Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Education at UGA ... · Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion, an Associate Dean of Diversity, a visible space for ... Diversity leadership

Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Education at UGA

ECHD 9650 Consultation in Human Systems

Final Report

Running head: Consultation 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….…..……2

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..…..8

Historical Context………………………………………………………………….…….8

Diversity in Higher Education…………………………………………………….…...10

Definitions of Operational Terms……………………………………………………...19

Review of Peer and Aspirant Colleges of Education……………………….…….…..20

Review of Other Colleges at UGA………………………………………………..……29

Recommendations………………………………………………………………..…..…33

Proposed Models……………………………………………………………………..…43

References……………………………………………………………………………….51

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………...…54

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………...65


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

As part of a flagship institution, the College of Education serves the statewide

community. The college, in many respects, has historically displayed a longstanding

commitment to the community through progressive research, training, and service projects.

However, as the state population is becoming increasingly diverse, it is imperative that the

colleges develop and implement individual as well as organizational changes that further reflect

the overall needs of the population it serves.

In June 2015, the Dean of the College of Education (COE), Craig H. Kennedy recruited

our doctoral-level Consultation course to conduct a systematic review of the present and past

diversity efforts at the COE as well as the current body of research surrounding diversity in

higher education. Furthermore, based on the findings of this investigation, Dean Kennedy

requested that we provide recommendations of potential initiatives that would facilitate increased

diversity and inclusiveness at the college. As a point of information, diversity is loosely defined

in this report to include race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, social

class, immigration status, language skills, generational level, geographic location as well as the

interaction between these respective variables (Hayes, 2008; Williams, 2013).

Ultimately, the recommendations outlined in this report are guided by a core triumvirate

of key factors including current research-based models of higher education diversity,

multicultural efforts at aspirant and peer institutions, as well as diversity structures at

commensurate colleges at UGA. In particular, the recommendations highlight potential


structures, policies, leadership positions, and techniques that would facilitate a stronger focus on

diversity.

Investigation Process and Findings

In order to better understand effective organizations, a systematic examination of

diversity efforts at the COE, colleges within UGA, as well as peer and aspirant institutions was

conducted by reviewing various online materials and interviews with deans of the colleges,

associate/assistant deans, as well as supporting faculty and staff. Ultimately, four peer and

aspirant universities as well as four colleges within UGA were identified and selected for their

exemplary practices in the area of diversity.

After an extensive review of previous literature, peer and aspirant universities, and other

colleges within UGA, the consultation team proposed a primary model that includes an

Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion, an Associate Dean of Diversity, a visible space for

diversity efforts within the COE in Aderhold Hall, and a diversity-focused and inclusive online

presence. Two supplemental models are also proposed and included in the report.

Summary of Recommendations

One of the primary tasks of the consultation team was to create a list of recommendations

for Dean Kennedy informed by historical data, literature reviews, personal interviews, and

examination of peer and aspirant universities. The recommendations are empirically supported

and consistent with the upcoming College Of Education (COE) 2016-2020 Strategic Plan.

The first phase of recommendations centers around a diversity self-study that engages all

stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, alumni, retirees) and includes four action steps.


● Collective defining and visioning process: It is recommended that the Dean’s office

commission a college-wide discernment process that seeks to answer two key questions:

“What does diversity mean to the COE?” and “What is the current state of diversity,

equity, and inclusion at the COE?” (Smith, 2009; Jackson, 2014)

● Institutional history of diversity: It is recommended that the COE investigate, document,

and engage its institutional history of diversity, inclusion/exclusion, and equity, to serve

as a backdrop to the diversity climate of the COE.

● Comprehensive climate assessment: It is recommended that the COE conduct a

comprehensive climate assessment that engages all stakeholders, employs a mixed-

method approach, and disaggregates data by relevant demographic and identity variables.

● Communications procedures: It is recommended that the COE establish procedures for

both storing and sharing with stakeholders the data collected through process

recommendations included throughout the report (Jackson, 2014).

The second phase of recommendations revolves around action steps for strategy implementation.

To be beneficial, a comprehensive approach must entail: (a) diversity as a central role in the

mission, vision and goals of the organization, (b) a commitment to the educational value of

diversity reflected at the highest levels of leadership, (c) ongoing funding and support for key

diversity programs and initiatives, and (d) people who bring diverse perspectives are brought into

decision-making (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Smith, 2009; Jackson, 2014). The following

action steps are recommended.

● Diversity leadership position: It is recommended that the Dean’s office design a diversity

leadership position with key characteristics including:


○ Executive-level rank with a reporting structure in place

○ Access to an administrative team of support staff

○ Access to adequate operating budget to fulfill their responsibilities

● Recognition of diverse talent: It is recommended that the COE embed in institutional

processes a multidimensional understanding of talent that recognizes multiple kinds of

intelligences and a broad variety of skills.

● Cultivation of staff and faculty diversity: It is recommended that the COE cultivate a

diverse working environment through the recruitment of diverse faculty and staff (based

on all types of identities—invisible and visible) and the enrichment of those already

affiliated with the COE

● Cultivation of student diversity: It is recommended that the COE cultivate a diverse

student body through outreach, academic enrichment, recruitment, and retention

programs, particularly for previously underrepresented groups.

● Institutional framework and indicators: It is recommended that the COE develop a

framework with a set of indicators that will help answer the question: how can we know

if we are making progress? (Smith, 2009)

● Website design: It is recommended that the COE develop a website that highlights

diversity efforts within the college.

The third phase of recommendations deals with ongoing development and accountability to

sustain diversity within the COE over time. The following are ongoing action steps.


● Reporting: It is recommended that the Dean’s office include a statement directly

addressing the progress, successes, and updated diversity initiatives, in addition to

providing an annual report on statistics of the COE.

● Communications from leadership: It is recommended that top COE leadership

communicate commitment to diversity by issuing statements of support, purpose, and

action on a continued and consistent basis.

● Ongoing assessment: It is recommended that the Dean’s office consistently assess the

diversity climate within the COE using the climate assessment guidelines provided in the

first phase.

● Continuing education and professional development: It is recommended that diversity be

identified as a key benefit to the college and a culture of learning about diversity is

encouraged within the COE (Ramos & Chesler, 2010)

● Partnerships: It is recommended that the Dean’s office facilitate opportunities for the

COE to engage and collaborate with other colleges in the University of Georgia around

issues of diversity.

For the final recommendation, we propose a primary model for facilitating diversity on an

individual and organizational level within the College of Education. Key aspects of the model

are as follows:

● Hierarchical structure: It is recommended that the COE create a hierarchical structure for

diversity that includes an Associate Dean of Diversity that reports directly to the Dean of

the COE and an Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion made up of various

stakeholders within the COE.


● Visibility: It is recommended that the COE create a visible space where the diversity

efforts will be held.

● Digital Face: It is recommended that the COE have an online presence of diversity for the

college. Wilson and Meyer (2009) promote this approach.


Introduction

The following report was completed at the request of Dr. Craig Kennedy, Dean of the

College of Education at the University of Georgia. Members involved in this consultation were

students, part of a doctoral level course on consultation, instructed and supported by Dr. Edward

Delgado-Romero. The primary purpose of this consultation was to provide Dean Kennedy with

information regarding potential diversity initiatives for the College of Education. Specifically,

Dean Kennedy requested possible structures to better support diversity efforts within the college.

The following report was written by students and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or

positions of Dr. Delgado-Romero or the Department of Counseling and Human Development

Services. Although Dr. Delgado-Romero provided support and recommendations to facilitate the

process, he withheld personal opinions and served as an unbiased source of procedural guidance.

The findings and recommendations included are informed by historical data, literature reviews,

personal interviews, and examination of peer and aspirant universities.

Brief Historical Context

We begin this report with our understanding of the College of Education’s (COE)

diversity history and context, based on interviews with key diversity leadership, past and present.

It is important to note that we were not able to locate a comprehensive written history of the

COE or its past diversity initiatives. Leaders interviewed reported that the COE has utilized

several diversity structures throughout its history, including an Assistant Dean of Diversity, a

Multicultural Task Force, a Dean’s Council on Diversity (DCOD), and Diversity Committee on

the Faculty Senate (currently inactive). The information below focuses on the DCOD, as this is

the only current diversity structure within the COE.


Currently the DCOD consists of two faculty representatives from each department and a

chairperson, and reports directly to the Dean of the COE. We found that the DCOD has had

minimal and inconsistent inclusion of graduate students and staff. In addition, there is currently

no designated term of service or rotation mechanism in place and unclear criteria for turnover

and inclusion of new ideas. Although members are to be appointed by the Dean, they have not

been appointed on a consistent basis. Instead, membership is recruited by the DCOD through

specific departments based on relevant need. The Dean also has the power to increase or limit

responsibilities of this group, or to dissolve the group in its entirety. The DCOD operates without

an ongoing budget and must request all funds through the Dean's office.

