in nature and the result of the researcher’s presence
on the campus. However, in many cases the researcher observed meetings and
interactions that were accessible and conveniently scheduled. Observations were
ongoing and lasted for a minimum of six months.

3
Title V grants are federal monies given to institutions with over 25% Latino populations. These are also
known as Hispanic Serving Institutions or HSI’s.

57
Focus Groups
Focus groups were used to access organizational values, principles, and actions.
Groups of at least six institutional constituents participated in one or more of ten focus
groups that were conducted. These groups took place on campus and were recorded and
transcribed. The goal of these groups was to probe at the espoused rhetoric related to
race-related organizational change on campus as well as to observe how race and racial
diversity was discussed among organizational constituents. Each focus group lasted for
one hour and consisted of organizational constituents representing a range of institutional
roles.

Semi-Structured Interviews
I conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with a diverse range of
administrators, faculty, staff, and students to gain an understanding about race-related
organizational change efforts on this campus. The goal of these interviews was to probe
the experiences, beliefs, and deep-rooted notions that guide organizational practices
related to race. Individual interviews were semi-structured and allowed for flexibility in
the interview protocol as determined during each interview. The protocol used for these
interviews was developed as a result of the pilot study and changed in accordance with
the interviews and quality of data that was collected. When appropriate and possible,
certain institutional actors were interviewed more than once or on an ongoing basis. This
allowed the researcher to build a rapport and deepen the depth and quality of responses
over time. Each one-on-one interview lasted for one hour.

58
Data Analysis
A major distinction in case study work according to Stake (1998) is the difference
between observation, data analysis, and presentation. Because the goal of this study was
not to seek generalizability but rather to reflect organizational behaviors, I used
purposeful sampling and embedded data analysis. This means I examined the data for
themes related to my theoretical lens of race and organizational change. Using this
analysis, I uncovered the differences in how race-related organizational change was
discussed within the institution and how it was actually enacted. I did this using
Boyatzis’s (1998) inductive and deductive coding. The inductive phase of analysis relied
on developing a thematic code once the data was collected. The deductive portion of
analysis was guided by an established coding theme derived from the literature on
organizational change and Critical Race Theory. Examples of these codes
4
include
instances where race-related change efforts are supported or obstructed, and instances of
embedded racism and color-blindness. Because Merriam (1998) explains it is useful to
successful data analysis, the data was analyzed simultaneously with data collection.

Trustworthiness
Multiple methods of data collection were employed to ensure data validity in this
study. To triangulate data, I conducted campus and participant observations for a twelve
month period during which I also conducted focus groups. Since it was my goal to
reflect naturally occurring organizational values, beliefs, and practices, it was necessary
to spend as much time as possible collecting data. Stake (1995) notes that case study

4
See appendix D.

59
researchers who seek naturally occurring behaviors and reflections of values in their case
settings must often obtain what they were unable to see through interviews and document
analysis. Therefore, data collection for this case study was detailed and complex with
multiple levels of analysis, and included interviews and a preliminary phase of document
analysis.
By triangulating the research methods, I attempted to observe race-related
organizational change in a number of ways. This allowed me to determine if perceived
meanings and organizational practices are consistent as circumstances change. Stake
(1995) notes that the value of multiple methods provides grounds for revising the
interpretation of data. For this same reason, study participants were asked to review the
transcripts to ensure their accuracy and allow them the opportunity to clarify and
elaborate any points they felt could be misinterpreted in the process of data analysis.
Another challenge to trustworthiness within qualitative research is the position of
the researcher and his or her subjectivity. Stake (1995) warns of the danger of case
researchers as advocates and calls for restraint on the part of the researcher. It should be
noted I interacted with this institution in previous work experience. These interactions
were useful in accessing this site, however, they did not directly influence the nature of
this study or its outcomes. My position as a female researcher of color was another
element that related to subjectivity in this study. In order to distance myself from the
organization and check my position as a researcher I took certain steps to protect the
integrity of this project and its participants. The first step I took was to keep an ongoing
journal intended to allow for reflections about the organization, its constituents, and my

60
interactions with them. Beyond preserving the confidence of these institutional actors,
this process also revealed strengths and weakness of the researcher and her inquiry
processes. As a researcher applying a race-centered framework, a second step I took to
assure trustworthiness in this study was the use of rigorous research practices. By this I
mean when there were instances that could be perceived as race-related or not, I made
multiple efforts to probe and confirm (using the tenets that drive the theoretical
framework of this study) the validity and role of race within these practices. An example
of this was the use of language during a meeting or conversation. From a CRT
perspective a conversation can be laden with raced language which might not be detected
using a non-race based lens. In these instances and as a woman of color, I needed to be
sensitive to the different ways that language was used and directly interrogated the
intended meaning of the specific instance or conversation.

Ethical Considerations
In this case study, there existed three key ethical considerations: preserving
participant identities, painting an accurate organizational picture, and honestly recruiting
participants. Because of the nature of this case study and potential organizational
ramifications for participants, it was important to take all precautions to protect the
identity of the institution and its constituents. Although participants volunteered to
participate and their identities were replaced with pseudonyms, it is important to
understand revelations related to race and the organization being studied have the
potential to bring with them unintended adverse consequences. In order for participants

61
to have safely and ethically participated in this case study, data was handled with the
utmost discretion so individual organizational actors could not be identified.
The accurate representation of campus participants was a second ethical
consideration. In order for the case study of Meadowbrier College to be an accurate
depiction of the institution and its constituents, the case included a representative sample
of participants. This meant individuals from all organizational levels and positions were
interviewed in an effort to portray all institutional perspectives.
A third ethical consideration related to study participants was the recruitment
process. To maintain the integrity of the study, it was important that participants did not
feel undue pressure or obligation from their superiors to participate. To address this
concern, all study participants were given multiple opportunities to volunteer or decline
their participation in this study.

Study Limitations
All studies are limited in one way or another, because of that it is incumbent on
researchers to reflect upon the specific challenges and limitations of their research. There
were two types of limitations to this study, those related to research design, and those
related to the theoretical framework. Selecting participants based on the
recommendations of high ranking organizational administrators is problematic because of
implicit political pressure that may be felt. Also, this initial method of participant
selection limited the representative sample of the organizational population. In response

62
to this, a snowball sampling technique was also used to include a broader range of
institutional constituents.
Other limitations stemmed from the unique legacy and culture of the selected
research site. While this is not a unique case study and the findings of this study are not
intended to be replicated, it is worth noting that this campus possesses a religious
tradition that emphasizes consensus and community which ultimately impacts
organizational practices. For example, within this organizational culture institutional
stakeholders used delicate and intentional language during their interactions to avoid
conflict. Based on observations and interviews, the climate did not welcome open dissent
and conflict. Instead disagreement was expressed in subtle and diplomatic ways that
were consistent with the overarching institutional practice of consensus and courtesy.
This study was situated in a critical paradigm and was intended to question the
status quo and power relations associated with race and organizational change. This
framework, and the activist ideologies of social justice that drove this study, can be
understood as problematic to traditional academic norms. The point of departure for this
study was a place of subjectivity and the assumption that race and racism are embedded
in organizational structures. To accurately study race it is critical to have a race-centered
theoretical framework. Thus, there was no attempt to assert objectivity about race in this
study which presents a problem to main stream research practices. Instead, this case
study was designed with sensitivity to issues of race and systemic oppression. In order to
maintain a sense of empirical grounding and integrity, this case was carefully constructed
and executed in accordance with all traditional research protocols and practices.

63
Chapter Summary
I began this chapter with a brief explanation of the challenges associated with
conducting this study. I referred to the complexities of studying race and organizational
change within an institution of higher education. Using Schein’s model of organizations
and organizational culture I explained the multi-faceted model used to guide this case
study. Case selection (a purposeful instrumental case) was the result of a set of criteria
used to identify an appropriate institution. Case sampling (Meadowbrier College) was
also based on an initial pilot study used to lay the ground work for this case study. Due
to the different layers that constitute an organization, multiple research methods were
employed including: document analysis, participant observations, focus groups, and
semi-structured interviews.
Data analysis included inductive and deductive coding and also reflected a multi-
layered approach. Themes developed from the data itself as well as the literature on race
and organizational change were used to analyze the data. Although this study was
intended as a work of critical scholarship, the use of data triangulation and multiple
methods ensured validity, and not just unfounded advocacy. Finally, reflection by the
researcher and adherence to responsible research practices assisted in the effective
construction of this case.

64
Chapter 4:
Presentation of the Data

Addressing the treatment of racial diversity within organizations is a complicated
proposition due to its subtle and systemic nature. As previously mentioned, organizations
such as colleges and universities are innately resistant to change (Tierney1993;
Duderstdat 2000; Ibarra, 2001). Also relevant is the fact that there is value to not seeing
organizational elements such as the treatment of race and racial diversity or how these
realities challenge the status quo (Sefa Dei et al., 2004; Casey 2002; Bonilla-Silva, 2003).
Exacerbating these factors is the nature of race as an organizational element which is
dynamic and shifting similar to a moving target, making it difficult to isolate. Responding
to this study’s research questions entails unpacking multiple layers of organizational
culture which includes disentangling the role of individuals from the organizations and
systems they inhabit as well differentiating what is espoused about race-related
organizational change from the actions taken to produce and support such changes.
Beyond identifying gaps between theory and practice, the goal here is to understand the
implications of these gaps on campus diversity.
The data from this study are mixed and represent a nuanced but important
depiction of this organization and its relationship with organizational change, specifically
efforts related to racial diversity. There are, for example, a number of instances which
can be interpreted in multiple ways and thus necessitate detailed and careful
interpretation and discussion in responding to the research questions. Finally, beyond
presenting the data in a cogent way and explaining important themes, trends, and findings
from this case study, the central task of this section is to address the overarching research

65
question of how organizational change related to racial diversity occurs within the
selected organization of higher education. In addition to this task, three sub-questions
will also be addressed using the data. They include:
 Is organizational change related to racial diversity at this institution treated
differently from other organizational change efforts? If so, how?
 What practices exist on this campus that either support or obstruct
organizational change related to racial diversity?
 Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity as described in
publications and through organizational artifacts such as speeches and
statements from institutional constituents differ from organizational
practices, attitudes, and beliefs? If so, in what ways?
Because, as mentioned, organizations cannot change or support what they cannot
see, it is imperative to tease out the practices, beliefs, and behaviors related to race and
racial diversity and make them as perceptible as possible. This is no easy feat and for this
reason many problematic organizational practices go unrecognized and hence unchanged.
The structure of this chapter is designed to make the process of revealing and exploring
the treatment of race and racial diversity at Meadowbrier less complex than usual. Here I
outline significant sections in an effort to assist the reader through the multiple layers of
this chapter. First, I introduce the campus and its socio-historical context which abides by
the Critical Race Theory tenet that nothing can be understood without proper context.
Accordingly, I provide a brief history of the campus as well as an introduction of its key
campus stakeholders. Included here are examples of their perceived values and how they

66
approach change. Next, the chapter reflects Schein’s three layered model of organizations
providing instances of surface-level rhetoric, followed by an exploration of the middle
organizational layer of practices and beliefs related to race, and concluding with a few
examples of individual core values which impact and drive change related to racial
diversity.
Within this structure, I also respond to the established research questions in the
most effective way possible. This task, however, is most challenging as the “answers” or
responses to the research questions are in some cases amalgams of multiple pieces of data
and different parts of the chapter. Hence this is the most complex, nuanced, and least
linear part of this study. To assist in understanding how the research questions are
answered, here I specify where and how the research questions are addressed.
The overarching question of this study, “How does organizational change related
to racial diversity occur within this organization” is answered throughout this chapter. To
clarify, the goal of this question is to interrogate how an organization such as
Meadowbrier, one of the most racially diverse colleges within its Carnegie classification,
produces and supports the kind of organizational change that has made them so diverse.
This question assumes there is something to be learned about their racial diversity and
their process of change related to racial diversity. To begin to answer this question I use
the data to describe the overarching campus culture, organizational context, key
institutional stakeholders, and how these groups approach general organizational change.
From a Critical Race Theory perspective, the identities, values and practices of these
individuals as well as a description of the organizational climate help explain a number of

67
things, among them how transformative efforts related to race are regarded and how the
status quo is preserved. The next section of the chapter, “How does organizational
change at Meadowbrier occur?”, describes specific practices that support or obstruct
organizational change adding another layer of understanding to the question of how
change related to diversity occurs. Also important to this discussion is a section called
“Actions, Practices, and Beliefs about Racial Diversity” which unpacks various ways
race and racial diversity are treated on the campus.
In the process of responding to the previous research question and through an
analysis of how racial diversity is treated, at the end of the description of how change
does and does not occur, I address the second research question: “Is organizational
change related to racial diversity treated differently than other organizational change
efforts?” The data in the first few sections of this chapter, as well as the next section
which uses data to illustrate the tree layers of this organization according to Schein’s
organizational model, answer this question sufficiently and eliminate the need to explore
specific differences as there are none in the data.
The third research question, “What practices exist on this campus that either
support or obstruct organizational change related to racial diversity?”, is directly
addressed in the section at the middle of the chapter called “How does organizational
change happen at Meadowbrier?” This section details organizational elements and
behaviors identified in the data which either support or impede change. Included in these
are: collaboration and consensus, resistance by certain stakeholders, fiscal constraints,
strategic stakeholders, inevitable changes, and changes led by individuals and groups.

68
According to the data these various factors help explain the transformative process at
Meadowbrier. Following this is a discussion of the overall campus rhetoric related to
racial diversity as well as its practices related to race. This section is perhaps the most
critical in accurately responding to this question, as it is first necessary to understand the
treatment of race before understanding efforts to support it or produce diversity related
change.
The fourth and final research question, “Does organizational rhetoric about racial
diversity as described in publications and through organizational artifacts such as
speeches and statements from institutional constituents differ from organizational
practices, attitudes, and beliefs? If so, in what ways?” is responded to primarily in three
parts of this chapter. First, the description of the campus context and its key stakeholders
serves to communicate how the campus is broadly perceived and what values and ideas
are promoted about it. Knowing this helps tease out contradictions which are found
between sections called, “Surface Level Rhetoric” and “The Middle Organizational
Layer” which both form the first two layers of the depiction of Schein’s organizational
model in this chapter. Concluding the depiction of Schein’s model is the end of the
chapter and a summary of the research questions and their respective data-based answers.
What follows is the first portion of the data-presentation, the contextual description and
organizational portrait.

Organizational Portrait and Socio-Historical Context

Meadowbrier College and its different constituencies are the central protagonists
of this study and represent an interesting example of how a college recognized nationally

69
for its diverse student population approaches organizational change related to racial
diversity. In telling its story it is necessary to understand the social and historical roots of
this institution as well as its defining traits and characteristics. From an organizational
standpoint, it is important to understanding an organization’s different cultures, especially
in relation to organizational change. Kezar and Eckel (2002) remind us understanding an
organization’s cultural context matters when trying to produce transformation. Invoking
the work of Bergquist (1992), they note that contextual information helps explain why
and how organizational change occurs as well as the ways change processes are
obstructed by violating cultural norms. The recognition of socio-historical elements is
also relevant to this study because it is rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT). One of the
central tenets of CRT previously mentioned in this study is the privileging of contextual
and historical descriptions (Matsuda et al., 1993).We cannot understand an organization
and its current practices without first understanding its historical roots. For this reason
this organizational portrait will probe the history of this college, its climate, some of the
central values that underpin institutional practices, and introduce the dominant faculty
culture and the sub-culture of the campus administrators.

History and Inception
Founded in the late nineteenth century in a small bucolic town established by a
religious order, Meadowbrier College began as an academy with an enrollment of 25
students. The original religious inspired mission of the institution was guided by freedom
of conscience, integrity, justice, and internationalism. As it developed, the college aimed

70
to be what the current President refers to as “an educational community that acts.” Based
on the religious legacy and traditions of knowledge, virtue, unity, tolerance, peace, truth,
and friendship, this institution was intended to serve as an educational atmosphere
respectful to all. Academically, over time this institution emulated the small private elite
liberal arts colleges of the eastern and mid-western states. Attended by many sons of
local families interested in furthering their formal academic preparation, the college
blended humanistic pre-professional education with the development of socially
responsible citizens.
Because of its status as an independent college, finances and resource dependence
have always played a role in the history of this modestly funded institution. This is
evidenced by enrollment trends over the years, poor faculty compensation, fiscally
oriented administrative decisions, and more recently the use and significance of external
grant monies. Today staying financially afloat remains an institution wide concern
involving administrators, alumni, faculty, and even students as noted in a recent
organizational evaluation. During the early part of the twentieth century, Meadowbrier
College enrolled approximately one hundred students. In the years that followed, and in
response to economic concerns, the college grew its enrollment gradually, peaking at
over thirteen hundred students in the early 1950’s. During this period, the institution
which had always prided itself in having control over its size, experienced a post-war
enrollment boom which shifted its demographics to include more women and
international students. This diversification of the student body however, originated
decades earlier in the 1930’s with the enrollment of women, increased international

71
students, and an African-American student. Aside from raising the representation of the
student body, World War II caused the number of male students to drop and then swell as
veterans returned when the war ended. This began a prosperous time for the college and
signaled financial stability.
The 1960’s and 1970’s proved to be an interesting period for Meadowbrier
College in terms of transformation. Like many other college campuses, it reflected the
tensions and dynamics of contemporary American society. In spite of a building boom
which produced over half a dozen buildings and major curricular reforms, this historical
moment was filled with apprehension and transformation for the college. In the wake of
the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Civil Rights Movement, and the build up to the Vietnam
War, this conservative campus was rife with what one alumna called, “tension and
political conversations”. Even the tradition of respect for humankind and friendship, and
its legacy of diversity which originated in the 1900’s, could not avoid that Meadowbrier
College was like many other primarily white institutions of higher education of the time-
divided by racial lines. Recounting her experiences sharing a room with a black student,
one alumna noted that a campus official called her parents and asked them if they would
be opposed to their child sharing a room with a “Negro” which was unheard of at the
time. Another alumnus noted that as a young Mexican-American, he was struck by the
fact that there were not other people like him on the campus. When there were finally
more Latinos on campus, some of them eventually stormed the president’s office to get
the attention of the campus community and have their voices heard.

72
Unlike previous historical periods that mirrored the tranquility of the Society of
Friends and their value for consensus, this period signified changes on many levels.
Similar to the advancement of freedom which the religious order actively supported
during the Abolitionist movement, the post-civil rights era produced major changes in the
student body as well as increased economic prospects. In describing this period at
Meadowbrier College, one text notes:
This period…reflected the changing constituency from which it drew both its
development funds and its students. Clearly…becoming more-than-[religious] and
more than local as it sought to meet the challenges of its time and place. However
rich its heritage and unique its character, it had to accommodate itself to the rising
standards of the day (Cooper, p.372).

This quote denotes the fiscal advantages to these changes as well as their historical
inevitability. It also recognizes that by the 1960’s and 1970’s Meadowbrier College had
developed an image beyond its initial religious roots and mission. Much of this success
was related to some of the advancements and shifts in the campus population. For
example, by 1965 there were more than 100 foreign students that comprised 6% of the
student body. Around this same time, the college began a Model United Nations program
and had the first of three African-American Rhodes Scholars. This last achievement was
a major coup as it distinguished the College as an academically reputable and open-
minded institution. Overall, the demographic shifts and advances in student enrollments
during this period mirrored what has been historically recognized as a true period of
racial and ethnic diversification in the history of institutions of higher education.
The 1970’s marked a decline into a period of what some faculty and
administrators referred to as “leadership authoritarianism.” During this period the college

73
was run by a President whose efforts were divisive and not well received. Aside from
curricular changes that were already in motion, this President called for the acquisition of
a major professional school which was a very big financial risk. Against what some
faculty recounted to be the wishes and unhappiness of many, this leader used his
authority in a dominant way which ultimately began a rift between faculty and the college
administration. Another byproduct of this period also related to power was a new form of
faculty governance. Based loosely on the notion of consensus, this structure allowed
faculty a say in matters such as the budget and allowed faculty a vote. Over the next
decade this governance structure morphed into a purer form of consensus, solidifying the
faculty’s stake in governing campus decisions. This investment in shared governance
continues to be strong, and often directly impacts organizational change efforts.
Between the 1970’s and through the present time, other historical changes have
transpired. In particular, there have been dramatic changes in the composition of the
student body as well as the administration. The shifts in demographics can be attributed
to a few key reasons. The late sixties and early seventies represented an important time
for higher education as this period marked a dramatic increase in the representation of
racial diversity on college campuses. These changes reflected the national gains and
strides of the Civil Rights Movement and policies such as Affirmative Action.
Additionally, during the past three decades, the area surrounding Meadowbrier College
changed in terms of socio-economic and ethnic populations. What was originally a small
town founded by a religious society, has over the years become populated by Latinos, and

74
more recently affluent Latinos. This demographic shift has significantly impacted
Meadowbrier College as well as its student composition.
The diversification of the student body can be attributed to the concerted effort of
certain Latino constituents on campus. Some credit is given to the efforts of Dr. Oscar
Martinez who founded the Center for Mexican-American Affairs at Meadowbrier. This
alumnus-turned-professor who was active on campus in the sixties directed a number of
efforts targeted at local Latinos including recruitment, outreach, and fundraising for the
college. As a result of these efforts, and specifically because of the increased enrollments
of Latinos, Meadowbrier was able to apply for Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI)
designation. This distinction given by the federal government to assist “eligible Hispanic-
serving institutions of higher education to expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and
low-income students” recognizes institutions who have more than 27% Hispanics in their
student bodies. Along with the title, HSI’s qualify for Title V grants, which are funds
designated to assist such institutions serve their Latino and Hispanic students as they
have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Meadowbrier, under the
guidance of long time professor ,Dr. Raul Galvan, applied for and received an HSI grant
in the amount of five million dollars which has made a significant impact on the college’s
finances.
Over the past decade, Meadowbrier has also been engaged in a number of other
transformative efforts including the Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP), The Campus
Diversity Initiative (CDI), and a Faculty Fellows
5
Diversity grant. Each of these projects

5
For the purposes of this study, the terms Hispanic and Latino will we used synonymously. It is important
to recognize the historical significance and differences of both of these terms. Hispanic is a term introduced

75
has a different goal and function, but, overall these represent organizational change
efforts intended to increase and enhance the existing campus diversity. Each of these
transformative interventions will later be described in detail, but what is relevant to know
is that two of these three efforts were initiated outside this college, each effort had money
attached to it, and all of these efforts targeted this institution for a reason. In addition to
these institutional efforts the current president in conjunction with the Office of
Admissions hopes to further “diversify their diversity.”
During the past few decades, aside from the increase in Hispanic/Latino students
there have also been other changes in the composition of the student body and
administration. Aside from increased racial diversity within the student body at
Meadowbrier, there has also been an increase in international students. Administratively,
the college has experienced a significant amount of change in leadership, especially in
presidential leadership. There have been in the past three decades at least eight
presidents, some of whom left a poor impression or were involved in scandal or asked to
leave. Recently a charismatic female president has taken the helm of Meadowbrier
College and coincidently has an all female administrative staff. Under this new leader the
college appears to be entering a period of stability.

during the Nixon administration to categorize individuals of Spanish or Latin American Origin. This term
is a blanket term which is often misleading as it refers to people whose origins trace back to Spain which is
not all Hispanics. Latinos, a term used along with Hispanics in the 2000 Census, are individuals whose
ancestral roots are traced back to Latin American countries or their indigenous cultures. At Meadowbrier,
both Hispanic and Latino are used inconsistently and in an effort to mirror the college’s practices this study
will also use both terms.

76
Central Organizational Climate
The Meadowbrier College of today is promoted as one of the top small private
liberal arts colleges in the country. The recruitment viewbook describes:
a place of academic integrity as well as educational innovation, a community
where the exchange of ideas is rigorous and challenging, and where students are
given an intellectual grounding that will serve them throughout their lives, as
scholars, as professionals, and as responsible world citizens (2006-2007
Viewbook).

In particular, this organization is recognized for the personalized attention and quality
education students receive from their faculty and for the overall collegial atmosphere
fostered by its religious heritage. What follows is an in-depth presentation of the
dominant organizational climate and faculty-run culture at Meadowbrier, some of its core
espoused values, and an introduction to two groups of stakeholders that directly affect the
organizational change process-The Faculty and Administrators.

Climate
Hospitable, friendly, and nice are among the many words used to describe this
campus and its organizational climate. Situated among verdant hills the college is bucolic
and visually representative of a welcoming community. Most of the buildings on campus
are small and one story, a few of the more modern buildings like the library are multiple
levels; all are connected by paths which traverse green quads and rose gardens. One
junior faculty member describes the quaint campus the following way:
This is a very warm and welcoming place and everybody seemed to know who I
was… clearly it’s a small campus and in some ways that’s good because, you
know, people know you and talk to you and support you in many ways.

77
Speaking about the friendly tone of this campus, one old time faculty member explained
he didn’t realize how friendly the Meadowbrier campus was until going to another liberal
arts campus and realizing “they weren’t like us.” Rarely, at other campuses, are students
able to take morning walks with the president like at Meadowbrier. Each morning the
Meadowbrier community has a guaranteed opportunity to speak with the president who
tends to know most students by name and is even willing to slow down her pace to
accommodate fellow walkers.
This sense of community is also transmitted by the fact that everyone tends to
know everyone else by name. One administrator explains that like many small liberal arts
institutions, the campus is a “very familiar family environment” where “there’s a lot of
collaboration across campus” and an “informality I think among faculty, staff, students
… it’s a first-name-basis kind of place.” Some of this familiarity could relate to the fact
that many people who are part of the Meadowbrier community, particularly faculty, have
literally worked there for many decades. Thus, it is not unusual for people walking to
class or meetings to exchange polite greetings which furthers the climate of hospitality
most people mention when asked to describe their campus. This campus climate is
important to refer to in this study as it reflects some of the central values said to underpin
Meadowbrier as well as its much touted religious heritage.

Dominant Organizational Culture and Values
An accurate account of the dominant organizational culture of Meadowbrier
College is one which is faculty run, values its religious heritage and practices,

78
emphasizes students and teaching, appreciates prestige, and is resource dependent.
Organizational literature cautions it is problematic to portray one overarching
organizational culture (Martin, 1992). For this reason, a more responsible representation
describes the college’s dominant beliefs and practices in order to delineate its
organizational culture. When asked about organizational culture in the context of
Meadowbrier, one faculty member asked a telling question: “Are you talking about the
administration, or are you talking about the students, or are you talking about the faculty,
or you talking about support staff, or are you talking about student services?”, connoting
the existence of several different organizational cultures which is not uncommon. He then
explained, “it is and isn’t one institution,” further distinguishing the different parts that
comprise Meadowbrier College. Adding to this attempt to describe a central
organizational culture of this campus another faculty member noted, “Within the
departments, there is a culture. Within each department they have there own mechanism,
their own modifier, cultural modifier, language system that exists…” so when discussing
organizational culture is it more effective to discuss “the climate” of this college.

Faculty Run

One un-refuted characteristic about Meadowbrier is its faculty-run organizational
culture. “Faculty does run this institution, even at the administrative level.” They directly
shape many of the organizational decisions that are made and have established a long-
standing tradition where faculty are literally involved with most decisions on campus,
including, according to one campus joke, determining the colors that buildings get
painted. For this reason, their role is central in defining this organization’s dominant

79
climate. Adding to their sense of importance is how faculty feel they are perceived by
students, “what we’re constantly told and I guess I think it’s true, is that when our
students are asked about the institution and what’s important to them, they’ll say the
faculty.” Therefore it is not surprising that faculty values and beliefs impact what
organizational changes get made, and more often than not which efforts are resisted. One
faculty member likens the role of faculty at Meadowbrier to highly educated Washington
bureaucrats. He notes, “Administrations come and go, but the skilled…the policy people
stay and ultimately form policy over time.” Another explains the deep-rooted nature of
the faculty culture as being immune to time and different administrations. He asserts:
We have to adjust to them [administrators] to some extent, but we pretty much do
our own thing, recognizing that they could have some major impact on us, like
salaries and jobs, crises you have to deal with…but we pretty much determine
where this place is going.

In addition to developing policy, many faculty members at Meadowbrier also
consider it their responsibility to protect and preserve the precarious values of the
institution. This is accomplished in a number of ways which will later be described, but
overall it is important to emphasize faculty as organizational gate-keepers. There are a
number of reasons faculty tend to have so much power in creating and maintaining the
dominant campus climate of Meadowbrier. Unlike other campuses where faculty are
independent and focused on their academic endeavors and trust administrators to run the
institution, for the most part, the faculty at Meadowbrier expect to wear a number of
institutional hats. In some cases these additional duties entail involvement in
administrative decisions such as budgetary and hiring decisions. In other instances these
additional duties are anticipated as the result of underfunding and the tradition of having

80
faculty help out where there is a need. These additional duties include sitting on a host of
committees, counseling students in matters such as financial aid, teaching them basic
writing skills when they are underprepared to take their classes, fundraising, and helping
in the admissions process to name a handful of examples.
As a result of persistently low wages over the years, many faculty members
assume a sense of ownership and entitlement over the organization. This entitlement is
manifested in the expectation many faculty members now have about decision-making
and what they define to be “shared governance”. Adding to this, many faculty members
have withstood numerous administrative changes, leaving them with a sense of obligation
for protecting the organizational status quo. Many faculty members explained that
because they have outlived so many presidential administrations and governing boards, it
is central to the existence of the college that organizational power remains rooted within
the faculty.

