Constructing a Monolith: State Policy, Institutional DEI Plans, and the Flattening of Latinx Identity at Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Abstract

As racialized institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions educate large portions of racially minoritized students within organizational and policy structures that advance Whiteness. This research considers how the institution-level diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) plans, produced in response to state-level DEI policies in Florida, California, and New York, construct narratives of intersectional diversity and a racialized Latinx identity at Hispanic-serving community colleges (HSCCs). Engaging critical discourse analysis, drawing together critical race theory and LatCrit, the analysis expands the consideration of DEI policy implementation at HSCCs. The findings illustrate the interconnectedness of state-level policy, policy implementation guidance, and institution-level discourse related to defining intersectional diversity and demographic data. Furthermore, it captures a lack of attention to racial composition among Latinx students and the limited characterization of HSI status. This study highlights how the implementation of state-level DEI policies can advance or erase the considerations of intersectionality among Latinx students.

Performing Anti-racism: Universities Respond to Anti-Black Violence

“…This research utilized CRDA; informed by prior analyzes, which drew together CRT within CDA (Busey & Silva, 2021; Casellas Connors, 2021). First, the quantitative textual analysis addressed the features and contours of the data.…”

“…Having grown in prominence over the past several decades, diversity plans operate as a tool for DEI organizational change. However, the examination of diversity plans at land-grant institutions and community colleges, has shown how they advance color evasive language, present a deficit framework around students, and include a significant level of heterogeneity (Casellas Connors, 2021, 2022; Ching et al, 2018; Felix et al, 2018; Iverson, 2007). Specific to land-grant universities, Iverson (2005, 2007) highlights how diversity plans were not neutral, but position students of color as outsiders, disadvantaged, and at-risk and perpetuate exclusionary campus practices that reinforce inequality.…”

“…Specific to land-grant universities, Iverson (2005, 2007) highlights how diversity plans were not neutral, but position students of color as outsiders, disadvantaged, and at-risk and perpetuate exclusionary campus practices that reinforce inequality. Furthermore, research has also illustrated how racially minoritized intersectional identities are ignored in diversity plans in California, New York, and Florida despite sizable populations of such individuals (Casellas Connors, 2021).…”

“…The embeddedness captured by racialized organization theory informs how the discourse of racial diversity addresses public concern, yet fails to fundamentally alter the structures producing racial inequity (Holland & Ford, 2021; Thomas, 2017). Research about the racialized institutional habitus considers institutional diversity discourse produced through their documents such as admissions websites and diversity plans (Casellas Connors, 2021; Holland & Ford, 2021), and engages racialized organization theory to understand how anti-Blackness shapes their student experiences (Pirtle et al, 2021). The racialized nature of institutional habitus is necessary to frame the critical examination of institutional discourse.…”

The Evolving Identities of HSI and Differentiated Funding

“…Pragmatism focuses on the real world understanding of a socially situated problem and abductively appraises prior work to consider future actions (Morgan, 2007). In balancing the monolithic policy approach toward HSIs (Casellas Connors, 2021), and prior qualitative research recognizing HSI individuality, we used a TwoStep clustering procedure as a segmentation method to identify measures that policymakers might use to direct Title V funding considerate of HSI heterogeneity. TwoStep cluster analysis was advantageous over k -means or hierarchical cluster analysis because it permitted both categorical and continuous data and was scalable for large datasets.…”