Current and recent activities of the DCOD include the following: monthly seminars in

which faculty and doctoral students share their work around diversity, dinner dialogues at Clarke

Central High School, collaborations on “book talks” with the Faculty Senate, an annual diversity

conference, and faculty development. Faculty development initiatives have centered on

competent teaching practices, diversity research, and infusing diversity issues in coursework.

A theme that resonated throughout the entire process of researching the history was the

dynamic role of Dr. Jenny Penney Oliver, whose position was at one point housed in the Dean's

office, and later in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services. She was

seen as a powerful force throughout the COE and larger university community. She was an

individual whose passion and dedication to social justice propelled her actions. When someone

this impactful comes along, the loss is felt at all levels. However, since most of her work was not

position-driven, the void her loss created may be harder to fill because it is not clearly evident

that this position is "missing."


Diversity in Higher Education

Diversity is being increasingly recognized as a vital component of higher education

(Williams, 2013). America is increasing in diversity across many domains (Penn State, 2013).

Similarly, universities and colleges across the nation are becoming increasingly diverse, across a

range of identity categories (Williams, 2013; Haring-Smith, 2012). Despite these demographic

changes, significant educational inequalities persist, particularly for ethnic minority and low-

socioeconomic students (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Further, in today’s global economy there is an

increasing demand for universities to educate a diverse and multiculturally competent workforce

(Williams, 2013). Finally, educational research on postsecondary environments indicates that

engaging diversity through the curriculum and co-curriculum leads to enhanced educational

outcomes for all students, including more sophisticated cognitive and affective abilities and

increased community involvement and interest in the common good (Williams, Berger, &

McClendon, 2005). Taken together, these trends point to the diversification of higher education

as social, economic, and educational imperatives.

Defining Diversity

Diversity within higher education is a complex concept that often receives disparate

definitions across institutions (Williams, 2013). Therefore, we begin this section with a brief

discussion of two complementary frameworks for understanding diversity within higher

education: the Three-dimensional Model of Higher Education Diversity (Worthington, 2012) and

the Diversity Framework for Higher Education (Smith, 2009). We also provide additional

literature that supports each aspect of these models. Together these two frameworks provide a

comprehensive picture of diversity. Worthington (2012) offers a deeper understanding of the


differing aspects of diversity while Smith (2009) provides a framework for implementing

diversity efforts within an institution of higher education.

Three-dimensional Model of Higher Education Diversity. Roger Worthington, who

has written extensively on diversity within higher education and is the current editor for the

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, provides a three-dimensional model of diversity

within higher education that includes (a) a broad set of identity characteristics, (b) core areas for

institutional initiatives, and (c) the focal groups that are key stakeholders within institutions

(Worthington, 2012).

Figure 1. Three-dimensional model of higher education diversity. Reprinted from “Advancing

Scholarship for the Diversity Imperative in Higher Education: And Editorial,” by R.

Worthington, 2012, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5:1, p. 2. Copyright 2012 by the

National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.


In this model, Worthington (2012) makes it clear that the definition of diversity within

higher education must include a broad range of identity characteristics that are reflective of

human differences. Many organizations evaluate levels of diversity based on racial or other

salient measures of difference such as gender. However, this approach ignores other pertinent

aspects that benefit and contribute to a diverse climate within higher education. As pointed out

by Haring-Smith (2012), broadening the definition of diversity to include aspects such as

socioeconomic status, religious differences, sexual orientation, and other invisible minority

statuses, is essential. For this reason, the term diversity is often replaced with the term

multicultural to reflect more inclusion based on a broader conceptualization (Witt & Keiffer,

2011).

Additionally, Worthington’s (2012) model suggests that diversity initiatives impact and

must include individuals at all levels of the institution including students, staff, faculty, and

administration. This idea of incorporating various levels of the institution is supported by

numerous researchers as being most effective (Kessler, 2011; Haring-Smith, 2012; Tienda,

2013). Finally, the promotion of diversity also involves a broad set of initiatives, including the

recruitment and retention of students, faculty, staff, and administrators; campus climate;

curriculum and instruction; research and inquiry; intergroup relations and discourse; student,

faculty, and staff leadership development; nondiscrimination; institutional advancement; external

relations; and strategic planning and accountability. These initiatives set forth by Worthington

(2012) are examples of how institutions initiate effective change by taking ownership and

responsibility at various levels (Hurtado, 2007).

These organizational initiatives are important because the literature on diversity within

higher education clearly indicates that compositional diversity alone does not lead to an inclusive


climate, equity among stakeholders, or an enriched learning environment (Hurtado, 2007;

Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano & Cuellar, 2008; Millem, Change, & Antonio, 2005; Williams, 2013;

Leake & Stodden, 2014). In its recommendations to institutions of higher education, The

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 2011) describes inclusive

educational environments as those in which “all participants are equally welcome, equally

valued, and equally heard” (p. 35). Additionally, Tienda (2013) defines inclusion as

“organizational strategies and practices that promote meaningful social and academic

interactions among persons and groups who differ in their experiences, their views, and their

traits” (p. 467). Such interactions, she notes, must challenge preexisting stereotypes in order to

effectively foster inclusion. On both of these accounts, inclusion necessitates intentional action

and structure to fully capitalize on the benefits offered by a diverse population.

A Diversity Framework for Higher Education. Daryl G. Smith, a Professor of

Education and Psychology at the Claremont Graduate University, proposes a framework for

diversity in higher education that shifts the focus from groups to the institution, and offers a way

of understanding what institutional capacity for diversity might mean and look like (2009).

Rather than viewing diversity as a process that develops parallel to normal institutional

functioning, Smith argues that diversity is central to an institution’s capacity to excel and

function in society and to fulfill its mission. Her framework incorporates four key dimensions:

(a) institutional viability and vitality, (b) education and scholarship, (c) access and success of

underrepresented student populations, and (d) campus climate and intergroup relations.


Figure 2. A framework for diversity. Adapted from Diversity’s Promise for Higher Education:

Making It Work (64), by D. G. Smith, 2009, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press. Copyright 2009 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The dimension of institutional viability and vitality focuses on certain key domains that

build the institution’s capacity and structures for diversity, including mission, culture, human

capital, core institutional processes, and perceptions of institutional commitment. Smith (2009)

observes that the presence, absence, or role of diversity in each of these elements indicates

whether or not an institution has the capacity to engage fully in diversity efforts, and if these

efforts are central or marginal. Figure 3 (below) provides a sample of indicators focusing on

building institutional capacity.


Figure 3. Institutional viability and vitality indicators. Adapted from Diversity’s Promise for

Higher Education: Making It Work (64), by D. G. Smith, 2009, Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press. Copyright 2009 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The dimension of education and scholarship attends to both research and teaching

functions, including curriculum, pedagogy, faculty expertise, and production of new knowledge.

Positive experiences in these arenas, with the opportunity for diverse interactions, has been

demonstrated to enhance students’ educational outcomes and academic efficacy (Denson &

Chang, 2015; Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005). Indicators for this dimension are

organized around four elements - availability of curricular offerings, experience with

opportunities available, student learning, and depth of faculty capacity (Figure 4).


Figure 4. Education and scholarship indicators. Adapted from Diversity’s Promise for Higher

Education: Making It Work (64), by D. G. Smith, 2009, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press. Copyright 2009 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The climate and intergroup relations dimension focuses on campus climate for students,

faculty, and staff, and the degree to which people are interacting across diverse groups.

Extensive literature supports the importance of attending to climate and group relations for

laying the foundation for institutional change and for building diverse and welcoming

institutional environments (Hart & Fellenbaum, 1998; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, Carter,

& Kardia, 1998; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1998). The indicators for this

dimension assess interactions among groups, engagement on campus, satisfaction, and

perceptions of how people are treated, as depicted in Figure 5.


Figure 5. Climate and intergroup relations indicators. Adapted from Diversity’s Promise for



Finally, the dimension of access and success of underrepresented student populations

attends to undergraduate, graduate, and professional education, and must be responsive to

emerging demographic changes in society. As the national landscape and universities become

increasingly diverse, the education of all students will result in a more skilled workforce,

increased community engagement, and improved health and personal financial outcomes

(Carnevale & Fry, 2000). Indicators for this dimension must move beyond basic measures of

success (graduation, retention, GPA) and focus on whether students from underrepresented

groups are thriving (Figure 6). By disaggregating data thoughtfully, institutions can attend both

to groups that have been historically significant and to other groups.