Religious Heritage

As previously stated, the religious heritage and values of Meadowbrier are vital to
its current organizational climate. In fact, religious values were often one of the first
things mentioned by organizational stakeholders at all levels when asked to describe the
campus. One professor explained this college is always described as a “community that
finds its historical roots in … religion and their respect for the individual, and their
respect for everyone’s voice, and their respect for a political process based on
consensus.” Thus, in spite of no longer being formally affiliated with their religious
organization, the college’s core values live on and continue to shape their climate and

81
practices. This point is especially significant to this study as these values influence
Meadowbrier’s ability to produce effective organizational change.
The actual values instilled by their religious founders which are said to underpin
Meadowbrier are described by the president as: “respect for the individual, commitment
to a diverse student body and faculty, freedom of conscience, and respect for human
differences.” All of these are manifested differently, but two specific practices that are
long-established and echo these values are collegiality and consensus.
In describing the climate of Meadowbrier’s campus one administrator raved about
the friendly and respectful tone inherent to the college. She said, “the amazing thing
about this place is it is very collegial and …I don’t think that overtly we talk about the
[religious] values, but I think in many ways, it’s lived out…” For example, when faculty
and administrators have meetings, they are often strategic to use gentle terms and
language choices that are sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those participating in
the meeting. Beyond cordial diplomacy, the tradition of campus collegiality compels
campus members to be as considerate and collaborative as possible. Another example of
what collegiality looks like in practice at Meadowbrier comes from the faculty. Each year
when certain teaching awards are given, faculty members are said to be quite sincere in
their support and congratulations to the winners even though they too may have been in
the running for the same award. Thus, the deep-rooted emphasis on caring and kindness
for all campus members and the need to co-exist peacefully looms large at Meadowbrier.
The process of consensus in decision-making is derived from the same respect for
individuals and climate of cooperation associated with collegiality. In this case, their

82
religious values are said to be manifested directly in how decisions are made. Until
recently, this meant most decisions made by the faculty were the result of the consensus
process. In this process a motion was moved forward with the agreement of all,
otherwise, if there were objections, it would not pass and the topic would no longer be
discussed. The underlying notion behind this practice is respecting the wishes of all
community members. One supposed outcome of this way of decision making is what the
president referred to as a flat non-hierarchal organizational structure where everyone’s
voice is heard and matters.
One problematic consequence of consensus is the challenge it poses to
organizational change. One administrator explains that because they are, “a very
consensus-driven consultative organization” she has to strategize about who “needs to be
involved in voice-vote-veto”, meaning who will speak on behalf of proposed ideas and
who if anyone might voice their concerns. For example, prior to meetings she must
explain to others, “The faculty are going to want to know about this,” or, “the faculty are
going to think that they get to decide this,” otherwise decisions might not pass. When
motions fail, they are often brought up again in the future, often years later, by other
members of the community and again put to a consensus discussion. Often it is the same
individuals who express their concerns, and consequently obstruct change.
Because of these complexities there has been a gradual yet official shift in the
climate and faculty culture away from consensus in decision-making over the past
decade. In fact, within the last few years they officially transitioned to a voting form of
decision making. One faculty member explains these changes:

83
When I first got here we were consensus driven as a faculty. Everything
had to be decided by consensus. We no longer do that, but the motto is
“no close votes”. We never want to pass anything, we never want to
decide on anything if it’s apparent that the significant amount of the
community and faculty is opposed to it, or has misgivings about whatever
the issue is. So, even though we don’t base our decision on consensus, we
do respect the fact that I think we need to have most people on board for
any decision to be effective. There’s a philosophical bent towards
consensus, but there’s a practical reason to do it, we’ve got a small
community if you’re going to have anything changed and for that change
to be effective, you need to have most people agree to do it on a day to day
basis, and so you don’t want to ram any decision down a substantial part
of the community’s throat because it won’t work in the long run. The
decision making is made on that.

This quote is important as it explains both the significance of consensus at Meadowbrier
as well as the recent decision to adopt a voting system. It also points out that although
there is now a more democratic decision making process, there is still a spoken emphasis
and value for maintaining consensus within the culture.

The Value for Students and Teaching
One of the most dominant values and definitely the crowning achievement of
Meadowbrier is its focus on students and teaching. A number of institutional publications
note the faculty’s relationship with students is one of the most distinctive qualities of this
college. One professor describes the quality education they provide in the following
quote:
The education that we offer here is kind of undergraduate education as it
ought to be in lots of ways. I like the human scale of it. It’s a small place
where you get to know the students, you get to know faculty from other
areas, you’re not spending your days in a faculty of 30 people that are just
in your discipline, what you see at big places. I like the mixing with
people in different areas. I think it’s a place where faculty

84
really…authentically are interested in students more than say their own
reputations.

Thus, small class sizes and frequent interactions with faculty are the norm at
Meadowbrier. “Faculty in residence” live on campus in themed houses and host regular
events throughout the week to foster a sense of community and to support learning.
Although in recent years newer faculty have not been able to buy in the surrounding area,
many faculty members continue to live walking distance from campus which means they
are often available to meet with their students. One campus stakeholder explains the
value for students and teaching in the following way: “the organizational culture is very
caring, very passionate about student transformation.” Consequently, there is a faculty
open-door policy where students come to chat and a very strong commitment to
providing a well-rounded liberal arts curriculum. Many alumni continue to be involved
with the campus when they graduate because as one alumnus states, “I think every one of
my professors was genuinely interested in me as an individual and in my education.
Everyone at Meadowbrier was very caring and easy to get to know.”
Academically, students have an array of courses they can take which are often
taught in a complimentary way. This means for example that an Economics course might
be paired with a Sociology Course, and both professors teach their curricula in concert
with each other throughout the semester. While students are fulfilling their general
education requirements, they are simultaneously making important intellectual leaps and
connections across academic fields. The curricular emphasis on creativity is also
evidenced in another program at Meadowbrier where students have the ability to design
their own majors and produce rigorous final projects. In addition to these curricular

85
options, many Meadowbrier students are encouraged to participate in study abroad
programs.
The value for sophisticated pedagogical strategies and individualized student
learning reflects what one faculty member notes is a campus obsession with teaching. In
terms of the climate and broad culture of the campus, it bears noting that faculty often
teach to their own detriment. One older faculty member explains the overwhelming
teaching loads as part of their commitment to the institution and culture. Yet a younger
faculty member remarks they have no choice but to teach because of their lack of
resources. She goes on to explain that unlike other institutions:
We can’t afford all the technology … We don’t have a brand new science
building, we don’t have a brand new this, we don’t have a brand new that.
We can’t just dazzle them with commodities…we’ve got to teach. I’d put
almost any of us up against anybody and say we’ll teach their ass off and
we’ll win because that’s all we have.

A direct result of the intense commitment faculty make to teaching is a tension that exists
surrounding the sacrifices they make. Such is the commitment to teaching that beyond
teaching out of their disciplines, many faculty members spend a considerable amount of
time helping students catch up to their peers in certain subjects they should have learned
in high school such as basic writing. Part of this is due to the nature of teaching at this
college which “draws you in so thoroughly in terms of the kind of commitment you have
to make that you probably might cut off other possibilities for yourself.”Professionally
speaking faculty at Meadowbrier have little time to stay competitive through their own
research and writing or for the acquisition of grants. As faculty, “you’re here because you
want to be here, but you’re maybe also here because it’s where you can be” which

86
explains culturally why teaching is ultimately embraced by many faculty as their central
academic contribution.

Prestige

An interesting trait of this campus which is somewhat at odds with its unassuming
religious identity is the emphasis Meadowbrier places on prestige. On numerous
occasions when asked to describe Meadowbrier, many campus stakeholders drew
comparisons with some of the most elite and competitive small private liberal arts
campuses in the nation. In publications, the college is portrayed as being “nationally
recognized” as a liberal arts institution which is rigorous and challenging. Another piece
of information which is highly touted is the fact that this college is nationally ranked as
one of the most ethnically diverse of its kind in the nation. Rankings are very important at
Meadowbrier and high rankings when they occur are loudly echoed throughout the
campus. During one focus group, faculty argued the educational experiences students
have at Meadowbrier rival and in some ways surpass the experiences of students at the
large local public and private universities which are extremely competitive and
academically well-regarded. A clear example of the prominent self-perception many have
about Meadowbrier comes from one professor’s concerns about educating local working
class students: “How can we be an elite, expensive liberal arts college in a world that
can’t afford that?”
Understanding this part of Meadowbrier’s larger culture is important to this study
as it impacts organizational change efforts and shapes the treatment of racial diversity as
will later be described. Contrary to the insistence some institutional stakeholders feel

87
about the prominence of Meadowbrier, others wrestle with their institutional image a bit
more. The campus has the second lowest endowment of similar institutions in the area
and has serious issues of retention and graduation in certain populations when compared
to like institutions. A sense of cautious uncertainty recently inspired the administration to
commission a campus image study. Findings from the campus image study suggest
Meadowbrier is in somewhat of an identity crisis. Their data suggest there are some
concerns over a weak academic reputation and a misunderstood image within their
region. Contradicting the image of an old elite educational institution, one campus
stakeholder said, “We would like to be a more competitive school to get into” and move
away from the concept of being a “safety school” or even a community college. In
response to these concerns new recruitment publications were designed which emphasize
“the four year residential liberal arts experience” and refute any other misgivings about
Meadowbrier. This campus image study and its results also shed light on why promoting
notions of prestige are so important to many campus stakeholders. Without them, the
institution they are so deeply allied with might be seen as less than rigorous and in effect
reflect poorly on them as individuals.

Resource Dependence

No description of the dominant organizational climate, culture, and values of
Meadowbrier would be complete without a discussion about their financial resources.
More than any other issue, faculty and staff mentioned the impact of Meadowbrier’s
persistent financial woes. Over time fiscal constraints have resulted in low faculty wages,
faculty attrition, diminished morale, and run down facilities. One campus stakeholder

88
explained that historically Meadowbrier has always been tuition-driven and resource
dependent. As a result, the need for financial stability factors into all important decisions.
One member of the campus community described their budgetary woes by saying, “I
think there are some aspects of our organizational culture that relate in a lot of ways to
this historical issue of the budget” and he explained many people have little hope to think
things will ever improve. This challenge continues to be the focus of much concern from
institutional stakeholders at all levels.
The most common manifestation of being underfunded is that faculty are poorly
compensated. Their primary constraint is the lack of resources, namely uncompetitive
wages for extremely heavy workloads and little if any time to focus on their own
scholarship. The reason for the underpayment is described by the casual remarks of one
faculty member:
The faculty are all aware of the budgetary constraints. They make that
very public. They send us the budget every year. They explain that the
reason that we’re underpaid is because they don’t have money…I mean,
it’s clear that we are under-funded.

The language faculty use to describe their dire financial straits varies, but for the most
part the message is the same. On the one hand there are faculty members who raise the
issue of being overworked and underpaid, but are cautious in noting that perceiving
Meadowbrier as, “financially unstable is an exaggeration.” On the other hand, there are
faculty members who describe being in a, “financial crisis of some sort right now” as
well as those who recount “voluntarily” giving up two years of salary increases due to
their budget crises. The crux of what almost all faculty members raised in describing

89
their campus culture and climate was best encapsulated by one professor who plainly
stated, “We just need money.”
The recent campus image study brought to light just how much everyone is aware
of Meadowbrier’s fiscal constraints—including students. It noted it was, “surprising to
see the extent to which students are aware of [Meadowbrier’s] fiscal challenges.” One
reason for this is the high cost of tuition and the poor service they often receive. The
value of a Meadowbrier education, which currently costs over forty thousand dollars a
year is raised frequently as a concern. An excerpt from the camps image study states,
“students don’t understand where their money goes - especially when faculty are not paid
well (frequently mentioned) and the academic facilities are below par (I am ashamed to
show people my school).” Other problematic experiences students have related to the
lack of resources at Meadowbrier are poor student services. In particular issues with
financial aid and registration:“you end up missing out on the classes you want because
you can’t register because… your money hasn’t come in yet, but yet you can’t claim your
money because you can’t…” as a result “you don’t have a full load of classes.” Other
examples of the fiscal impact felt by students is the high level of loans students take to
afford Meadowbrier which has little financial aid to assist students. These examples
speak to the fact that at Meadowbrier students are paying for a top dollar education many
of them feel they are not receiving.
Much thought has gone into determining the causes of Meadowbrier’s financial
difficulties. One explanation offered by a professor for their lack of resources is that they
give out too much financial aid to poor students who do well at the institution but cannot

90
afford it, and do not have enough full paying students who generate revenue. Another
reason given by an administrator is that alumni do not make grand donations like other
colleges. There is a true sense of disappointment that trustees and alumni are not more
generous. One administrator contextualizes this by saying that because of their religious
values many of their alumni study fields that are not lucrative and instead serve society.
They do not generate the kinds of wages that would allow them to give back in
significant amounts. One point related to alumni fundraising presents a cause and effect
dilemma or more simply put a chicken or egg conundrum. The campus image study
revealed not enough money is being invested in courting alumni and their dollars. It said,
“We believe that many of the comments and concerns raised by alumni [about finances]
can be traced to insufficient resources being dedicated to informing and engaging them.”
Thus, in order to raise more money, more time and fiscal attention, which are lacking,
need to be invested in this direction.
Another scenario used to explain Meadowbrier’s financial situation places the
onus of financial stability on the administrators. In describing their current financial
situation one professor explained that unlike the previous administrations, the current
leadership is “setting the tone” for an improved fiscal outlook. This includes specific
fundraising initiatives initiated by the president to fund faculty raises. Also, there is a new
initiative called the Special Senior Status Program, which is essentially an early
retirement program intended to reward some of the most highly paid faculty for leaving
and making their salary available to others. Another resource being used to relieve
faculty under this administration is a Faculty Fellow program intended to help diversify

91
the faculty but which is used in ways that help relieve teaching loads using external grant
funding.
The summary of the campus image study provides useful feedback related to
Meadowbrier’s financial situation. It points to a need to address the financial situation in
the following way:
…honestly and with at least a tentative plan for the future. It is possible
that people are more concerned than the situation warrants, but the facts
will tell their own story. Clearly the most pressing issue with faculty is
their compensation. It would be beneficial to recognize their concerns and
their substantial contribution as the core of the [Meadowbrier] experience
and to outline how the College hopes to work out a competitive
compensation plan moving forward. This may entail a reliance on new or
enhanced revenue sources that will need the support of faculty.

Therefore, in speaking of organizational challenges that directly reflect the organizational
culture and impact transformative efforts, finances are Meadowbrier’s central concern.
Addressing this issue effectively will ultimately shift the direction and possibilities of this
college for generations to come. Regardless of the causes, the impact of being historically
under-resourced has taken a dramatic toll on this institution, its trajectory, and as will be
illustrated, its potential to produce organizational change. The following section
introduces the central organizational stakeholders at Meadowbrier who deal with directly
with these challenges.

The Organizational Stakeholders

Two sets of organizational stakeholders that are important to understand in
relation to this organization and its change processes are the faculty and administrators of
Meadowbrier. These stakeholders are central to the examination of how organizational

92
change is either stimulated or obstructed within this college’s context. The first group is
important as they are a central part of the dominant culture and play a unique role in
preserving what they believe to be core institutional practices and values. As such they
serve to slow change and in many instances block change all together. In other instances
they produce certain gradual changes reflective of their core values and the interests of a
handful of faculty members. The second significant sub-culture is the administration.
Primarily composed of women including the President, Vice-Presidents, and a few head
Deans, this sub-culture is responsible for driving and supporting a number of
transformative organizational efforts. Examining the efforts of this latter group is useful
as this is the group which espouses the greatest commitment to race-related
organizational change at Meadowbrier. Comparing the composition, values, and actions
of both of these groups directly addresses two of the research questions which guide this
study: 1) How is it organizational change occurs on this campus? and 2) How
specifically is Race-related Organizational Change approached?
Prior to examining the two central stakeholders at Meadowbrier, there is value to
mentioning a third campus constituency worthy of note but which does not figure
prominently in this study, the board of trustees. Although Meadowbrier College has forty
trustees most of whom are alumni, these board members do not play a large role in the
findings of this study. A handful were interviewed for this study and their responses were
included in the data used to address the proposed research questions. However, broadly
speaking the board of trustees at Meadowbrier do not appear to yield the same power and
consequence as boards at other institutions. At Meadowbrier the board of trustees

93
consists of alumni and community leaders elected for three year terms which involve
fundraising responsibilities as well as participation in board related duties such as hiring
presidents. Otherwise the board at Meadowbrier has an equally dynamic relationship with
high-level administrators and the faculty.

The Meadowbrier Faculty

The significant role of the faculty culture at Meadowbrier has already been
established in describing the dominant culture and values of this campus. In this section I
depict who the faculty are and provide a deconstruction of some of their values, attitudes,
and practices. Understanding individual faculty members as well as the forces that drive
them are relevant as they reveal the rationale used to support and more often than not
thwart efforts of organizational change. A first step in introducing some of the individual
members of the faculty involves explaining the stratified nature of the faculty structure
which contradicts their egalitarian religious heritage. “There’s a senior faculty culture,
there’s a sort of mid-range culture, and there’s a junior faculty culture.” These groups
often shift and interact, however for the most part there exist differences in their levels of
organizational power.

The Religious Elders
By far the most significant group of faculty on campus is a group referred to by
many as The Religious Elders. This handful of male professors are all veterans at
Meadowbrier and many have well over twenty-five years of service under their belts. In
conducting this study, trustees, alumni, administrators, and other faculty all pointed to

94
this group as a significant component of the Meadowbrier campus. In answering
questions about the campus many faculty made a point to say this study would not be
complete without the input of these professors. With the exception of one professor who
is of Middle Eastern descent, all of the Religious Elders are white men in their fifties and
sixties, and one or two may even be in their early seventies. These professors teach in a
range of subjects and graduated from institutions of higher education at all levels
including the Ivy League. There are fewer than ten of these professors and for the most
part they have all taken turns serving as heads of their departments or as deans of the
faculty or other important positions at one point or another. One committee many of
these men have led and participated in is the Faculty Executive Council (FEC) which is
the governing body of the faculty at Meadowbrier and coordinates their efforts. This
council changes in composition every years and faculty are elected to it. Often it includes
faculty at all levels, but quite regularly it has the participation of the Religious Elders.
This group serves a number of important functions at the College. Many of these
are the individuals who over time have introduced changes to Meadowbrier such as a
system of shared governance, or they have survived the tyrannical regimes of previous
administrations. Many of them helped orchestrate what is now known as “the faculty
revolt” against one administration. They also serve in many ways as the institutional
memory for the College and have borne witness to a number of organizational changes
literally spanning a number of decades. Consequently, it is this group which is most
invested with decision making processes on campus and on the preservation of what they
consider to be the core values of the institution.

95
Mid-Level and Junior Faculty
Most of the close to one hundred faculty members at Meadowbrier can be
considered mid-level and junior faculty. These professors, like the Religious Elders are
overworked and underpaid. They also place a significant emphasis on students and
teaching, yet are less invested in having organizational power in campus decision making
processes. Demographically these faculty members are younger, almost half of them are
women, and ethnically they are more diverse. Educationally, many of mid-level and
junior faculty come from prestigious well regarded graduate programs and many have
respectable publication records. Unlike many older faculty members, some of the mid-
level and junior faculty commute to campus from other cities which is a departure from
tradition. Other differences, particularly in their values and scholarship, are evident in the
courses they design and teach. While curricular innovation is a hallmark of the faculty in
general, it is these professors who are introducing many courses such as Chicano History
or Globalization & the Environment.
While they are part of the Meadowbrier community, these faculty members are
more independent and less wedded to having organizational power and control over
decisions that are made. There are definite differences in their values as many of them
are working parents who do not live close to campus and others express concerns over
their ability to do their own research and stay marketable. In many instances the research
interests of these faculty, including those with tenure, suffer due to their teaching
overloads and committee assignments. At least in one case a professor actually changed
the nature of her research and writing in order to accomplish all of her professional

96
responsibilities. The unrealistic expectations related to faculty involvement at
Meadowbrier were raised as a concern by one professor who noted:
I think there’s some level of denial about what faculty can do. You know,
like realistically the expectation is that we do…that we work all the time. I
mean, that’s the norm here, is that they just sort of expect you to work all
the time and do overloads and, you know, we’ve had a reduction in the
faculty and I don’t know why nobody’s acknowledging that.

Unlike some of their peers who accept these conditions, mid-level and junior faculty are
expressing their concerns to other faculty and administrators. One senior faculty member
and administrator whose values are somewhat aligned with the mid-level and junior
faculty explains that the tradition of faculty micro-management is one cause of their
unrealistic workloads and originated decades ago due to a lack of trust of administrators.
Now such practices are problematic since many professors recognize the need to trust
administrators and “let them do their jobs.” Mid-level and junior faculty respect the
history of how things happen at Meadowbrier, yet are also responsible for gently moving
forward their agendas. Specifically these are the groups responsible for moving to a
faculty voting system and finally ratifying the new curriculum. A number of professors
in these categories mentioned these as their values and concerns, and some of them refer
to the traditional religious practice of consensus as an obstacle that causes them to waste
their time. In recent years things have slowly improved procedurally among the faculty.
One professor comments on the improvements:
a lot of things have really…in some ways, ought to be administrative
decisions have often tended to be done by faculty…I think it’s changed
now… like improving the courses. We have a faculty committee that,
among other charges, is approving new courses overall… A lot of the
changes are really, really, really routine. The past practice had been that
the committee would look at every single one of those courses and

97
just…and spend time asking questions about them and wasting a whole lot
of faculty time.

Now, due to strategic improvements suggested by mid-level and younger faculty, there is
more efficiency in decision making. These improvements however do not negate the
hierarchy that exists within the faculty. There is agreement among many that the voices
of some are indeed heard over the voices of others. One example that encapsulates the
interaction between the Religious Elders and other members of the faculty is about a
matter as simple as the time of faculty meetings. This example illustrates how change is
approached as well as how it is subtly but effectively blocked.

Example of How Change is Approached by Faculty
An early September morning at 8:00 between seventy-five and eighty people
convened for one of the regular faculty meetings in Placer Hall, one of the larger venues
on campus. The meeting which included faculty, administrators including the President,
a couple of students (who are always welcome to observe these meetings), and some
guests, began with the traditional practice of a moment of silence. The meeting was led
by the president of the Faculty, a Religious Elder who has held this position in the past.
He introduced the guests in attendance and then presented the meeting agenda. The first
item on the list was a reminder about a speaker who would be presenting during an
afternoon wine and cheese event. Next there was a brief discussion about being able to
provide stipends out of the Title V grant if budgetary matters were “straightened out.”
The third item on the agenda related to a study on the student fist year experience. After

98
these discussions, the Vice-President for Enrolment shared the composition of the
entering classes. There were:
• 345 entering Freshman
• 48 transfers
• 32 students admitted provisionally
• The average GPA was a 3.46 with an average 1100 on the SAT
• Transfers have an average 3.0 GPA
• 65% of students are in-state and 35% are out of state students
She went on to explain they had achieved “nice diversity” consisting of 25% Latino (an
intentional decision to drop this number from the previous year), 3% African American,
5% Asian American, 1% Native American, 17% unknown, 1% international. In response
to these numbers, some individuals asked questions including what the gender breakdown
was (55% Female: 45% Male), and how many black students were admitted (12). This
raised concerns about not having a critical mass of African-American students which is
something the Dean of Students confirmed. Following this discussion, the Vice-
President of Enrollment introduced to the Faculty their new recruitment publications.
Finally toward the end of the meeting, the President of the Faculty brought up the
issue of the faculty meeting time. He said, “Some folks raised a concern regarding child
care issues. Therefore, it was suggested the meetings be moved.” The proposed time was
to move the meeting to Tuesdays from 12:40-1:20. The President of the Faculty then
asked “Do we have a strong voice to move?” In response to this one young male faculty
member noted that this was a really important issue and that perhaps there should be an

99
alternate time for this discussion and even multiple locations since many of the people
with child care issues were not present to share their concerns. The President of the
Faculty then asked the rest of the faculty to comment if they wanted.
One person, a Religious Elder, explained that if the meeting time was changed, “it
cuts against the work of the ‘Faculty Executive Council’ who did the research and took
the time to set the current faculty meeting time. Adding to this, another male faculty
member noted that 40 minutes is not enough time for a faculty meeting. A female faculty
member suggested the possibility of hiring a babysitter, however a male professor
pointed out one of the concerns was transporting kids to school during the meeting time.
The female Dean of Students explained that having faculty members’ children at the local
primary school on campus was not an option as it was a service that could not be offered
to everyone. By this point, the President of the Faculty was visibly annoyed and said at
one point, “whatever, I won’t say what I was going to.” To this a senior faculty member,
not quite a Religious Elder, explained they should not hold a straw poll which is what
was being proposed as those most affected by the situation were not present and this
“disadvantages the minority.” A Religious Elder agreed with this and then the
conversation turned to how this meeting time was determined. Another senior male
faculty member explained the process the FEC used to determine the time, which
considered the overall schedules of courses and administrators. Finally, a younger faculty
member suggested the issue continue to be explored.
Abruptly, one male faculty member explained that if the time was moved
everyone would be inconvenienced. In his case he’d have to get up an hour earlier and his

100
wife would have to be 45 minutes late to work. To put an end to this discussion, the
President of the Faculty asked people to e-mail him and he would take their concerns to
the FEC. He then said they would make a decision and everyone “will have to live with
it.” He also emphasized his opinion that they should keep their same meeting time and
that there were only three or four more faculty meetings left in the semester. The
meeting concluded with a round of brief committee updates and reminders. The Faculty
Executive Council decided not to change the meeting time.
The previous example illustrated the different roles played by members of the
faculty as well as how a change effort was thwarted. By all accounts, faculty did indeed
entertain the notion of changing the meeting time. However, the processes of consensus
and collegiality failed to further the issue in question which ultimately marginalized a
certain group of faculty members- primarily women who are mothers. Curiously, this
example also sheds light on the contradictions that emerge when issues of change are
raised at Meadowbrier. As portrayed in this example, organizational change is treated
procedurally and on a surface level and it is driven by their traditional consensus-oriented
decision making practices. A more critical look suggests the supposedly collective
decision was actually made by a few core individuals who have power over the process -
the Religious elders who happen to be older white men. After all was said and done this
was an exercise in the assertion of power. The issue of change was raised and discussed
but a decision was ultimately made during the same meeting without hearing the voices
or opinions of the people who could not be there to speak for themselves.

101
The Administration

The key administrators formally charged with running Meadowbrier are a second
significant group of Stakeholders. Primarily composed of women, this organizational
sub-culture plays a direct role in driving and sustaining many organizational change
efforts. As a result, this group of campus stakeholders sheds light on how organizational
change occurs at Meadowbrier. The gender dynamic of this group cannot be explained
directly by the data although many of these women were hired by a few members of the
group and they all seem to share similar values and experiences. This group, with the
exception of a few members, is fairly new to Meadowbrier College and is led by the
College’s second female President Fields. Most of these women have Ph.D.’s or
advanced degrees and each of them has experience working in different administrative
capacities at small private liberal arts colleges throughout the country. All of these
women are white and range in age between their thirties and fifties. Coincidentally, most
of these women were born and raised in the same part of the country. The women who
make up the core of this group include the President Ann Fields, the Vice-President for
Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty, Colleen Simms, the Assistant to the President,
Alison Smith, The Dean of Students, Linda Martinez, Vice President for Finance and
Administration, Holly Willis, Vice President for Enrollment Sandy Adams, and the Dean
of Assessment Jane Shiff. Although these are not all of the administrators at
Meadowbrier, this group represents the core administrative leadership of the college.
Together under the leadership of President Fields, this administration has proven
to be quite effective and especially well-received by the faculty. One reason for their

102
success may be their similar experiences as women in higher education, as well as their
overlapping values. Another reason may be their collective skills at assessing their
campus, being strategic about their efforts, knowing how to communicate effectively, and
above all managing finances. Each of these women plays a unique role on the
Meadowbrier campus and for the most part they were all attracted to this campus for
similar reasons. Among these motives were the religious values of individuals and
community and the ethnic diversity of the campus. One administrator noted, she came to
Meadowbrier because, “the institutional values mirror my personal values” while another
said she decided to take the position at Meadowbrier because “I want to be at a place
where I can make a difference.”The President, who at her previous institution started a
consortium of small private liberal arts colleges devoted to increasing and maintaining
ethnic diversity, explained her decision to come to Meadowbrier in the following way:
I was very, very attracted to (a) the fact that it was founded by[a religious
order]with a…one of its principles being a respect for people of all
backgrounds, racial, ethnic identifies, and a practice that put that into
effect from…really from its origins so that we’ve been one of the few
colleges in this country that, from its outset, wanted to make sure that
everyone on our campus had great respect for people from all backgrounds
and would listen to their points of views. And then the fact that this was a
Hispanic-serving institution … was a real draw for me. I loved the idea of
being in an institution that kind of practiced what most schools just
preach.

Echoing the president’s appreciation for diversity one dean explained her fulfillment
working at another Hispanic-Serving Institution was a watershed moment in her life in
terms of her professional identity personal issues and that is what really motivated her to
consider Meadowbrier College. Hence these women are modern leaders and Feminists in
their thoughts and beliefs and are driven by their pioneering spirits. As a result of the

103
overarching commitment these women espouse for ethnic diversity, it is no surprise they
are supportive of many of the transformational efforts related to racial diversity at
Meadowbrier. These include a number of grants related to diversity and an effort to
diversity the faculty.
To be effective in their endeavors, these women have to do their jobs cautiously
without overstepping their boundaries. In spite of being a President, Vice-president, or
Dean, as was mentioned previously, the Meadowbrier culture is one firmly anchored in
the faculty. For this reason, these administrators have used a number of strategies to
move forward their agendas. In particular they have been strategic and intentional in their
communication styles, and in who they include in their efforts. For example, Alison
Smith makes it her job as the Assistant to the President to inform Dr. Fields which faculty
need to be included in certain decisions and put on certain committees. Understanding
this is part art and part science and Ms. Simms explains she doesn’t always get it right.
When she does, it makes the job of the President so much easier and when the President
doesn’t want faculty involvement, Simms reminds President Fields she has the option of
telling the faculty they don’t get to participate in the matter and then Dean Simms will
explain her decision to them. Hence there are multiple layers of support within this
administration which assists them in accomplishing their goals and objectives.
Another example of effective communication from the administration relates to
finances which are always a serious and delicate matter at Meadowbrier. The Vice
President for Finance and Administration, Holly Willis, explains that because she has had

104
to say no to ideas and efforts for so long she has developed an alternative way of
communicating to campus members about finances:
What I say is, ‘let’s talk about what you want to do, and how we might be
able to do part of it’. Even if we can’t do the whole thing, because we just
may not have the money to do the whole thing, or are there some things
that we might be able to do over here or reallocate, or just do part of it…
There’s an art of saying “no,” …

This skill is especially useful within this organizational context since the institution is
chronically underfunded. Rather than behave in a harsh, non-collegial gate-keeping way,
Willis offers an alternative to campus stakeholders. In fact she mentions her concern and
desire to communicate to people that just because they may not receive the funding they
need, that does not mean their ideas are not good or efforts are not worthy.
Creativity and resourcefulness are another skill that enables the administrators
at Meadowbrier to move forward their efforts. One person who is particularly adept at
making the most of their budget while pursuing their institutional goals is the Dean of
Faculty Colleen Simms. Some of her efforts have focused on improving diversity on
campus, specifically faculty diversity. It was her office that incentivized the retirement
of older faculty and that obtained grants to bring in new minority faculty. Capitalizing on
the Faculty Fellows initiative intended to diversify the Meadowbrier faculty by bringing
in new minority doctoral scholars, Dean Simms also sought to save money by replacing
full-time faculty by having the new faculty fellows take on some of their teaching. As a
result of this decision she was able to eliminate some full-time faculty positions funded
by the College and instead rely on grant money. Although considered an administrative
success, this move drew some criticism from faculty who explained they now face

105
staffing challenges since faculty fellows who are counted as full-time staff replace full-
time faculty but only teach half a load. Consequently, one faculty member explains, there
are not enough classes to offer students. However, Dean Simms is limited in her ability to
meet all organizational goals and must carry out as many of Meadowbrier’s objectives as
possible with as few resources possible. Hence, practicality and resourcefulness go hand
in hand at Meadowbrier.

