Social mobility, Equality of Opportunity and the Case for Minority Serving Institutions

By: William Casey Boland, PhD Candidate

Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions

University of Pennsylvania

The higher education research world is still coming to terms with the recent Equality of Opportunity Project’s paper on intergenerational income mobility and the role of higher education (Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, & Yagan, 2017). The report notes the symbolic role of higher education in boosting social mobility. Yet it also illustrates that who graduates from colleges and universities doesn’t neatly align with the myth of the meritocracy of U.S. higher education. While it would be easy to indict U.S. higher education as a monolithic institution maintaining the borders of a U.S. caste system as defined along racial and class lines, Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, and Yagan (2017) offer a descriptive portrait of the complex nuances of how social mobility varies based on the sector in higher education.

Chetty et al. (2017) include a top 10 list of colleges based on household labor earnings. Of these, 8 of 10 are minority serving institutions (MSIs). Six are located in Texas. Two are community colleges. This makes some intuitive sense. MSIs enroll a higher proportion of students of color. It stands to reason such institutions would graduate higher numbers of students of color. Yet critics of MSIs often claim they suffer low graduation rates. A recent report by Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions collected numerous data points to illustrate how MSIs graduate more students of color than peer non-MSIs in many instances. For instance, MSIs enroll over 40% of all students of color attending a postsecondary institution. This accounts for more than 26% of all college students in the U.S. (about 3.8 million students) (Boland et al., 2017).

Based on Chetty et al.’s (2017) list of the “Top 10 Colleges by Mobility Rate,” 6 of the 10 schools are minority serving institutions (MSIs). These are mostly institutions that are part of large state public systems in California, New York, and Texas. These are also within the states with the most MSIs in the U.S. This is the product of evolving demographic patterns throughout the country. The MSIs included within that list were institutions that became MSIs through an increasing enrollment of students of color (in this case, Latino and Asian American and Pacific Islander students). While there are presently over 600 MSIs throughout the U.S., there is every indication that this number will continue to rise and by a significant level.

Nick Hillman (2017) of the University of Wisconsin-Madison offers helpful tips on using the Equality of Opportunity data in practical research. He assessed California State University campuses in terms of mobility. Most of these campuses are MSIs. As he displays, some of these demonstrate a high level of mobility amongst their students. For instance, 47% of students attending Cal State-Los Angeles moved up at least two income quintiles. Cal State-Dominguez Hills has an overall mobility rate of 41%.  

Given the apparent success of many Texas higher education institutions in advancing overall mobility, I examined MSIs in that state. More than one-third of the state’s higher education institutions are now MSIs (Boland, 2017). Nailing down an exact number of MSIs in any state is difficult given how different organizations define an MSI as well as the fact that some categories of MSIs become an MSI through an ever-shifting enrollment as defined by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Gasman & Conrad, 2013). While the majority of community colleges in Texas (as well as California) are MSIs, they also comprise a substantial proportion of the public four-year systems.

Texas MSIs showed even higher rates of upward mobility than those in California. Table 1 shows some of the Texas MSIs and their overall mobility rates. What is interesting to note is that both two-year and four-year schools showed a relatively high rate of upward mobility. For example, 48% of Texas A&M International University students rose at least two income quintiles. Several community colleges boasted a high level of mobility, such as Laredo Community College and Southwest Texas Junior College (both 41%). The racial composition of both schools is overwhelmingly Latino as of fall 2015 according to IPEDS: 98% in the former and 83% in the latter.

Figure 1: Texas MSI overall upward mobility

Institution	Average overall mobility
El Paso Community College	37%
Laredo Community College	41%
Our Lady of the Lake University	37%
Prairie View A&M University	34%
South Texas College	46%
Southwest Texas Junior College	41%
Sul Ross State University	35%
Texas A&M International University	48%
Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi	22%
Texas A&M University- Kingsville	36%
Texas Southern University	32%
Texas State University	15%
University of Texas- Pan American*	46%
University of Texas- Arlington	23%
University of Texas- Brownsville*	44%
University of Texas- El Paso	39%
University of Texas- San Antonio	26%
University of Texas of the Permian Basin	32%
* Merged to form University of Texas- Rio Grande Valley in 2013

Obviously, these are all slightly beyond back-of-the-envelope calculations and call for deeper investigation. Yet the reports and my cursory analysis make clear that MSIs could play a much more pivotal role in social mobility than heretofore explored in the research literature.

References

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.

