Halloween season tends to bring outrage over blackface costumes at campus parties -- and this year the discussion is at the University of Florida. Some students came to a "rock stars and rappers" party at a fraternity not only in blackface, but with black paint over their bodies, and their costumes also featured gold chains and saggy pants, The Gainesville Sun reported. The university's chapter of the NAACP posted a photo of the students on its Facebook page with the statement: "Students at UF had a party last night, and guess who they came dressed as? Whose party this is is not the issue but the fact that this is seen as acceptable is where the problem lies!"
Israel's government is planning a number of new programs to promote greater enrollment and success of Arab students, The Jerusalem Post reported. Arab enrollment levels lag in Israel, in part because only 22 percent of Arab high school graduate meet the entrance requirements for universities, compared to 44 percent of Jewish students. Universities will be required to come up with plans for recruiting Arab students. Further, funds will be made available for universities to create programs to help Arab students improve their Hebrew, and information centers will be set up in Arab towns to provide academic guidance on preparing for higher education.
Neo-racism toward international students, such as the recent incidents at Michigan State and Ohio State Universities, highlights the challenges higher education leaders face in creating a positive campus climate for international students. Many international students live in a parallel social world, shut off from friendships with American peers. When a neo-racist act occurs, international students – and all students, except for a few – look to campus administrators and faculty for ethical academic leadership. Even if no major incident has occurred, campus leaders are responsible for creating a positive climate for the burgeoning number of international students arriving at their institutions.
While there is no "one size fits all" approach, we offer for consideration three "educational encounters" that make a positive difference in the lives of international students. Our recommendations are primarily based on analysis of the results from the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI), a multi-university survey that examines the relationship between educational experiences and global learning of over 70,000 U.S. undergraduates, including almost 3,000 international students. We are both involved in this research project. Drawing on key findings from our research, we propose three educational encounters that campus leaders may consider to create more inclusive campus climates for international students.
1. Educational encounters that involve discussion and dialogue enhance international students’ positive perceptions of campus climate.
Of the 12 high-impact educational practices we have examined, courses that include opportunities for dialogue are the most strongly associated with positive perceptions of the campus climate for international students. International students who have taken courses that involve dialogue among students with different backgrounds and beliefs report a greater sense of connection to their host institution, higher grade-point-averages, and are more likely to form relationships with cross-cultural peers outside the classroom.
Comprehensive internationalization efforts must consider how "encounters with difference that make a difference" may become more pervasive in the classroom. We know a significant number of students -- both domestic and international students -- never meaningfully engage in cross-cultural dialogue in the classroom. Such encounters evoke cognitive dissonance; alter existing ideas, views, and sense of self; and encourage new forms of interaction with others who are different from oneself. They invite students to interact with others across cultural, social, economic, and religious divides; and to reflect, share, and build on their experiences, as a means of dealing with cognitive dissonance. All kinds of courses may incorporate dialogue. For example, an advanced-level business course where students discuss diverse perspectives on leadership can be just as meaningful for international students as a discussion-based course addressing issues of race, ethnicity, gender, class, or religion. Group work involving student-to-student discussion outside the classroom may not have the same benefits as facilitated classroom dialogue, however. Out-of-class group projects, if not well designed, can exacerbate language and cultural issues between students, leaving international students feeling more isolated and dejected.
2. Educational encounters that provide a secure base of support for cross-cultural exploration enhance international students’ positive perceptions of campus climate.
International students’ perceptions of campus climate do not solely result from their interactions with American students; their perceptions also reflect whether they connect with peers who share their cultural heritage. International students who engage in activities reflecting their cultural background view their campus more positively and report an enhanced sense of well-being. Additionally, friendships with other international students play a critical role in staving off depression, improving academic performance, and increasing student satisfaction with their college experience. A strong social network of international student peers provides a secure base to begin exploring friendships with American students; international students tap into each other’s social networks to make new American and international friends. International students who regularly participate in organizations reflecting their own culture are more likely to participate in activities
reflecting another culture, as well as to feel both challenged and supported by their college or university.
3. Educational encounters that involve partnerships among international student offices, counseling centers, and other student support services enhance international students’ positive perceptions of campus climate.