Example of How Change is Approached by Administrators
Organizational change is experienced and approached much differently by the
Administrators at Meadowbrier College than the faculty. From a Critical Race Theory
standpoint, their identities as white women who have experienced their own forms of
marginalization positions them differently in respect to producing and experiencing
organizational change. In addition, their professional histories also suggest these women
might be administratively more prepared to produce change. Through their different
professional roles over the years, and as a result of their understanding of changes that
need to be made to keep Meadowbrier competitive, it appears in this study these women
embrace change and are strategic about their efforts. Examples of such judgments include
their decisions to update their campus publications and recruitment materials, proposing
the campus image study, and as will be described later in this chapter, some of the ways
they decided to use their grant funding. Other strategic decisions related to hiring
including an effort to diversify the faculty as well as hiring a new dean with significant
experience working at HSI’s. The following example of a simple change effort illustrates

106
how administrators, specifically the president, attempts to create organizational
transformation.
Each year when student academic suspensions take place at Meadowbrier, they
are handled in a manner President Fields refers to as “faulty in a number of respects”. A
letter is sent to students who do very poorly in their fall classes and their parents.
Between Christmas and New Years Day, a letter is mailed informing these students and
their families that they are suspended. The problem is that the letter is worded harshly
and does not encourage students to explain their challenges and where they could use
assistance. The letter as written is shaming and fails to convey to students that they are
welcome back at Meadowbrier once they address their academic shortcomings.
According to the president she would like a letter that says something to the effect of:
You know, you did terribly in the fall, but we’d love to have you come back. Go
away, work on this issue, the Dean will get in touch with you midway through the
semester and we’ll make sure you’re on track to come back… we’ll assume
you’ve learned your lesson and come back.

This task is a simple one since the letter can literally be re-written and sent out differently
within a day. However, President Fields explains that because the letter was devised
years ago by a faculty committee they can’t change it. She explains,
We have to go back and talk to faculty and make sure they’re comfortable with
the language, the tone, etc. I think that’s a very silly waste of faculty time. I think
it’s a horrible thing for an institution that wants to be on the move to have to
…consult like that.

However, “I’ve been told the way it should be, otherwise people will get too upset” so
during the few weeks before December she and her administrative allies will gently speak
with different faculty members to obtain their buy-in. Although not happy about having

107
to do this, the president and her staff know to pick their battles carefully. In this case
there is time to be consultative with the faculty however she cautions, “Sometimes…
we’re not going to be able to do that. We’re just going to make change” signaling her
willingness to stand up to the faculty when necessary.
One theme that emerged in this study and is not atypical within colleges and
universities is the historical tension between faculty and administrators. Understanding
this history is important as it relates to contributes to understanding the context of
organizational change efforts at Meadowbrier. To the credit of the current administration
and based on faculty accounts, there seems to be a substantial improvement in the tone
between faculty and administrators. Although many of their efforts have been hindered
by unnecessary faculty intervention, the administrations harbor no ill will. President
Fields explains the current dynamic in the following way:
I think everyone respects the faculty here, but what’s so lovely is that
faculty also respect staff and administrators, so you’re always in these
conversations where people compliment the role that someone else plays,
so that’s what I mean about it being a real community. I think the people
here recognize that we’re all in this together and we all play a role,
whereas I don’t think that’s true in some organizations.

The respect among differing organizational constituents is also important to faculty who
are realizing their need to trust administrators more. They attribute their issues to their
negative experiences in the past. One professor explained, “When I came, we had just
gotten away from a really, really bad president. There had been a faculty
revolt”…consequently “there was just a huge and probably reasonable distrust of the
administration” which caused the faculty to take over a great number of institutional
responsibilities. Currently a number of faculty members are more trusting of

108
administrators and there is even a push by the younger faculty members to relinquish
more traditional faculty committee work to the administration.
Now that these two groups of stakeholders have been properly described, it is
possible to examine the different ways organizational change occurs at Meadowbrier.
Comparing these groups reveals significant differences that directly impact
organizational change efforts. The Faculty although in the process of becoming much
more ethnically diverse remains dominated by some of the older white men who are
invested in protecting the organizational status quo and traditions. As a result, these
stakeholders and their practices often work against change. The administration is
composed of progressive white women committed to producing certain changes at
Meadowbrier but who are conscious of their limitations. Although formally charged with
the power to create changes, these women drive change in cautious and strategic ways
due to the organizational values and climate of this institution. Together these two groups
share a value for their religious legacy and for serving students. Where organizational
change is concerned, each of these groups uses different tactics and presents different
challenges. The next section of this chapter examines the processes by which
organizational change at Meadowbrier College is supported or obstructed.

How does Organizational Change Happen at Meadowbrier?
The findings of this study suggest organizational change at Meadowbrier does not
occur in unique or non-traditional ways. Instead, it reflects various elements previously
identified in the organizational change research literature related to Higher Education. As

109
a first step in explaining how organizational change occurs on this campus, this section
will shed light on some of the ways transformation is impeded as well as how it is moved
forward. The data from this study suggest organizational transformation at this college
occurs or is obstructed in a number of ways. Depending on its origins, change occurs
slowly, strategically, with faculty resistance, and in some important cases inevitably.
Organizational transformation at Meadowbrier also occurs as the result of individuals and
their efforts. These factors are typical for a college like Meadowbrier and examples of
these are to follow.
The data from this study confirm organizational change at Meadowbrier “is slow
by definition,” which is not surprising as this is a common trait of transformation.
Nevertheless, there is value to understanding how it is impeded. Although research on
organizational transformation asserts change tends to be a slow process overall, the
sluggish pace of transformation at Meadowbrier can be attributed to: the practice of
consensus, the consultative organizational nature of Meadowbrier, and their lack of
financial resources. All of these elements serve to describe how it is organizational
change does or does not occur at Meadowbrier.
One organizational stakeholder explains that change gets slowed, “because we
are so collaborative and consultative and the faculty in particular truly believe that they
should be consulted…and have the ability to sign off on change.” For this reason, little
things that could change overnight must go through faculty groups to get feedback and
input. One example that speaks directly to how it is organizational change occurs at
Meadowbrier relates to changes in their writing program. In recent years attention has

110
been paid to rethinking a writing program originally developed in the 1950’s and closely
supported by three specific English faculty members. Questions were raised by other
faculty members about the efficacy and relevance of this program in today’s modern
context. There was mixed support and concern about this program within the English
Department, however, the larger body of faculty was interested in updating student
writing. Although the Dean had the ability to impose the new changes immediately, they
approached this organizational change in a different way. Rather than have a
confrontation, the Dean appointed a committee which included three proponents of the
new writing program. This group presented their ideas to the faculty and had some
opposition from a handful of professors. They ultimately met for over a year and a half
about the new proposed writing program, working, talking, and finally compromising
with the opposing faculty members. Over two years later when the plan was finally
presented to the faculty, it was presented in ten minutes, approved, and then everyone
clapped.
This example illustrates the importance of strategy in dealing with the faculty as
well as the necessity to work delicately around existing organizational protocols and
cultural traditions such as consensus. In this instance consensus served as an obstacle to
change and caused the creation of an entirely new committee in order to ratify changes
that could be approached differently. In recalling the changes to the writing program one
faculty member commented it was problematic they had to establish a new committee
and work for years in order to arrive at change. He explained that they had to have secret
votes on critical issues such as this otherwise the consensus model “is a path toward

111
immobility.” The data also suggest other attempts at organizational change are delayed
by what one organizational stakeholder calls complex committee structures that limit
transformative possibilities. Certain well-intentioned people who may want to make
changes are hampered by redundant committees working on matters that could be tackled
by a few people. This adds to the collective workload of many and reduces the pace and
likelihood of effective change. Thus strategizing ways around these structures and
organizational obstacles is critical to make change a reality.
A final but significant reason given to explain the pace of change at Meadowbrier
is their limited funding. Most years the focus at Meadowbrier is to remain fiscally solvent
leaving them little time and attention to focus on creating organizational change. As one
administrator notes they must “work very hard to get the college’s finances under
control.” Because the college is 80% revenue dependent they must invest most of their
efforts in this area and most years their enrollments determine their budgetary outcomes.
As a result, one person from the office of admission explained there is significant
pressure on administrators to make their enrollment targets. One administrator recalls one
of their more difficult years and its implications on the college:
Well, in a particular year our enrollment was down significantly and we
had to cut about 1.5 million dollars out of our budget. It’s not a fun thing
to do, and we had to cut positions, we had to cut operations, we laid off
people, we didn’t give salary increases.

Thus, finances are so limited at this institution that they truly must focus on survival
leaving little room for transformative efforts.
In fact, limited fiscal resources were a prominent explanation given by
stakeholders at all levels to explain why and how organizational transformation is

112
repeatedly hampered on campus. Either faculty and administrators are underpaid, or
because they have too many responsibilities, the fact that Meadowbrier has such limiting
financial means directly impacts their potential for organizational change. One
Economics professor explains this dilemma:
Well, I would say the main obstruction to change … is just resources. I
can think of all kinds of initiatives that people would be behind and like to
spend a lot of time on, but we don’t have the time... I mean, we have high
teaching loads, we have high advising loads, and that’s fine, people are
here because they like doing that and they spend all the time with the
students and that’s great. I mean, we do good service for students by
spending all our time doing that, but if you’re going to spend all your time
doing that, you can’t spend your time on the other stuff, …I’m actually
impressed by the people who actually find the time to carve out, to kind of
do something new and create some new initiative, and most initiatives are
about change…

As communicated by the professor, in order for effective change to take place it requires
time and attention which are both precious commodities at Meadowbrier. When there is
interest in producing change many stakeholders have to pick between what they are
interested in changing and their other organizational obligations. As one person puts it,
“if we’re going to do that, there’s something else that we can’t do.” Again, for change to
happen organizational stakeholders must also be strategic in their decision-making
processes.

Resistance
A significant limitation to organizational change identified in the data is a general
resistance to change by the Religious Elders. Referred to as “the faculty dictators” by one
professor, strategies have emerged to combat their inherent resistance to organizational

113
change efforts. According to one younger faculty member “a group of faculty close to
retirement age” have
been here for their whole career and they’re very invested in the way that things
are, they really don’t want to change anything… So they’re really inefficient at
making change because I don’t think they really want it to change.
These professors obstruct change using the consensus process among other things, which
up until recently allowed a few to hold up and ultimately thwart most organizational
change efforts they disagreed with. As a result of doing things the “Religious Way” and
not having any close votes, certain forms of organizational change including those related
to racial diversity are hard to produce. One person explains transformation considered
“radical” such as certain diversity efforts are entirely impossible because consensus
serves as a form of resistance. One female faculty member recalls a “blockade” to a
proposed Women’s Studies minor led by a subset of senior male faculty who argued “it’s
not a real discipline, it’s not real this, it’s not real that, and they wouldn’t let it go.”
Eventually after “a hard fought battle” and much convincing over time the program did
come into being. However it reflected the changing gender make-up of the faculty as well
as a fair amount of determination and perseverance by the female faculty members over
years.
Another form of resistance used by faculty to obstruct change at Meadowbrier is
non-participation. Unlike the blockade which involved openly withholding support, this
form of resistance entails retrenching from decision making processes to indirectly
communicate disagreement. This practice is especially problematic on a small campus

114
like Meadowbrier which even with the voting system in place still broadly seeks
consensus. One female professor explains this dilemma:
We don’t like to vote much and on something like the curriculum …you don’t
want people who are actively undermining it…you can’t afford that in a small
institution, so if you pass it over their heads, you still…you need them, they have
to play. We don’t have enough people, ...so you really have no choice but to get
them to a position where reluctantly at least they’ll participate, and we have some
people who are choosing not to participate in various things around campus and
it’s really sad and really difficult and really troubling when that happens here.

By not voting one way or another and refraining from campus activities a strong message
of dissent is communicated to other faculty. Another example of this form of resistance
was recounted by a senior member of the faculty who is also an administrator. In telling
the story of how the general curriculum was changed he told of one faculty member who
was the only one still opposed to voting in the new curriculum. Rather than vote against
his faculty colleagues he expressed his displeasure and got up and left the meeting. The
vote proceeded without him, and he subsequently retrenched to his work and stayed at the
margins of campus life. Such examples drive home the point that there exist more than a
few ways of resisting organizational change and impacting the processes by which
changes get made at Meadowbrier.
In spite of the slow pace of change and efforts to resist transformation,
organizational change still occurs at Meadowbrier. Some of it can be attributed to the
vigilance of leaders, while other examples illustrate that change is inevitable or the result
of individual efforts. Supporting the importance of leadership in producing change, one
faculty member notes that for change to happen at Meadowbrier, it must receive buy-in
from the “higher-ups” meaning the head administrators. This person explains with

115
appropriate attention change is still a possibility as long as it remains a priority. The
consultative organizational structure and lack of resources “call for the president and
other senior officers to just keep their eye on the ball of what needs to be done and look
for every opportunity to get them done. It might take a little longer and it might be a little
more convoluted…but we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball.” In other words to some
organizational stakeholders change is always a possibility.

Inevitability
In other instances organizational change is inevitable and reflects changes in the
surrounding environment. In answering how organizational change occurs at
Meadowbrier this is one important example to mention as it directly speaks to their
college diversity and identity. Often referred to as “accidental diversity” by more than
one campus constituent, Meadowbrier’s transformation into an HSI represents a major
organizational transformation that was not planned. In fact their HIS status eligibility was
only discovered as the result of some data collection conducted for one of their campus
diversity initiatives. One professor explains their demographic changes in the following
way: “…there’s a random piece changing demographics of our students that wasn’t
entirely sought, but when it happened it was embraced.” Another professor remarks the
institution has “changed a lot without necessarily being entirely conscious of it or even
having planned it”… “ in a sort of bald, ethnic way of judging ethnicity …our students
are from a different demographic than they were when I came.”

116
Today’s students mirror the historical, socio-economic, and demographic shifts
that have occurred in the surrounding area over the past one hundred years. This fact is
not always publicized. What was originally a sleepy college situated in a verdant
agricultural basin has over time morphed into an affluent suburb of a major city. In
particular, this area has been identified as a place where upwardly mobile working class
residents settle with their families. Affluent Latinos have who moved into the area have
directly impacted the make-up of Meadowbrier’s students according to campus faculty
and administrators. As one faculty member explains:
Diversity to be honest has just kind of come to us. We recognize it’s
important, but I can’t say at least in my 10 years here that there was any
master plan to like how are we going to get more diverse… I do think it’s
because of where we are… the majority of the residents are Latino and we
get 60-70 kids from [this area] a year… so I just think it’s a factor of
where we’re located.

This unplanned but significant change within the organization is consistent with
evolutionary models of organizational change which assume that in some cases
organizational change is the result of changing environments (Kezar 2001). Therefore
unlike the previously described strategies used to slow, encourage, or obstruct
organizational change at Meadowbrier, these examples illustrate that in some instances
transformation is indeed inevitable. Change also occurs as the result of institutional
stakeholders and their values and practices.
As discussed in earlier chapters, individuals and their core values and beliefs are
often manifested in the changes they bring about within the organizations they comprise.
Organizational transformation related to creating and supporting racial diversity at
Meadowbrier is one example of how individuals have attempted to produce change over

117
the years. While some attention has been devoted to describing individuals and groups
who thwart change efforts at Meadowbrier, this section is devoted to describing
individuals and their efforts to create and support racial diversity. One remark made by
many campus constituents about change at Meadowbrier, is that successful efforts are
primarily spearheaded by individuals who shepherd the effort through different
organizational hurdles. Such individuals often fall under the rubric of what organizational
literature refers to as heroic or transformational leaders known for bringing change to the
organizations they inhabit. At Meadowbrier, like many institutions, organizational change
occurred in a number of ways for a number of reasons. One example was as the result of
collaborative efforts which in some cases were indeed led by charismatic organizational
figures. Therefore there is value to exploring a few examples of people who brought
about such change.
The first change agent of note in recent history whose name is repeatedly
mentioned throughout the data is Dr. Oscar Martinez. As the only self-described
Hispanic student in class during the 1940’s this man played a pivotal role in helping
Meadowbrier become a Hispanic Serving Institution. As a result of his isolating
experiences as a first generation college student and through his activism throughout the
years Mr. Martinez brought attention, sometimes controversially, to the lack of diversity
on the Meadowbrier campus. For example, in 1972 he led a student takeover of the
president’s office. Decades later he is credited by the current President, a number of
professors, and even a few trustees, for his help in recruiting Hispanic students and
helping them persist and succeed on campus. He also involved the surrounding

118
community in fundraising efforts to help the college and eventually created A Center for
Mexican Americans on campus which bore his name. Under this center scholarships were
developed and distributed and many Hispanic students were recruited to attend
Meadowbrier. Awarded a host of public awards for his efforts among Hispanics
nationally, Oscar Martinez inspired multiple generations of Hispanic families to attend
Meadowbrier as part of their traditions. In recounting how and why Meadowbrier became
an HSI the President notes:
Well, I think for several reasons. One is that we have always been known
as an institution that had this respect for diversity because of our
[religious] heritage, and I think also we lucked out some years ago in
hiring a graduate of the college, his name is [Oscar Martinez], who was to
head our Center for Mexican American Affairs, I think is what the name
of it, and he was a real mover and shaker in the community and so he was
a big draw to a lot of people.

In reality he was not hired to head the Center for Mexican-American Affairs, he actually
created it. Initially he was hired to do outreach and later as he continued his education he
eventually taught at the college. In describing his work on campus, Mr. Martinez, who is
considered a “loose cannon” by some accounts, still visits the campus many years after
having been asked to retire. He recounted passionately some of his memories with the aid
of one of his former students and a Meadowbrier alumnus (who is well into his fifties) the
commitment he had for his efforts to improve the outlook for Hispanic students in the
area. As a child of the Depression era he understood the power and value of having a
formal college education and wanted to help offer that to others like himself. His goals
however did not come without obstacles. One professor explains that for many years
there was a movement to combine Mr. Martinez’s programs and center with a larger

119
multi-cultural center on campus, but he “didn’t want to be lumped in with this
multicultural stuff,” and fought for his way even after retiring. Throughout the years Mr.
Martinez made a name for himself through his fundraising efforts and with the help of the
Latino community as well as his long time assistant, Mary. With help in pursuing his
recruitment, student support, and fundraising goals he became a nationally recognized
figure in the Hispanic and Latino community.
Another important campus change agent specifically responsible for obtaining
Meadowbrier’s HSI status is Dr. Raul Galvan. As a professor and administrator for over
twenty-five years, Dr.Galvan spearheaded a number of significant diversity initiatives at
Meadowbrier including the one which recognized their HIS designation eligibility.
Popular among students and often involved in study abroad programs, Dr. Galvan has
invested a tremendous amount of time, energy, and personal commitment into the
Meadowbrier community. In spite of his tenure at the college he is not considered a
Religious Elder, however in past years Dr. Galvan has led or influenced a number of
successful transformative efforts including those related to retention and first year
advisement. Until a few years ago he served in a number of important institutional
positions making him the highest ranking Latino on campus. Like Mr. Martinez, Dr.
Galvan also worked toward his goals with others. While he is indeed quite charismatic
and passionate about achieving and supporting racial diversity and social justice at
Meadowbrier, over the years he has worked in concert with a number of committees and
different administrators. One specific group he worked with included two other

120
administrators who worked with him in collecting and analyzing institutional data
disaggregated by race to detect and identify areas in need of attention and change.
Of all the faculty and administrators who participated in this study, Dr. Galvan
stands out as the one who helped bring in the most grant money, close to two million
dollars, as well as one of the people most committed to producing organizational change
related to racial diversity. Through his networking and participation with outside groups
Dr. Galvan learned of and applied for a number of grants and diversity initiatives being
offered to institutions like his. With the assistance of two fellow administrators who made
up his team, they participated in a number of transformative efforts geared toward
improving and serving the needs of diversity on campus. The first effort they became
involved with was the Diversity Measurement Program also known as the DMP which
was led by a team of researchers at another local university and funded by a major
foundation interested in supporting diversity. The goal of this project was to use
institutional data to examine closely the performance of diverse colleges and universities.
The rationale behind this program was that by disaggregating institutional data by race,
administrators would be more capable of isolating organizational strengths and
weaknesses ultimately determining where to focus their attention and resources. Dr.
Galvan became such a fan of this approach that he was invited to speak at national
conferences alongside the primary research institution about the efficacy of the project
and its outcomes at Meadowbrier. Although the team was disbanded and the project
ended, Dr. Galvan remains committed to this administrative practice and states that when

121
he brings up the need to refer to data his colleagues say, “Oh, no, he’s going to say it
again.”
In addition to the DMP, and obtaining the Title V grant and designation, Dr.
Galvan also led Meadowbrier in another diversity initiative funded by the same
foundation that supported the DMP. This project, titled the Initiative for College
Diversity or ICD, included a number of colleges, including Meadowbrier, who sought
educational equity for their student populations and assessed their ability to produce such
outcomes using a number of strategies and techniques. All of these projects have taken
place within the past decade and more recently Dr. Galvan has spent time collaborating
with a neighboring community college which is also a Hispanic Serving Institution to
create a transfer pipeline between the two institutions. The goal of this effort is to assist
students from the community college in transferring to Meadowbrier in effect creating an
innovative and mutually beneficial partnership for both institutions. Currently, Dr.
Galvan has been responsible for the evolution and implementation of some living-
learning communities which were funded with some of the grant money he received.
Both Mr. Martinez and Dr. Galvan represent what change agents look like at
Meadowbrier and through their actions address how effective organizational change can
occur within this organization. Each invested most of their professional careers to the
college and only after playing by the rules and experiencing a number of successes
established the credibility to move their agendas forward. This observation is an
important one as it reflects an occurrence common to many grassroots change efforts.
Prior to spearheading major changes individuals and groups first build credibility within

122
their organizations while in many cases also bolstering support for their efforts
externally. Once these individuals and groups establish themselves, build connections,
and make a name for themselves, they are more able to move forward their
transformative agenda(s). Because of their track-records, it appears from the data that Dr.
Galvan and Mr. Martinez were often taken seriously about their ideas for change.
Dr. Galvan and Mr. Martinez also shared a common history and investment in
producing change at all costs as each of them is Latino and understands marginalization
on a personal level. In different ways each of them learned how to deal with the obstacles
of the college and how to overcome them in the name of change. The primary vehicle for
each of these change agents was their ability to raise funds which allowed them the
ability to try and move forward their agendas. Their networking outside of the
Meadowbrier community was also useful in helping their diversity related efforts.
Ultimately as will later be described in more detail each of the men experienced
disappointment related to their transformative efforts and was forced to abandon their
diversity related change efforts.
There are also other examples of how diversity was supported by less heroic
figures and in more collaborative ways. It appears some of these efforts are more
recognized than others, however in the end whether formal or not their intention is to
serve and encourage racial diversity and change at Meadowbrier. A first broad but
significant example of how change related to race and diversity occurs at Meadowbrier is
teaching. There are a number of younger and some not so young faculty who understand
the importance of race in society and in some cases have experienced marginalization in

123
their own lives. Consequently these are the faculty members who have classes, as one
Sociology Professor recounted, that teach their students to question issues such as white
privilege in society. Other faculty engage their students in conversations about
marginalization and during one observation the class was dedicated to thinking about and
discussing the meaning of racial diversity and whether or not it exists on campus. Still
other faculty members introduce classes related to traditionally marginalized groups such
as women and Chicanos. Together and in small ways, these pedagogical practices
transmit some of the values and experiences of faculty to their students while
simultaneously chipping away at notions that protect and defend the status quo at
Meadowbrier.
Another example of the behind the scenes type of support for change related to
racial diversity comes from a mid-level administrator, Pauline Walker, who started a
yearly Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. oratorical contest. Each year for over half a decade, she
has organized an opportunity for students to speak on themes such as “Let Us Dream
Again” at the campus auditorium. The focus of this contest is to honor Dr. King and
provide students an opportunity to discuss the issues Dr. King brought to light including
social justice and civil rights for all people. While this event is not very large and was
only mentioned by Pauline Walker, it provides an example of the small ways
organizational support for racial diversity takes place at Meadowbrier. Thus in addition to
formal and well recognized programs intended to support and produce change related to
improving diversity at Meadowbrier, there are also quite less formal forms of change that
happen throughout the campus.

124
A broad overview of the data portrays organizational change at Meadowbrier as
being slow, inhibited by resources, and in most cases directly obstructed by a core group
of gate-keeping faculty—the Religious Elders. As illustrated in this section, examples of
effective organizational change at Meadowbrier are the result of multiple factors. The
first is change derived from the patience, persistence, and experience of administrators
who have developed methods for working around organizational practices which limit
transformation such as consensus. Another way change occurs is as the result of external
funding and resources which assist in bringing change to fruition. Other significant
transformations have occurred as the result of shifting demographics as well as the
targeted efforts of a few unique change agents and their supporting groups. Contrary to
the rhetoric that suggests this organization embraces organizational change related to
increasing and improving racial diversity, there is evidence in the data to illustrate change
on this campus is limited and happens in spite of a host of obstacles which have been
described.
Finally, to conclude this section which describes how organizational change
occurs at Meadowbrier, it is a good point to address one of the initial research questions
of this study: Is organizational change related to racial diversity treated differently from
other change efforts? In responding to this question the data were analyzed in ways that
sought to identify differences in the treatment of mainstream change efforts and those
related to racial diversity. The findings suggest there is no significant difference in how
this form of change is approached. Overall, most forms of change are resisted by the
same campus stakeholders and in the same ways described in this section. Similarly the

125
data show that effective changes were supported through the same means as discussed in
this section. Hence, there is little ascertainable difference in how organizational change
related to racial diversity is treated. However, as will be described in the following
sections, what is worthy of attention is how racial diversity is treated on the campus
overall. While the campus is clearly resistant to most transformative interventions, there
also exists a subtle and nuanced range of ways in which racial diversity is treated on the
campus. So while the study was not useful in identifying differences specific to how
organizational change related to diversity occurs, because of its critical lens this study did
succeed in shedding light on practices related to the treatment of race.

Unpacking Schein’s Multiple Organizational Layers

This section of the chapter is dedicated to situating where organizational change
occurs and expressly to deconstructing the different layers that impact how change
happens. According to Schein’s (1985) multi-layered model of organizations which was
introduced early on to guide this study, organizations consist of multiple layers. It is these
layers that determine the depth and efficacy of organizational change as each layer
represents a part of the organization. On the outer layer is the rhetoric or the espoused
theories related to change. Beneath the outer-layer are the organizational principles which
tend to govern what changes get made and which are consistent with the organizational
norms. At the very center of the organization lie the core values and beliefs, including
prejudices, of individuals which ultimately determine if, when, and how well
organizational change will be received. By organizing the data to reflect these levels in
this section I illustrate the gaps between what is promoted about race and diversity by the

126
college versus the practices and values of individuals manifested in everyday institutional
outcomes and policies. This section also serves to name practices which support or
obstruct race-related organizational change and in effect addresses how it is
organizational change occurs on this campus.

Surface Level Rhetoric
The current rhetoric related to racial diversity at Meadowbrier is one which
contends racial diversity is an integral part of the institution and a core value celebrated
by all throughout campus. This is a place where racial “diversity is a big part of what we
do” and where “students who embrace that who celebrate diversity are going to be a good
match.” In some cases referred to as “college promotional discourse” (Urciuoli, 2003),
such rhetoric or language is intended to communicate to the public how an organization
wants to be perceived. Terms such as excellence, leadership, and diversity underpin
organizational vocabularies constructed to promote specific notions. In relation to racial
diversity this is problematic since, in some cases, espoused values such as a deep
appreciation for diversity are different from organizational practices.
A useful example of the rhetoric espoused by Meadowbrier related to racial
diversity is an article written by the president last year titled “When Your Campus
Tradition is Diversity”. In this article President Fields expounds upon the virtues of her
campus and her personal commitment for racial equality. She explains, “For most of my
professional life in colleges and universities I have worked to recruit a more diverse
faculty and student body and to create a salutary environment to assure their

127
success…[At Meadowbrier] I saw first-hand and for the first time what I had been aiming
for.” She goes on to note the depth and significance of racial diversity at Meadowbrier in
the following quote:
Colleges and universities all over America seek the educational
environment that [Meadowbrier] provides: an exciting culture of diversity,
where students and faculty cross boundaries of race, ethnicity, class,
religion and nationality on a daily basis, and develop the skills and
confidence to learn from, work with, and ultimately lead others. But what
I notice, as a new member of the [Meadowbrier] community, is that here
diversity is background. It is so prevalent that it is woven into the fabric of
our institution; it is inseparable from our culture, and herein lies the key to
our success.