Boland, W.C., Samayoa, A.C., Gasman, M., Lockett, A.W., Jimenez, C., and Esmieu, P. (2017). National Campaign on the Return on Investment of Minority Serving Institutions. Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

Boland, W.C. (2017). An Unstoppable Tidal Wave of Progress: Minority Serving Institutions in Texas. Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hillman, N. (2017). Getting oriented to the new college mobility data. Retrieved from http://website.education.wisc.edu/nwhillman/index.php/2017/01/21/getting-oriented-to-the-new-college-mobility-data/.

Confronting the Past to Change the Future: Guidance from our Colleagues in Sociology

Kimberley A. Reyes, PhD Candidate

Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education

University of Michigan 

A few months ago, my Facebook newsfeed was full of references to a special section of the May issue of Social Problems entitled, “Essays on Voices from the Margins: Inequalities in the Sociological House.” I’m not a regular reader of this journal, but as someone who studies contention within academic disciplines, I was intrigued by all of the buzz. This special section is a collection of essays from six noted sociologists of color—Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, David Embrick, Julian Go, Mignon Moore, Aldon Morris, and Mary Romero—each of whom offered candid reflections on the current state of sociology as it relates to racial inequality and the issues faced by scholars of color in the discipline. Their reflections were generated by a town hall discussion at the 2016 meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), during which frank conversations were had about the ways in which social inequalities are reproduced within a discipline that claims social inequality as its core concern. Taken together, the essays issue a forceful call “to build a better sociology” (Morris, 2017, p. 210)—one that that supports diversity and inclusion in practice as much as in rhetoric.

I offer three key themes from across the essays that I believe are broadly relevant to and instructive for our own field of higher education:

1) Confronting a historical foundation of racism

First, these scholars insist that the discipline must admit to itself that sociological knowledge is deeply intertwined with racism and colonialism. The "historical heroes" (Bonilla-Silva, 2017, p.181) credited with founding sociology were not only overwhelmingly white and male, but they often rationalized racial prejudice as a biological and innate tendency. Early elite sociologists’ beliefs in white superiority silenced and suppressed the minority of sociologists of color who dared to think differently—ousting brilliant thinkers such as W E. B. Du Bois and Oliver Cromwell Cox from the sociological canon. Accordingly, these historical ties to a white western point of view must be understood as sociology’s greatest intellectual constraint (Morris, 2017). Confronting that constraint requires an epistemic insurgency—a fight to include worldviews that expand sociological knowledge beyond the “imperial standpoint” (Go, 2017). Higher education researchers must critically examine the origins of our own foundational concepts (some of which are based on sociological frameworks), much in the way that student persistence theory has been critiqued for its assimilationist bias (Guiffrida, 2006).

2) Rejecting adherence to objectivity/value neutrality

Second, these scholars maintain that the discipline’s adherence to objectivity and value neutrality greatly hinder its potential for societal transformation (Bonilla-Silva, 2017; Embrick, 2017, Morris, 2017). Bonilla-Silva (2017) and Embrick (2017) argue that when white sociologists “made a pact with the devil of objectivity” in the 1920s, they created a sociology that is more concerned with gathering data than changing lives for the better (Bonilla-Silva, 2017, p. 183). The expectation that the scientific must be kept separate from the political is an enduring hallmark of white sociology, leaving many contemporary sociologists in a state of paralysis when it comes to doing work that is intentionally geared towards social change (Embrick, 2017, p. 190). Constructing a public sociology that is grounded in human emancipation is possible, but the discipline will need to replace the myth of value neutrality with the belief that activism and scientific work can and must go together (Morris, 2017). In the field of higher education, cultural norms of objectivity and neutrality may explain why, for example, race-related studies published in our top journals commonly avoid critical discussions of racism (Harper, 2012).

3) Having the courage to look within

Lastly, these scholars turn the sociological gaze inward by describing the inequalities that are reproduced across multiple levels of the discipline—in scholarly/professional organizations, in departments and programs, and in universities (Embrick, 2017). Bonilla-Silva (2017) argues that relentless racial microaggressions and the other every day ways in which sociologists of color are made to feel marginal are central mechanisms of organizational whiteness in the discipline. Moore (2017) contends that both race and gender dynamics create an environment where women of color must constantly justify their existence within the discipline. Reflecting on what has changed since her well-known study of graduate students in sociology from two decades ago, Romero (2017) laments that the representation of graduate students and faculty of color remains abysmally low, and that mainstream sociology refuses to include important sociologists of color in its theories, methods, and curricula. Although the discipline is dedicated to studying inequality “out there” in society, it must address the persistent structural hostility to diversity within. Higher education scholars, then, must collectively reflect on everyday practices within our own profession. Do we put too much emphasis on institutional affiliation at our scholarly meetings? Do we place departmental diversity work primarily onto the shoulders of our students and faculty of color? Do we privilege certain epistemologies in our higher education degree programs?