Mental health issues, such as depression, loneliness, and anxiety, are well-documented in research on international students. Needless to say, discriminatory experiences adversely affect international students’ perceptions of their campus. According to our research, international students who experience discrimination are two-thirds less likely to discuss feelings and share problems with peers. Faculty, peer mentors, and international educators, therefore, must be the first line of support for observing if an international student appears distressed. Communication and coordination between leaders in international student offices, counseling centers, faculty development offices, and student support services is essential for comprehensive support. Partnering units can work to connect existing efforts by co-sponsoring programs, offering faculty development opportunities, and organizing campus-wide conversations on diversity issues. Partnering not only better-serves international students, it invites educators across campus to learn how they might adapt their existing services to become more responsive to international students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Time For Action
Some may argue that cash-strapped colleges and universities have rushed into international student recruitment, driven by tuition dollars, without fully considering its implications for student support services, residence life, or undergraduate education. Regardless of the various motivations for expanding international student enrollment, this much is clear: international recruitment must be matched with real institutional change. If the rise in the number of international students studying in the U.S. is to strengthen teaching and learning, leaders must identify the types of educational experiences that contribute to international students' positive perceptions of their campus’ climate and their learning and development.
Many campus leaders want to act, yet have little research to guide conversations about the kinds of interventions that will make a meaningful difference. We believe focusing on experiences that contribute to international students’ positive perceptions of their campuses offers one entry point for catalyzing conversations about comprehensive internationalization. The growing presence of international students, while introducing new challenges, also creates new opportunities to strengthen higher education’s academic mission, where international students contribute to the learning and development of all students.
Chris R. Glass is assistant professor of educational foundations and leadership at Old Dominion University. Larry A. Braskamp is professor emeritus and former senior vice president for academic affairs at Loyola University Chicago.
"Would you date someone who was African-American?" The interviewee quickly responded, "No, they will hurt me because they are so big and I don’t like their curly hair and big lips, it’s not my style. It may come from Western aesthetics of blond and white."
These were not the words of a white supremacist, nor those of an anti-immigration advocate, but of a 21-year-old Korean international college student. Her negative perceptions of African Americans were commonplace in my Ph.D. dissertation study of 44 Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students’ experiences with cross-racial/ethnic interaction at University of California at Los Angeles. Upon reading Elizabeth Redden’s article in Inside Higher Ed,"I’m Not Racist, But," I was reminded how xenophobic and intolerant domestic students can be toward international students.
An often-overlooked area of inquiry is what racial attitudes and stereotypes international students bring to America, which affect with whom they interact, how they navigate their college experience in the U.S., and campus climate as a whole. Racial misunderstandings take place on both sides of this international and domestic relationship, indicating that there must be concrete efforts taken by universities to promote cross-cultural interaction and educate students about the historical, racial/ethnic, and cultural diversity that exists in both international and domestic student communities.
More than half of students interviewed in my dissertation study held negative stereotypes of African-American and Latino people. This stemmed from little to no interaction with individuals of a different racial/ethnic background, combined with media images of African-American and Latino people as poverty-stricken or criminals -- images found both in Asian and American media. A racial hierarchy emerged as students explained that white people were on the top of this status pyramid because of the perceived wealth, beauty, and education portrayed in American and Asian film and television. East Asians and Asian Americans came second, Latinos third, and African Americans as well as Southeast Asians were lowest on this hierarchy. Southeast Asians were placed at a low level due to the developing economic conditions of many Southeast Asian nations as well as an Asian racial hierarchy based on phenotype, with darker skin being less desirable.
East Asian international students had positive views toward Asian-American students; however, upon further interaction between these groups on campus, Asian international students felt as though they were not accepted by Asian Americans and had trouble finding topics to discuss with Asian Americans because they were, as one interviewee put it, "white inside their heart," or very Americanized. While Asian international students wanted to interact with white Americans, they also felt like white Americans did not want to interact with internationals and when they did, internationals experienced social discomfort due to language barriers and lack of common topics to discuss. Without a required diversity course at UCLA, many international students complete their educational experience in America maintaining the same stereotypes with which they came into college.