In this article President Fields goes on to explain how exactly this college became
so diverse and shares her lessons with others. She first attributes their diversity to the
“distinctive educational philosophy framed by our [religious] founders 120 years ago”
who, “enrolled a diverse student body that challenged each member to listen to the
disparate voices of others and to learn about commonality through difference.” As a
result, their “long-held values” have driven their “strategic decisions and an unwavering
belief in the educational benefits of diversity.” If a campus does not have such a rich
history the president recommends colleges, “create your story now and build on it.”
Building on this she suggests the importance of students encountering difference
everywhere on campus including in their courses. One way of accomplishing this is by
having a diverse faculty like Meadowbrier’s which is said to be “over one-third …people
of color” who serve as role models. Obtaining such a faculty can be accomplished by
“taking advantage of the generosity of external foundations, early retirement programs,
course development funds, and happenstance to build the diversity of our offerings and…

128
faculty.” Another suggestion related to racial diversity is to “aim high in seeking a
diverse student body”, as President Fields notes her campus has over 42 percent self-
identified minorities which reflect their diversity goals. Included in these students are
Latinos recruited outside of California. And she notes:
Not content with our enviable 28 percent Latino population, we are busy
recruiting students of Cuban descent from Miami, Puerto Rican descent from New
York, and immigrants from anywhere in between. And we won’t be satisfied until
students from all backgrounds feel the comfort that comes from a reasonable
critical mass.

Finally, President Fields concludes her article by pointing out that achieving their level of
diversity has been expensive, and that this is an ideal place of institutions to invest their
resources. If they could afford it, all colleges could afford it. “Achieving the aims of
diversity is a process. It starts by placing diversity in the foreground, with commitment
and with visibility, and ultimately it just becomes a part of what you are.”
Other organizational rhetoric comes in the form of speeches and a number of
campus publications. Many documents emphasize a value for “academic excellence,
diverse cultural perspectives, community, connections, and a transformational
educational experience.” Overall this same message is communicated in a host of ways.
One publication the college funded as part of their branding campaign identified their
distinctive attributes, credible promises, and communication touchpoints. Included in
these was a statement about their commitment to student diversity which asserts their
geographic location “creates unique opportunities for learning about and experiencing
different cultures. “We are proud that our student body reflects geographical trends by

129
attracting, serving, and embracing a strong segment of Latino students, as well as other
groups.”
One clear impression resulting from the data is that campus constituents have
learned the public rhetoric about diversity and they use similar talking points when
describing the culture and its values. Words like community, diversity, and religious are
often heard. The president in particular is deft at promoting the rhetoric of diversity as
illustrated publically on a number of occasions. There is no evidence to suggest these
comments are inconsistent with her personal values, on the contrary, the point here is that
these remarks are consistent with the larger institutional message that is often promoted
about racial diversity. For example, at the yearly African-American Graduation
Ceremony the president spoke fervently about the success of the college in “achieving
diversity” and about their “abolitionist history”. She referenced the college’s history and
religious tradition of “acceptance of all people” and noted their emphasis on being “a
community of equality for all people, of diversity, and respect for each other.” She made
the point that Meadowbrier was ahead of its time in producing more than one African-
American Rhodes Scholars in its history.
Such statements are powerful and relevant to this study as they communicate a
deep commitment to racial equality and justice on the campus. By some accounts this
example illustrates an important message communicated by a president who took the time
to attend this event and acknowledged this segment of Meadowbrier’s student population.
Through her references to the past and awareness of the accomplishments of African-

130
Americans on campus and throughout their history, President Field’s actions served to
confirm her devotion and appreciation for racial diversity at Meadowbrier.
Another more race-conscious way of looking at this scenario operates at a deeper
level, and again does not call into question the Presidents’ personal values as much as it
might focus attention on her words and the actions taken to support those assertions. As
noted in previous chapters this type of rhetoric, or the Theories-in-Use and Espoused
Theories promote and protect the image of the organization while simultaneously
protecting the status quo from changing their practices. In this example, the assertion was
that African-Americans have a rich and successful history on this campus. Often,
however, such practices result in disconnected rhetoric and actions. In the case of the
African-American graduation ceremony, the president made her comments to only five
African-American students and their families out of over three hundred graduating
students. The miniscule size of this group depicts a gap between the president’s fervent
words about the significance of race at Meadowbrier and the institutional reality of severe
under-representation for African Americans. As one faculty member pointed out, the only
real type of racial diversity that exists on the campus is the representation of Latinos,
others including the representation of African-American students remains a serious
concern. Therefore, to significantly examine race and racial diversity honestly there is
value to closely scrutinizing surface level language and the outcomes served by such
messages. While an African-American graduation ceremony is not an ideal place to
discuss the under- representation of this population, it is an opportunity for a celebration
of the past and honest commentary about current efforts to continue growing and serving

131
this group of organizational stakeholders. From a Critical Race Theory perspective,
perpetuating only positive notions about the historical successes of African-American
students at Meadowbrier is dishonest and misses an opportunity to challenge the status
quo.
A close analysis of other examples of campus rhetoric and actions serves to
further illustrate differences between what is said about racial diversity and what is
actually done. This analysis also speaks to one of the driving research questions in this
study: Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity at Meadowbrier differ from
organizational practices, attitudes, and beliefs? President Fields’ article alone provides
sufficient evidence to respond to this question as it is contains a number of
inconsistencies. Prior to elaborating on the contradictions within the data, it should be
noted that this article was published after interviews for this study had ended. Therefore
there was no opportunity to follow-up with the President about contradictions in her
article which put into question the authenticity of her remarks and point to why
organizational rhetoric related to race and diversity can be problematic. The first
contradiction of note is the explanation the president gives for Meadowbrier’s diversity.
While it is true she has an established track record of seeking and promoting racial
diversity at institutions where she has worked, in the article she appears to credit
Meadowbrier for intentionally pursuing their racial diversity. This assertion cuts against
previous explanations President Fields provided about their diversity. While she
attributes their success in diversifying the campus to their religious heritage and
“distinctive educational philosophy”, when interviewed prior to writing the article she

132
explained their diversity was due partially to their religious values and another part was
largely a byproduct of Mr. Oscar Martinez’s efforts.
A colorblind interpretation of these contradictions might justify this as a smart
and useful account related to their diversity. For the sake of the article and their public
image some might argue it wise to write about their diversity in ways that showcases
Meadowbrier’s strengths and accomplishments related to diversity on a national scale.
From a CRT standpoint this contradiction is problematic for a number of reasons.
First, the portrayal of diversity as an intentional “decision” made by Meadowbrier is
misleading, inaccurate, and not supported by the institution’s history or data. The goal in
this observation is not to denounce these inaccuracies but rather to seek transparency
related to racial diversity. As noted repeatedly in the following sections, diversity at
Meadowbrier was not an intentional effort, although to be fair it is appreciated by some
parts of campus. Failing to mention the role of Mr. Martinez in Meadowbrier’s
diversification is also not consistent with previous explanations given by the president
about their diversity. Practically speaking it is not feasible to include details of their
diversity such as the role played by Mr. Martinez in all descriptions and accounts of
campus diversity. However, there is also little value to Meadowbrier’s credibility when
President Fields communicates different and inconsistent accounts of their campus
diversity. Again, the concern is about transparency related to diversity.
Furthermore, the strategic decisions that have been made at Meadowbrier that
have impacted racial diversity do not appear to have been out of sheer commitment to
racial justice and what the president referred to as “an unwavering belief in the

133
educational benefits of diversity.” Instead, some of the data can be interpreted in ways
that suggest the driving force behind the decision to increase student enrollments was
financial stability. During the past decade, one of the previous presidents and
administrations of the college decided to increase student enrollment. One professor
explains this occurrence:
…we went from 900 students or something like that, to 1300 students in
the 1990s. The administration did it. They hired an admissions director
who did it. That changed the composition of the student body, changed the
diversity dynamics, and also pulled in a whole bunch of money for the
faculty to spend, with a lot more positions for the faculty to make use of in
their departments, so that wasn’t any…under any influence of the faculty
as far as I know, but it has brought some changes that the faculty has had
to adjust to in terms of caliber of students and types of students and so
forth.

Clearly the faculty member in question did not seem overtly happy about this decision. If
anything, he blamed the administration and reflected a common notion communicated by
some faculty about racial diversity being problematic and affecting “the caliber” of their
students. During one focus group one person explained that to many faculty members
campus diversification has meant accepting students they consider to be of inferior
quality and lacking preparation. Missing from these comments and reactions to
Meadowbrier’s increased diversity is the professed religious value for “equality of all
people” written about in the President’s article or the excitement for diversity as part of
the fabric of their culture.
Another comment about Meadowbrier’s increased diversity and their fiscal
motivations which also speaks to what the president referred to as the campuses’ “long-
held values” is explained by another member of the faculty:

134
We have a strategic relationship to our environment that has given rise to a
number of things, and one of the things that I think has been most critical
is in the ‘80s. In order to survive, we went to what we might call a …grant
survival strategy and we did not decide that because of our Religious
values we were going to have a more diverse student body.That was
purely an artifact of a …grant survival strategy…in which …grant eligible
people or people with a B average, a solid record, ready to take advantage
of what we’re offering[were admitted], and a high percentage of them
were Latinos and this shaped who we are and we have responded to that,
but that was not a reflection at all of faculty values and it was not …a
reflection of the values of the dean … it was an artifact of something that
not many of us saw there being many alternatives to. A lot of us valued the
consequence, but it’s not an expression of our values or anybody else’s…

This statement is extremely important in illustrating the need to shed light on the
differences between organizational rhetoric and actual practices and behaviors. This
example rejects the assertion by the President that diversity is an integral value of the
faculty and her campus and instead paints them in more opportunistic light. In bold terms
this professor spoke about why decisions were made that diversified the campus and
explained these were not “strategic decisions” aimed at increasing diversity or a
manifestation of their values as the President claimed in her article. In light of this quote,
the notion that at Meadowbrier diversity is truly a central value and that it is “in the
foreground, with commitment and with visibility” becomes much more difficult to
believe.
Perhaps a more constructive explanation of this campus’s value for diversity
comes from another campus constituent who said: it would be
nice to be able to say that the diversity is in some way caused by that [their value
for diversity], but I don’t know that that has been a driving force, but I think that
maybe the values have made diversity here work better.

135
Thus, there is indeed an appreciation for the diversity by some campus members however
achieving campus diversity was not an intentional objective which is once again
important to acknowledge.
Another example of what seems to be a less than accurate statement from the
President’s article is the assertion that at Meadowbrier they “aim high in seeking
diversity”. As previously noted, their diversification was not an intentional objective and
the data illustrate the somewhat accidental and coincidental nature of increased racial
diversity at Meadowbrier. In terms of recruitment efforts, there may be a new focus on
diversifying the existing diversity as stated by the President in her article, however
overall there were few active diversity efforts being undertaken by the office of
admissions when they were interviewed for this study. Like many other colleges, they
recruited at their local high schools, many of which are populated by high numbers of
Latino students. In addition they have a member of their staff who monitors diversity
numbers throughout their recruitment and admissions process. Otherwise, they have
translated their financial aid website into Spanish. It bears noting that faculty and
administrators publically recognized their need and desire to increase their African-
American, Asian, and Native American student representation. Although the data do not
indicate specific reasons they are not more successful in these efforts, it is possible these
outcomes might also be affected by their fiscal constraints.
A final example of a contradiction within Meadowbrier’s diversity rhetoric relates
to the President’s assertion that “diversity is expensive.” In her article she notes that in
order to have successful racial diversity there is a need to invest in it. However, at

136
Meadowbrier each of the different diversity related efforts was funded with external grant
funding. In certain cases there were limited contributions from Meadowbrier which often
took the form of non-financial resources such as committee time and designated
personnel to manage the projects. But as noted previously by a member of the
Meadowbrier community, effective change on this campus is directly related to resources
and funding. Therefore President Fields is right in suggesting to colleges they take
advantage of external resources such as grants which she does mention in her article.
However, her advice to others about investing in the creation of diversity is somewhat
questionable as there is little evidence that this has genuinely occurred at Meadowbrier.
In fact, some interview data suggest there have been opportunities to fund certain
diversity related efforts such as Mr. Martinez’s former programs but failed to do so.
Certain programs designed to “ expand knowledge and awareness of Latino culture,
language, and history through a variety of events and activities… provide academic and
career resources, as well as financial aid guidance and overall emotional support,
primarily to first-generation Latino students” represent practices that support and
perpetuate diversity on campus. However, these programs were not invested in after Mr.
Martinez’s departure.
All of the examples provided thus far represent existing gaps between the
espoused campus rhetoric at Meadowbrier and their organizational actions related to race
and diversity. While these are only some of the contradictions contained in President
Fields’ letter, they suffice in communicating why such gaps are problematic. One campus
stakeholder explains this phenomenon aptly in the following way:

137
[the rhetoric about diversity] it’s convenient, because it’s a part of the political
and social milieu, it’s a way to promote the endowment and economic
development and fundraising efforts, and it’s also a way to make yourself feel
good about bringing forth one or more [diversity] initiatives…you know, they
claim to in terms of the current administration.

This response to a question about what Meadowbrier espouses about racial diversity
speaks to many important points. First it explains the multiple functions such rhetoric
serves. It is a practical and convenient organizational move intended to assist politically
and financially. So much so that it appears to be an accepted and inherent part of the
broader campus culture or “social milieu.” Supporting this explanation is the notion of
political correctness and the pressure to appear diverse at all costs. This is a relevant
consideration in thinking about the disconnect between their rhetoric and actions related
to racial diversity and helps explain how it is organizational stakeholders feel compelled
to promote certain campus images. Most important about the previous quote is the
statement about the rhetoric of diversity producing personal satisfaction. This comment is
extremely important to this study as it speaks to an organizational practice that is driven
by individuals such as the Meadowbrier administrators who are compelled to promote
certain institutional notions because it affects them on an individual level. This example
reflects many of the organizational change theories raised in previous chapters which
explain organizational actions as being ego-driven and influenced by the personal values
of individuals. The following portion of this chapter will further illustrate the gap
between diversity related rhetoric and action at Meadowbrier as it deals directly with the
treatment of race and racial diversity. Simultaneously, this section will explore the next

138
level of an organization, its mid-section, which is comprised of its actions, practices, and
beliefs.

The Middle Organizational Layer: Actions, Practices, and Beliefs about Racial Diversity
Identifying how race and racial diversity are treated at Meadowbrier is an
important goal of this study. Only by understanding these practices can we begin to
understand organizational change processes aimed at producing and sustaining racial
diversity within colleges and universities. Identifying specific practices which support or
obstruct race and race-related efforts also sheds light on how effective and long-lasting
transformative interventions can occur. What follows is a visual representation of some
of the ways racial diversity was approached within this organization.

Vaguely
Defined

Problematized

Marginalized

Manipulated

Commodified

Genuinely
Valued

Beginning with the vague definition of racial diversity and ending in a deep-rooted value
for racial diversity, this spectrum organizes the data in such a way that illustrates nuanced
organizational practices that affect race and diversity and that are often overlooked.
These examples also highlight ways in which practices related to diversity differ from the
surface level rhetoric. As will become evident, contrary to the singular espoused
Religious value of respect for “all people” and “diverse perspectives”, there actually exist
a host of ways diversity is treated at Meadowbrier.

139
Diversity is Vaguely Defined
A first and important way in which race and matters of racial diversity are treated
at Meadowbrier is with ambiguity. As noted in a previous chapter in dealing with matters
of race, language is important. Bonilla-Silva names vague language as a practice that
protects and preserves the status quo from transformation. Evidence of this at
Meadowbrier relates to how the term diversity is used. In spite of the well orchestrated
sound bites that exist about this college, one administrator explains there is “no consensus
about what diversity means.” Broadly speaking, it is not unusual to have multiple
understandings about diversity as it can represent a number of things. Nationally, there
are various segments of society which the law protects from discrimination based on
traits such as gender, religion, race, disability, and sexual preference to name a few. All
of these groups comprise diversity writ large, however on an organizational level,
institutions often take it upon themselves to define and own what this term means to
them. Where ambiguity becomes problematic is in contexts such as Meadowbrier’s which
celebrate being “diverse”, however fail to clearly articulate or consistently define what
they mean when they use the term diversity.
While recognized nationally as one of the most racially diverse colleges of its
type, Meadowbrier uses the word diversity in vague and loose ways. Data from a focus
group of students asked about racial diversity on their campus produced mixed results.
There were students who said “there is every type of race in the classes and living areas”
at Meadowbrier, and others who replied “there is no diversity here.” Hence there is
confusion about what racial diversity is depending on who you ask. This confusion is a

140
potentially dangerous element to effectively and honestly dealing with issues such a
racial marginalization because just as you cannot change what you cannot see, you also
cannot address what you have not defined. Supporting this point, one faculty member
raised the following point: “The thing about diversity to me here has been that… people
have said, OK, you’ve got a really diverse student body, so what does that mean?”
Furthermore, one minority organizational stakeholder explains there are no
opportunities for substantial discussions to define racial diversity and what it means at
Meadowbrier, there is no “place for that.” Adding to this, one professor well known for
his involvement with race-related matters explained that as an organization, “Diversity is
something we haven’t thought about.”As a result, there exist a number of unclear and
ambiguous definitions of diversity on the campus, and each of these can be conveniently
used to suit the purposes and intentions of their users. Consequently, this ambiguity about
what diversity actually means represents multiple problems. First the loose interpretation
of this significant term allows it to be manipulated and contributes to the disconnect
between rhetoric and action related to race. On a deeper level, this haziness represents a
campus-wide identity crisis identified in their campus image study and which undermines
the validity of any claims made by this organization about genuinely valuing and serving
minority populations.
Historically, the term underrepresented minorities which differs from the term
diversity, originated out of the Civil Rights Era. It refers specifically to racial groups kept
at the margins of mainstream society including African-Americans, Latinos, and Native
Americans. This concept recognizes these groups have not enjoyed the same social

141
power, privileges, and opportunities as other segments of society. Today different groups
use the term in different ways depending on their goals and agendas. Diversity, as
previously noted, can be understood broadly to encompass race, ethnicity, socio-
economics, sexual preference, religious and cultural differences, as well as differing
forms of thought. In many cases organizations such as non-profit foundations concerned
about issues of social justice and equality include racial minorities in their definitions of
diversity, as they have experienced disadvantages and discrimination due to their racial
and ethnic identities and add divergent perspectives to the societies in which they live.
At Meadowbrier the term diversity is used differently to serve different purposes.
One administrator described their diversity as, “diverse opinions, ideas, backgrounds, and
diversity, some of that is ethnicity and of course some of it is other things as well.”
Another high ranking administrator, aware of the typical social justice meaning of
diversity, said she began with the definition used by one of their largest funding agents,
which included “underrepresented minorities, which would be Latino, African-American,
and Native American.” However because of the lack of a fixed understanding of the term
this administrator was also able to take license related to who counted as part of racial
diversity in certain programs. In her explanation of her broad interpretation of diversity at
Meadowbrier this administrator conveys the conflicts and confusion related to the term
on this campus. Specifically she addresses concerns the campus community has about
limiting the term racial diversity to traditionally underrepresented groups (Latino,
African-American, and Native American).
I think on the one hand people understood that [the traditional civil rights
based definition of racial diversity], on the other hand I think that there

142
were concerns about…looking at our student demographics, should we
only be focusing on those groups? So on the one hand I think people were
saying, ‘Yes, we understand they’re underrepresented. We have
students…Latino students that we need…but there are other kinds of
students that we have here.’ We do have a fair number of Middle Eastern
students and we do have not very many Native American students and we
do have a fair number of Asian students and the largest group of…I mean,
the largest group is white, the next is Latino, and then I think probably
other that is a mix of…I mean, maybe whites who don’t want to identify,
but I think from looking at surnames, …it’s kids with Hispanic surnames,
but who’s mothers are white and really identify with more than one
culture. It’s probably kids like my daughter who is Asian, but was raised
white, you know.

The tone of this quote alone illustrates the sense of confusion and tension caused by the
lack of consensus about the definition of diversity at Meadowbrier. While this
administrator knows the Civil Rights based definition of racial diversity, she is clearly
challenged by the campus and its desire to define diversity more broadly. In explaining
the confusion surrounding this term, this administrator refers back to their religious
values to justify their desire to expand how diversity is defined:
We use that broader definition and I don’t know that anybody made that
decision as much as…well, let me say that differently. I think that that’s
probably always been the definition here because of its [religious]
heritage, but you know, we want people from different backgrounds,
however that’s defined.

The problem with this interpretation of diversity at Meadowbrier is that that term loses
much of its power and significance and begins to serve as a catch-all term with little
depth. Consequently it becomes a deceptive term that serves as interesting organizational
rhetoric but in reality has limited practical implications. As a result of the lack of
commitment and definition of diversity illustrated by phrases such as “however that’s
defined”, the prospects of organizational change related to racial diversity are diminished.

143
It is difficult to support race-related or diversity driven efforts at a campus unwilling to
clarify their understanding of what racial diversity is or means. For example, the issue
becomes who should receive attention or resources aimed at supporting diversity. Under
the current definition, most of the campus qualifies making it impossible to target efforts
on groups who might be in need of remediation or additional assistance due to historical
marginalization or a lack of opportunities. While this version of diversity may be
consistent with Meadowbrier’s religious roots, it does not reflect positively on one of the
most racially diverse campuses of its kind to refrain from a concretely defined notion of
racial diversity. If any campus should have such a clear understanding about racial
diversity, it should be one considered a role-model in this area.

Diversity is Problematized

Another treatment of racial diversity at Meadowbrier worthy of attention is that it
is problematized. In spite of the public rhetoric espousing a deep value for diversity and
being one of the most racially diverse institutions of its type, racial diversity is treated as
a burden by some members of this college. Behind the unwavering commitment to
honoring different voices lie a number of complaints about Meadowbrier’s diversity.
Faculty, administrators, and even the president note that being diverse has been
problematic. Some of the challenges resulting from diversity include retention issues, a
perceived reduction in the quality of students, and increased financial burdens.
One of the Religious Elders explains, “there’s a downside” to diversity which is
evident in their freshman retention rates. According to this professor, the institutional
research data on retention indicate, “diversity is the problem, or one of the problems,

144
because the people who come here who aren’t looking forward to a diverse experience
are not quite accepting of that experience and they leave.” Although minorities and
especially Latinos graduate at extremely high rates, according to this professor, diversity
is off-putting to certain segments of the undergraduate population. In jeopardy are white
males who are often part of a group known as POW’s or pay their own way students.
Typically, these are students from out of state who can afford to pay their tuition without
financial aid from the college. Many of these students have a history of not persisting for
a number of reasons and one administrator commented many of these students had
different ideas about what Meadowbrier would be like or that they would get to
participate more in campus athletics programs such as lacrosse.
To avoid such reactions related to diversity, Meadowbrier is careful about its
recruitment efforts. One high level administrator from the Office of Admission noted:
We don’t like in our presentations as an example, in talking about
diversity, we rarely specifically mention that we’re an HSI, and that the
majority of our students are Latino students. For no particular reason, but
we do talk about diversity and our overall numbers being 43 percent and
us nationally being ranked as one of the top five schools for diversity for
small liberal arts colleges.

Thus racial diversity is communicated in less specific terms to avoid problems. This
administrator explains diversity “is a sensitive subject.” As such he notes,
“You have to be careful who you are talking to”:
You may be talking to a kid, a White kid from boarding school… who has
certain ideas in their head about Latino students. When they get here that
will be completely changed…and they’ll understand it, they’ll embrace it,
but you don’t want to scare them away initially, especially mom and
dad… You have to be careful with that.

145
Because of Meadowbrier’s extreme resource dependence, they are very cautious about
the messages they put out. They feel they literally cannot afford to scare away students
by discussing their diversity during the recruitment process and sounding “too diverse”
which the administrator noted could be a problem. As the administrator explained,
preconceived notions people have about certain areas and populations can deter
prospective students. Hidden in the comments made by this administrator was an
interesting contradiction. In discussing the challenges posed by racial diversity, he
mentioned they rarely discuss their HSI status “for no particular reason.” However, as he
progressed in explaining their problems related to racial diversity he admitted their
caution and hesitation is related to how others react if and when they understand the
extent of their diversity.
Other concerns over racial diversity as a problem come directly from the faculty
who claim diversity at Meadowbrier is “hard work.” They assert that often some of their
minority students are underprepared for their classes or in need of a lot of hands on
attention. Many of these are not students who were at the top of their classes in high
school, and for many of them Meadowbrier represents one of their only opportunities for
higher education. One professor recounts a recent incident during a test he was
administering: “A student came to me during the test with a question” and she asked,
‘what does briefly mean?.. wow, this was just a basic English word, briefly.” Another
faculty member notes she had to spend much more time working with students including
teaching them writing skills which she had not expected to do:
I was used to much better prepared students. I was just shocked at…my
syllabus was so inappropriate I can’t even begin to explain. Too much

146
reading, they couldn’t keep up with the reading. I was absolutely unclear
what to do about the writing. It had much more to do with class and what
school district they came out of you know. So, there was a really
profound adjustment in terms of, you had to think differently about skills.
You had to think differently about…you had to teach, you just couldn’t
present information, and so it was a rude awakening because I thought I
was pretty good. I thought I knew what was going on. I had a lot of
teaching experience coming in, and all of a sudden it was like full
stops…wait a minute…what’s going on. None of this works. I have to
figure out how to teach them how to write. I’m not a comp teacher. I
really had to do that, it was like copy edit for God sake, or your thesis is
weak, not you don’t have one…from a senior. So that was an adjustment.
I wasn’t used to that.

This quote is important for a number of reasons. Aside from illustrating the challenges
faced by the faculty, the professor makes an important distinction. She explains the lack
of preparedness as a consequence of class differences. This theme is common at
Meadowbrier and often gets conflated with issues of racial diversity. Part of the
problematic nature of diversity described by a number of Meadowbrier constituents relate
to class more than racial or ethnic identity. However, this differentiation is not often
articulated and consequently the impact of socio-economic issues is many times
characterized as a problem of racial diversity.
A final way diversity is seen as a problem at Meadowbrier is related to finances.
According to President Fields, being a Hispanic Serving Institution is a fiscal constraint
for them. She says, “the truth of the matter is, it’s more of a financial drain than it is a
help… because we’re giving out a whole lot more aid than we would if we were not an
HSI.” While the President went on to affirm her appreciation for their diversity, her point
about its fiscal implications is an important one. “So … it’s nice to have it because we
want to be this institution anyway, but it’s not as though it’s terribly helpful. We certainly

147
could use more aid because our students are… taking out too much in loans.” This
concern is especially significant at this institution due to its limited resources.
One professor explained his concerns about admitting diverse students were not
about race but instead, “it has to do more with economics. I think a lot of are really
worried that the students in the demographic we’re serving right now are going into deep
and profound debt in order to be here.” According to one campus source 86% of their
students receive some form of financial aid and student loans are very difficult to get.
Therefore, as the professor noted, part of their moral dilemma is embracing their HSI
identity while reconciling the harsh reality of what their lack of funding for increased
student financial aid means. They are just not that “big-time” and as a result he asks how
can they have a number of “poor” students and be “an elite, expensive liberal arts college
in a world that can’t afford that?” Supporting this problem is the fact that Meadowbrier is
recognized nationally as one of the institutions of its type where students incur the most
student loan debt. Because of their low endowment, they are not capable of subsidizing
students like other colleges do. Therefore as one professor said, “we love them for
wanting to be here, but I think we’re really worried that we haven’t planned for them to
be here…”
Exacerbating this fiscal burden is the fact that Meadowbrier is not at all successful
with their development efforts. One administrator, quite supportive of their racial
diversity, explains how it is also one of their economic weaknesses. She explains:
…because of our [religious] values, we’ve educated a lot of teachers and
preachers and people involved in community service who aren’t going out
and making the big bucks and aren’t giving multimillion dollar gifts. I
think because of our long-standing commitment to access, we…that sort

148
of affects us on both sides. We put in a lot of our budget towards financial
aid and recruit people from families without a lot of money and that
affects us on the advancement side as well.

Although, this example once again conflates matters of “access” typically associated with
racial diversity and matters of socio-economic class, it raises an interesting point. There
is a notion at Meadowbrier that their high number of minorities, primarily Latinos, many
of whom are from working class backgrounds limits their fund-raising abilities. Also
suggested is that the liberal-arts emphasis of their curriculum in concert with their
religious values also limit their fiscal prospects. Therefore, in addition to serving as a
dangerous and off-putting organizational characteristic, racial diversity at Meadowbrier is
considered by some to be an expensive proposition which taxes human resources as well
as limited financial aid funds while also impeding prospective fundraising efforts.

Diversity is Marginalized

In exploring how racial diversity is treated at Meadowbrier as well as other
institutions of higher education, there is significant value to understanding the depth,
scope, and nature of marginalizing practices. As suggested earlier in this study, practices
of racial marginalization and racism have morphed since the Civil Rights era and now
often occur in seemingly innocuous ways. While instances of blatant racial discrimination
occur more rarely and racial segregation is illegal, new practices have emerged to take
their place. The data from this study illustrate a number of instances of racial
discrimination and marginalization at Meadowbrier. They range from simply not seeing
race, which is not considered problematic by some, to overt and blatant instances of
racism including racial epithets and profiling. What matters most about these incidents

149
aside from their existence is that they stand directly against Meadowbrier’s national
reputation as a leader in racial diversity and their communicated organizational values of
racial equality once again illustrating the gap between their words and actions.
A first way racial diversity is marginalized at Meadowbrier is the practice of
color-blindness, a relatively new concept related to the treatment of race made known by
Critical Race Theorists. As previously described, this notion suggests one way people
deal with race is by not seeing it at all and denying its existence. One example of how
color-blindness occurs at Meadowbrier comes from an interview with a Religious Elder.
When asked specifically about changes in the student make-up at Meadowbrier over the
past thirty years, this Professor said: “You know, in some ways the answer is yes, but I
don’t know that they’re in ways that are distinctive or dramatic.” This response overlooks
a number of changes in the students at Meadowbrier including significant shifts in racial
composition, socio-economic backgrounds, and academic preparedness, all factors
mentioned by other faculty who responded to the same question. He went on to explain
his answer:
I mean, students tend to treat the classroom more like they’re going to a
movie theater than they used to. There’s a little more of that kind of
dimension to it. You know, they feel like they can be comfortable getting
up and moving around more than they used to, but that’s…I think that’s
more a reflection of society-wide changes. You know, a lot of things have
changed in the United States in the last 30 years.