The parallels between sociology and the field of higher education are clear.  Scholars in our own field are committed to addressing social inequality, but the field itself is based on similar historical legacies of exclusion, myths of value neutrality, and continues to lack compositional diversity across faculty and graduate students. Many of us in higher education consider ourselves scholar-activists. Part of this role involves examining and challenging the biases embedded in our own dominant knowledge paradigms. We cannot effectively address social inequality across higher education until we have come to terms with how inequality is reproduced within our own field.

References

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). What we were, what we are, and what we should be: The racial problem of American sociology. Social Problems, 64(2), 179-187.

Embrick, D. G. (2017). Discontents within the discipline: Sociological hypnagogia, negligence,      and denial. Social Problems, 64(2), 188-193.

Go, J. (2017). Decolonizing sociology: Epistemic inequality and sociological thought. Social           Problems, 64(2), 194-199.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto's theory. The Review of Higher    Education, 29(4), 451-472.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist         institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.

Moore, M. R. (2017). Women of color in the academy: Navigating multiple intersections and          multiple hierarchies. Social Problems, 64(2), 200-205.

Morris, A. D. (2017). The state of sociology: The case for systemic change. Social Problems,         64(2), 206-211.

Romero, M. (2017). Reflections on “The department is very male, very white, very old, and very    conservative”: The functioning of the hidden curriculum in graduate sociology departments. Social Problems, 64(2), 212-218.

What’s Right When You’re Left? Complexity of Ethical Dilemmas.

By: Cecile H. Sam, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership
Rowan University 

On April 27, 2017 Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. Due to different reasons (e.g., threats of violence, student protests, scheduling), she did not speak on that day or on the alternative date the university provided. This recent event (or lack thereof) has been just one in a series of conflicts happening on campuses across the country this academic year: the clash of ideologies between the far-right and left. 

This post will not be about arguing the specific details of the Berkeley-Coulter situation.  For that information, there are several good articles to read online (if you trust those news sources). Rather, this post is about how these types of conflicts ultimately present a complex ethical dilemma for leaders in higher education. Because the resulting policies and practices from these conflicts will reflect the institution’s moral stance, it’s important to recognize the various ethical issues that need to be addressed.

Given the history of higher education in the US, the Berkeley-Coulter example is almost cliché. On the surface, this situation looks like every other time controversial speaker comes to campus. But underneath, there appears a new level of complexity.  First, there is the imminent threat and use of violence as a silencing tactic from groups on both sides. Second, the politicization of the university by those outside of campus who want to use higher education as a proving ground to test the limits of free speech, legitimation, and progressive ideas. Third, the institution has been placed in a dilemma where the best options seem to be the one that results in the least amount of loss. Finally, the speed in which narratives of the event can be shared across social media sites (both real and fake news), can place the institution in a reactive rather than proactive position. Combined with the other familiar issues such as the values of free speech and safety, marginalization and disenfranchisement of certain student populations, university mission and vision—these events become flashpoints that define institutions of higher education and how the public perceives them.

Take for example the threat of violence, that came from various polarizing left and right-winged groups determined to either stop Ann Coulter from speaking or to protect her speech respectively.  Broadly speaking, people using a justice perspective may view the use of violence as a silencing tactic to be morally wrong; the use of physical violence is an unethical response to ideology, no matter how repugnant (for example, see Newsweek’s article around the ethics of punching a Nazi: http://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-punch-nazi-ethicists-547277 ). History has too many examples of groups using violence as a silencing tactic—in U.S. alone, we can easily point to the ways people used violence to silence women’s suffrage, civil rights, and the LGBTQ movements to name a few. In an ironic twist—we are now seeing the anti-fascists and other groups use of violence to try to  silence the alt-right, or white-nationalist movement. From a justice perspective or ends-based ethical frame, is trying to silence the alt-right the same thing? 