Figure 6. Climate and intergroup relations indicators. Adapted from Diversity’s Promise for



Both frameworks provided above make it clear that an institution’s capacity to fully

engage in diversity efforts requires an intentional focus on diversity as a central component of its

mission and main initiatives. Diversity cannot be defined in simple terms. Rather, an institution’s

definition of diversity must include a broad understanding of how individuals differ across a

range of identity characteristics and the engagement of all stakeholders within an institution. It is

the institution’s responsibility to build its own capacity for diversity by being responsive to

emerging demographic changes in society through education and scholarship, interrogating its

specific mission and context, and designing initiatives that focus on a climate of inclusion.


Definitions and Operational Terms

A list of operational definitions for the terms and concepts used in this report are included

below:

Diversity: “Diversity refers to all of the ways in which people differ, including primary

characteristics, such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, mental and physical disabilities, and sexual

orientation; and secondary characteristics such as education, income, religion, work experience,

language skills, geographic location, and family status” (Williams, 2013, p. 90).

Compositional Diversity: The numerical and proportional representation of various

identity groups on a campus (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005).

Multiculturalism: “Multiculturalism acknowledges and promotes the acceptance and

understanding of different cultures living together” (Williams, 2013, p. 91).

Equity: “The creation of opportunities for historically underrepresented populations to

have equal access to and participate in educational programs that are capable of closing the

achievement gaps in student success and completion” (Association of American Colleges &

Universities, 2015).

Inclusion: “Organizational strategies and practices that promote meaningful social and

academic interactions among persons and groups who differ in their experiences, their views,

and their traits” (Tienda, 2013, p. 467).


A Review of Peer and Aspirant Colleges of Education

After researching our peer and aspirant universities’ colleges of education (COE’s), four

major models emerged from the following institutions: the Ohio State University College of

Education and Human Ecology, the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human

Development, the University of Virginia Curry School of Education, and the University of

Washington College of Education. These four colleges exemplified the most contemporary and

innovative methods of increasing diversity. The common factors observed throughout each of the

COE’s can be summarized in three categories:

● Funding: Funding in the form of an allotment of funds appeared to be a common factor

among all four COE’s. Although funding was sourced through different forms, these

colleges all used funding to support the foundation of their efforts.

● Structure: Institutional structure also was observed in various forms between the four

COE’s. Funding and structure commonly overlapped in the form of funding positions

(i.e. assistant/associate deans, chief diversity officers, student assistantships, staff) to

provide the infrastructure needed to promote diversity at the student, staff, and faculty

levels. In addition, structure was observed through having modern, state-of-the-art

website designs that were easily accessible. Another common structural component was a

space designated within the college for a center or office of diversity. Furthermore, each

college had a clearly defined framework for their respective organization’s committees

that not only included positions, but responsibilities of each position and to whom each

position reported. Some aspirant diversity offices provided by-laws and constitutions to

promote future success.


● Culture: Culture that promotes diversity efforts and social justice advocacy in the four

COE’s was readily apparent. They promoted diversity at all levels and were openly

committed to diversity efforts using a “top-down” approach. For example, institutional

leadership provided statements addressing diversity and social justice; faculty of color or

minority/faculty dedicated to research with underrepresented populations were

emphasized or featured on webpages; and resources were provided for faculty, staff and

students regarding training, retention, and recruitment in all aspects of diversity.

Additionally, culture was fostered through numerous organizations and initiatives readily

available for the community and university populations. Lastly, all COE’s provided

training and workshop opportunities on diversity to help promote their dedication to

reducing inequities and raising awareness of multiple dimensions of diversity.

University of Minnesota

Similar to the University of Georgia, the University of Minnesota is a land-grant

institution with a longstanding history of serving its home state. The College of Education and

Human Development (CEHD) at the University of Minnesota has engaged in increased efforts to

foster a more welcoming and inclusive learning environment for a diverse student, faculty, and

staff population. There are many positive elements of their diversity program that could be

applicable to UGA’s COE, including an Associate Dean for Undergraduate, Diversity, and

International Programs, and an Associate Dean for International Initiatives and Relations.


Pros Cons

There is a strong alumni involvement and presence

as seen through various programming and leadership

organizations.

Monitoring blog commentary and

public feedback may prove to be

challenging.

There are opportunities for graduate and

undergraduate students to formulate their ideas and

share them on with the community via the blog,

which is overseen by the Dean.

The emphasis on international students

and international affairs may not meet

the needs of the student population at

UGA.

The Dean has a strong presence within the diversity

and inclusion initiatives on campus, as indicated by

the Dean's involvement in various committees, the

blog, etc.

The University of Virginia

The Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia is one of the preeminent

colleges of education in the United States. As a state institution, the University of Virginia serves

and reflects the student population in Virginia. Regarding diversity and inclusion initiatives, The

University of Virginia Curry School of Education has a Diversity Action Committee, which is

Dean of COE

Associate Dean for Undergraduate, Diversity and

International Program

Director of International Initiatives and Relations


populated with students, faculty, and staff. There is also a student-led initiative, Seeds4Change,

which aims to connect the campus community to the greater Charlottesville, Virginia,

community.

Pros Cons

There is an organizational structure that clearly

defines committee and committee roles.

Faculty Council does not publish notes

or agendas from meetings.

The model incorporates faculty from all Departments

within the Curry School of Education.

There is funding to support on-going initiatives

within the Curry School of Education.

University of Washington

The University of Washington College of Education has a longstanding history of

allocating resources towards increasing recruitment, retention and advocating for diversity. Ten

years ago, their COE established The Office of Minority Recruitment & Retention (OMRR). The

OMRR has served as a supportive community for promoting diverse beliefs, cultures,

perspectives and values within their college. In regards to recruitment, the OMRR connects

prospective students to information, faculty staff and fellow peer diversity ambassadors to help

their diverse student population form support systems. The OMRR aims to increase retention of

Dean of COE

Seeds4Change, Students and community partnerships

Diversity Action Committee

Students, Staff, Faculty


historically underrepresented students, faculty and staff by hosting professional development

opportunities, becoming engaged in the community, and providing resources as well as

encouraging allies and advocates. The OMRR funds four half time graduate student

assistantships to demonstrate the college’s dedication to diversity.

Their COE has developed a unique structure for the organization of the OMRR, which

strives to serve the distinct needs of their college. In order to provide advocacy, support and

direction of the OMRR, an Advisory Board was formed. The OMRR Advisory Board is

composed of College of Education (CoE) students, faculty, OMRR staff, and other

representatives from UW-Seattle campus. Members of the board are grouped in two categories:

Board Members (elected members) and the Executive Board. The Board Members of the

Advisory Board is composed of two CoE faculty, three graduate students, two undergraduate

students, one professional student, one OMRR Graduate Student Assistant (GSA) alumni, and

one GO-MAP representative.


Pros Cons

Advisory Board is inclusive of

undergraduate students.

The requirements to serve in a leadership role on the

Advisory Board are extremely specific, and therefore

may limit the voices represented on the Council.

There are readily available bylaws and

a constitution that detail the

responsibilities of each position.

There is an innovative website.

There is a long history of affirmative

action within the college across

admissions and hiring practices.

Ohio State University

The College of Education and Human Ecology (CEHE) at the Ohio State University aims

to prepare educators and professionals who will contribute to society and be allies and advocates

Dean of COE

Executive Board

-OMRR Supervisor (The COE Student Service Specialist)

-3 OMRR GSAs

Advisory Board

-1 GO-MAP Representative

-3 Graduate Students: 1 must be international, 1 must be an M.Ed. Student, 1 must be in 2nd year of

program; Students should be from different programs

-2 Undergraduate Students: Must be domestice minority or international students, Must be from Early

Childhood & Family Studies major

-1 student enrolled in a professional program

-1 OMRR GSA Alumni; Must be a currently graduated alumni & must be a former OMRR GSA


for underrepresented groups. The structure of diversity and inclusion in the CEHE includes a

Chief Diversity Officer and a Graduate Student Assistant.

Pros Cons

There is a clear commitment to diversity

that is modeled within the University

structure and mirrored in the college.

The website is sparse in terms of details regarding

programming. The website does not convey very

much information about present initiatives.

There are paid positions dedicated to

diversity efforts within the college.

The college only has two identified individuals in

the office, which limits the voices represented.

Clearly defined mission statement.

Cultivation of Online Presence

There are many useful techniques employed by peer and aspirant universities that could

be applicable to the College of Education at UGA. Our group has determined that the following

institutional webpage designs and formats could be transferable to COE.