Not included in this response is any recognition of the changes in the faces and ethnic
backgrounds of the students he has taught over the years. Perhaps these were insinuated
in the part of his comment which noted many things had changed over the past thirty
years. When directly asked about changes related to racial diversity this professor

150
responded with hesitation and suggested that to him Meadowbrier has always been really
diverse, although he said he was not exactly sure what that meant. He went on to remark:
I think the way it works out well is it becomes invisible, that people don’t
notice it. It’s part of the world… we live in here and if you look at the
classrooms, you’ve got all these people from all these backgrounds and
that’s just how we are. So it’s not an issue because it’s a fact, and I think
the way it’s worked out is that it becomes not a big issue. I mean, …we
don’t even worry about it or think about it or really have to talk about it
because it actually… just works out with people’s interactions…people
just accept it and go on.

On the surface, many might interpret this professor’s comments as normal and
even as a positive comment about the diminishing need to see race in social settings such
as the academic classroom. Perhaps the fact that this professor did not raise the issue of
race in answering the question about how the college has changed over thirty years
suggests that he fully accepts diversity and it was not a consideration in his thinking
when he formulated his answer. This thinking asserts that not seeing race is actually a
positive trait as it is not made into an “issue.” Some suggest that when race is no longer
considered to be a matter that stands out it will become normalized and as a result related
disparities will also disappear. Indeed as the professor notes ‘it”, meaning race, is an
accepted part of their landscape and for this reason there is no need to focus attention on
it.
A Critical Race Theorist might interpret the professor’s comments differently
beginning with the fact that he did not speak the words race or diversity in his comments
and instead referred to diversity as it. His comments are also telling as they subtly
communicate a few of things. First, that racial diversity is not seen by some members of

151
the campus since as he states they don’t need to think about it or talk about it. To this
professor this seems like a positive trait to be construed as progress. However, to others,
minorities in particular, it is overlooking an important and valuable characteristic of
society and this organization. It is in essence denying their presence and reality. Also, the
tone of this professor’s comments about diversity seemed to treat diversity as something
to move past and not worthy of acknowledgment. As he stated, it was not something they
“even worry about” or have to talk about because people “just accept it and go on.”
Again, this can be understood many ways, including with an underlying sense that
diversity is a negative trait and not a strength. The next example illustrates the effects that
occur when careful attention is not paid to matters of racial diversity.
Another example of how subtle and unrecognized marginalization can be relates
to the treatment of the Hispanic/Latino population at Meadowbrier. Flying in the face of
the President’s celebration of being a Hispanic Serving Institution and “embracing” their
Latino campus population are practices which have affected Latinos at all levels of this
organization. Overall the interview data suggest this population feels they have been
overlooked, kept at the margins of the organization, and used to help maintain the
financial stability of the campus. There is no evidence of conscious organizational efforts
against this segment of campus, but rather through individual recollections of their
experiences a picture is painted of subtle instances of marginalization over the years. For
their part, the Hispanic/Latino community on campus has maintained a low profile on
campus in terms of voicing how they feel. Hesitantly, some members of this population

152
recounted a number of subtle and seemingly innocuous instances that have made them
feel frustrated.
Dr. Martinez and Professor Galvan are two examples of how Hispanics/Latinos
are treated on campus. As previously noted, each of these men was responsible for
contributing to Meadowbrier’s diversity and in particular helping attract resources. Mr.
Martinez for his part is well-regarded for his efforts in recruiting diversity, however when
interviewed he recounted his disappointment in the college. In spite of his efforts over
decades, and admitted reluctance to leave his position, Mr. Martinez was asked by the
former President to retire within the past decade. By some accounts this was not an
inappropriate request as he was considered a political “loose-cannon” because of his
feisty will and independent nature. At eighty years old, he also suffered from serious
health problems and thus agreed to leave. However, when he left, many of his diversity
efforts and initiatives ended which was exactly what he didn’t want and one reason he
stayed at the college so long. His disappointment and the agreement by others that he
was not treated as he should have been stem from the closure of his Center for Mexican
American Affairs. After years as a central resource for Hispanics/Latinos on campus this
center was replaced by a Campus Diversity Center which received limited funding and
attention according to more than a few minority campus constituents.
Professor Galvan also experienced disappointment at how he was treated at
Meadowbrier after close to three decades of service. He explains that he was both a
faculty member and high-level administrator for many years. After leading the college
through the HSI designation and obtaining a number of important diversity related grants

153
he was stripped of his position for political reasons. He explains he “asked to be cut back
from the teaching because it was too much. “They said no” then they took away the Title
V grant duties and still left him in charge of Advisement and the First Year Experience
programs. “…I literally felt like the rug was being pulled out from under me,” everything
he’d been working on related to advancing racial diversity including the Title V grant and
a number of [Diversity] projects became undone., … “ all the stuff that I had worked on
that was real important to me.” Prior to being stripped of his administrative duties and
being relegated to teaching he received warning from some of his colleagues about the
pending political changes. They told him, “You’re next. This is going to happen to you.
It’s going to be a matter of time and it’s not going to be nice.”
True to the warnings, Professor Galvan was removed from the administration
quietly under the veil of political changes and with little explanation. When he stood up
for himself and asked Dean Simms if she understood the implications of her actions he
received a disappointing response. According to him he asked her, “Do you realize
you’re removing the senior Latino administrator and the consequences this is going to
have for the students?”… “That’s a very serious thing,” to which she simply replied, “I
don’t see it that way.” It was at this point that Professor Galvan realized he felt used and
betrayed. After all of his efforts, he was left with the charge of establishing living-
learning communities which he had worked on since their inception and with grant
monies he helped raise. “And then …after having done that for two years, I felt like this
is nothing… they’re just getting this work out of me and it’s because I’m the only one
that can do it.” As a result of this realization, Dr. Galvan felt isolated as he was kept out

154
of any administrative decisions, and finally he decided, “I’m not going to do that
anymore.”
Other instances of Latino marginalization relate to staff members who in the
words of one person feel as though they have been “treated unfairly.” It should be noted
that although there was support and willingness to participate in this study, some of the
Latinos interviewed were concerned about voicing their experiences at Meadowbrier for
fear of potentially negative consequences. Although the demographic numbers suggest a
strong Hispanic/ Latino presence on the Meadowbrier campus, each of the Latino staff
members interviewed for this study expressed dissatisfaction about how they were
treated. In particular, these campus members described frustration at the lack of support
they received from the administration and of leadership decisions that were made. Many
of these examples speak directly to the subtle organizational practices which have the
effect of making groups feel as they are treated differently because of their ethnic and
racial identities. Again, as will be seen in the following examples, these are seemingly
innocuous organizational actions which bring with them deeper implications and
outcomes.
A first point of frustration for this population is what one person refers to as “the
façade of inclusion” and diversity that exists on campus. This is the practice which
misleads people to believe in the strength of diversity at Meadowbrier. In reality, this
population feels ignored and disappointed because “there is no substance behind many of
the diversity related gestures made on campus, such as having a minority keynote speaker
at graduation.” On other less public occasions when events are sponsored by

155
Hispanic/Latino students or the Diversity Center, the campus does not turn out to their
events. One event raised as an example of how and why Latinos felt they were quietly
marginalized was a well publicized visit by a prominent speaker discussing a significant
historical occurrence. According to one of the organizers of the event, they were
extremely embarrassed with their dismal turnout. However, other cultural events such as
a yearly campus Luau garner much more attention. When asked about what measure they
take to raise their concerns and be heard on campus one person explained, “we don’t even
have the language to begin to talk about … about difference and deal with
multiculturalism.” Thus for Latinos on campus who feel marginalized and don’t feel
heard there is a lack effective channels of communication and consequently they feel
little hope for change.
On a personal level, most of the Latinos interviewed for this study recounted
their personal instances of marginalization as well as the impact of limited finances on
their experiences. One person described total frustration having worked on campus and
witnessed first- hand the changes from when Mr. Martinez and his programs were active
to the current state of affairs related to minorities and diversity on campus. Aside from
helping minority students by providing programming support, a gathering space, and
guidance, this person noted the lack of resources, especially for Latinos. In her own
professional position, she was limited in terms of power and the ability to make decisions
and she had very little guidance to help the diversity center succeed. Due to her
dissatisfaction with how she was treated, and specifically what she considered to be the
lack of commitment to the diversity center, this person took a job at another college

156
where she could work with minority students more effectively in advancing their needs
and objectives.
Similarly, another Latino constituent decided to leave Meadowbrier because of
political conflicts, not receiving sufficient support from leadership, being overworked,
and used in ways that undermined other minorities and the diversity on campus. This
person directly involved with some of the diversity efforts noted there was just “lip
service” about diversity and that the only conversations had were old ones about access
which people at Meadowbrier can’t move beyond. In describing the need for
organizational change related to racial diversity, this minority constituent commented that
in spite of the image and reputation of Meadowbrier, “people don’t perceive there is work
to do” related to producing organizational change about race and sustaining diversity.
Such examples of frustration are detrimental to minority organizational stakeholders as
they are limited by their inability to make decisions or produce change. Furthermore,
these individuals are often quite committed to the cause of racial diversity and
educational equality for students and in exchange they are overworked are underpaid like
most campus members, however these individuals are kept at the margins of the
organization while having to listen to a less than accurate rhetoric about diversity.
A powerful testament to the feelings of many Hispanic/Latinos members of
campus is the following quote by a professor who elucidates a host of examples which
confirm the outsider status felt by this population:
I think it’s ludicrous for any institution to say that a core part of their
mission is in fact to support diversity and specifically Latinos as part of
that diversity when they have less than five percent of the total academic
population of faculty who are Latinos. It’s significantly higher in the

157
administrative ranks, but there is not a single Latino in a senior policy-
making position on this campus, period. And so if you’re asking what are
the two or three most significant indicators of our non-diversity, number
one is that is there a Latino or Latina, OK, in a policy-making position at
the senior executive level, the answer is no. OK. Do we have adequate
representation in terms of faculty, in terms of distribution of population,
the student population, the answer is no. Do we have a coordinated Latino
curriculum, the answer is no.

Clearly, this professor, like the other individuals included in this section, has given great
thought to the contradictions that exist around the Hispanic/Latino community and how
they are treated. This quote echoes the frustration and disappointment of others while
naming specific indicators of progress or lack thereof in serving this segment of the
campus community at Meadowbrier.
Another major point of contention for many Latinos on campus and example of
being marginalized within the organization is the treatment of the Diversity Center.
Originally, the Center for Mexican American Affairs, this center started by Mr. Martinez
was morphed into the Diversity Center in 2000 in an effort to serve all minority students
on campus. Doing away with the Center for Mexican American Affairs was
marginalizing to Hispanic/Latino students who previously had access to this center
created by Mr. Martinez to meet their unique cultural and academic needs and lend them
support during their years at Meadowbrier. Funded partially with grant money, and
otherwise underfunded due to a lack of resources from Meadowbrier, this center is now
intended to serve as an umbrella entity to meet the needs of all of Meadowbrier’s racially
diverse students. One reason a number of Latinos have felt marginalized is due to how
the administration has treated this center. First, it has continually been underfunded.
Second, until recently it has gone without a director for budgetary reasons, which also

158
communicates to some minorities on campus a lack of concern from the higher-ups.
Finally, to some, the designation of one mass center for diversity conveys a sense of
fragmentation from the rest of campus. Those who staff this center commented that
indeed this is where students go to sometimes feel safe or relate with others during times
when they might not feel comfortable elsewhere on campus.
Somewhat related to the Diversity Center is the marginalization of Latinos
students through student funding practices. One staff member explains that racism at
Meadowbrier is “compartmentalized” and because of this there is a lack of unity among
some minority groups as well as tensions with white students. Fueling these tensions is
the disbursement of campus funds by the student government. Each year a budget is set
by the student government and student groups apply for funds to sponsor their events.
One of the problems for Latino students is that they are not represented on the student
council which is primarily composed of white students. As a result, Latino students feel
they receive less funding than other organizations and events. Furthermore, these students
must make formal presentations before the student government explaining their cultural
events and during this process they are asked to explain and defend what are otherwise
considered significant cultural traditions such as the Day of the Dead. However, some of
the Latino students interviewed for this study suggested other campus groups did not
undergo the same levels of scrutiny to receive funds for their events.
Finally, while Meadowbrier advertises in its recruitment publications that it
“maintains a safe and welcoming college-environment distinctively its own” some
student experiences refute these claims and provide clear evidence of blatant racial

159
discrimination. In a letter to the editor one of a handful of new African-American
students writes about her experiences with prejudice. She writes that her transition to this
college was made more difficult due to unanticipated instances of racism which
contradicted the diverse images the college had communicated to her previously in their
publications. Unlike her previous home where she wrote, “I was used to being openly
discriminated against by Klansmen and other racists”, this college was supposed to be her
fresh start. Although she recognizes that most students are pleasant and disregard
ethnicities, she experienced a number of instances where students gave her suspicious
looks and moved their belongings away from her, or in one case a female student actually
looked at her and became what appeared to be frightened and walked away quickly until
she was a safe distance away. In the classroom she said some people are shocked when
she provides correct answers or makes intelligent remarks. Such instances are
troublesome at any institution, but particularly disconcerting at one that invests so much
time and energy in selling itself as a leader in diversity as Meadowbrier has done.
The climate regarding racism is especially challenging for minorities who
experience racism at Meadowbrier because of the campus wide assertion of racial
harmony and its lack of consciousness surrounding such events. There appears to be,
based on interviews with minority campus members, an unwillingness to look at such
issues honestly. As one student mentioned, when instances of racism occur, faculty
dissuade them from going to the authorities and saying anything. In fact one student said,
“the word nigger gets used liberally.” However the students in a minority focus group
explain they don’t take action because they feel, “the Office of Student Activities

160
neglects students of color” and nothing will be done about it. According to one student,
the white lacrosse players use that word frequently without consequence.
One of less than a handful of mid-level administrators of color confirms that like
many colleges, there are indeed incidents of racism at Meadowbrier. He asserts this is
“a very diverse campus” and community where “students of color experience
frustration” when they are in some cases offended by their faculty members. In one case a
student was brought to tears because one of her professors spoke to her in an extremely
demeaning and condescending way communicating she was not worthy of being at
Meadowbrier. In another example, there was a member of the faculty known for his
outrageously inappropriate racial comments in front of his classes. The minority
administrator explains these as instances of ignorance to students and notes that he “runs
interference for the white folks.” Thus when instances of outright racism and
marginalization occur, there are members of the campus who take it upon themselves to
explain away these occurrences. Consequently, there is little organizational
consciousness about such incidents which further perpetuates the rhetoric and propaganda
of diversity while racist incidents persist unabated.
A final example of racism at Meadowbrier comes from a staff member of the
Diversity Center who quietly recounted an example of racial profiling one of her students
had experienced. During the fall, on a day when some computer equipment had been
stolen from the dorms, campus security approached a young Latino student and asked
him for his identification. To some this might not seem like a problem except that
according to the administrator this student was questioned in public and had to convince

161
the campus security officers that he was indeed a student at Meadowbrier. Extremely
embarrassed about this incident, the student felt he was stopped because of his ethnic
looks or working class appearance. He affirmed he had nothing to do with the stolen
equipment as he was nowhere near campus when the actual crime occurred. This student
later went to the Diversity Center and described his experiences to one of the staff
members in private for fear that others might hear about the incident. When the director
called the campus security office about this incident, her goal was to speak with the
officers and investigate why they stopped only this student and questioned him in public,
and if necessary have them apologize for the way they handled the incident. The goal of
the administrator was for the student to feel vindicated and not ashamed or fearful of
walking on campus. When the administrator contacted the Office of Security and asked
them to her office for a discussion, they replied that if the student had a problem he
needed to go to their office and raise the issue with them personally. To some this
response might come across as procedural, and perhaps the entire incident appears devoid
of racial overtones. However, a Critical Race Theory perspective calls into question the
isolation and public handling of the situation as well as the power dynamics related to the
incident. If the student felt the incident was not handled well or caused him discomfort or
embarrassment, the onus should have been on Campus Security to respond to the
Diversity Center’s request for a dialogue. Instead, the onus of clarification was put back
on the student of color who already felt singled out unfairly and vulnerable illustrating
the simple yet powerful effect of organizational actors and their practices. Because of the
officers’ unwillingness to engage this situation, they foreclosed using this incident as a

162
learning moment, and more importantly this example speaks to the subtle way minorities
are sometimes treated at Meadowbrier College.

Diversity is Manipulated
Another way racial diversity is treated at Meadowbrier is what I refer to as the
manipulation of racial diversity. This finding points to practices which in essence use
racial diversity in ways that serve the institution. Unlike the traditional notion about racial
diversity being used to enhance learning environments, this practice is one of subtle and
sometimes disconscious misrepresentation of the campus image and of its diversity. So
often the rhetoric about organizational diversity is positive and intended to speak to
progress and change, this theme however illustrates the more realist way racial diversity
can be used in the service of other objectives including financial gain. This is not to say
the institution intentionally made deceptive and manipulative decisions about their image.
But rather as will be seen in the following examples, lines were blurred, consciously or
not, in order to achieve their organizational outcomes. Again this theme speaks to the
level of honesty surrounding racial diversity at this institution and is most problematic
because of their espoused value for diversity.
This practice of inconsistent image management or manipulation reduces the
potential for organizational change and progress related to race and racial diversity and
furthers the gap between the college’s promotional discourse and its actions. There are a
handful of examples that illustrate this practice; two such instances involve the handling
of the campus image during recruitment, and the misrepresentation of one administrator’s

163
ethnic identity. Both examples speak to the subtle and even unintentionally dishonest
treatment of racial diversity on this campus and contradict arguments about the sacred
value and respect of diversity at Meadowbrier.
The first example relates to how Meadowbrier portrays itself to the public through
recruitment materials and practices which are inconsistent with their organizational
reality. As previously described, there is a tension between this campus and its desire for
prestige versus its organizational facts. One of the findings the campus image study
confirmed was what many campus members had already alluded to, Meadowbrier is in
the midst of an identity crisis. As one leader noted about the results, “it wasn’t shocking
… we didn’t have a very clear or specific image of who we are” and for that matter it
seems they are also unsure of who they want to be. As one faculty member put it, “This is
a problem. This is a major problem... one major problem is who are we? Who is
[Meadowbrier] College, OK, and what is our mission? OK, and how are the materials
representing that?” This faculty member honed in on the various elements related to how
Meadowbrier markets itself, and some of the challenges it must confront, especially
related to the representation of racial diversity. “This has been a problem, both
philosophically who are we, what do we do, and what’s our mission?” Evidence of the
confusion over the college and its direction comes in the form of five mission statements
which existed at one point according to one faculty member who asks, “which is the true
one?”Perhaps, because of this, Meadowbrier has learned to represents itself in different
ways to different people. Until this crisis is resolved and they reconcile who they want to
be, it appears they have learned to use the ambiguity related to their image to their

164
advantage. One way they do this is by manipulating their image and how they represent
themselves during the recruitment process.
The first way the college paints itself through its publications and recruitment
practices is as an elite small private liberal arts college focused on teaching, learning, and
student success. In a discussion about the challenges of recruiting for Meadowbrier and
the sometimes limiting images people have about the college, one administrator in
admissions notes, “I do want to be known as academically rigorous institution that has
nice facilities…” This desired image stands in contrast to preconceived notions that exist
about Meadowbrier being a rundown campus or a two year institution. This
administrator notes, such misnomers about their image are “really frustrating.” In
response to these images, “there is a disparity between how the campus is sold and
promoted and how it really is” says one student.
One professor points to the fact that the way the college is represented graphically
is misleading and inaccurate which causes problems in the long-term. In discussing
retention issues, this faculty member raised the notion that they often misportrayed their
college to students during the recruitment process. As a result, many students are later
surprised and disappointed and decide to leave. He explains how their image portrayal
impacts retention in the following way:
Number one, when they come to [Meadowbrier], [Meadowbrier] College
is not what they imagined, so it’s a perception problem…a lot of these
kids came from private high schools in other parts of the United States.
This is not like a feeder school for those institutions. Number two, it’s
farther from the [local tourist attractions]…than it looks like on the map
because if you look at the map, it looks like it’s real close. It’s just not that
close. It’s half an hour, it’s not like five minutes. Number three, we don’t

165
have a lot of the intramural programs that young white males are
interested in for curricular activities. We don’t have it. The last point is
perhaps they’re not ready for the diversity of the college.

Hence, there are a number of ways in which the image is presented which create long
term consequences. In spite of the glossy pictures and pastoral setting, the college itself is
still a physical work in progress. There are new buildings and others in need of updating.
Beyond the actual physical structures is the matter of the geographic misrepresentation of
the college. One technique the college used in some of its recruitment materials was to
provide a map which indicates the Meadowbrier campus is closer to a number of
entertainment destinations and tourist attractions than it really is. For students who cannot
afford to visit the college before moving to campus, this is deceptive as they are often
stranded on the campus without transportation and further from some of the attractions
that may have helped them decide on attending Meadowbrier. A final problematic image
representation is their illustration of diversity in recruitment publications and their
decision not mention it accurately during recruitment presentations. These judgment calls
and omissions are somewhat confusing and add to the shock students experience when
they arrive on the campus. In addition, there is specific confusion about racial diversity as
students confirm there is little mention if any about it during the recruitment processes.
Later some students arrive to a campus that is much more racially diverse than they
anticipated or are prepared to deal with.
The strategic image management and limited acknowledgment of racial diversity
at Meadowbrier is extremely telling in respect to the treatment of diversity on campus
and impacts prospects for organizational improvements and change related to race.

166
Again, in stark contrast to the espoused rhetoric, the organizational actions at
Meadowbrier imply uneasiness with their multiculturalism. “You have to be careful about
how you present the HSI designation, and you have to tailor your comments of how much
you want to go into it, depending on what market you’re recruiting, and that goes for
anything.” As a result, during recruitment visits from Meadowbrier students note,
“diversity was not discussed.” As was previously mentioned, leaders in the Office of
Admission are very cautious about the images they present to the public. Specifically it
seems that in some instances they do not want to “scare” away prospective white students
by appearing too diverse.
Contrasting the desire to appeal to prospective white students is the image
management that is used to appeal to Latino students. This practice occurs differently and
takes place when Meadowbrier focuses its efforts to appeal to Latinos later in the
recruitment process, specifically regarding the financial aid process. Two of the few
Hispanic/Latino friendly efforts made by Meadowbrier during recruitment happen to be
their financial aid presentation and website which are in Spanish. At one presentation
held during welcome week there were loan officers, members of the financial aid office,
and even parents and their alumni children, speaking in Spanish to prospective Latino
Meadowbrier students and families. During this session entitled “Algo es Algo” or
“Something is Something”, families were told about how Latino friendly this campus is
as well as what a worthy investment a Meadowbrier education can be. They were
informed that student loans are a privilege and a form of financial aid, and the terms used
during this observation described loans as if they were a form of scholarship that not

167
everyone had access to. At the end of the financial aid session, one parent mentioned he
felt that during the recruitment process he was not spoken to honestly about the costs and
fees and what to expect. This was followed by a brief discussion addressing his concerns.
An important juxtaposition to highlight is that which exists between two of the
images this college puts forth as part of their recruitment practices. On the one hand they
are, as one professor noted, an expensive elite private liberal arts college catering to
students who want a high quality education. However, on the other hand, they are
sometimes presented as a Hispanic Serving Institution amenable to helping working class
students from Latino backgrounds to access higher education. In spite of sometimes
being considered a burden to the image of the college, Latinos/Hispanic students also
serve a purpose at Meadowbrier. Beyond providing sufficient students to maintain their
HSI status they also provide a willing, even if not always financially able, source of
students to help Meadowbrier fill their classes. One administrator explained, “the people
who turn out to contribute to the diversity are part of the ways that we have survived
through some problematic years.” Therefore in spite of wrestling with challenges to their
image and questions of quality versus desires for prestige, in the end there is also
practical appreciation of the role fulfilled by Latino students and their community on this
campus.
A second example of how diversity is manipulated at Meadowbrier relates to the
hiring of a high ranking administrator. This example sheds light on the nuanced and
perhaps even unintentionally deceptive way that racial identity can be used. After
Professor Galvan’s position was eliminated, a replacement for the Dean of Students was

168
found. This person came from another private HSI and had experience working with the
Latino community. To the administrator conducting the search for this position, who was
coincidently the same person who eliminated Professor Galvan’s role in the first place,
this candidate seemed like an ideal fit for the campus. When asked about the candidate,
this administrator said, “Were bringing in a Latina who was really involved in HSIs. Now
I know about her history in HSIs, but I don’t know her very well.” After this exchange
little more was mentioned about the new prospective dean.
After being hired and acclimating to the campus the new dean, Linda Martinez,
agreed to be interviewed as part of this study. During her interview, she recounted her
professional background as well as her experiences and involvement with Hispanic
Serving Institutions. In fact, she noted one of the key reasons she even considered the job
at Meadowbrier was its HSI status. During the interview, when asked if her interest in
working with Hispanic/Latino students had to do with her personal experiences, she said,
“Actually, I am not a Latina. I am Italian actually, but my husband is Mexican American
and I think the Latin culture, we just have a lot of similarities…” As benign as this
revelation might appear, it is useful because how it was handled by the administration
represents another way in which diversity, in this case ethnic identity, is treated at
Meadowbrier.
After having been described as a Latina candidate to members of the campus and
being hired as the new dean it seems no efforts were made to accurately represent the
new dean and her true ethnic background. To be responsible, there is no data to suggest
one way or another whether or when the administration learned of the new dean’s true

169
ethnic background. However, if they did know and failed to correct the image, this was a
questionable practice. At an HSI this is particularly deceptive as many campus
stakeholders including two Latino professors and the only Latino trustee, all mentioned
Dean Martinez as the highest ranking Hispanic/Latina on campus. In discussing his
replacement, Professor Galvan suggested the new Dean was Latina and when probed
about the point he asserted “She has…she has sold herself as a Latina.” When disabused
from this notion, Professor Galvan replied, “I had no idea” and then proceeded to note
there are no longer any ranking Latinos in the Meadowbrier administration. Another
example of how this misunderstanding affected the campus community involved a
trustee. In an interview discussing the steps taken to support and encourage racial
diversity and organizational change at Meadowbrier, he proudly noted a Latina had just
been hired as the new Dean of Students. Furthering this image are Dean Martinez’s looks
and surname which lead campus stakeholders to conclude she is Latina as well as other
practices which indicate her familiarity with the Hispanic/Latino culture. For example, at
the yearly Latino Spring Festival, unlike other administrators who wore normal outfits,
she wore an ethnic looking ensemble and jewelry which contributed to how she is
perceived on campus. At issue however, is not her identity as much as the disingenuous
portrayal of her background and the manipulation of her image to the Latino community
by the administration. Again, it bears noting Dean Martinez was absolutely transparent
about her identity when interviewed, however the confusion arises over potential
assumptions made about her identity by other administrators who transmitted these
notions to other segments of the campus. In the end, it is important to emphasize the lack

170
of Hispanic/Latino representation within the leadership, and the presumption by some
campus stakeholders that there actually is a Latina dean. From a critical race theory
perspective this is deceptive practice that should be brought to light.

Diversity is Commodified
Another way racial diversity is treated at Meadowbrier can be described using the
Marxian notion of commodification. In other words, in some cases at Meadowbrier racial
diversity is treated as a commodity used in exchange for resources and pursued for its
financial value. A number of examples from the data illustrate ways in which racial
diversity was capitalized on for fiscal reasons. Included in these instances are the campus
HSI designation and Title V grant, the Faculty Fellows Program, and the treatment of
externally funded diversity-oriented change initiatives. The following quote candidly
sheds light on the appreciation of diversity at Meadowbrier, specifically its HSI status,
for its financial benefits:
I think being in HSI is a very good thing. From a practical sense, in terms
of us getting money. As we talked about, this is a sometimes financially
strapped institution, and we can’t do all the things we would like to do.
Any money that we have coming in is wonderful.
This is not to say the only motive for participating in the diversity related efforts at
Meadowbrier was funding, but rather that the funding associated with these initiatives
made them more appealing.