As universities begin to engage with the dilemma, they may want to apply a critical perspective--in addition to other frames-- to the issue. Critical ethics looks beyond the laws and policies that exist to the inequities and historical context that has created those laws and policies.  For example, historically—marginalized communities (e.g. racial minorities, women, LGBTQ)  found it difficult to obtain justice through “proper channels” due to systemic racism and/or structural oppression, and often had to rely on disruptive tactics such as protests.  Dominant society has emphasized the work of non-violent leaders, while diminishing the contributions those who used more aggressive tactics (e.g., the contrast between Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X).  However, we also learned in US history was that the Revolutionary War and Civil War were not won by pacifists. There is also the distinction of physical violence and verbal violence—normative ethics tells us that words, no matter how offensive, are not the same—but critical ethics tells us that words are used to shape our conceptualizations of others. We can use our words to dehumanize people, and in turn make it easier to justify or commit acts of violence against them (Bandura, 1999). To not acknowledge these ideas in light of history and context when engaging in an ethical dilemma would be to dismiss real concerns for different groups. To take a critical perspective shifts the question: Is silencing the demands to be treated as equal human beings ethically the same as silencing the demand to treat others as less than human?

This isn’t a post to justify violence as a form of protest, but instead I wrote this to bring light to the difficult questions that contain no easy answers. What makes ethical dilemmas so challenging is that ultimately some value is compromised for the sake of another. Values such as free speech, equity, democracy, justice, safety, dignity and truth all have their place in our abstract idea of higher education. However, it is during these crucible events, where higher education administrators and scholars will have to choose which of their core values are more important.  Depending on the different perspectives, some people may say that Berkeley sacrificed free speech for security—others would say that by offering an alternative date the institution compromised its values of diversity and dignity of persons.  These choices that we make have ethical outcomes be they for good or ill, and institutions have to be ready to defend those decisions.

Academic Freedom Should Be Used

By: Marybeth Gasman, PhD
Professor of Higher Education
Director, Center for Minority Serving Institutions
University of Pennsylvania


Academic freedom is an idea and right that I deeply cherish.  Full academic freedom – the kind that comes with tenure – is vitally important to the future of colleges and universities. And, I firmly believe that we must use our academic freedom to move the academy forward.

Academic freedom is involved in many aspects of being a professor – from what we teach to what we research, and to what we say publicly and within our institutions.  As faculty, academic freedom gives us immense privilege that most individuals do not have, and we have responsibilities that are tied to this privilege.

In recent years, more than likely due to the intensity of the world around us, I have grown weary of faculty members who chose not to use their academic freedom in meaningful ways and instead horde it to protect themselves and their own agendas.  I think we have an obligation, especially within the sub-field of higher education, given its applied nature, to use our research and voices to advance a justice and equity-oriented agenda.

When I glance at the titles and abstracts of papers and sessions hosted at this year’s AERA annual meeting, I’m struck, once again, by the number of papers that speak to issues of equity, access, equality, diversity, and inclusion.  Yet, I wonder if the faculty presenting these papers act on these ideas in their day–to-day lives as professors.  Are we teaching in inclusive ways that empowers all students or in ways that make our lives easier and more efficient? Are we collaborative and inclusive in the ways we approach our research and our research teams or do we always need to be in control and in the lead? Do we speak up in faculty meetings when we see systemic racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression – the way we suggest others do in our research – or do we sit in silence hoping someone else will do it, or, perhaps, doing nothing because these systems protect us?  Do we use our academic freedom to push our institutions to take stands on justice issues or do we wait for others to do this?

I give a lot of talks around the nation pertaining to faculty diversity and inclusion, as well as on faculty members using their voices to make change.  Inevitably during the question and answer part of the talk, a faculty member (with tenure, usually White) in the audience will ask me how to be brave around issues of diversity or in general within the academy.  My response is always, ‘What makes you afraid to speak up when you hold the power?’  Often the faculty member’s response is one of shame that they have not had the courage to speak up and stand up for the rights of others. I wonder if their shame turns into action.

I urge tenured faculty and those seeking to be tenured faculty to think about the connections between their research and teaching and how they act in their day-to-day lives in the academy. We often fail to realize and act on the power that we have. We often act as if we are being forced to do things by administration, but faculty have much more power to make change than we acknowledge.  We often criticize the systems within the academy without realizing that we create and enforce those systems and that they can change if we have the will.

Academic freedom in all its forms and manifestations should be nurtured, cherished and used in profound and meaningful ways as faculty move throughout their careers. Failing to do so is academic malpractice.