These findings are troubling and may have greater implications as international students become a larger population of our colleges, universities, and citizenry. According to the International Institute of Education, in the 2010-2011 academic year, the number of enrolled international students studying in the U.S. rose to 723,277, a 32 percent increase from a decade ago. Chinese students increased by 23 percent, to 158,000 students, Indian students reached 104,000, and Korean student numbers increased to 75,065 students. A symbiotic relationship is taking place here, in which international students are flocking to America for skills, knowledge, and opportunity, while international students infused $21 billion into the American economy last year. Universities and the U.S. government are gaining not only the intellectual, racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, but also a much-needed revenue stream.
With this growing population of international students, colleges and universities should be creating policies and programs to lessen balkanization and racial discrimination, and at the same time, integrating international students into life in the U.S. by teaching American history, politics, culture, and diversity. America has gone to two wars in the last decade, some have argued, in order to spread American democracy and values of tolerance. Now we have 723, 277 international students at our doorstep and what are we doing to educate them about our government institutions and racial diversity?
Sadly, the answer is "not enough." The University of California System exempts international students from taking the American History and Institutions requirement, while diversity courses are required on some UC campuses but not others. The University of Southern California, the university hosting the largest number of international students in the nation (8,615 students), does have a diversity requirement, but more can be done to help create tolerant and aware global citizens. Many university international centers have international student orientation single-day events, but there may need to be more workshops, programs, and structured classroom experiences in academic departments and residential life spaces to help reduce international-domestic student balkanization and build bridges of cultural understanding between the two groups.
My dissertation illustrated that international student stereotypes could easily be broken through positive contact between seemingly disparate groups, whether these interactions took place in living spaces, work places, the classroom, or in student clubs.
Undergraduate international students who lived in the residential halls had the most contact with cultural/racial out-groups and were more exposed to diversity programming in their living spaces. Undergraduate and graduate students who lived off-campus had fewer cross-cultural/racial interactions and as a result held more stereotypical views toward racial out-groups. International students in the humanities had more interactions with cultural/racial out-groups and were more comfortable with their language abilities, both factors that led to ease of cultural adjustment and stereotype reduction. International graduate students in the sciences tended to have co-national labmates and advisers, which resulted in less interaction with domestic students and the creation of a niche community of co-nationals.
Higher education institutions’ international centers understand the benefits that come with positive international-domestic contact; therefore, they have begun to address this issue of international-domestic student discrimination and balkanization. UCLA’s Dashew International Center instituted a program called Global Siblings, which creates activities and events specifically for international and domestic students to interact. UCLA also created an American Culture and Communication course where students learn American culture through music and film, while debunking racial stereotypes within the media. Santa Monica Community College has a peer mentor system that also aids international students.
As the recent article here illustrates, these are good first steps, but there must be a culture of sensitivity and cultural awareness on the part of professors, students affairs officers, and students to make international students feel welcome. Building a culture of tolerance takes time, but as the number of international students grows, colleges and universities will have to adapt quickly to serve the needs of these students or else face a decline in revenue from this unique population.
American universities must also heed the needs of international students because many of them are elites from their country and expect to be treated well and provided with the academic/social services that they desire. In TESOL Quarterly, University of San Francisco ESL Professor Stephanie Vandrick refers to this contemporary wave of privileged young internationals as the "students of the new global elite" (SONGEs). These students come to America from upper-middle class families in their country and expect quality services and amenities to be provided at an American university.
They are often status-driven, seeking an educational advantage over their peers back home. Therefore, if they do not feel they are welcomed at a university, if they face racial discrimination, or if they are not being provided with the amenities they expect, they will apply to a different university or tell their friends in their home country about their lackluster experience in America. This could affect the reputation of the university abroad, and could hurt public universities that may not be able to provide the student services and individual attention that private universities can. These students of the new global elite (SONGEs) are paying top dollar to earn an education and experience life in America. They should not be relegated to racial slurs, covert taunts over the twittersphere, or subjected to what Jenny J. Lee, associate professor at the University of Arizona’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, calls neo-racism.