171
HSI Status
Depending on the context and occasion, Meadowbrier’s Hispanic Serving
Institution designation is invoked as one campus member suggested, “as a badge” they
can wear with pride. The Title V grant and related HIS designation are given by the U.S.
Department of Education to institutions of higher education whose student bodies are
made up of at least 25% Hispanic students. These grants are intended to strengthen
institutions serving Hispanic and other low-income students. At Meadowbrier, the grant
was acquired to fund three objectives: to renovate one of the residence halls into a living
and learning community, to build a classroom, and to establish online advising and
registration. One of the administrators involved in this grant mentioned that none of the
between 1.3 and 1.6 million
6
dollars Meadowbrier received was used to address any
specific needs of Latino students or fund any cultural programs. Instead the funds were
used in ways that focused on building the infrastructure of the campus and in effect were
useful in helping all students. It should be noted that the President in one interview
mentioned being an HSI was not as fiscally lucrative as it is made out to be. In spite of
this however, the grant money and HSI status were used in more than a few constructive
ways.
One of the indicators that commodity on this campus, and not for its intended
value, is the inconsistent way it is treated on campus. In a telling comment, one
administrator with experience at other HSI’s said the interesting thing about
Meadowbrier is that although it is an HSI, it doesn’t look like it. By this she meant that it
did not possess the same characteristic Hispanic/Latino symbols and influence typical of

6
Different sources provided different grant amounts.

172
the other HSI’s she had seen. As such, the Title V grant is treated differently by different
people. To Hispanics as well as some other campus constituents it is a positive attribute
and a signal of hope for progress and organizational change related to diversity. One
point made by some Hispanic/Latino alumni, professors, and other campus members is
that their vision for the future of Meadowbrier should be to become the most, if not one
of the most, well regarded HSI’s in the nation. This notion, however, is said to be met
with skepticism by the board of trustees and powerful forces such as the Religious Elders
who equate being a primarily Hispanic college with a lack of quality and prestige. Also
obstructing the genuine celebration of the HSI identity are those who are unwilling to
accept and publically recognize their current organizational identity and demographics.
As one white campus member confirmed, there is not “an active campus-wide celebration
that we are an HSI and I think there’s a lot of people that don’t either recognize it or care
about it or know what to do with it.” He went on to say as a campus they don’t celebrate
or capitalize on being an HSI and he has observed first hand that the campus is not
“putting money and time into being an HSI. We aren’t funding and staffing programs for
Latinos.” Therefore, in spite of their unique circumstances, the campus seems to have a
limited interest in the Hispanic Serving designation. It is treated as a HSI designation and
funds.
In a nod toward progress related to organizational change supportive of racial
diversity, the current President and her staff talk about embracing their Latino student
population, however, their actions, including their campus recruitment practices, do not
entirely reflect this commitment. Instead, they appear to be selectively interested in their

173
HSI identity and have made little progress in connecting with the Hispanic/Latino
community. For example, the President established a Latino initiative to unite Latinos on
campus with alumni, however as one professor explained, they met a few times before it
floundered. According to one Latino faculty member who attended one of these events,
the President missed many of the cultural cues when interacting with these groups and
was consequently unable to connect effectively with these campus constituents.
Nevertheless, these efforts are an improvement from the previous President who said in
one meeting they were coming to terms with being an HSI, connoting less enthusiasm
and excitement about their demographics and organizational designation.
Complicating the ineffective ideas and practices related to being an HSI are
commodifying practices related to the Title V grant. One of the people involved in
running this grant explained, “the way the Title V money has been used since the very
beginning. It’s always been used as budget relief.” According to this administrator, one
of the first things done when grant money comes in is that one of the deans sits with the
budget and combs through it to see where the money can be used to fill in Meadowbrier’s
fiscal gaps. The data suggest some of the administrators responsible for keeping the
college financially afloat are those most involved in determining the uses of the Title V
money. These administrators, Dean Simms in particular, based on her interviews, are
most willing to broadly interpret the intended objectives of grants such as the Hispanic
Serving Institution Title V grant. As previously described, she employs a broad definition
of what constitutes diversity and because of their religious values is hesitant to exclude

174
anyone from the category of diversity. In regard to how grant monies are spent, Dean
Simms is practical and makes the most of whatever resources are available.
One finding about the HSI status at Meadowbrier was that few people were
familiar with its significance. In fact, when asked about the history and parameters of this
grant, few of the top administrators understood clearly its goals and significance. This
was conveyed in the honest responses of President Fields who noted being an HSI was a
positive thing and somewhat of a financial hindrance. She also had a limited
understanding of the Title V grant. She knew it brought in money but was not sure how
much and exactly what is was being used for. Dean Simms remarked the grant:
…was here when I got here, so I don’t know the history. The people that were
directly involved in it, two of the three are gone. [Dr.Galvan] is the other one, and
so he might be able to give you some of that history… I think it all came out of
some of work with the [campus diversity effort] … and sort of discovering that
we were an HSI, but I don’t know what the timing of all that was other than it was
obviously done two years before I got here. It has three…it had three…it really
was…and I’d have to double-check, but I think it was probably more in the realm
of really wanting to focus on advising and learning communities, and the idea was
that if we could create an easier way for students to register, i.e., more online
registration and have, you know, not exactly a course management system,… that
we would better serve students in general

This quote speaks to the lack of familiarity the Dean had in describing the grant. When
asked to explain the impact of the interventions funded with the HSI grant on the
Hispanic/Latino population at Meadowbrier, Dean Simms provided a somewhat
contradictory answer:
the idea [behind the living learning communities] was to get some of the
commuter students into the residence halls to get them to feel more a part of the
campus because they’re disproportionately Latino. It’s to improve the graduation
rate, although our graduation rate of Latinos is higher than any other category…

175
Thus she explained Meadowbrier’s Hispanic/Latino students would be served through the
new living and learning community, however, because many Latinos at Meadowbrier
tend to commute, they will not likely experience the living learning community. They
also persist at higher rates than any other student population meaning interventions
intended to help in this area might not affect them as much as other groups on campus.
These contradictions suggest a number of things. First, the funds were used in ways that
helped meet other objectives of the campus such as addressing retention issues and
improving the campus facilities. These did not appear to be Hispanic/Latino related
issues on the campus which casts a questionable light on the uses of these funds. Adding
to this is the fact that when the campus hired a consultant to conduct a mandatory
evaluation of their campus and its HSI grant, the administration was not entirely forth
coming with the financial records related to the grant. When interviewed for this study,
the consultant noted the college provided just enough information for the evaluation to be
completed.

Faculty Fellows Program
Another way diversity might be construed as a commodity on the Meadowbrier
campus relates to the Faculty Fellows Program. This initiative was created to increase
racial diversity among the Meadowbrier faculty and was spearheaded by Dean Simms.
Through this program, new professors or doctoral candidates are hired for one year to
teach at Meadowbrier while they complete their research or while they search for other
academic jobs. The hope is that some of these minority doctoral fellows decide to apply

176
for open professorships at Meadowbrier. Thus when there are certain faculty openings in
certain departments, those are the places where Faculty Fellows are sought to teach. They
are paid with funds from a major foundation which provides grants to diversify higher
education.
This program is commodified in a few ways. Beginning with the fact the Faculty
Fellows program is designed to diversify the faculty, but simultaneously serves to reduce
the amount of money needed to hire new faculty. One professor explained her thoughts
about the program:
it has been very transparent from the beginning. I don’t know… anybody actually
believes this is because we’re just trying to give under-represented minorities a
chance to get into higher education, but the way that it’s done, it’s completely
bogus.

What she is referring to is the practice of hiring these fellows as a replacement for full-
time faculty which has cut down some of the number of faculty and caused some staffing
problems. The Faculty Fellows only teach half the loads of regular faculty, which means
there are not enough professors to teach all of the classes that need to be offered. One
professor commented the program is somewhat deceptive because:
We have people teaching half the number of classes and we’re counting
them as a full person. We don’t count them as half a person when we
count up faculty ...I’m just saying they shouldn’t be replacing [full-time
faculty], it should be in addition to the faculty to have a faculty fellow
here so we can offer some more courses in more special topics rather than
a replacement for a full-time person, and that’s financial, so that’s why
that’s happening.

This example appears to be an organizational action driven by resources however also
used supposedly in the service of racial diversity.

177
Further evidence of how this program was treated comes from Dean Simms. She
explained and defended the definition of racial diversity used in selecting the minority
Faculty Fellows. “So when I hire Irvine fellows, we use that broader definition” of
diversity, which begins with African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, but also
included fellows who were described as Middle Eastern, East Asian, and white. When
asked about why a white person was counted as a minority fellow in a program intended
to help diversify the faculty Dean Simms seemed both nervous and defensive as she
explained her rationale. “We said to diversify the faculty or the curriculum and the person
who was hired in fact has done a lot of work in South Africa and can help us diversify the
curriculum relative to Africa.” She also justified this decision because this person was
supposedly paid with college funds and not grant money. In the interview the Dean
seemed conflicted, “Yeah, so…and it was using college money, so I didn’t feel
compelled to…I mean, I would have liked to have, but I…anyway.” It was later revealed
by another institutional constituent that there was some indication of pressure from a
number of campus members for Dean Simms not to commit the program entirely to racial
minorities. These concerns were communicated indirectly. Aside from reiterating that due
to their religious roots she felt she could not adhere to the traditional concept of diversity
as it would be exclusionary, Dean Simms also raised the following point:
… it pretty much came from the faculty because that’s when we were
hiring this faculty and that was where…and again, it wasn’t so much that
it was resistance, I think people were also worried about the legal
ramifications of having a position that we would limit to only certain
ethnic [groups]…

178
In veiled terms, the dean communicates the pressure she may have been under from the
faculty and which influenced the composition of the Faculty Fellows. As a private
institution there is no legal danger to Meadowbrier for compiling a group of minority
faculty. Instead, from a Critical Race Theory perspective this appears to be an attempt to
limit change and ultimately preserve the status quo within the institution. By appearing to
capitulate to potential legal ramifications, institutions and programs are able to justify not
fully supporting or furthering their race-related efforts. This handling in concert with the
questionable motives driving this faculty diversification effort, illustrate a nuanced way
larger institutional objectives are privileged in the supposed service of race and diversity.
On a more positive note, while it cannot be attributed to the Faculty Fellows
program, Dean Simms was compelled to closely examine the make-up of the
Meadowbrier faculty and discovered the following fact:
I looked at the assistant professors and…not including the [Faculty Fellows], if
you look at tenure track and visiting faculty, and many of our visiting faculty will
move into tenure track positions…54 percent of our assistant professors are
faculty of color.

In addition to confirming the multi-racial composition of some of the Meadowbrier
faculty, another positive finding related to the Faculty Fellows was a revelation by a
Religious Elder who asserted “Our consciousness is raised and particularly in hiring.” He
acknowledged both surprise and satisfaction at the changes within the faculty ranks.

Diversity-Oriented Change Initiatives
Two final examples of how racial diversity can be understood as being valued for
financial reasons are two race-related change initiatives undertaken at Meadowbrier

179
College, the Diversity Measurement Program (DMP) and the Initiative for College
Diversity (ICD). Each of these projects was funded externally with grant money which
benefited the campus and entailed years of program activities at Meadowbrier. The
treatment of these initiatives suggests a surface-level appreciation of racial diversity on
this campus as well as of the commodification of diversity. The goal of these two
interventions was to measure Meadowbrier’s levels of racial diversity and representation
and to identify areas in need of change or attention. After years of training teams of
campus members how to use techniques to monitor and support diversity and produce
organizational change in these areas, few if any of the practices were institutionalized. It
appears that when the funding ran out, so too did Meadowbrier’s involvement in these
programs. It bears noting such outcomes are not unusual within the broader context of
organizational change and higher education. But the fact these programs were not
institutionalized fails to reflect a deep commitment to ensuring racial equity.
The first program, the Diversity Measurement Program, sought to train the
campus in using different techniques to quantify their racial diversity in an effort to better
understand its origins and areas for improvement. This project used the collection and
analysis of institutional data disaggregated by race in creative ways that support the
emergence and growth of racial diversity on campus. Similarly, the second project, the
Initiative for College Diversity sought to increase and transform the success of historically
underrepresented students in higher education (African-American, Latino, and Native-
American students) by strengthening campus diversity efforts and improving their
institutional capacity to monitor progress on diversity. Both of these programs were led

180
by outside academic research teams who invested time and resources in training the
Meadowbrier diversity team.
The data from this study suggest neither of these programs or any of their
processes were continued in earnest. Again, this finding is not uncommon or necessarily
race-related, as many grant funded initiatives and practices are not continued or
institutionalized. However, for a campus so committed to supporting diversity as
Meadowbrier asserts, this is telling and contradictory evidence. It seems the practices of
using existing institutional data in ways that support monitoring racial equity, change,
and diversity, were not discontinued due to a lack of resources or ability but rather
because they were not prioritized. One professor involved in these projects explains, “The
approach, the information, the data. It’s really sad to me that all that information and that
methodology and that protocol has been forgotten. I mean, that’s the most painful thing
for me.” He went on to dramatically describe the different theories and techniques they
had learned such as organizational learning,
all those things that I believe in and … I work towards, it’s just been forgotten.
It’s been shelved. It’s been relegated to something that is very sad. I mean, it’s
just…I mean, it’s been killed. I can be harsher, decimated…

Another description of the impact of these efforts, or lack thereof, is raised in the
context of the political changes being made in the administration. One faculty member
explains: “All the while this is all happening, the focus of [diversity measurement]
methodology is getting lost…It’s getting watered down.” One consequence of not having
institutionalized these efforts is that it reflects poorly on the institutional commitment to
diversity. One proponent of these programs said the fact these programs were not adopted

181
is, “indicative. It’s indicative of the lack of commitment to using data. I don’t think that
the president still…I don’t think she understands…” When asked what she didn’t
understand, this professor replied, “the Latino importance…”
One reason these programs may not have had more of an impact is that they may
not have been as widely disseminated as originally thought or intended. According to the
project outlines, these interventions were meant to be shared across campus in ways that
would teach new practices to faculty and administrators, specifically campus wide reports
of their findings. One faculty member who used some of the techniques learned during
the diversity initiatives commented on his findings related to the economic situation of
their students. In doing so, he reveals not many faculty were aware of these initiatives:
I think that that [new information] ultimately probably does emerge from
really having been asked hard questions about who our students really are
in that sense, where they come from. Can I trace it back to one of those
specific organizational efforts? I don’t know. I just feel like sort of it’s an
institutional consciousness-raising activity kind of thing. So I don’t know.
I mean, a lot of faculty I suspect didn’t know the [DMP] ever existed, so I
acknowledge that that’s probably true. I knew about it because we were
doing it the year I was doing administration …

This example confirms some people were taught to examine and think about their student
data in different ways and consciousness-raising occurred on the campus. It should also
be noted that the institutionalization of such efforts is a very difficult task which involves
a number of components.
Actual evidence these programs were commodified can be found not only in the
lack of understanding about the programs but in how the funds attached to them were
used. For example, when asked about the DMP and CID funding the Dean replied:

182
I can look it up, but I think…you know, I think what happened is that
we…again whether it was part of [DMP], I still haven’t sort of sorted
out…I know they’re all connected, but I don’t know whether they were
connected if you were doing this, then you had a chance to get a grant or
whatever, but we had actually done a campus culture inventory and there
was a committee that worked to define multicultural learning outcomes for
the campus that was shared across the campus and approved by…I’m not
sure who…

Here the Dean speaks in vague terms about the funding, its uses, and one of its outcomes.
She also suggests that the diversity efforts and grants are connected which does not seem
consistent with how either project was planned. However, the practice of connecting the
funding related to these diversity initiatives proved to be very useful for Meadowbrier in
achieving it fiscal and institutional goals. She explains:
when we saw what we had…I mean, maybe we planned it this way, but it was like
when we saw we had gotten money … we basically combined that and did them
together rather than trying to do them separately.

The effort she refers to is the living and learning community. Initially, however, the funds
that were lumped together were supposed to be used as stand-alone efforts to address
infrastructure and programming separately. Instead, the funds were used in ways that
improved the campus physically which is consistent with the grant funding, however
missing is concern and attention to monitoring or increasing racial representation on the
campus which was the initial goal of the grants.
Other ways the diversity funds were used do include providing faculty with
stipends to diversify their courses and curricula. Dean Simms explained they had some
money in:
the second [diversity] grant, or the latest [diversity] grant…there were
three parts to it. The third part was basically diversifying curriculum and
programs and so faculty received grants to basically change their courses

183
or in some cases, in programs, change their program to be
more…basically include more diversity.

As a result, one Latino faculty got a stipend to create a course in Chicano History which
they didn’t have, one philosopher decided to integrate gender into philosophy, and other
faculty got stipends to buy films, books, travel to conferences. Thus, within the
parameters, efforts were made to live up to the designated expectations of one of the
diversity grants.
A final question about these transformative efforts is whether or not Meadowbrier
would have participated had they not involved external grant funding. The tenor of how
these efforts were treated suggests a mild interest by the institution in pursuing these
efforts, contradicting the deep commitment conveyed in their grant applications and
public rhetoric. These examples stand as evidence of the tension that exists between
Meadowbrier’s fiscal constraints and their willingness and ability to produce
organizational change related to race. Themes that once again obstruct the potential for
progress include the loose definition and interpretation of diversity as well as fiscally
driven administrative practices. What follows is a brief exploration of the third and
innermost level of Schein’s organizational model, the core values that drive change
within an organization.

Core Organizational Values

The purpose of this section is to complete the representation of Schein’s multi-
layered organizational model at Meadowbrier using the data from this study. Doing this
will conclude the exploration of the research questions, and specifically this section will

184
speak to the individual values which underpin organizational change. As discussed
previously in this chapter, the surface layer of the organization consists of rhetoric and
promotional discourse. Beneath this layer, in the mid-section of the organizational model
are the practices and behaviors which support or obstruct organizational change related to
diversity. Thus far, this chapter has sought to explore the differences between these two
layers. In order to further explore this disconnect and its effects on racial diversity, this
portion of the chapter briefly speaks to the role of individuals and their values as they
relate to race and change related to diversity.
One of the intended outcomes of this exercise is understanding how it is
individuals who make up an organization can say one thing and how it is their actions
deviate from what appear to be their values. This is an important consideration in relation
to both the systemic treatment of race as well as processes of organizational change. Thus
it is central to this study to explore this idea further. One description of the administration
by a minority faculty member captures how it is in spite of their great intentions
regarding racial diversity some administrators still fail to act in effective ways. He made
this remark in response to being asked about why there is not more progress with
diversity related change at Meadowbrier. He explained:
I would say that there are a lot of good intentions of course. I mean, let’s
look at it. The senior administration at this college is composed of white
Anglo Saxon women, primarily from the Midwest and the East Coast, who
don’t have the foggiest idea what it is to live in a diverse environment.
OK, but based on their academic background and their social
consciousness, they have a lot of the heart and maybe even some of the
spirit that would incline me to think that they’re very sincere and real
about their desire to make sure that this is truly a diverse environment, that
we’re open and welcoming … and all that…

185
This quote is important as it speaks to the values of the administrators while recognizing
that perhaps because of their personal backgrounds and identities they cannot fully
comprehend what it looks like to experience firsthand, let alone manifest, racial diversity.
Not to say they cannot move such issues forward, but rather that they have different
points of reference than other members of the organization including racial minorities.
Another value of this quote is its confirmation of a theme in the data which is the
consistent commitment to issues of racial diversity by the central administrators in their
respective roles throughout their careers. In spite of such values, it is also important to
recognize the contradiction caused by the practices of these same administrators which
actually work against racial diversity. Examples of this include the inability or
unwillingness to define diversity on campus, the lack of leadership related to minority
issues such as instances of racism on campus or staffing the Campus Diversity Center,
their opportunistic use of diversity in relation to their image and recruitment practices, as
well as the broad use of diversity related resources. To make sense of such
contradictions, there is value to look more closely at individuals, their personal contexts
and values, and the organizational pressures that might compromise their actions
associated with racial diversity.
Beginning with the President and taking into consideration the core group of
Meadowbrier administrators introduced early in this chapter, these women have complex
personal identities and equally challenging professional tasks. Most organizational
studies might overlook the role of individual values in the pursuit of racial diversity on a
college campus, however this study suggests this is a central element to be considered. As

186
noted in the introduction these women range in age from their thirties and into their
sixties. They are all highly educated and most are white from primarily homogenous
places of origin. Because context and identity are key to critical race theory it is
important to acknowledge such personal traits. Perhaps one of the most important
characteristics of these women is their gender. Although not raised in any of the
interviews or in the data, their role as female leaders in higher education speaks to their
experiences with and appreciation for marginalization.
On the individual level, women like President Fields, Dean Simms, and Dean
Martinez have illustrated their desire to produce organizational change in higher
education through their commitment to matters of gender and racial equality over the
years. Each in their own way has been involved in efforts like President Fields’
establishment of a diversity campaign among a consortium of small private liberal arts
colleges. Dean Simms, in spite of being fiscally and politically limited, continues to
champion issues such as the need to increase and preserve faculty diversity at
Meadowbrier. Regardless of her ethnic identity, Dean Martinez advocates organizational
accountability to address and support the relevant issues facing their HSI campus.
Furthermore, her experience and track record working with HSI’s speaks for itself.
Describing espoused values and commitments to issues including racial diversity
as well as stakeholders’ personal traits and characteristics is only part of the exercise in
understanding the gap between their words and actions. Also relevant are the challenges
and limitations these women face in pursuing their transformative agendas at
Meadowbrier. The first is the built in mechanism of resistance to change otherwise

187
referred to as the Religious Elders, who consider it their duty to preserve their practices
and prevent change. From a CRT perspective, this is the enactment of white male
dominance protecting the status quo and a system which works for them. Another
challenge for these administrators is their role in upholding the campus culture and its
religious values. For example, while some of these administrators with the power to make
certain decisions, such as defining diversity, have the official authority to take action,
they must also contend with the pressures of their professional roles and the larger
campus culture and climate. This clarification is not meant to justify the gap between
their values and their failure to make effective progress related to racial diversity, also
considered to be, in organizational terms, their Theories in Use. But rather, it is meant to
shed light on their complex circumstances and possibilities for transformation, or
Theories of Action. As evidenced in this chapter, there are a number of obstacles they are
confronted with which supersede the depth of their personal value for producing change
and supporting issues such as increased diversity at Meadowbrier. Consequently, these
limitations impact the execution and reliability with which diversity efforts are or are not
pursued.
Other organizational stakeholders whose values also directly impact the treatment
of racial diversity at Meadowbrier can be found at all levels of the college. Often these
individuals have firsthand experience with racial marginalization, such as minority
faculty or administrators, and because of their experiences feel deeply about addressing
such matters. These individuals, such as Mr. Martinez, value diversity at a different level
than others who might not have the same personal context and frame of reference.

188
Evidence of the deep value for producing changes that might support racial diversity
came from primarily minority stakeholders at Meadowbrier who did not have the same
power and authority as other institutional members yet who spoke in more determined
and committed ways. Throughout the interviews and observations, these were the study
participants who had the most to say about the state of racial diversity on this campus and
about their desire for change as illustrated previously in this chapter.
Diversity proponents whose personal values fueled their persistent efforts include
a handful of anonymous minority staff and mid-level administrators who carry out their
efforts quietly for no other reason than these actions reflect their core values and beliefs.
These members include the staff member at the Diversity Center who lends a shoulder to
cry on when students feel marginalized as well as the organizer of the Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Oratorical Contest. These actions which support diversity are not parts of their
job descriptions but rather part of their personal agendas and identities. Characters like
Mr. Martinez and Dean Galvan provide examples of the long-term commitments and
sacrifices related to advocating for racial diversity at Meadowbrier some of these
individuals are willing to make. Again, these actions speak to individuals and their values
about matters of racial diversity.
Another example of an individual who exhibits a deep and genuine commitment
toward supporting racial diversity is one of the trustees. In spite of her official power, or
perhaps because of it, she was extremely candid in naming the practices which stand in
the way of progress associated with racial equity on this campus. This white female,
Dr.Rosenfelt, spoke plainly and openly about the challenges facing the college at the risk

189
of contradicting the college’s promotional discourse. She described the campus culture as
“a fairly conservative place” where “racial tolerance is valued”, however she went on to
note there are trustees who are “ambivalent” about race. She said finances are an
emphasis for the college and quite frankly that they “haven’t fixed all the issues around
racial difference” on the campus. She knows the campus well and provided one of the
most honest assessments of their treatment of diversity given in the study. Because of her
genuine concern for equity and desire to improve matters related to race and diversity,
she was aware of the existing challenges including finding a “best fit” for their religious
values in the current context and the need to find the “right relationships” to strengthen
the campus. A testament to her honesty is the fact that she contradicted the information
provided by another trustee who said the trustees were all happy about the college’s HSI
status which was refuted by other data which suggested the trustees didn’t want to call
attention to this designation.
At the faculty level, there are as many professors who genuinely value racial
diversity as a personal value as there are those who undermine diversity efforts. A perfect
example is the professor of Sociology that radically transformed her teaching style to
help her students actually learn. In spite of the additional challenge of this, she was clear
about why these students were not prepared, and through her actions over the years has
proven her commitment to helping minority students succeed at the same levels of
students who may have experienced more opportunities. Similarly, other professors who
were observed or interviewed for this study introduced significant theories in their classes
to challenge students and their thinking about matters of race and justice. One white

190
professor noted he wanted to have students challenge or “take on white privilege” in his
class to teach them about unequal social structures. Rather than teaching classes like one
on “baseball” taught by one Religious Elder, other professors are personally committed to
exposing their students to different social truths and realities.
It is because of such professors, staff members, and administrators that
Meadowbrier has been able to support their student diversity. As small as these individual
efforts might appear, these personal values get translated into actions that in some cases
become acts of race-related organizational change. From an organizational perspective,
this section has briefly touched upon the enactment of Theories-in-Use or their current
modus operandi and Theories of Action which support change and speak to individuals’
differences in values. These examples reflect previously described organizational theories
invoked to explain the disparity between organizational rhetoric and actions. Because
using organizational terms complicates the understanding of this organizational process, a
more simple interpretation of these theories is they shed light on examples of what is
being done versus other examples of what is possible in terms of supporting race and
racial diversity at Meadowbrier.

Chapter Summary

The goal of this chapter was to present the data from this study to effectively
address the guiding research questions. Accomplishing this goal entailed the construction
of an organizational portrait which included introducing and laying out the organizational
context, its stakeholders, and understanding how both organizational change and racial
diversity are treated at Meadowbrier College. In the process of responding to these issues,

191
additional findings were made related to this study and its primary research question:
How does organizational change related to racial diversity occur within this organization
of higher education? The response to this first question proved to be multi-faceted. The
data indicate organizational change at Meadowbrier is slow, strategic, led by individuals,
and in some cases inevitable.
In responding to the question of whether or not organizational change related to
racial diversity at this institution is treated differently from other organizational change
efforts, the response is no. Like most transformative efforts on this campus,
organizational change related to racial diversity is resisted. Also like other change
initiatives, if there is external grant funding attached to a change effort it is more likely to
happen as was the case with a few diversity related change efforts. However, there are a
host of techniques and institutional barriers at Meadowbrier that protect the status quo
from change in general, namely a certain group of faculty members called the Religious
Elders. Overall, it can be said organizational change efforts related to racial diversity are
not given the same consideration as other less controversial forms of change such as
changes to the curriculum; however there is insufficient data to assert a concrete
difference in how this form of change is addressed. Overall, in spite of change not being a
typical practice at this campus, change related to race and racial diversity was especially
not well received as illustrated by the lack of institutionalization of previous diversity
efforts.
A third research question is: Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity as
described in publications and through organizational artifacts such as speeches and

192
statements from institutional constituents differ from organizational practices, attitudes,
and beliefs? The answer to this question is yes, and while this is not a unique
organizational practice it should be noted that at Meadowbrier the rhetoric of diversity or
“college promotional discourse” serves as a barrier to change. Harkening back to an early
quote in this study from Cliff Adelman, all of the effort going into the rhetoric of
diversity gets in the way of actually doing something about it. This was the case at
Meadowbrier. The campus-wide discourse about diversity filled with references to their
religious heritage and the importance of racial diversity proved to be unsubstantiated.
There were in fact a number of inconsistencies and gaps in the data that contradicted
what was espoused about the college and racial diversity and its actual practices and
beliefs. One case in point is an article that was described in this chapter written by the
President which contains quite a few inconsistencies with actual campus practices.
The final question guiding this study actually begat two more sub-questions in the
process of data analysis. The initial question was: What practices exist on this campus
that either support or obstruct organizational change related to racial diversity? In
responding to this question two overarching practices stood out on this campus, the
manipulation and commodification of racial diversity. Consequently, the new questions
are: 1) In what way is racial diversity manipulated at this institution?, and 2) In what way
is racial diversity commodified? These questions emerge from a broader analysis of a
range of ways in which race and racial diversity were addressed on this campus. The
responses to these questions form part of the larger findings of this study which are a

193
number of organizational practices identified because they support or obstruct
organizational change at Meadowbrier College.
The data suggest that organizational change at this campus occurs as a result of
individuals who deeply value racial diversity and whose attitudes are manifested through
their actions which effectively promote and support racial diversity on this campus even
if on a limited basis. Additional ways race-related interventions are supported are through
interventions funded with grant money and led by committed and experienced
administrators.
The most useful data related outcome from this study was identifying numerous
ways race-related organizational change was obstructed on this campus. By closely
examining the different ways diversity was approached it was possible to name a range of
important practices that obstruct progress toward supporting racial diversity including a
general dishonesty about this topic as well as other similar subtle and imperceptible
practices. Included in the list of problematic systemic practices at Meadowbrier are: the
use of vague language related to race and diversity, the promotion of surface-level
rhetoric about race which is inconsistent with organizational actions, questionable
leadership and employment practices, dishonest and manipulative recruitment practices
and promotional materials, religious values such as collegiality, consensus, community,
the marginalization of Hispanic/Latinos and other minorities, the broad use of grant
funding, and the strategic treatment of the Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) status.
Beyond responding to the designated research questions, this chapter served to lay
the foundation for the theoretical implications of this study in the next section. Having

194
discussed the theoretical framework of this study, and having presented the data, what
follows is the amalgamation of theory and data. The concluding chapter of this study
contains a discussion of the dysfunctional treatment of racial diversity at Meadowbrier
College. The overarching goal of this section is to make meaning of this newfound
knowledge related to the treatment of racial diversity and organizational change in the
context of higher education.

195
Chapter 5:
Implications and Conclusions

In 1995, educational scholars Ladson-Billings and Tate asserted “discussions of
race and racism continue to be muted and marginalized.” In their article Toward a
Critical Race Theory of Education, they describe the perpetuation of educational
inequality based on race and call into question dishonest discussions about race in
education as well as the limitations of the current multi-cultural paradigm. Over a decade
later I respond to the comments made by Ladson-Billings and Tate through this study and
its findings. The case study at Meadowbrier represents the often unacknowledged
dichotomous treatment of racial diversity within Higher Education and illustrates the
organizational dysfunction that occurs when matters of race are ignored or only dealt
with on a superficial level. Currently this college is in the midst of a silent but serious
identity crisis related to racial diversity and has limited prospects for progress and
effective organizational change. One the one hand racial diversity is a coveted and
celebrated organizational trait, and on the other, issues of race are treated as a problem
and organizational limitation. There are those at Meadowbrier who understand the
importance of having racial representation and equity, while others consider being an HSI
a risk to their image. The implications of this study confirm a need to improve the way
race and racism are addressed in American colleges and universities, and provide a
framework for a renewed discussion of race with an emphasis on honesty and
organizational transparency. A byproduct of such discussions is an improved
understanding of how organizational change is subtly obstructed by dominant forces

196
seeking to perpetuate the status quo and how such forces obfuscate progress related to
race.
As noted in the beginning of chapter four, the findings from this study are
nuanced, and require complex interpretation. The initial goal in selecting this institution
was to conduct a case study of a college widely recognized for having achieved racial
diversity through organizational change. The pilot study at Meadowbrier indicated this
campus highly valued racial diversity and might have undergone intentional change
processes in the pursuit of their campus diversity. The presupposition in selecting this
campus was that it would shed light on how change occurs in relation to race and such
knowledge could inform the efforts of other campuses seeking to genuinely transform in
ways supportive of racial equity for all students. However, the findings from this study
failed to identify such a process and instead serve to make visible the invisible treatment
of race that blocks change and exposes certain practices accepted as the norm, i.e. the
accepted gap between rhetoric and action. What follows is a discussion of the research
questions and their implications, as well as a discussion of the organizational identity
crisis related to race at Meadowbrier. To make further meaning of these implications this
chapter refers back to the literature on race and organizational change used to construct
the theoretical lens which guided this study. I then conclude by providing some practical
implications from my findings, as well as concluding remarks about future research.