Ease of Navigation

Currently, there is no clear way to navigate to diversity-related information on the COE

website without using the search engine. Some peer and aspirant universities such as the

Dean of COE

Chief Diversity

Officer

Graduate Liaison


University of Virginia, Ohio State University, and the University of Minnesota had quickly

identifiable links to diversity-related information. These respective universities also had

identifiable mission statements and strategic plans related to diversity. Furthermore, the

University of Minnesota and the University of Virginia clearly advertised diversity-related

events, trainings, and outreach opportunities.

Blogs, Commentaries, and Social Media Involvement

Blogs, commentaries, and social media pages ultimately provides a medium for college

staff, faculty, students, and community supporters to openly discuss topics relating to diversity.

While this form of online communication does not appear to be used by many schools yet, the

utilization of this approach is gaining progressively more traction at major universities. For

example, the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at the University of

Minnesota allotted a “Building Diversity and Equity” page where the Associate Dean for

Undergraduate, Diversity, and International Education provides relevant commentaries and

blogs.

College Demographics

As previously noted, research indicates that minority students who would be prospective

candidates for a university evaluate the overall inclusiveness of the campus, college, and

community by utilizing the web-based services (Wilson & Meyers, 2009). Therefore, it is critical

to provide a thorough online demographic analysis. As a case in point, the College of Education

at the University of Washington provides an in-depth digital profile of the college demographics.

Specifically, College of Education highlights the average age, gender, as well as the number of

students of color and Latina/o graduate students in the college. In addition, the college examines


the number of students of color and the number of Latina/o students in the undergraduate

population.

Similarly, CEHD at the University of Minnesota provides gender, age, and ethnic

diversity percentages of the student body on their webpage. The college also indicates the

percentage of freshman students of color at the college as well as the number of international

students studying at the college, including the number of countries represented.

Language Options

While creating a multilingual website can be initially challenging, it is an effective way

to disseminate information to a wider audience. In illustration of this point, the School of

Education at the University of Wisconsin offers users the option on certain pages to change the

language in which the information is provided. In particular, users can select Hmong, Spanish, or

English.

Diversity Structures in Other Colleges at the University of Georgia

In order to better understand what diversity efforts have already begun at the University

of Georgia (UGA), an examination of each individual college’s diversity efforts was conducted.

Four colleges were identified as having some active effort towards increasing diversity. The four

colleges were Terry College of Business, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,

Grady College of Journalism, and College of Franklin Arts and Sciences. There were different

forms of diversity attempts as well as various levels of effort. Two colleges at UGA were

repeatedly recognized as having a strong commitment in efforts of diversity and inclusion, which

include the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences as well as College of Franklin

Arts and Sciences.


Information was gathered in various forms via available online materials, interviews with

deans of the colleges, and interviews with associate/assistant deans or supporting faculty and

staff. According to leaders across the University of Georgia, the College of Agricultural and

Environmental Sciences began their diversity office in 2001, which was identified as the first

formalized diversity effort on UGA’s campus. Following their structure and approach, UGA

formed the Office of Institutional Diversity (OID) that opened in 2002. Today, the Office of

Institutional Diversity plays a vital role in accessing the diversity across campus and advocating

for a more diverse climate. In January 2015, President Morehead announced during his State of

the University speech that a $250,000 endowment was given to the OID to help expand the

recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, staff, and students at UGA. He also

announced that a study will be conducted to assess the campus climate with regard to diversity.

He emphasized the importance of increasing diversity efforts campus-wide and noted that

UGA’s undergraduate population lacks ethnic diversity compared to other institutions in the

state, remarking that 75% of UGA’s undergraduate students identify as White. The President

also identified women’s initiatives as a priority.

Background Information of Diversity Efforts in UGA’s Colleges

Grady College of Journalism

The Grady College Diversity Committee, made up of faculty, staff and students, guides

the college in its diversity initiatives through programming and long-term planning. A Diversity

Director helps implement the diversity committee's initiatives while focusing on recruiting a

diverse student body.

Currently, Grady College funds a diversity-related administrative position to support and

enhance diversity in the community. Specifically, the college has a paid Diversity & High School


Outreach Director position. This specific position is part of external affairs and reports to the

External Affairs Director, who ultimately reports to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs. It

is also worth noting that one of the goals listed in the Diversity Strategic Plan is to hire a full-

time Diversity Recruitment and Retention Director. A thorough organizational chart is provided

on the Grady College webpage:

http://www.grady.uga.edu/forms/Grady.Organizational.Chart.pdf.

Terry College of Business

The Terry College of Business is committed to diversity and inclusion and this is

reflected in numerous ways, including specialized multicultural programming and initiatives for

students in business. The Terry College of Business has a Director of Diversity of Relations, who

is responsible for transforming the College’s efforts to recruit diverse faculty, staff and students,

as well as responsible for bringing diverse initiatives to the college through community and

business partnerships.

Dean of Grady

College

Associate Dean of Academic Affairs

External Affairs

Diversity and Outreach Director

-Grady College of Diversity Committee

http://www.grady.uga.edu/forms/Grady.Organizational.Chart.pdf


College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

The College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences is a leader on campus in terms

of diversity initiatives and programming. The CAES established their own Office of Diversity

Relations in 2000, which set the stage for UGA to establish the Office of Institutional Diversity

in 2002. The Office of Diversity Relations is overseen by the Associate Dean of Diversity

Relations, and is run by a Program Coordinator and a Program Specialist.

Dean of Terry

Director of Diversity Relations

Dean of CAES

Associate Dean of Diversity Relations

Office Of Diversity Relations

-Program Coordinator

-Program Specialist


Franklin College of Arts and Sciences

The Franklin College of Arts and Sciences diversity and inclusion programing is lead by

the Associate Dean for Faculty Leadership Development and Diversity. The Associate Dean

supervises the Diversity Task Force, which is comprised of faculty members.

Across all of the Colleges at UGA studied, as a part of this report, funded leadership

positions within the area of diversity and inclusion are evident. Moreover, each model of

leadership reflected significant collaboration and partnerships across the college and university

as a whole. The College of Education should look towards other College’s at UGA in terms of

diversity and inclusion leadership and development.

Dean of Franklin College

Associate Dean for Faculty Leadership Development and Diversity

Diversity Task Force, comprised of Faculty


Recommendations

Phase 1: Diversity Self-Study

The Dean’s Office should commission a diversity vision-making process that engages all

stakeholders (faculty, staff, students, alumni, retirees) and includes the following four actions

steps:

● Collective Defining and Visioning Process:

It is recommended that the Dean’s office commission a college-wide discernment process

that seeks answers to the following two key questions, “What does diversity mean to the

COE?” and “What is the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the COE?”

(Smith, 2009; Jackson, 2014). This process should be guided by a core change team

consisting of persons from all levels of the organization who both represent diverse

perspectives and possess diversity competencies (Gallop & Este, 2007; Smith, 2009).

These individuals should undergo training that addresses the following: oppression and

discrimination, MCOD theory and practice, and adult learning theory and practice, and to

explore their own attitudes and behaviors towards themselves and others different from

themselves (Cross, 2000; Ramos & Chesler, 2010). Further, Smith’s (2009) framework

for diversity in higher education described in the Defining Diversity section of this report

may be used to frame these core questions and lay the groundwork for the development

of comprehensive diversity goals in the areas of (a) institutional viability and vitality, (b)

education and scholarship, (c) access and success of underrepresented student

populations, and (d) campus climate and intergroup relations.

● Institutional History of Diversity:


It is recommended that the COE investigate, document, and engage its institutional

history of diversity, inclusion/exclusion, and equity, which serves as the backdrop to the

COE’s diversity climate. It is first recommended that a historian carefully document the

COE’s specific history of diversity to share with the larger college community. After this

history has been documented, it is recommended that the Dean’s office provide

opportunities for the larger college community to engage with its history in an ongoing

way (e.g. symposiums, annual events, commemorations, histories placed on websites and

other communications). Actively engaging all stakeholders in the COE’s diversity history

communicates to the community that issues of diversity are commitments, and that

current understandings benefit from historical context (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005).

● Comprehensive Climate Assessment:

As a part of its diversity planning process, we recommend that the COE conduct a

comprehensive climate assessment that engages all stakeholders (faculty, staff, students,

alumni, retirees), employs a mixed-method approach, and disaggregates data by relevant

demographic and identity variables. We are aware that the COE conducted a Survey of

Workplace Climate as a part of its 2015 strategic planning. However, we note that this

assessment was sent only to employees of the college, and so did not include the

perspectives of students and alumni. In addition this assessment was limited to survey

format and was completed by only 28% of employees at the time. Further, the survey was

not able to report data by demographic variables due to inconsistent completion of these

survey sections. In order to redress some of the limitations to the 2015 Survey of


Workplace Climate, we recommend that the COE consider the following guidelines (Hart

& Fellabaum, 2008):

○ Consider the advantages and disadvantages of conducting a climate study using

researchers affiliated with an institution.