It is true that international students also hold stereotypes toward racial/ethnic groups in America, but with increased international-domestic interaction, both student bodies can learn from each other. If we are to truly create global and tolerant citizens that will be the future leaders and teachers of tomorrow, we must create more college diversity courses, not shy away from teaching American history, culture, and government to international students, and create safe spaces on campus to discuss international-domestic student relations. It is in the interest of American colleges and universities not only to recruit international students but to give them the rich education for which they are paying and from which the global community will benefit.
Zack Ritter is a graduating Ph.D. student in higher education at the University of California at Los Angeles. He has worked in academic counseling, American culture curriculum development for international students, inter-group dialogue programs, academic success programs, and residential life.
One year after college graduation, women are paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by their male peers, according to a report from the American Association of University Women. The gap is evident even when comparing women and men who work in the same field, and had the same college majors. The report also found that found that 20 percent of women working full time one year after graduation must spend more than 15 percent of earnings on paying back student loans.
Both male and female scientists believe that gender discrimination is one reason why some women avoid careers in science, and why some who opt for science careers pursue biology as opposed to physics, according to a new report published in the journal Gender and Society. The authors say that they want to understand why women are making certain choices, and how those choices are perceived. In interviews, male scientists tended to refer to past discrimination as a factor while women were more likely to cite current discrimination as a factor.
This month, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this term’s big higher education affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas,The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed I wrote entitled "A Liberal Critique of Racial Preferences" alongside an article by the president of the University of Texas at Austin, Bill Powers, entitled "An Admissions Policy that Prizes Diversity." Powers painted Austin as a champion of racial justice, noting "My university once kept blacks out. Now at Texas we ensure that their grandchildren can enter."
In the affirmative action wars, leading institutions of higher education have positioned themselves as high-minded proponents of racial inclusion. On the surface, that appears to be true, as universities and colleges have deluged the Supreme Court with amicus briefs filed in support of the ability of institutions to employ racial preferences in admissions. And, to be sure, many leaders are genuinely committed to the important ideas that racial diversity strengthens education and that racial integration of selective colleges is a moral imperative.
But at I outline in a new report for the Century Foundation, there are many ways to produce racial diversity without using race – such as giving a leg up to economically disadvantaged students, or providing automatic admission to students at the top of their high school class. Indeed, when one looks more closely at the facts in the Texas case, university leaders have actively sought to curtail a highly effective automatic admissions program that produces a great deal of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity. In fact, the evidence suggests that UT leaders appear to prize something even more than racial inclusion: the discretion to admit whomever they want, including disproportionate numbers of wealthy and white students.
While President Powers like to wax eloquent about the importance of diversity – writing, “In my 38 years in the classroom, I often have seen how a diverse classroom enriches discussion, provides valuable insights and offers a deeper learning experience” – in fact Texas has fought for years to limit the state’s most powerful engine for racial, ethnic, and economic diversity.
When Texas was banned from using racial preferences by a lower court in the mid-1990s, the legislature passed a top 10 percent plan, by which students who rank at the top of their high schools are automatically eligible to be admitted to UT Austin. UT continued to admit some students by a more traditional holistic review, which included a number of factors, such as test scores, grades and socioeconomic status. When the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed the ability of universities to consider race in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, Texas began using race as part of its discretionary (non-top 10 percent) admissions process. This use of racial preferences gave rise to litigation by a white student, Abigail Fisher, whose case is now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Texas argues that it needs to use race in admissions to ensure racial diversity, but as David Savage has reported in The Los Angeles Times, 9 of 10 Latino and black student admitted to UT in the last two years came from automatic admissions, not through affirmative action. Even though the top 10 percent plan (which in 2011 was limited to the top 8 percent), produces substantial socioeconomic and racial diversity, UT Austin has continually fought in the Legislature to curtail the program's reach, thereby reducing rather than enhancing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity on campus.