Implications of the Research Questions

The overarching research question of this study is: How does organizational
change related to racial diversity occur within the selected organization of higher

197
education? Because the findings from this study address change related to race as well as
general organizational change at Meadowbrier, the research question interrogating how
non-race related change happens was eliminated and replaced by the previously stated
meta-question. Prior to discussing the response and implications of this research
question, I will briefly revisit the purpose of this study. In response to the lack of deep-
rooted and effective organizational change related to producing and sustaining racial
diversity in higher education, this study set out to examine how it is a college effectively
transforms into a racially diverse institution and how such changes are stimulated and
supported. How is it a place like Meadowbrier creates and sustains the student diversity
levels that make it nationally known as one of the most diverse colleges of its type? To
address this question supposes some process of organizational change occurred which
helped turn what was once a primarily white affluent religious college into one now
recognized as a Hispanic Serving Institution. To understand this transformational
phenomenon, I posed the research question intended to interrogate specifically how this
form of change transpired. One intention behind this question was to isolate a process
that might contribute to the organizational understanding of change related to racial
diversity which remains a poorly explored part of organizational research.
The findings from this study which examine how organizational change occurs
proved to be consistent with some of the literature on Higher Education. Specifically, the
case study revealed Meadowbrier to be what Birnbaum (1998) called a collegial
institution. This type of college is founded on the notion of community and driven by
like-minded people with similar values. While collegial institutions value equality, the

198
voices of senior faculty tend to be heard more readily and change at such institutions
occurs as the result of interaction and consensus. Thus, organizational change at
Meadowbrier whether related to race or not appears to happen in typical non-distinct
ways previously identified in Birnbaum’s Collegium model. As such, the overall manner
in which organizational change occurs at Meadowbrier is not a unique process and does
not provide new information about such processes. The overlapping findings with the
existing research literature do however confirm the reliability of this research as well as
the transferability of this study’s findings.
A more direct part of the response to the interrogation of how organizational
change occurs at Meadowbrier ironically relates to the different ways organizational
change does not happen. Like many institutions of its type, the data indicate
Meadowbrier is not welcoming of change and consequently there are inherent
organizational barriers in place to obstruct and impede effective change. This finding is
particularly relevant to collegial campuses which tend to be firmly rooted in their
practices, and highlights the significance of organizational context in addressing racial
diversity and attempting to produce change. Especially relevant to looking at racial
diversity is the fact that at places like Meadowbrier many organizational barriers to
change represent the preservation of the status quo and ultimately the enactment of
power. Other findings from this study which limit change including the dishonest rhetoric
of diversity and problematic treatment of race are not context bound. It seems these
practices are not characteristic of any one institutional typology and may transcend

199
organizational categories. Prior to enumerating the different ways change is blocked at
Meadowbrier, I will briefly describe how change occurs.

How Does Organizational Change Occur at Meadowbrier?
Characteristic of many forms of organizational change, at Meadowbrier
institutional transformation is rare but when it does happen it occurs slowly, in a number
of ways, and for different reasons. Some of the elements which stimulate and support
transformation on this campus include strategic thinking and actions by organizational
stakeholders, namely administrators, the inevitability of certain types of change such as
shifting demographics, and the support of financial resources. The most significant form
of organizational change that occurred at Meadowbrier and served partially as the
impetus to this study was its racial diversification. According to the data this
organizational change occurred for a few reasons. First, it reflected an inevitable shift in
demographics which occurred over time and specifically in the community surrounding
the campus. Whether the campus was ready for it or not, the ethnic makeup of students
applying to their campus changed. Also, in the 1980’s one of the presidents increased the
number and profile of students being admitted which had a significant impact on the
campus as this change increased access to students who previously might not have been
considered. Finally, some of the organizational change was attributed to the efforts of a
former alumnus, Mr. Oscar Martinez, and his supporters who invested decades recruiting
Hispanic/Latino students to the campus and providing them support when they arrived on
the campus.

200
The Impact of Individual Values
Another way of addressing the question of how organizational change occurs at
Meadowbrier uses the data differently. Based on Schein’s multi-layered model of
organizational change, this approach considers the personal values of individuals within
the organization and suggests it is these values which drive or inhibit organizational
change. As such individuals like Mr. Martinez, who was a first-generation college
student and the only Hispanic in his class when he attended Meadowbrier, support
organizational change efforts associated with racial diversity because these efforts are a
manifestation of their personal values and experiences. Although he alone was not
responsible for the shifts that changed the landscape of the campus, Mr. Martinez’s
values influenced how such changes were treated. Namely he helped support the
proliferation of Hispanics/Latinos at Meadowbrier. Thus analyzing the data in ways that
also take into account personal identities, experiences, and contexts sheds light on
individual’s values and ultimately their commitment to and ability to produce and support
organizational change.
Other examples from the data indicate that just as personal values for racial equity
and diversity coincide with the few instances of effective organizational change, there are
also examples where a few individuals who appear to be committed to increasing and
supporting racial diversity behave in ways that thwart diversity related efforts. This
finding speaks to one of the research questions which will be tackled later in this section
related to the rhetoric of diversity at Meadowbrier, as well as one of the ways
organizational change is linked to personal identities and values. In fact, one of the more

201
interesting responses to the question of how change occurs or is impeded at Meadowbrier
entails instances where individuals have a duality of values. For example, there are
individuals, like Dean Simms, who while conscious of the importance of racial diversity
compromise their personal values and behave in ways that ultimately jeopardize progress
and change related to racial diversity. In her case she participates in what Omi and
Winant (1994) refer to as reductionism, meaning she reduces the significance and
meaning of race by compromising its importance and behaving in ways that are more
committed to organizational practicality than they are to ensuring racial equity. She does
this by making decisions, like hiring a white woman as part of a faculty diversification
effort, which communicates a contradiction with her other actions such as developing the
faculty diversification effort in the first place. This finding speaks to the duality of
individuals and their competing values. On the one hand this is a woman who in her
personal life has adopted a minority child and manifests progressive values and views of
the world in ways supportive of equality for women and minorities. On the other hand
she is confronted with the professional pressure to keep the organization fiscally afloat
while also meeting organizational goals. In the process of carrying out her professional
duties she makes choices and compromises which in some cases may appear to be in the
service of issues such as diversity, however in reality continue to serve the status quo. If
anything, her actions provide an example of how people with good intentions are
complicit, intentionally or not, with muddying the systemic treatment of racial diversity.

202
Power and Whiteness
Other practices that address the question of how organizational change occurs at
Meadowbrier in relation to racial diversity also reflect the values of individuals including
whiteness. Most of these examples entail issues of racial diversity and organizational
change and explain how organizational change is obstructed to protect and perpetuate the
status quo at Meadowbrier. This is an important implication of this study as
organizational change and the possibilities related to producing or obstructing change are
directly linked to issues of power implicit to notions of whiteness. In the case of
Meadowbrier, organizational change is directly opposed by the Religious Elders and their
values and actions. Forms of resistance to change by these men include taking advantage
of decision-making by consensus, withholding support for change efforts, and treating
racial diversity like an institutional problem. Some of these men openly state it their duty
to prevent changes to their campus and to protect their culture and norms. This sense of
authority which is not unusual in the Collegium model previously mentioned can also be
understood as the enactment of white power which will be described later in this chapter.
Briefly, to explain how whiteness obstructs change it should be noted that whiteness is a
significant organizational element that often goes unnoticed and more importantly
unchallenged, particularly in the realm of Higher Education. It is as Lipsitz (1998) aptly
describes a “possessive investment” by those in power, more often than not white men, to
protect their interests which allow them dominant positions within the organizations and
societies they inhabit. As evidenced in this study and will be seen in this section, there

203
exist a host of ways whiteness is subtly enacted to obstruct change and limit the
distribution of power at Meadowbrier.
One example of how the Religious Elders dominate the Meadowbrier culture in
subtle ways that reflect their values is their influence on campus presidents and decision
making processes. Beyond their dominant history of controlling the faculty counsel, on
more than one occasion the Religious Elders have been responsible for helping unseat
Meadowbrier’s President over political differences. In a document titled A Brief History
of Meadowbrier College the Religious Elders chronicle their version of history at the
college since their arrival many decades ago. In this account, the Religious Elders
describe their conflict with one Meadowbrier President and how they went to the Board
of Trustees to discuss their “plight” and held “clandestine meetings about what to do.”
Their efforts resulted in the removal of the President who would not share power with
them and imposed certain changes they disagreed with including the acquisition of a law
school. Another President whose departure the Religious Elders impacted by going to the
“the powers that be” was a man who allowed them “very little input on policies or
priorities, and virtually no room to maneuver or suggest alternative expenditures.” This
President retired a short while later under pressure from the board which substantiates the
level of power held by the Religious Elders on this campus. Other actions of the
Religious Elders which protect their interests include the creation of their governance
process. According to their history, when many of the current Religious Elders arrived
they had no formal personnel process or faculty governance structure. In response to this,
one of the current Religious Elders with three other male faculty members helped create a

204
new personnel process which he proudly notes is “for the most part, the process we use
today”. Their new processes also succeeded in providing the faculty leadership, namely
the Religious Elders, “considerable input into policy-making”. The power concentration
within this group is not as problematic as a formal top-down administration structure, but
the fact the faculty fail to share their power is equally problematic. In concert, these
examples speak to the stronghold and influence this group of men have over the campus,
as well as the lengths they are willing to go to in order to preserve and protect their
privileges and power.

Campus Identity and Undefined Diversity
Another example of how change related to diversity is obstructed on this campus
is linked to the larger issue of their campus-wide identity crisis and uncertainty about the
term “diversity”. In the data, examples of the inaccurate rhetoric of diversity and the
range of ways issues of racial diversity were treated speak to the inexact and variable
understanding and treatment of race and diversity and their overall institutional identity.
The campus and some of its constituents seem invested in being a small private elite
liberal arts college known for their academic rigor and lovely setting. Others are willing
to see their strengths as their ability to serve the academic middle and many first-
generation college students while excelling as a Hispanic Serving Institution. The tension
between these images causes identity confusion which impedes progress related to
diversity. How can a college seek to transform into something it is not sure it wants to
be? Also, beyond having different definitions of the term diversity, which is in fact a

205
broad and all-encompassing term, there seemed to be an organizational unwillingness or
reluctance to clarify the meaning of this word on their campus. Bonilla-Silva (2003) and
other Race scholars identify this hesitance as the maintenance of power enacted through
vague and unclear language. While defining diversity is a challenging task on a national
level, often it is an exercise in bringing diversity to fruition. In other words placing
specific parameters on the word and its meaning is in effect committing to the notion.
This is a hazy but important part of this discussion as this is where many organizations,
including Meadowbrier, lose touch with their diversity efforts. One general prerequisite
for progress in producing change and in addressing matters such as racial equality and
justice is clear language. Otherwise, as has already been stated, you cannot change or
address what you cannot see or in this case define. Even when not attempting to produce
change related to race it is important to be clear about organizational goals and desired
identities.
Another example of the identity crisis related to racial diversity at Meadowbrier
involves their selective sense of diversity manifested in their recruitment practices. This
example is important for a few reasons. First, it embodies the complexities of addressing
race within an organization that has differing values and commitments to matters of racial
diversity. Second, it illustrates the dishonesty and confusion that exist about diversity and
specifically the tension surrounding how the college is perceived and represented. Both
of these factors significantly reduce the potential for effective change related to race and
racial diversity at Meadowbrier. On the surface and when it is useful, such as applying
for diversity related grants led by minority stakeholders, or when recognized in national

206
rankings, Meadowbrier is proud to be an HSI and one of the most diverse colleges of its
type. However in its recruitment publications and presentations it chooses to tell an
incomplete story which marginalizes Hispanics/Latinos and distorts the racial diversity
they do have. Despite the fact diversity is sometimes mentioned ambiguously depending
on the occasion, overall it is misportrayed and ultimately disrespected. To make their
claims of “valuing diversity” as part of their central mission and institutional identity
legitimate, Meadowbrier needs to confront their schizophrenia about diversity, and speak
honestly and consistently about their diversity and what it looks like on their campus. For
Meadowbrier to come to terms with matters of race, it is also important they reflect on
the opportunistic treatment of diversity and their image and identity. This includes
debunking the notion that diversity is synonymous with poor quality students. Just as
committing to a definition of diversity matters, so too does committing to either being
known as a racial diversity campus or not being a racially diverse campus—but not both.
Continuing to straddle the fence and being vaguely and selectively diverse represents the
co-optation of race for benefit and not as a genuine organizational value.

The Veiled Nature of Race
On a macro level, one finding from this study which limits the potential for
diversity related transformation at Meadowbrier is the indirect and dishonest treatment of
racial diversity. In the previous chapter data were presented to illustrate different ways
race and racial diversity were approached. Included in these examples are the use of
vague language to discuss diversity, treating diversity as a problem, marginalizing

207
diverse members of campus, and using diversity selectively and in manipulative ways
including for fiscal advantages. All of these examples represent the different and often
imperceptible ways race can be treated at an organization celebrated for its racial
diversity. Together, these practices represent a more meaningful implication of this study
which is organizational confusion and intransparency related to race. As discussed
extensively in the literature on race (Sefa Dei, Karumanchery, and Karumanchery-Luik,
2004; Brown el al., 2003) unclear and inconsistent language takes away the potential for
naming race-related practices and tending to them. Within a hazy organizational context,
where there is a mantra affirming organizational success in achieving diversity, there is
little need for reflexivity about the state of racial affairs. Examples of this are the
administrators who are aware of race-related incidents experienced by students, but who
choose not to take action and encourage students to also sweep such issues aside. Such
incidents seriously reduce the potential for effective organizational change and progress
in pursuing racial equity in colleges and universities. Regardless of individuals and their
potentially good intentions, surface level narratives and extolling advice to others about
racial diversity eclipses more significant dialogues that need to occur such as those
surrounding the conflation of race and class at Meadowbrier or how it is the Hispanic
population is marginalized at an HSI? Understanding the intransparent nature of racial
issues within organizations is a first step in identifying they exist and should be
interrogated. Rather than operate under the assumption of, if it is not perceptible it does
not exist, the findings from this study suggest otherwise. Knowing race is veiled and

208
often not an organizational priority reinforces the need to be critical within organizations
committed to producing and supporting racial diversity.

Institutional Resources
One final element identified as obstructing organizational change related to
diversity is the lack of institutional resources. Unlike practices reflective of individual
values which limited transformation, the fact that Meadowbrier is underfunded as an
institution severely impacts its possibilities to produce and support many forms of
organizational change. The organizational portrait presented overwhelming evidence of
their fiscal vulnerabilities and how these play out in every day practices. Leadership
decisions are compromised because of their need to do more with less, faculty and staff
members are consistently overworked and underpaid, and even students are aware of
Meadowbrier’s difficult financial struggles as they ask where their tuition money goes.
Such underfunding has severe consequences on prospects for progress and advancement.
Worthwhile questions that get asked when the college has tried to propose certain change
initiatives include why spend money here or there and not increase faculty wages,
improve campus facilities, or provide more classes for students? All of these are
legitimate concerns which should be addressed in order to lay the foundation for even the
most basic forms of organizational change. However, it is worth noting that tight fiscal
circumstances do not serve as a reason or justification not to address race-related issues in
need of attention. The point in raising this finding from the data is primarily to explain
one of the biggest challenges faced by this institution in trying to produce organizational

209
change and specifically in supporting racial diversity. Another healthy reminder of the
significance of being underfunded is the fact that most traditionally underrepresented
minority students attend underfunded and impoverished colleges and universities.
Therefore, despite dire financial straits, colleges like Meadowbrier have little choice but
to learn how to serve the needs of minority students in American Higher Education. As
illustrated in this study, demographic shifts are bringing racial diversity to organizations
whether they plan on it or not. Unlike previous decades where racial diversity was
sometimes viewed as a luxury that enhanced learning environments, colleges like
Meadowbrier are learning that racial diversity is a demographic inevitability that cannot
go unaddressed regardless of funding.

Does Organizational Rhetoric Differ from Organizational Practices, Attitudes, and
Beliefs?
Having recounted how the data responded to the research questions of how
organizational change occurs on this campus, and specifically what practices exist to
support or obstruct change related to racial diversity, here I present how the final research
question was addressed. This question which played a significant part of this study is:
Does organizational rhetoric about racial diversity as described in publications and
through organizational artifacts such as speeches and statements from institutional
constituents differ from organizational practices, attitudes, and beliefs?
The answer to this question as illustrated through the data in the previous chapter
confirms there are indeed significant differences between the espoused rhetoric of

210
diversity and Meadowbrier’s actions related to racial diversity. Overall the rhetoric about
racial diversity on this campus suggests it is deeply valued and a central part of their
organizational identity. According to President Fields, Meadowbrier stands as a role
model for diverse colleges and universities and they have achieved their racial diversity
through a number of steps that she offers to other institutions desirous of similar diversity
levels. However, while the actions of some organizational stakeholders do indeed reflect
an appreciation for racial diversity manifested through their supportive and sometimes
transformative practices, this was not found to be a campus wide phenomenon. Instead,
the data revealed a number of practices which are incongruent with perceptions of highly
valued racial diversity at this nationally recognized Hispanic Serving Institution. A range
of ways diversity was treated which were not described in the promotional narrative
about diversity include, using unclear language to discuss diversity, treating diversity as
more of an organizational burden than positive attribute, marginalizing groups that are
supposedly highly respected and valued, and using existing diversity in advantageous
ways. In short, the gap between what is said about racial diversity at Meadowbrier and
what is done to promote and support racial diversity is a serious one. The data illustrate
repeated instances of surface level conversations and publications that paint a picture of
diversity that is inaccurate. Contrasting these notions is the treatment of racial diversity
which in many instances throughout the data was problematic.
A few examples of campus publications are illustrative of the dishonesty related to
racial diversity on this campus. Despite the fact President Fields asserts racial diversity is
an ingrained part of their campus and that “diversity is background”, some publications

211
paint another picture. The first is one which plays down the number of Hispanic/Latinos
on the campus. As previously mentioned, the new recruitment viewbook at Meadowbrier
contains a number of pictures that do indeed portray diversity, however not the diversity
existing at Meadowbrier College. In this publication pictures of African-American
students significantly outnumber any other minority group which is ironic as they are the
least represented of any traditionally underrepresented group other than Native
Americans constituting less than 4% of Meadowbrier’s student body. A few other
written examples which speak to the disconnect between Meadowbrier’s diversity and
their treatment of diversity are two letters to the editor published in the campus paper.
The first is a complaint about diversity week, an event held on campus each year, in
which the student says they resented having diversity shoved down their throat because it
isn’t something they value. The other is from an undergraduate who experienced blatant
racism on campus and noted she felt misled by the image of racial harmony and value for
diversity the campus puts out. Both examples speak to the conflict between the
organizational reality at Meadowbrier and their inaccurate notions of diversity. Above all,
these examples are important as they indicate the power of college promotional
discourses and rhetoric, which when not grounded in reality, work against the same
causes they seek to champion. The following section speaks to the consequences of these
collective practices and how they impact the college as a whole as well as the potential
for organizational change related to race.

212
Theoretical Implications

A synthesis of findings from this study suggests Meadowbrier College is stuck in
a place of organizational dysfunction where the likelihood for organizational change
related to race is limited. Meadowbrier is neither an elite private college, nor is it a
thriving HSI. Instead, it exists in limbo somewhere between these two descriptions with
no current efforts being made to reconcile their identity issues. The challenge arising
from this organization being adrift is that issues of race and matters related to racial
diversity cannot receive the attention and support they deserve within the current
organizational context. Specifically, as demographics continue to shift and diversity
continues to grow, minority populations, namely Hispanics/Latinos, will remain at the
margins of this campus and not have their needs tended to. In this section I will describe
the implications of this case study and its findings on the dysfunctional state of affairs at
Meadowbrier College. By dysfunction I refer to practices which prevent organizational
change and progress and perpetuate racism, oppression, and the status quo. In an effort to
sufficiently unpack the different organizational limitations to change and related
practices, I will draw from the literature on race and organizational change to frame this
organization and its dilemma.
Contrary to the many claims made about diversity at Meadowbrier, the evidence
from this study indicates a pervasive disingenuous treatment of race on most levels. With
the exception of minority stakeholders and the few charismatic leaders within the
campuses’ history, this is a place that promotes an idyllic mythology about racial
diversity but does little to seek it out or support it. Instead, sometimes intentionally and

213
sometimes not, Meadowbrier’s leadership takes credit for their diversification and
capitalizes on the benefits of having a racially diverse campus including being a Hispanic
Serving Institution. This is not to say there are not organizational stakeholders who do
genuinely value their diversity, but rather that these voices are eclipsed by a number of
problematic practices and behaviors related to race that have already been identified.
What follows is an organizational dissection identifying the organizational identity crisis
at Meadowbrier and an explanation of its implications on change and progress related to
race.
The organizational context and setting at Meadowbrier are quite effective in
concealing their dysfunctional practices related to race while simultaneously producing a
façade of racial harmony and progress. As discussed at length in previous chapters, the
nature of race within organizational contexts is dynamic and difficult to detect. For this
reason campuses like Meadowbrier are able to seize upon coincidental demographic
shifts such as those that helped make them an HSI and claim them as progress without
undergoing significant scrutiny about the legitimacy of their efforts. One example of this
is President Fields’ article advising other campuses how they too can achieve the type of
racial diversity Meadowbrier is recognized for. This article is a testament to the
unrecognized organizational hypocrisy that exists on this campus and serves the purposes
of the college at the expense of marginalized campus minorities. Emphasizing the
imperceptible nature of race which is further muddied by problematic practices such as
Meadowbrier’s rhetoric of diversity goes a long way in explaining how it is little
attention has been paid to race-related practices on this campus.

214
From the outside and without a critical lens Meadowbrier appears to be a racially
diverse climate devoid of egregious racist practices. However, central to research
literature on race is the fact that there is power in not being able to see race (Sefa Dei,
Karumanchery, & Karumanchery-Luik, 2004). This is not to say Meadowbrier is a
bastion of racism. But rather, it is like many other American organizations, a place where
race and racism occur systemically and remain undetected. For this reason, it is no
surprise the data from study reflect much of what is said about the invisibility of race
including how such practices are perpetuated. Beginning with a lack of dialogue about
such issues, as stated by one minority campus stakeholder, there are no opportunities or
venues for such conversations at Meadowbrier. Adding to this is the color-blindness of
some organizational stakeholders, as well as the unwillingness to see if and where there
might be problems. One example of the desire for color-blindness that underpins Critical
Race Theory and describes Bonilla-Silva’s (2003) notion of racism without racists, is
Meadowbrier’s refusal to monitor racial diversity on their campus. As noted in the
previous chapter, the campus underwent more than one diversity-related initiative
seeking to establish a culture of evidence to monitor racial equity. Maintaining such
practices would not cost them additional resources, however, these practices were not
institutionalized in spite of their ability to shed light on the state of racial equity on their
campus. Some might argue it is not uncommon for such organizational initiatives to not
be institutionalized, but the more important question pertains to their commitment to
concealing intransparent ways racism is enacted. Until there is a genuine willingness to
look honestly as difficult issues like race, little progress can be made in promoting or

215
supporting racial diversity at this college. Furthermore because issues of race have been
successfully distorted, problematic practices will continue in undetected ways. Echoing
this sentiment are the comments of Brown et al (2003) who note “durable racial
inequality is both generated and sustained…by routine organizational rules and practices
that on the surface may appear to have nothing to do with race.”
Another level of dysfunction can be directly attributed to the deceptive use of
language at Meadowbrier which has been a central finding of this study and stands
directly in the way of racial progress and change. Through the demonstrated manipulative
use of language, this college obscures matters of race while promoting a disingenuous
narrative about their history and value for diversity. McPhail (2002) reminds us
“language constructs social reality” and is thus used within organizations to construct
their realities without regard for accuracy and impact of resulting assertions. Therefore,
language has the ability to work both for and against the enactment of race within society
and organizations. On the positive side, as is intended through this dissertation, language
has the power to name and define problematic organizational practices in order to call
attention to them and seek transformation (Sefa Dei, Karumanchery, and Karumanchery-
Luik, 2004). However, more often than not as illustrated in the findings of this study,
language is effective in obscuring certain organizational realities like the presence of
racial disparities. At Meadowbrier rhetoric is used as what McPhail (2002) refers to, “as
an art of persuasion.” Through the institutional practice of talking about diversity in
certain ways, the Meadowbrier community has constructed an inaccurate image of
diversity that pervades its campus. Their narrative of diversity is as imprecise as the

216
terms they use, however, when asked to describe the campus most stakeholders
immediately describe the campus as diverse regardless of what that term actually means.
As a result of such language, the problematic treatment of racial diversity is overlooked
and unattended. An example of how this occurs is the following question: How is it
Meadowbrier needs to address matters of racial injustice when they are an HSI and
recognized nationally for their campus diversity? Both of these factors are true; however
they operate dangerously in the service of the status quo and ironically diminish potential
for deep-rooted progress in addressing the real problems associated with race on this
campus. Thus, the data confirm McPhail’s (2002) assertion that the language we use to
talk about race and racism, or to avoid it as is often the case at Meadowbrier, implicates
us in its perpetuation.
A final point about language and race from the literature is about the co-optation
of language to talk about race. This is similar to what has been discussed thus far but
suggests more intentionality. This practice is raised in the work of Bonilla-Silva who
reminds us how language is co-opted to conceal race-related actions. At Meadowbrier
one example that has been discussed extensively is the definition of diversity. Diversity
as a term has been co-opted to suit the desired institutional image and goals of
Meadowbrier and plays a large part of their deceptive organizational rhetoric. However
as noted in the data, it is lacking in definition and despite the lack of structure and
meaning continues to be used by key organizational leaders in ways they realize are
vague and unclear. Another co-opted term is the word minority. Meadowbrier has
appropriated this term to suit its needs although their use differs from traditional

217
understandings of the word. Evidence of this includes the non-minority faculty members
considered minorities for the purpose of the Faculty Diversity Initiative. The value of
these examples is their subtly and representation of how co-optation occurs and how
easily language can be used in problematic ways that mask the reality about race and
racism on this campus.
While it is not possible to determine one root cause for the dysfunctional dynamic
related to racial diversity at Meadowbrier College, there is value in closely examining the
institutional stakeholders with the most power and understanding their roles in this
quagmire. Much attention has been paid to the Faculty Elders and it is not inappropriate
to say they have a stronghold on the organization and wield too much power. Beyond
rationalizing their organizational hegemony with explanations about the role of faculty
within collegial organizations, there is more value in focusing on the impact of their
power and whiteness on the racial identity crisis at Meadowbrier. An important portrayal
of whiteness offered by Moss (2005) describes the strategic silence characteristic of this
form of social supremacy. This silence is evidenced in the natural way the Faculty Elders
move forward their agendas on campus and fail to be questioned and rarely opposed. A
testament to this supremacy is that the fact that the Religious Elders along with the
support of the trustees, appear to be responsible for promoting the racist misconception
that conflates racial diversity with academic incompetency. On more than one occasion
in the data one of the Religious Elders explains how diversity is problematic because
being a diverse campus, and specifically and HSI, is synonymous with low quality
students. At no point have these notions been questioned and as one minority faculty

218
member explains, the resistance to being an HSI originated with The Religious Elders
who have the support of the trustees as well as some of the administrators. He explains
their unwillingness to see Meadowbrier in an accurate light because “it is their
university”, “they provide the money, they provide the leadership” and they believe
that“…when people think Latino, people think not qualified, not academically
challenging.”
Also complicit in the perpetuation of this narrative are the female administrators
who support practices that selectively play down being a Hispanic Serving Institution and
agree with the use of cautious language when promoting Meadowbrier’s organizational
image. Perhaps even more dangerous than the Religious Elders are these women who are
committed to espousing the disingenuous and inaccurate organizational narrative about
diversity. President Fields and her cabinet exhibit a conflict in values that was illustrated
in the previous chapter, and that plays a significant role in confusing the treatment of race
on this campus. It is these women who have the ability to challenge the Faculty Elders
and choose not to, and it is these same women who put into action the policies that
undermine race-related organizational change on this campus. Behind their public
statements about their value for the religious tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism at
Meadowbrier are a group of white female administrators who have organizational power
and agency and who are aware of the dominant role of the Faculty Elders. While their
ability to produce change is indeed limited by the nature of their organization, these
women also have the skills and professional experience as leaders to advance matters of
race more than they have. This is not to say some of these women have not played a role

219
in supporting racial diversity at Meadowbrier, indeed some have. However, what value is
there to their limited surface level actions supportive of racial diversity when they also
undercut these efforts through their dishonest treatment of race? Complicating the role of
the administration is the fact that they tend to portray themselves as champions of racial
diversity which only feeds into the cycle of deception and dysfunction at this college.
One important factor behind some of the confusion and dishonesty about racial
diversity at Meadowbrier is their lack of institutional resources. Although this
organizational component has already been described as an obstacle to organizational
change, it must also be understood as a motivating factor behind some of the questionable
practices at this college related to race. This means resources, specifically the dearth of
funding, inspired problematic actions including the selective use of the HSI status and
diversity description during recruitment presentations, and the allocation of diversity
related grant monies. While none of the actions related to the use of funds were illegal,
the moral nature of how grant funding was used should be questioned. While it is true
that colleges and universities must learn to make the most of what resources they have,
this does not justify using racial diversity in capitalistic and disingenuous ways. Although
the surface rhetoric of the campus sometimes includes the Hispanic Serving Institution
designation, the data do not contain any genuine efforts intended to assist the
Hispanic/Latino student population. What success these students do experience can be
attributed to their efforts and determination to do well at Meadowbrier as well as to the
support of their families, community, and some faculty members. Based on the data it
seems clear Meadowbrier as an organization has done little to support this campus

220
population. Despite readily accepting millions of dollars intended to grow and support
racial diversity, Meadowbrier only took actions targeted at improving the campus as a
whole, not the populations grant funds were intended for. As one minority stakeholder
involved with grant administration noted, grants were used primarily as budgetary relief.
Although the use of resources at Meadowbrier is explained away because of their
persistent lack of resources, this practice while not illegal, illustrates the insincere
handling of racial diversity.