○ Utilize a mixed-method approach in order to provide a more holistic picture of

how the climate is perceived and experienced.

○ Carefully consider issues of validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and credibility so

that findings will be as robust as possible.

○ Try to be as inclusive as possible in selecting demographic variables that may

influence perceptions and experiences of climate (consider the impact of

intersecting and interlocking identities).

This recommendation is consistent with the upcoming COE 2016-2020 Strategic Plan

(Strategic Objective 1.1.1) to conduct a survey climate every two years.

● Communications Procedures:

It is recommended that the COE establish procedures for both storing and sharing with

stakeholders data collected through the processes recommended above (Jackson, 2014).

Building institutional capacity for diversity requires developing honest and credible

processes for sharing diversity-related information and challenges (Smith, 2009).

Phase 2: Strategy Implementation

Based on the COE’s specific diversity needs and goals identified during Phase 1 it is

recommended that the COE adopt a comprehensive diversity approach. Evidence suggests that


both individual student outcomes and institutional climate benefit from a comprehensive

approach that entails the following: (a) diversity plays a central role in mission, vision, and goals,

(b) a commitment to the educational value of diversity is reflected at the highest levels of

institutional leadership, (c) key diversity programs and initiatives receive ongoing funding and

support, and (d) people who bring diverse perspectives are brought into decision-making (Milem,

Chang, & Antonio, 2005; Smith, 2009; Jackson, 2014). Therefore, the following action steps are

recommended:

● Diversity Leadership Position:

It is recommended that the Dean’s office design a diversity leadership position. Research

indicates that the following characteristics are key for the effective execution of diversity

strategies and the creation of a culture of shared responsibility and accountability for

diversity across an institution (Leon, 2014):

○ executive-level rank with a reporting structure in place

○ access to an administrative team of support staff

○ access to adequate operating budget to fulfill their responsibilities

This recommendation is consistent with the upcoming COE 2016-2020 Strategic Plan

(Strategic Objective 1.2.1) to create to college level diversity leadership position and it is

congruent with the best practices literature discussed above.

● Recognition of Diverse Talent:


We suggest that the COE embed in institutional processes a multidimensional

understanding of talent that recognizes multiple kinds of intelligences and a broad variety

of skills. Such an understanding of talent has implications for education, admissions,

hiring and selection of leadership throughout the institution, and leadership development,

and may require changes in criteria for selection, processes for evaluating candidates, and

metrics used (Smith, 2009).

● Cultivation of Staff and Faculty Diversity:

It is recommended that the COE cultivate a diverse working environment through the

recruitment of diverse faculty and staff (based on a broad range of identity characteristics

both visible and invisible) and the enrichment of those already affiliated with the COE.

Such enrichment should involve opportunities for meaningful interaction and growth

across differences in identity and employment status through open dialogues, workshops,

and other structured formats. In addition, we suggest that faculty development and

rewards be aligned with the goals of successfully incorporating diverse information,

ideas, and perspectives into the curriculum (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005).

This recommendation is consistent with the upcoming COE 2016-2020 Strategic

Plan (Strategic Objective 1.2.3) to recruit faculty, staff, students, and administrators from

underrepresented groups.

● Cultivation of Student Diversity:

Similarly, it is recommended that the COE cultivate a diverse student body through

outreach, academic enrichment, recruitment, and retention programs, particularly for


previously underrepresented groups. The COE’s definition of a diverse student body

should include a broad range of identity characteristics that are reflective of human

differences (Worthington, 2012). Programs shown to enhance the retention and success

of underrepresented students include the following: (Adapted from Milem, Chang, &

Antonio, 2005)

○ plans to identify inequities in educational outcomes of underrepresented students

by analyzing disaggregated data on student success indicators and to address

those inequities by eliminating their underlying causes

○ retention programs tailored to identified educational needs that offer tutoring

support, academic advising, and financial aid counseling

○ “safe” cultural spaces that provide diverse students with opportunities for identity

development, cross-cultural learning, and peer support.

● Institutional Framework and Indicators:

It is recommended that the COE should develop a framework with a set of indicators that

will facilitate the answer to the question: how can we know if we are making progress?

(Smith, 2009) A Diversity Scorecard may be used as a tool for managing a

comprehensive diversity plan to reach diversity and educational goals, and for placing

these goals at the center of institutional planning and action. Such a scorecard can also be

utilized to communicate progress to all stakeholders. A sample diversity scorecard model

is located in Appendix C.

● Website Design:


Given the fact that individuals increasingly expect a comprehensive net presence, it is

critical for the COE to provide easily identifiable diversity-related information on their

institutional homepage. As a direct result, we strongly encourage COE to incorporate the

guidelines proposed by Wilson & Meyer (2009) on their website. Wilson and Meyer

(2009) recommend that higher education institutional homepages include the following

information:

1. Demographics of the institution (students, faculty, staff) and the outside

community

2. Services specifically targeted to recruiting minorities

3. Capability to read the website in another language

4. Photos of upper administrators, staff, and faculty

5. Funding for minority students

6. Events programmed specifically for addressing diversity

7. Diversity-related clubs and organizations

Phase 3: Ongoing Development and Accountability

In order to sustain diversity within higher education over time, diversity initiatives must be

viewed as fluid and ongoing (Williams, 2013). Therefore, we recommend the following ongoing

action steps:

● Reporting:


In addition to providing an annual report on statistics of the COE, it is recommended that

the Dean’s office include a statement directly addressing the progress, successes, and

updated diversity initiatives within the college. This demonstrates continued efforts and

self-evaluation with regard to the valuing of and dedication to diversity. This reporting

process should consider where and how a diverse group of stakeholders from the COE

will gather both to interpret and make meaning of the data, and to make

recommendations based on the data (Smith, 2009).

● Communications from Leadership:

It is vital that top COE leadership should communicate commitment to diversity by

issuing statements of support, purpose, and action on a continued and consistent basis.

This demonstrates maintained efforts and dedication to fostering an inclusive and diverse

environment that evolves as the college and university evolve. Evidence suggest that

student perceptions of their institution’s overall commitment to diversity greatly

influences whether or not they are able to benefit from diversity efforts (Milem, Chang,

& Antonio, 2005).

● Ongoing Assessment:

It is recommended that the Dean’s office consistently assess the diversity climate within

the COE using the climate assessment guidelines provided in phase 1. This

recommendation is consistent with the upcoming COE 2016-2020 Strategic Plan

(Strategic Objective 1.1.1) to conduct a climate survey every two years in the College. In

addition, we suggest the ongoing use of a diversity scorecard to measure and


communicate progress towards diversity goals to the larger college community. The

climate assessment and diversity scorecard may be used in conjunction in order to create

a consistent feedback loop of assessment and reporting with all stakeholders with the

college.

● Continuing Education and Professional Development:

It is recommended that diversity be identified as a key benefit to the college and a culture

of learning about diversity is encouraged within the COE (Ramos & Chesler, 2010). This

may be done by providing regular, structured formats in which COE faculty, staff,

students and alumni can consistently engage in positive dialogues across differences in

identity. This recommendation is congruent with the upcoming COE 2016-2010 Strategic

Plan (Strategic Objective 1.1.4 and 1.2.5), which aims to educate students about diversity

through curricular and co-curricular opportunities and provide annual professional

development related to diversity for faculty, staff and administrators. However, we

suggest that attention in these initiatives be given specifically to privilege and oppression,

and not only to the enhancement of diversity. This may be done through the process of

examining how the personal identities of individual members of the organization may

intersect with societal frameworks of privilege and oppression. These analyses should

occur at both the personal and structural level (Ramos and Chesler, 2010).

● Partnerships:

It is also recommended that the Dean’s office facilitate opportunities for the COE to

engage and collaborate with other colleges and institutions at the University of Georgia


around issues of diversity. This provides opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration

while directly contributing to the overall campus climate of inclusion. Through

collaboration with other colleges and institutions, the COE will have the opportunity to

learn from the experiences of others, promote its own diversity initiatives, and directly

contribute to UGA’s overall commitment to diversity.


Proposed Models

Institutional Structures for Diversity and Inclusion for UGA COE

MODEL 1

Pros Cons

Incorporates student, faculty, and staff voices,

all of whom report straight to dean.

Separation of students, faculty, and staff

could serve as a barrier towards collaboration,

community connection, and grassroots

initiatives.