In 2007, Powers and UT Austin sought legislation to cap the proportion of students admitted through the 10 percent plan, which then stood at 71 percent of students, at 40 or 50 percent of the
freshman class. According to The Austin American-Statesman, Powers argued that the cap would make it easier to produce racial diversity because the university would have greater discretion to provide racial preferences. But minority legislators saw that the 10 percent plan was producing significant diversity on its own and did not buy UT’s argument. A fascinating coalition of white rural legislators and urban minority lawmakers – whose constituents were entering UT Austin as never before under the 10 percent plan – successfully beat UT’s proposed cap. Luis Figueroa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund opposed the limit, saying, "There’s no better merit system than the top 10 percent plan."
In 2009, as automatic admissions continued to grow, UT Austin was successful in imposing a higher automatic admission cap – at 75 percent – and this had the effect of limiting enrollment to the
top 8 percent in every high school class. The legislation also required UT Austin to provide a demographic breakdown by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of top 8 percent vs. discretionary admits.
The report submitted by Powers on December 31, 2011 suggests that legislators representing minority and low-income constituencies were right to worry about how a cap on automatic admissions at 40 percent or 50 percent would have affected minority enrollment. In 2011, black, Latino and Asian students did better under the top 8 percent plan, while whites did substantially better under the discretionary plan, even though the latter includes the university’s affirmative action program. Twenty-nine percent of those admitted under the top 8 percent plan were Hispanic, compared with just 14 percent under the discretionary plan. Blacks represented 6 percent of those in the 8 percent plan, but 5 percent under the discretionary plan. Asian Americans also did better under the 8 percent plan. The big beneficiaries of discretionary admissions? White students, who accounted for 58 percent of admits compared with 41 percent under the top 8 percent plan.
The automatic admissions program, which UT Austin has continually sought to limit, also benefits low-income students, while Austin's discretionary admissions program benefits rich kids. In 2011, 9 percent of top 8 percent admits were from families with annual household incomes below $20,000 compared with just 3 percent of the discretionary admits. Among those making between $20,000 and just under $40,000, representation among top 8 percent admits was twice as high (14 percent) as in the discretionary pool (7 percent). Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, students from wealthy families (making more than $200,000 per year) were far more likely to be represented among discretionary admits (29 percent) than among top 8 percent admits (13 percent).
There are parallel data involving parental levels of education. In 2011, automatic admits were three times as likely to have a most educated parent lacking a four-year degree (33 percent) compared
with discretionary admits (11 percent). On the flip side, 34 percent of automatic admits had a parent with a graduate degree compared with 54 percent of discretionary admits.
While some might worry that the low-income and working-class students admitted under the automatic admissions plan would struggle at UT Austin, research by Sunny Niu and Marta Tienda of Princeton University concluded, "Compared with white students ranked at or below the third decile, top 10 percent black and Hispanic enrollees arrive with lower average test scores yet consistently perform as well or better in grades, first-year persistence, and four-year graduation likelihood."
How would a percentage plan work elsewhere? In an amicus brief in support of racial preferences, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said it had modeled the effects of a top 10 percent plan in North Carolina. The brief conceded that racial and ethnic diversity would actually increase modestly – from 15 percent to 16 percent "non-white and underrepresented students" – but claimed the plan would have a devastating effect on the academic readiness of students. The average SAT score, UNC fretted, would decline from 1317 to 1262. But is this really such a terrible result? According to data from the College Board, this very modest drop would take the average SAT at Chapel Hill from the 91st percentile to the 86th.
Of course, percentage plans won’t work at private institutions drawing upon a national pool and will not produce as much college diversity in states with more integrated high schools. And there are important reasons that university administrators should have discretion in admissions to build a class that includes violinists and chemists and the like. But socioeconomic affirmative action plans can work at private institutions and unfortunately, our nation’s high schools are becoming more economically and racially segregated, not less.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has long held that discretion to build a class is not unlimited. It does not include the right to discriminate against students of color, and in the Fisher case, the Supreme Court is likely to further reduce the discretion of university officials to provide racial preferences in favor of underrepresented minority students. This would force universities to find other ways to promote diversity. As Texas demonstrated, some of those alternatives can produce even higher levels or racial, ethnic and economic diversity than holistic review, opening the doors to low-income, working-class and minority students in a way that discretionary affirmative action programs never have.