Organizational Change Theories
The organizational change literature used to create the theoretical framework for
this study partially explains the dysfunctional phenomenon surrounding the treatment of
race at Meadowbrier College. Schein’s (1985) multi-layered cultural model of
organizations is used to illustrate the complex structure of organizations like
Meadowbrier College and to situate the different types of change that occur at different
organizational levels. It supports the notion that organizational change is the result of
changes to the different organizational levels and is manifested through individual
organizational stakeholders and changes in their beliefs. According to cultural models,
organizational change varies depending on the type of institution and occurs slowly over
time which is consistent with change at Meadowbrier. Successful change is considered to
be a difficult undertaking that involves a number of organizational variables. One
application of cultural models in relation to Meadowbrier College involves its description
of the dynamic between organizational stakeholders and their impact on change.

221
Examples of such relationships include the relationships of the Religious Elders and core
administration to change, which don’t explain how Meadowbrier became and HSI but do
speak to how change is limited and slowed.
Other important applications of organizational change literature include the
theories of Argyris and Schön (1974) which were introduced early on as part of the
theoretical framework for this study. By using espoused theories and theories in use
versus theories of action within the context of Schein’s organizational model, I explained
Meadowbrier’s dilemma regarding organizational change. First, they use espoused
theories, or what was referred to as their diversity rhetoric, to promote a certain racially
sensitive image to the public. Next, they have theories in use or their current inconsistent
practices related to racial diversity, which are not productive and actually are
marginalizing. Finally, there are theories of action which represent potential actions that
can be taken such as hiring minority leaders or monitoring diversity that can actually
assist in furthering diversity and organizational change. Together these theories along
with critical race theory explain in organizational terms how Meadowbrier can promote
one discourse about diversity while simultaneously undercutting race-related matters.
Furthermore, the theory of defensive routines which was also previously mentioned
explains how thoughts and actions are used to protect the organizational status quo as
well as the way individuals, groups, and organizations deal with reality. At Meadowbrier
the conflation of race and class, and the false assumption that being an HSI signifies poor
academic quality, represent what defensive routines look like in action.

222
Political models of organizational change are limited in their ability to explain the
process of change that transpires at Meadowbrier surrounding race. However, they do
describe other characteristics that apply to Meadowbrier. Primarily, they assert dominant
cultures such as the Religious Elders act within organizational structures to preserve their
power and the status quo. It is these groups who drive or obstruct change, and overall
change is the result of interest groups. Such groups produce organizational transformation
as the result of negotiations, agendas, and coalitions (Kezar, 2001; Kotter, 1985). At
Meadowbrier the only collective effort that occurred was the obstruction of change
through the values and practices of the Faculty Elders. Otherwise there were not any
united groups allied to produce change through the means most identified with political
models. Furthermore, the transformation that did happen related to race, namely the
diversification resulting from policy changes, charismatic leadership, and demographic
shifts do not coincide with this model.
Other forms of planned or teleological organizational change were rejected by the
campus constituents or simply not institutionalized. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, there were a few intentional organizational change efforts that Meadowbrier
undertook to increase and support their diversity. These planned models were traditional
in nature and were designed to operate in a linear fashion with the intention of teaching
leaders at Meadowbrier how to assess, monitor, and support areas of diversity on their
campus. Although leaders bought into these projects it seems their practices were not
adopted at Meadowbrier and consequently they were not effective in producing change.
It should also be noted that the diversification of Meadowbrier had already occurred

223
before these efforts were undertaken, therefore these planned models of organizational
change also fail to explain Meadowbrier’s practices related to racial diversity.

Postmodern Organizational Drift
Perhaps a more useful approach to understanding the dynamics related to race at
Meadowbrier comes from postmodern theories of organizational change. Casey (2002)
reminds us the value of postmodern organizational analysis includes the interrogation of
power and authority as well as cultural and identity practices within organizations. One
specific postmodern notion that speaks to Meadowbrier’s identity crisis related to
diversity is the notion of organizational drift. Quattrone and Hopper (2001) explain the
uncertainty that exist about how organizational change is defined and question why it
occurs. In their work they interrogate traditional notions of organizational change which
are defined as the process by which an entity passes from one state to another (p.407).
Because of the limitations of such definitions they replace organizational change with a
much less rigid and more organic concept they call drift. This concept describes the
process that occurs to organizations when there are unplanned shifts that occur, similar to
when a raft drifts in water. This metaphor is useful because it addresses issues of
organizational intentionality about change, or more importantly the lack thereof. One of
the driving arguments made by Quattrone and Hopper is that change is not always a
rational, linear, intentional process and often is carried out in unpredictable ways,
irrational, and dysfunctional ways.

224
The concept of drift is especially useful in identifying how Meadowbrier College
became diverse. Some of the reasons given for replacing notions of organizational change
with the concept of drift include: Drift is not considered intentional, it is non-linear, it is
non-temporal, and it recognizes contingent forces that affect change in unpredictable
ways. These traits are all applicable to Meadowbrier and help explain how it is this
campus went from being a primarily white affluent college to one of the most successful
Hispanic Serving Institutions of its type. Beginning with the fact that Meadowbrier’s
diversification was not intentional. With the exception of Mr. Martinez’s outreach efforts,
the demographic shift in the area and the presidential decision to increase enrollment
were purely coincidental. Also, these changes did not occur in a linear or temporal way,
but rather in a series of scattered episodes that evolved into a gradual flow of minority
students over time. The organizational identity desired by Meadowbrier drifted in an
entirely different direction as a result of the various factors that triggered the campus
diversification. Meadowbrier went from being invested in an image of a small private
elite liberal arts college anchored in its religious heritage to a multi-ethnic urban
influenced Hispanic Serving Institution serving a large working class population of
academically underprepared students. The accuracy of these characteristics in describing
Meadowbrier’s organizational diversification confirms the validity of the concept of drift
and useful application of this postmodern approach.
One somewhat ironic prospect for Meadowbrier and its current identity crisis is
the value and potential of their HSI status. Despite practices that suggest racial diversity,
and specifically being an HSI, is more problematic than it is worth, it also appears to be

225
its biggest strength in moving beyond their current state of identity confusion. Put more
boldly, Meadowbrier is adrift because they are acting in racist ways and not embracing
the potential of their new identity. During some of the interviews a few organizational
stakeholders raised the point that they had collectively proposed to the administration an
innovative model for Meadowbrier. Their concept was based on the idea of embracing
their HSI status to set them apart from other small private elite liberal arts campuses and
take it to the next level, meaning being a post-diversity college. They argued they already
have diversity numbers, so they should evolve other aspects of the campus including their
curriculum and pedagogical strategies, making them cutting edge and on the forefront of
educational innovation. Also included in this plan was directly targeting
Hispanics/Latinos using a targeted media campaign. These ideas were dismissed and
never taken seriously as they were deemed to be provincial and limiting. One
organizational stakeholder even suggested the trend in Latino enrollments might just be a
fad. However, for the sake of this campus which has for better or worse drifted in into
their HSI status, it would behoove them to explore potential strategies to help them
transcend their current identity crisis.

Practical Implications

Addressing race within organizations is not a practical proposition. Similar to
other social justice struggles including the Civil Rights Movement, efforts to change
colleges and universities in ways that grow and support racial diversity requires
commitment and persistence. Also needed is a basic understanding of how and where
issues of race exist in organizational contexts and tools by which to identify problematic

226
practices. Although theoretical in nature, there is a practical component to locating and
naming problematic practices related to race within colleges and universities. Such
actions can be understood as an exercise in consciousness raising and to a limited extent
organizational assessment. Taking on challenges such as social injustice and racial
inequity are indeed complex deep-rooted societal matters, for this reason recognizing the
scope of these problems is a first step toward producing change. Rather than propose an
unrealistic silver bullet intervention or “solution”, this section will offer a brief discussion
of practices intended to increase organizational transparency to improve the way race is
treated within colleges and universities. One caveat about these practices is that such
efforts will experience little if any success in organizational contexts lacking a basic level
of interest and commitment to matters of race and equity. What follow are a handful of
practical approaches toward the honest organizational treatment of race.
A first step in dealing with race responsibly requires being honest about race.
Because this often is not the organizational norm it is imperative to create spaces and
venues where matters of race can be discussed authentically and in important ways. From
an organizational standpoint this requires little else other than a safe space and a
willingness to listen to what institutional stakeholders have to say. In describing how
Latinos were marginalized at Meadowbrier, one stakeholder said they lacked both the
language and space to have some of the conversations needed to genuinely address race.
Thus providing a safe confidential space devoid of judgment where individuals can
gather to raise concerns or have discussions related to race is useful as a first step toward
transformation. What matters most is not the physical space for these conversations but

227
rather the institutional gesture that signifies a willingness to hear what people have to say.
In some ways such gestures also serve as an informal acknowledgement that problematic
issues related to race exist.
An example of such practices is an initiative by the Ford Foundation titled the
Difficult Dialogue Initiative which funds projects intended to stimulate open and civil
discussions about difficult social issues such as race. This initiative is driven by the idea
that dialogic practices on campuses such as Meadowbrier have the ability to foster a
process Paolo Freire (1973) referred to a conscientization which means critical self-
consciousness. Just listening to individuals and their experiences produces opportunities
for individual organizational stakeholders to learn new ways of thinking and new
behaviors. Human traits including emotion, empathy, and respect have the ability to
promote and support transformation on various scales. Although not a mainstream
organizational intervention, such dialogues are important in broaching sensitive, delicate,
and emotionally charged conversations.
It goes without saying that language and language related practices are central to
the process of interrogating the treatment of race within an institution. An important
point made in the introduction is that through legal rulings, the co-optation of race-related
language, and a general distortion of racial diversity, the state of race within
organizations has been blurred. Replacing the use of indirect or dishonest terms with
accurate and responsible language to discuss race is a powerful action colleges and
universities can take. This process alone has the potential to begin important
organizational shifts. Included in language practices should be clear organizational

228
definitions of race and racial diversity as well as other significant terms that are important
to the campus and its different organizational cultures. In addition to typical diversity
statements, campuses can produce yearly assessments and goals related to the treatment
of race and report publically on the state of racial equity on their campuses. Such efforts
should be taken seriously and should involve high-ranking leaders including the president
so as to communicate accountability and respect of such issues.
Other language related practices that have the potential to transform the treatment
of race entails monitoring the accuracy of organizational rhetoric. Campuses genuinely
interested in supporting racial diversity can invest their efforts in examining their
promotional discourses in ways that help provide institutional accountability about race.
There is value to interrogating the accuracy of the numbers espoused about minority
enrollments or admission standards. Depending on the organizational context,
organizational stakeholder might have opportunities to reconcile gaps between public
statements and organizational realities using institutional data. At Meadowbrier many
institutional stakeholders were aware of the disingenuous nature of their diversity
rhetoric, however the climate was not receptive to having this mythology challenged.
Other campuses however might be more tolerant of organizational stakeholders invested
in transparency about race.
Leadership and hiring practices are also an important part of transforming an
organization to be more racially conscious. This point is illustrated through the need for
increased diversity among the leadership at Meadowbrier. During interviews and focus
groups there was a keen awareness of who the highest ranking minority was in the

229
administration. For minority constituents like the Hispanic/Latino population at
Meadowbrier, seeing minority leaders appears to hold significant value. Hiring practices
also have the potential to be linked with the dissemination of racially conscious ways of
thinking that are ultimately translated into systemic practices. Take for example the
Meadowbrier stakeholder who took it upon herself to create the yearly Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. Oratorical Contest. Hiring people like this administrator with different voices
and perspectives underpins anti-racist agendas that support minorities within
organizations. One caveat about hiring relates to the employment tactic of hiring
minorities in tokenistic ways to fulfill surface level concerns about diversity. Not all
minorities share the same values or have an interest in moving forward diversity agendas.
Another problem associated with hiring practices is the concentration of organizational
diversity in certain areas. A somewhat idealistic but overarching goal for colleges and
universities committed to improving the treatment of race should be the equal distribution
of diversity throughout campus.
A final step organizations can take in support of honesty related to race is
providing access to institutional research data and other documents recording how grant
funds related to racial diversity are spent. Not many campus members may be interested
in such information, but having access to such information builds confidence about
organizational integrity. Often grants are tied to assessment requirements which include
reports that can be used to study the progress of the institution in reaching its
organizational goals related to racial equity. One document at Meadowbrier that provided
interesting insight about the state of affairs of diversity, and specifically their identity

230
crisis, was the campus image study. This document included data from multiple
constituent groups and is an example of the kind of information that stimulates dialogue
about the college. In concert all of these practices have the ability to reveal problematic
practices about race and empower organizational constituents concerned with issues of
educational equity the ability to track organizational progress.

Future Research

Conducting this organizational case study led to the development of a number of
prospective ideas for future research. Aside from using some of the findings from this
study as a springboard for future projects, I am also motivated by the different tenets of
Critical Race Theory and their application to the field higher education. One research
project I would like to undertake involves building out this case study and using the same
theoretical lens and methodology to explore how organizational change related to race
occurs or does not occur within different organizational contexts. Specifically, I would
like to conduct case studies at different types of institutions recognized as racially diverse
to compare how race occurs and is treated on these campuses. Do other institutions
encounter similar obstacles, if so how have they effectively addressed them? Are there
other instances of drift related to race within these contexts? The results from a
comparative case study analysis including a large private research institution, a large
public research university, a medium sized private college, and large public two year
institution, might provide useful information about the treatment of race within different
organizational settings. Such a project could also interrogate the inevitable nature of

231
diversity within colleges and universities and how well different organizations are
responding to these changes.
Another research area to explore is the rhetoric of diversity in higher education
and its relationship to organizational transformations related to race. In the introduction
of this study I invoked the words of Cliff Adelman (1999) who asserted the rhetoric of
diversity in American Higher Education hides the inequities that need to be addressed.
Through the guiding research questions of this dissertation as well as the execution of this
case study, I have succeeded in confirming Mr. Adelman’s suspicions on a limited basis.
In addition, using the theoretical lens of critical race theory and organizational change
theories, I depict the disingenuous nature of diversity rhetoric. Consequently, in light of
this information organizations like Meadowbrier can no longer hide behind such
practices. More research is needed in interrogating the use of dishonest language
surrounding race and its impact on organizational change. A study examining the
rhetoric of diversity at multiple universities might prove useful in developing more
knowledge about inaccurate organizational discourses that conceal how race is treated in
colleges and universities. Much of the research on race in higher education describes its
value in learning environments, what climates support diversity, and what practices
impede progress in producing racial equity. All of this is important research which might
be served by the addition of research on subtle and dangerous practices that thwart the
advancement of race-related progress. Such a project might also provide a form of
institutional accountability regarding responsible and transparent practices related to race.
Examining rhetorics of diversity and calling attention to their organizational uses could

232
encourage increased vigilance and responsibility in the promotional discourses of
colleges and universities. Methodologically speaking this form of research could benefit
from the use of discourse analysis within a critical framework.
A third research topic derived from the findings of this study that would
contribute to the exploration of race while adding to the research in higher education is a
project on the role of whiteness within colleges and universities. Because this topic is so
large there are many approaches to interrogating this topic. Possible research could
include studies on whiteness and leadership within colleges and universities,
investigating how whiteness is enacted in relation to the shifting demographics of higher
education, and of course an examination of whiteness and organizational change. One
theoretical model to explore is Bonilla-Silva’s (2001) concept of racism without racists
which is rooted in notions of white privilege and power. Just as attention has been
focused on understanding the dynamics of race within higher education, there is also
value to expanding this research to include the interrogation of whiteness. Executing
these studies might also entail short term organizational case studies using critical
qualitative frameworks.
A final area of inquiry brought to light by this study is research on the treatment
of race within Hispanic Serving Institutions. Perhaps one of the most startling findings
from this study was the marginalization of the Hispanic/Latino population within a
Hispanic Serving Institution. The sad irony of this finding is compelling and speaks to the
deceptive nature of racist practices as well as the organizational assumptions that protect
them. In response to this finding, I suggest the need for a large scale study of Hispanic

233
Serving Institutions in the United States. Unlike many Historically Black Colleges and
Universities that were established to serve black students, the majority of HSI’s became
HSI’s due to increases in demographic representation like Meadowbrier. Consequently,
there is a need to understand more about these colleges, specifically about the treatment
of race within these environments as well as understanding the organizational
transformation associated with organizations whose identity changes unintentionally over
time.

Conclusion
The impetus for this study was a desire to unearth an organizational process
successful at producing the type of organizational change assumed to occur related to
race within colleges and universities. The findings from this case study failed to reveal
such a process but served an equally valuable purpose as they shed light on a host of
problematic organizational practices related to race in higher education. An initial
assumption about Meadowbrier College was that it held a value for racial justice and
educational equality. In fact, based on preliminary interviews and an assessment of the
campus demographics, the initial pilot study indicated this was indeed a location where
organizational change related to race took place and was highly valued. Campus
stakeholders talked about their appreciation for their multi-cultural setting and their
recent history included a host of specific race related change initiatives. Accordingly this
college was selected as the site for this case study, and the project was aptly titled
“Racing” to Transform Colleges and Universities: A Case Study of Race-Related

234
Organizational Change in Higher Education. Because of the assumption this study would
interrogate the processes related racial diversification I employed the term “Racing” in
the title to serve as a double entendre representative of the speed with which many
colleges and universities allege to be pursuing racial diversity as well as the actual
process of transforming based on race. However the findings of this study tell an entirely
different story and for this reason, it is appropriate to change the title of this dissertation.
Rather than “Racing” to transform, it will be “Racing? to Transform” acknowledging the
questionable commitment to and treatment of race which is otherwise veiled on this
campus.
By bringing the dishonest practices used to marginalize based on race within
organizations to light and which perpetuate what Bonilla-Silva (2003) calls new racism,
this study supports the interest of racial progress in American higher education. Contrary
to hopeful notions that racism in higher education ended years ago, this study provides
evidence that not only has racism not ended, but that it has morphed into a more
nefarious social ill. The findings from this study confirm the existence of marginalizing
organizational practices that drastically limit the advancement of diversity yet remain
concealed within complex organizational contexts. In spite of some well-intentioned
efforts and emphatic rhetoric about diversity, Meadowbrier College illustrated no real
progress related to organizational change. Instead it revealed a host of disingenuous ways
race was treated under the guise of racial harmony. This lack of progress and undetected
dishonesty speaks to the larger picture in higher education and might explain why more

235
progress has not been made in advancing racial parity over the past fifty-four years since
desegregation.
Underpinning most of the organizational challenges uncovered in this study is a
general lack of sincerity about race and racism that might be reflective of the broader
field of higher education. Through the use of organizational theories and critical race
theory some of these practices were brought to light and given the attention they warrant.
Despite the elusive and undetectable nature of race within organizations, individuals
concerned with producing race-related transformation now have further evidence of the
need to continue advocating for racial equity in colleges and universities. To truly
transcend the false rhetoric about race and deceptive organizational practices that occur
within some institutions of higher education, it is critical to operate from a place of
integrity. Brown et al. (2003) powerfully remind us racism persists because the people of
the United States never moved with sufficient seriousness to remedy it” (p.226). Missing
from our educational organizations are honest conversations that acknowledge the
racially stratified legacy of American colleges and universities, and the impact of this
history on current organizational practices. Unlike the truth and reconciliation hearings
which helped mend South Africa after Apartheid, important public discourse about race
is rare in the U.S. This broad lack of transparency and effective engagement with race
explains the limited prospects for deep-rooted change facing organizations like
Meadowbrier College. Critical research practices present one opportunity to continue
exploring the treatment of race and call for a shift in attention toward issues of persistent
inequality in American higher education. Studies like this organizational case serve as

236
forums for the examination of race and represent what is possible when truth-telling
about race is privileged over the protection of the status quo.

237
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns,
and Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. New York: Harper
Business.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to
organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bell, D. A. (1990). After we’re gone: Prudent speculations on America in a post-racial
epoch. In Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting
edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bell, D. A. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown versus the Board of Education and the
unfulfilled hopes of racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organizations
and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-Blind Racism and the
Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
Brown, M. K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T. Oppenheimer, D. B., Shultz, M. M.,
Wellman, D. (2003). Whitewashing race: The myth of a color-blind society.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Casey, C. (2002). Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Chestler, M. A. & Crowfoot, J. (1989). Racism in higher education: An organizational
analysis. Center for Research on Social Organization, the Working Paper Series,
Paper #558, November 1989.

238
Cho, S., & Westly, R. (2000). Historicizing critical race theory’s cutting edge: Key
movements that performed the theory. In Doing critical race theory in hard times.
Foreword in Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A. (Eds). Crossroads,
directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. 32-70). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Chubbuck, S. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: The complexity of
personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 301-333.

Crenshaw, K. (Ed). (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech,
and the first amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Introduction. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K.
Thomas (Eds.). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement.
New York: New Press.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2002). The first decade: Critical reflections, or “A foot in the closing
door”. In Doing critical race theory in hard times. Foreword in Valdes, F.,
McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A. (Eds). Crossroads, directions, and a new critical
race theory (pp. 9–31). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Collins, D. (1998). Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. London:
Routledge.

Cox, Jr., T., & Nkomo, S. (1990). Invisible men and women: A status report on race as a
variable in organization behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
11(6), 419-431.

DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised
that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism
in Education. Educational Researcher 33 (5), 26-31.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2006). “Proving your skin is white, you can have everything”:
Race, racial identity, and property rights in whiteness in the Supreme Court Case
of Josephine DeCuir. In Critical Race Theory in Education: All God’s children
got a song. New York: Routledge.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000). Critical race theory: The cutting edge.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

239
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000). Essentialism and Anti-essentialism. In Critical
race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006). Critical Race Theory in Education: All God’s
children got a song. New York: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NewYork: Continuum.
Hurtado, et al. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments. Washington, DC:
ASHE-ERIC.
Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher
education. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Kanter, R. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in the 21st century: Recent
research and conceptualizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kincheloe, J. L. & McLaren, P. (2003). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research. In The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. New York: Free
Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate IV, W. F. (1995). Toward a Critical Race Theory of
Education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Lawrence, C. R., Matsuda, M. J., Delgado, R., Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Introduction. In
Words that Wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first
amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lawrence, C. R. (1997). Who are we? And why are we here? Doing critical race theory
in hard times. In Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A. (Eds). Crossroads,
directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. xii–xxi). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Leonardo, Z. (2002). The Souls of White Folk: Critical Pedagogy, Whitness Studies,
and Globalization Discourse. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 29-50.

Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: How White People Profit
from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

240
Lynn, M., Yosso, T. J., Solórzano, D. G., & Parker, L. (2002). Critical race theory and
education: Qualitative research in the new millennium. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1),
3–6.

Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s
to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

MacKinnon, C. A. (2002). Keeping it real: On anti-“essentialism.” In Doing critical
race theory in hard times. Foreword in Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A.
(Eds). Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. 71-81).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R., Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words that
Wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McPhail, M. L. (2002). The Rhetoric of Racism Revisited Reparations or Separation?
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Meyerson, D. E. (2003). Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change at
work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Montoya, M. E. (2002). Celebrating racialized legal narratives. In Doing critical race
theory in hard times. Foreword in Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A. (Eds).
Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. 244-257).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.”
Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487-513.

Quattrone, P. & Hopper, T. (2001). What does organizational change mean?
Speculations on a taken for granted category. Management Accounting Research,
12, 403-435.

Renner, E. K. (2003). Racial equity in higher education. Academe, March 2003.

Sefa Dei, G. J., Karumanchery, L. L., Karumanchery-Luik, N. (2004). Playing the race
card: Exposing white power and privilege. New York: Peter Lang.

241

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Scheurich, J.J. (2002). Anti-racist scholarship: An advocacy. Albany: State University
of NewYork Press.

Smith, D, and associates (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students
benefit.Washington, DC: Association of American College and Universities.

Solorzano, D. G., &Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-
storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Twine, F. W., & Warren, J. W. (2000). Racing Research, Researching Race
Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies. New York: New York
University Press.

Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J., Harris, A. (2002). Crossroads, directions, and a new
critical race theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Twombly, S. B., Tuttle, K. N, Ward, K., & Gaston-Gayles, J. L.
(2004). Reflecting back, looking forward: Civil rights and student affairs.
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Yancy, G., (2005). White on White / Black on Black. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.

242
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Project: Diversity and transformation: An institutional case study of organizational
change

Time of Interview:

Date:

Place:

Interviewer: Melissa Contreras-McGavin

Interviewee:

Position/Title of Interviewee:

(Brief description of the project)

Primary Questions Categories:
1. Organizational Background/Culture
2. Campus Organizational Change Efforts
3. Race on Campus
4. Race-related Organizational Change/The gap between theory and practice

Organizational Background/Culture

Please describe yourself and your background/role/duties at Meadowbrier College?

How would you describe this College and its culture?

Is general organizational change on campus approached differently by different
people depending on their institutional role or title? (e.g. administrators, faculty,
leaders, etc.?)

Campus Organizational Change Efforts

Please tell me about any organizational change efforts on this campus?

Are you directly involved in any of these transformative efforts? If so how?

243

In your experience, how does change happen on this campus?

Are there specific strategies or approaches to changing this campus? Probe: If yes, did
you learn these here and can you provide examples?

Race on Campus

How is racial diversity regarded on campus? Probe: Can you provide examples?

Do racism or racist practices occur on this campus? If so can you provide examples?

In what ways are these perpetuated?

Are there direct and open instances where racism or racist practices have been
confronted?

Race-related Organizational Change/The gap between theory and practice

Do you believe there are differences between general campus change efforts and
change efforts related to racial diversity? Probe: Can you describe these or provide
examples please?

What are any elements that either help or hinder organizational change from
happening?

How would you describe the rhetoric on racial diversity promoted by this institution?

In what ways are the actions of this institution consistent or inconsistent with
keeping with this rhetoric?

244
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol

Project: Diversity and transformation: An institutional case study of organizational
change

Time of Focus Group:

Date:

Place:

Focus Group Leader: Melissa Contreras-McGavin

Focus Group Participants:

Positions/Titles of Focus Group Participants:

Questions:

1. Please describe yourselves and your backgrounds/roles/duties at Meadowbrier
College?

2. Are you directly involved in any transformative efforts on campus? If so how?

3. How would you describe this campus as it relates to issues of race?

4. Have organizational change efforts related to race been effective on this campus?

5. Can you describe the ways these have been successful or not successful?

245
Appendix C: Observational Protocol
Project: Diversity and transformation: An institutional case study of organizational
change

Site/Event to be observed:

Date:

The Physical Setting:

Key Informants:

Description of the Study (if needed)

Key Observations:

Any instances/mention of organizational change or race?

Was this event consistent with the espoused organizational rhetoric? How/or how
not?

Concluding observations/thoughts:

Closing comments/reflections:

Follow-up information?

246
Appendix D: Deductive Data Codes

• Direct treatment of race/racism

• Indirect treatment of race/racism

• Avoidance of race/racism

• Instances of organizational change/Change efforts

• Race-related organizational change

• Race-related organizational rhetoric

• Resistance to race-related change

• Support for race-related change

• Colorblindness/Instance of embedded race/racism

• Race-related language/terms

• Traditional organizational approaches to race-related change

• Non-traditional organizational approaches to race-related change

Abstract (if available)

Abstract For more than four decades, efforts have been made to address persistent racial inequalities in American higher education. In fact, many colleges and universities treat matters of race including racism as issues of the past. Despite a host of efforts and notions that progress has been made in remediating racial injustice, there is evidence that racial equality is still elusive for many students. This dissertation explores the treatment of racial diversity from a perspective of organizational change with the goal of understanding how transformation related to race occurs. Using an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, this study investigates practices that support and obstruct racial diversity within colleges and universities. Through an organizational case study of a small private college, this study sheds light on what is said about race versus what is done about race. The findings from this study confirm there is a disconnect between the college's rhetoric about diversity and its actions, and that there are a number of subtle and undetected ways that race and racism are perpetuated within higher education. A few intended outcomes of this study are the recognition of how race is currently treated in higher education and the advancement of race-related organizational change efforts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Changing colleges and universities through individual empowerment: Exploring the intersection between institutional actors and their organizations

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

PDF

Increasing representation of Black male hip-hop educators in the community colleges in California

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

Somebody ought to say something: the role of the church in facilitating dialogue about race, racism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts

PDF

Big hoop energy: Latinas in higher education administration

PDF

Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges

PDF

Institutional diversity policy improvement through the lens of Black alumni stakeholder leadership: a gap analysis

PDF

Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

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

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Broken windows on campus: Policing and racism in higher education

PDF

Civic engagement: a case study of civic leadership in partnering with an urban public school district

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Campus colorlines: the changing boundaries of race within institutions of higher education in the post-civil rights era

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

Asset Metadata

Creator Contreras-McGavin, Melissa (author)

Core Title Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)

Publication Date 04/03/2009

Defense Date 10/24/2008

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

Tag critical race theory,diversity,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,Race

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member), Sanchez, George J. (committee member)

Creator Email mcontrer@usc.edu,melissa.contrerasmcgavin@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2050

Unique identifier UC1172889

Identifier etd-ContrerasMcGavin-2540 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-212631 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2050 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ContrerasMcGavin-2540.pdf

Dmrecord 212631

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Contreras-McGavin, Melissa

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