Non-hierarchical model promotes community

and equal representation.

Lack of Chair or Associate Dean as point-

person potentially limits connection across

university (OID, etc.)

Two council systems facilitate more

involvement from students, faculty, and staff.

Many councils may create an environment

wherein there is a lack of accountability for

action agenda, inclusion programming, etc.

Student Council may be able to reach larger

COE student community by implementing

specific programming geared towards

enhancing student climate and culture.

Demographic breakdown of two council

system may further exacerbate perceived

divisions within the COE, particularly among

less represented groups.

Dean

Deans Council on Diversity and

Inclusion

(Undergraduate and Graduate Students)

1-year tenure

Deans Council on Diversity and Inclusion

(Faculty and Staff)

2-year tenure


MODEL 2

Pros Cons

Official title and position makes statement

across community that the COE and Dean

value diversity and inclusion.

Model may limit the voices that need

representation within the COE.

Value of multiculturalism becomes woven

into the fabric, history, and structure of the

COE, which is essential for the future of our

college.

The spirit of diversity and inclusion must

permeate the culture of the COE across all

levels of the community, through students,

staff, faculty, and administration. Having one

leader limits the other voices in the COE.

There is a point-person for whom faculty,

staff, administration, and students can look

towards for leadership, guidance, and action.

Historically, a one-person system has failed to

produce self-sustained initiatives and

longevity.

Dean

Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion


MODEL 3

Pros Cons

Multi-tiered approach enhances both

accountability and representation across

community.

Students and staff may hesitate to use their

voices with 1 Council system.

Sustainable model wherein many voices carry

the momentum and spirit of this initiative

within the COE.

Dean may become disconnected from council

because of Associate Dean position.

Associate Dean serves as council leader,

which is essential in terms of organizational

structure and leadership.

Dean

Associate Dean of Diversity and Inclusion

Deans Council on Diversity:

Associate Dean of Diversity and Inclusion

Undergraduate Representative

Graduate Representative

Staff Representatives

Faculty Representatives

2-year tenure with rolling initiation and separation


MODEL 4

The bottom tier of this hierarchical structure (faculty, staff, and students) would then

make the Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion

The Executive Board would form committees that would delegate responsibilities of the

COE’s need (i.e. planning events, coordinating workshops, making partnerships in the

community, writing bylaws/constitutions, marketing/online website design, theme/focus of the

year, highlighting a faculty/staff/student of color/minority status each semester/month).

The Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion would serve as the “heart” of the office.

The Associate Dean of Diversity would report to and from the Dean of COE.

Dean of COE

Faculty Representatives Staff Representatives Student Representatives Community Representatives

Associate Dean of Diversity


This model was adapted from an aspirant university structure. Their representatives were

chosen based off of their college dynamics, so the Associate Dean and Dean of COE would need

to ultimately decide what the makeup of each should be. Some suggestions would be:

● Faculty Reps: five faculty members of various professional levels (tenured, associate, or

assistant; a mixture of tenured and non-tenured) serve two year terms, voted in by the

COE at the end of the year to serve the next two school years. Two year terms could run

from July 1-July 1, for example.

● Staff Reps: five staff members of various positions throughout the college would be

voted in by the COE at the end of the year. They would serve two year terms July 1-July

1, for example.

● Student Reps: three graduate students from various programs throughout the COE would

serve one-year term. They would be nominated by faculty from their program, and voted

in by the COE. Two undergraduate students could be self-nominated or nominated by

other students throughout the college.

● Community Reps: two individuals from the community (i.e. retirees, alumni, community

supporters) would serve two-year terms and would be nominated by the Associate Dean

of Diversity. They could then be voted on by remaining members of the Executive Board

of Diversity.

Suggestions:

● Visible space within Aderhold Hall where the diversity efforts will be held.

o Perhaps named after Jenny Penney Oliver (“JPO Office of Diversity”) given her

strong presence throughout the COE community and dedication to fostering the

need for diversity inclusion and outreach.


o Provides a supportive space for conversations regarding race, gender, disabilities,

socioeconomic status, and sexual orientations

o Graduate Student Assistantships - two assistantships dedicated to administrative

duties of the center of diversity could help with promotion, marketing, and

general needs or duties of the office. The two assistantships will not be allowed to

serve on the executive board but will provide feedback and suggestions to the

board. They will be required to attend meetings of Executive Board. Additionally,

they would maintain an active online blog and/or Facebook/social media outlet

for the office.

● In addition to a visible space, there should be a digital face of diversity for the college.

This is promoted through suggestions by Wilson and Meyer (2009).

● Executive Board of Diversity & Inclusion

o Promotes an inclusive and supportive atmosphere within the college, university,

and outside community

o Allows for mentoring of new students by established students and alumni

o Offers an avenue to raise money for diversity programming and scholarship

o Provides an opportunity for all individuals in the college to engage in social

advocacy efforts

o Creates opportunities for networking and interdisciplinary involvement

o Executive Board will meet at least once a month

o Associate Dean of Diversity will have direct and regular contact with the Dean of

COE.


o Executive Board and GSA’s will be in charge of putting on at least one event each

semester promoting the center and diversity efforts of the college.

o On a monthly basis, will highlight a student/faculty/staff member dedicated to

promoting the growth of diversity efforts to highlight their accomplishments (i.e.

on a board in the center, given an award at the end of the year, promoted on

website and throughout college)

● Associate Dean of Diversity

o In charge of diversity efforts, international programming and outreach efforts

o Reports directly to the dean as needed

o Head of Executive Board of Diversity & Inclusion meetings

o Oversees duties and selection of graduate assistants in the center

o Nominates Community Representatives to present to Executive Board of

Diversity

o Actively and regularly maintains online blog through diversity website of the

COE (includes events and commentaries facilitating diversity and equity)

Collaborate with GSA’s and center to provide outreach training, forums, panels and workshops

for the community, in the community, and with the community


References

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2015). Making excellence inclusive.

Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/programs-partnerships/making-excellence-inclusive

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011). The drama of democracy and

diversity: Higher education and American commitments. Association of American Colleges and

Universities. Retrieved from

http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/DramaofDiversity_2011.pdf

Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.

Change, 36, 44–52. Retrieved from

http://cue.usc.edu/tools/Bensimon_The%20Diversity%20Scorecard.pdf.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605083

Carnevale, A.P., & Fry, R.A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when

Generation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/E443907.pdf

Cross, E. Y. (2000). Managing Diversity: The Courage to Lead. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet

significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human

Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324.

Denson, N. & Chang, M. (2015). Dynamic relationships: Identifying moderators that maximize

benefits associated with diversity. Journal of Higher Education, 15(86), 1-37.

Gallop, C. J., & Este, D. C. (2007). Multicultural organizational development: The fundamental

transformation of Canadian social work education. International Journal of Diversity in

Organisations, Communities, & Nations, 6(4), 107-117.

Haring-Smith, T. (2012). Broadening our definition of diversity. Liberal Education, 98(2), 6-13.

Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for

institutional transformation. In S. R. Harper, & L. D. Patton (Eds.), Responding to the realities of

race on campus. New directions for student services (No. 120, pp. 7–24). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Hart, J., & Fellenbaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: Seeking to define and

understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 222-234. Doi: 10.1037/a0013627

http://www.aacu.org/programs-partnerships/making-excellence-inclusive

http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/DramaofDiversity_2011.pdf

http://cue.usc.edu/tools/



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605083

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/E443907.pdf


Hurtado, S., (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher

education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-196. Doi: 10.1353/rhe.2006.0070

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Kardia, D. (1998). The climate for diversity: Key issues for

institutional self-study. In K. W. Bauer (Ed.), Campus climate: Understanding the critical

components of today’s colleges and universities. New directions for institutional research (No.

98, pp. 53–63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R. & Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing campus

climates for racial/ethnic diversity through educational policy and practice. Review of Higher

Education 21(3), 279-302.

Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar, M. (2008). Assessing the value of climate

assessments: Progress and future directions. Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 1(4),

204-221. doi:10.1037/a0014009

Hyde, C. A. (2003). Multicultural organizational development in nonprofit human service

agencies: Views from the field. Journal of Community Practice, 11(1), 39-59.

Hyde, C. A. (2012). Organizational change rationales: Exploring reasons for multicultural

development in human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 36, 436-456. DOI:

10.1080/03643107.2011.610431

Jackson, B. W. (2006). Theory and practice of multicultural organization development. In B. B.

Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change (139-

154). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Jackson, B. W. (2014). Theory and practice of multicultural organization development. In B. B.

Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change (175-

192). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Kessler, M. D. (2011). Social transformation through higher education: An approach to

increasing sexual and gender minority inclusion among organizations and communities. The

International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 10(5) 97-104.

Leake, D. W., & Stodden, R. A., (2014). Higher education and disability: Past and future of

underrepresented populations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 399-

409.

Leon, R. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An Examination of CDO Models and Strategies.

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 77-91. doi:10.1037/a0035586

Milem, J.F., Chang, M.J., & Antonio, A.L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A

research based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and

Universities.


Penn State (2013). America is increasingly diverse, but challenges remain. ScienceDaily, 2.

Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131002185720.htm.

Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W.

G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures. New directions for institutional

research (No. 68, pp. 3–18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ramos, R. C., & Chesler, M. A. (2010). Reflections on a cross-cultural partnership in

multicultural organizational development efforts. OD Practitioner, 42(2), 4-9.

Smith, D. G. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S.A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010. National Center for

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Sue, D. W. (2008). Multicultural organizational consultation: A social justice perspective.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(2), 157-169.

Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Effective multicultural consultation and development.

In M. G. Constantine & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Strategies for building multicultural competence.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Thompson, C., Hardee, S., & Lane, J. C. (2011). Engaging student diversity through a Social

Justice Learning Community. Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 4(2), 106-119.

doi:10.1037/a0022726

Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠ Inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education.

Educational Researcher, 42(9), 467-475. Doi:10.3102/0013189X13516164.

Valentine, K., Prentice, M., Torres, M. F., & Arellano, E. (2012). The importance of student

cross-racial interactions as part of college education: Perceptions of faculty. Journal Of Diversity

In Higher Education, 5(4), 191-206. doi:10.1037/a0030109

Wall, V. & Obear, K. (2008). Multicultural Organizational Development: Exploring Best

Practices to Create Socially Just, Inclusive Campus Communities [pdf]. Retrieved from

http://www.sbctc.edu/college/studentsvcs/Exploring_Best_Practices_to_Create_Socially_Just_In

clusive_Campus_Communities.pdf.

Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in

higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2007). The chief diversity officer: A primer for college

and university presidents. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

http://www.sbctc.edu/college/studentsvcs/Exploring_Best_Practices_to_Create_Socially_Just_Inclusive_Campus_Communities.pdf

http://www.sbctc.edu/college/studentsvcs/Exploring_Best_Practices_to_Create_Socially_Just_Inclusive_Campus_Communities.pdf


Wilson, J. L., & Meyer, K. A. (2009). Higher education websites: The 'virtual face' of diversity.

Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 2(2), 91-102. doi:10.1037/a0015443

Witt & Kieffer (2011). Chief diversity officers assume larger role. Retrieved from

http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/thought-

leadership/practice/CDO%20survey%20results%20August%202011.pdf

Worthington, R. L. (2012). Advancing scholarship for the diversity imperative in higher

education: An editorial. Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 5(1), 1-7.

doi:10.1037/a0027184

Zalaquett, C. P., Foley, P. F., Tillotson, K., Dinsmore, J. A., & Hof, D. (2008). Multicultural and

social justice training for counselor education programs and colleges of education: Rewards and

challenges. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 323-329.

http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/thought-leadership/

http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/thought-leadership/


Appendix A

Multicultural Organizational Development

What is multicultural organizational development?

According to D.W. Sue (2008), multicultural organizational development (MCOD)

strives to “enhance the organization’s ability to adapt to and use diversity to maintain or improve

effectiveness by providing for equal access and opportunity” (p. 158-159). As the United States

becomes more diverse (i.e., aging baby boomers, gender diversity in the workforce, and the

predicted numerical growth of racial and ethnic minority groups within the next forty years), it is

important that organizations continue to develop in order to meet such changes. When diversity

seen in society is also reflected within an organization, it can prevent “lowered efficiency and

productivity, workplace conflicts, miscommunications, and even political charges of

organizational bias that deny equal access and opportunity” (Sue, 2008, p. 158). In total,

outcomes of multicultural organizational development include enhanced or maintained

productivity and efficiency that allows for all parties to have equal access and opportunity (Sue,

2008).

A multicultural organization values and supports diversity, while advocating for social

justice within the workplace setting and in the greater community (Jackson, 2006). Systems of

power and privilege often exist in organizations, even if the system of oppression is not overtly

apparent. For example, research suggests that women and people of color find themselves in

lower positions of authority or prestige within an organization’s hierarchy. As a result, it is

important to examine which aspects of the workforce (recruitment, hiring, retention, and/or

promotion) are contributing to this type of inequity (Sue, 2008). Similarly, the overall climate


within an organization is a social justice concern. Oftentimes unintentional biases expressed by

co-workers, known as microaggressions, can create a hostile and unsupportive climate for

employees who are members of marginalized groups (i.e., female employees, employees of

color, LGBT employees, etc.) (Sue, 2008).

Essential Elements of MCOD

To become a multicultural organization that promotes social justice, a clear conceptual

framework is required (Sue, 2008). While achieving the multicultural ideal is difficult for many

organizations, Sue and Constantine (2005) proposed a definition that organizations can aspire to

achieve:

We define a multicultural organization as committed (action as well as words) to diverse

representation throughout all levels, sensitive to maintaining an open, supportive, and

responsive environment, working toward and purposefully including elements of diverse

cultures in its ongoing operations, carefully monitoring organizational policies and

practices to the goals of equal access and opportunity, and authentic in responding to

changing policies and practices that block cultural diversity (Sue & Constantine, 2005, p.

223).

Within this framework, the organization requires a mission, goals, values, and overall

system of policies that speak to diversity values (Jackson, 2006). Additionally, there are key

components that must be present in multicultural organizational development: (a) an emphasis on

lifelong development to become multiculturally diverse as well as to change with society; (b)

action that demonstrates a commitment to diversity rather than only verbalizing the need for

change; and (c) openness to examining and changing current policies, structures, programs, and


practices that are potentially impeding diversity initiatives from taking place or creating inequity

in the workplace (Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, & Bradley, 2003).

In addition to the key components that are necessary for multicultural organizational

development, there are also specific expectations that should be met within MCOD. Specifically,

Jackson (2014), discusses six expectations that are embedded in MCOD theory and practice.

The first of these expectations is that while often necessary, individual consciousness

raising and training activities are not sufficient in producing organization-wide changes. The

author elaborates that policies and practices must also change in order to rise above the “status

quo.”

In multicultural organizational development, it is also expected the there is a clear vision

of the organization's ideal concept of a multicultural organization that informs the change

process. In order to create a truly multicultural organization, it is necessary to first evaluate the

current state of the organization and develop a clear plan for addressing any discrepancies or

issues between the current reality of the organization and its future goals. Relatedly, it is

expected that a thorough internal assessment will be conducted to help the organization identify

the current state of diversity and social justice. This evaluation should inform the plan from

which the organization uses to achieve their goals. Additionally, it should establish a baseline for

the organization that is directive and forward thinking.

Data ownership is an additional expectation that must be met in multicultural

organizational development. The majority of the members should be invested in the change

process and be fully aware of the current issues and steps that are being taken to address those

challenges. A final expectation when working within a multicultural organizational development

framework is that a monitoring and facilitating mechanism is necessary for authentic and lasting


social justice and diversity changes to occur. Therefore, it is vital that the goals developed are

also linked to the organization's mission and purpose (Jackson, 2014).

Likewise, there are expectations that should be acknowledged among the individual

members who form the organization itself. The development of staff that understands oppression

and discrimination, organizational development and change, adult learning theory and practice,

and their own attitudes and behavior toward themselves and others different from themselves is

foundational throughout the MCOD process (Cross, 2000). It is essential that each individual

involved in the multicultural organizational development process be competent in the concepts of

diversity and inclusion, particularly the models and tools, before embarking in this work.

Individuals should be aware of their own memberships in dominant and subordinate groups, in

addition to owning who they are as a complete-self by deepening their self-awareness and

developing their skills.

Furthermore, it is crucial at the individual level to form partnerships across groups and

create authentic relationships that will help facilitate the process, not only for that individual but

for the entire organization. Also, it is important to acknowledge and celebrate differences, in

addition to becoming aware of our own personal biases. Finally, it is vital that all members

involved in the process remain in the process. It is critical that all members remain engaged in

working towards the organizational goals (Jackson, 2006). Nurturing a core change team which

is internal, in addition to developing inter-group dialogue facilitators and grounding diversity

defenders in MCOD theory and practice should be the overarching goals of any organization

which strives to truly become a multicultural organization (Ramos & Chesler, 2010).

MCOD Development Stages


As suggested by Bailey Jackson (2014), organizations are neither fully “good” nor “bad.”

Rather, they exist on a developmental continuum, of which multicultural and monocultural

organizations are located on the two extremes. Based on such a conceptualization, Bailey

Jackson and Rita Hardiman developed the MCOD Development Stage Model (Jackson &

Hardiman, 1997).

Stage 1 - “The Exclusionary Organization”

Openly devoted to maintaining the majority group’s dominance and privilege, the

exclusionary organization is openly hostile while deliberately restricting membership via the

organization’s mission and membership criteria. Within such hostile organizations, overt

discrimination and exclusionary/harassing actions often go unaddressed.

Stage 2 - “The Club”

Often viewed as more liberal when compared to the exclusionary organization, the club

continues to maintain the privileges of those individuals who have traditionally maintained the

power. However, when maintaining the monocultural norms, policies, and procedures of

dominant culture, the club allows a limited number of “token” individuals from nondominant

groups if they are viewed as having the “right” perspective or credentials.

Stage 3 - “The Compliance Organization”

Committed to removing a certain degree of the discrimination present, the culture,

mission, and/or structure continue to remain the same. While attempting to not offend or

challenge members of the dominant group, the compliance organization attempts to change its

diversity profile by hiring members of the non-dominant group to work in the lower levels of the

organization.

Stage 4 - “The Affirming Organization”


Committed to eliminating the discrimination practices, affirming organizations encourage

all employees to think and act in a manner that is not oppressive. Such organizations also

actively recruit and promote members of the non-dominant group. Lastly, employees are

encouraged to participate in programming or initiatives that increase mobility and success.

Stage 5 - “The Redefining Organization”

Considered a system in transition, the redefining organization is motivated to move

beyond the “nondiscriminatory” or “non-oppressive” philosophy that it once maintained. By

questioning the organizational culture, structure, mission, policies, operations, services,

management practices, and climate, the redefining organization attempts to create an

environment where social and cultural diversity is valued. Lastly, efforts are made to employ a

multicultural workforce.

Stage 6 - “The Multicultural Organization”

As the mission, values, operations, and services reflect the interests of a wide range of

cultural and social identity groups; all members of the multicultural organization fully participate

in the decision-making that shapes the organization. Working to eradicate all forms of oppression

within the organization, the multicultural organization also strives to eliminate all forms of

oppression within larger communities (i.e., regional, national, and global). It is also important to

note that the multicultural organization represents the ideal or vision for a MCO. Currently, there

are no known MCOs.

The Process of Facilitating Multicultural Organizational Development

Hyde (2003) recommended a number of activities common to MCOD processes. Such

activities include the development of communication skills, implementation of cultural

competency training, outreach and retention initiatives, assessment and planning of MCOD


initiatives, and monitoring and evaluating the efficacy and progress of MCOD processes. Hyde

(2012) also explored some of the rationales that often undergird the process of MCOD. These

include identifying why a change is needed, defining the scope of the change, defining the steps

that will be taken to accomplish the change, identifying the level of involvement that will be

required of the organization in order to accomplish the change, and delineating outcome

expectations prior to the beginning of the process. Bearing this framework in mind, MCOD can

be further manifested in the contexts of organization readiness, assessment and benchmarking,

and change planning and implementation. These dynamics will be demonstrated through a case

study, following a brief review of these three contexts.

Organization Readiness

Considered an important component of the MCOD process, a readiness inventory may be

used to assess the organization’s readiness for a change initiative. Inquiring about the level of

awareness and support for an MCOD initiative, a readiness inventory specifically provides the

change agents with a sense of how to move forward. A typical MCOD readiness inventory asks

six basic questions:

1. How are manifestations of social oppression (sexism, heterosexism, classism, etc.)

handled when discovered or reported?

2. Is support for diversity a core value in this organization?

3. Is there a clearly expressed commitment to social justice in this organization?

4. Does the leadership express or demonstrate its support for social justice?

5. How well does the leadership model a value for diversity and social justice?

6. Is the commitment to diversity and social justice clearly stated in the mission and values

of the organization?


Assessment and Benchmarking

While assessments should be conducted throughout the change process, the initial

assessment is extremely important in determining the organizational climate. Moreover, the

initial assessment also establishes the baseline for the change process as well as provides the

necessary information required to develop a detailed change plan that addresses current and

anticipated needs. According to Jackson (2014), a thorough assessment process involves the

collection of three types of data: (a) survey data, (b) interview data, and (c) audit data.

Survey Data: Collected in a manner that facilitates MCOD developmental stage

identification, the survey should be administered to every individual in the organization in order

to develop a detailed and all-encompassing change plan.

Interview Data: Whether originating from individual interviews and/or focus groups,

interview data is useful in verifying as well as clarifying any information collected in the

surveys. Interviews may also assist in gaining individuals’ perceptions of the organization in

relation to social justice and diversity.

Audit Data: Pulled from personnel and budget records, audit data is helpful in assessing

the organization's stance on diversity. Information gleaned from audit data can further highlight

concerns that were previously identified, or it may also identify new areas of improvement.

After all data is collected, it is then reviewed to assure that all parties are protected and

that anonymity of respondents is maintained. Data is then compiled and prepared for presentation

to the organization. It is up to the organization to take ownership of the data and determine the

next steps if the data is deemed to be truly representative of their organization. Using these three

forms of data collection makes the MCOD approach all-inclusive, instead of a top-down or

bottom-up approach (Jackson, 2014).


Change Planning and Implementation

Once assessment data has been collected, organized, presented, and embraced by the

organization, the change agents and MCOD consultants work together to develop effective

change plans. Such plans should address the concerns and issues that arose during the assessment

process. Concerns that may be addressed within eighteen months to two years should be made a

priority, as it is essential that effective change be measured and acknowledged early on to bolster

the success of the MCOD initiative. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the organization to

continue monitoring the process and renew their commitment to becoming a multicultural

organization throughout the life of the organization. As the MCOD process develops and

changes, it requires re-evaluation and reassessment to determine what changes and initiatives are

required of the organization in the future (Jackson, 2014).

MCOD Case Example Relevant to Higher Education

Identifying a clear method by which MCOD can occur, Gallop and Este’s (2007) work

can be used as a model that can be replicated in other organizations. Describing the process of

facilitating multicultural organizational development (MCOD) in social work schools at

universities throughout Canada, Gallop and Este (2007) utilized a model consisting of four

stages:

First Stage: A change team is assembled consisting of persons from all levels of the

organization. While including administrators, faculty, staff, and students on the change team, the

authors also note that diverse demographic and ethnic groups should be included as well.

Second Stage: The primary focus is placed on building support within the institution for

the MCOD process. While noting the possible presence of resistance, this stage includes

conducting a needs assessment to determine the climate of the organization with regard to


diversity issues (i.e., interest in diversity and the levels of allyship/support among the faculty and

staff.

Third Stage: Focused on leadership development by seeking to elicit allies and co-

operatives from the organization’s administrative leadership.

Fourth Stage: One in which change begins to occur in a more pronounced way. The

change team, consisting of advocates, allies, and other leaders, formulate a plan to implement the

changes that have been identified as necessary in the preceding stages. Further, assessment and

evaluation methods are utilized to determine the efficacy of the interventions.

Conclusion

MCOD is a crucial component of any organization that intends to be an effective

participant in the 21st century global community. The increasing diversity of U.S. society,

coupled with the multicultural integration that is occurring as a result of globalization,

necessitate that organizations use sound models for conceptualization and implementing MCOD.

The work of scholars, such as Sue (2008) and Sue and Constantine (2005), have clearly

described these developments in such a way that an organization invested in MCOD can easily

contextualize itself and efficaciously develop and implement a plan to produce the appropriate

changes.

Further, Gallop and Este (2007) have provided a useful model for educational contexts,

while others have noted some of the key characteristics and rationales for MCOD. Additionally,

Wall and Obear (2008), have developed a thorough presentation and workshop outline that

presents a step-by-step process of best practices in creating socially just and inclusive campus

communities, which was adapted from the Jackson (2006) chapter on theory and practice of

multicultural organization development. An organization seeking to embark on the process of


MCOD, then, has no shortage of empirical and scholarly literature from which to draw

inspiration and structure for its own manifestation of the process.


Appendix B


Figure 7. Inclusive Excellence Scorecard. Reprinted from “Toward a Model of Inclusive

Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions,” by D. Williams, J. Berger, and S.

McClendon, 2005, p. 21. Copyright 2005 by the Association of American Colleges and

Universities.


Documents

Diversity and Inclusion in the College of Education at UGA ... · Executive Board of Diversity and Inclusion, an Associate Dean of Diversity, a visible space for ... Diversity leadership