Illusions of Inclusion: University Policies that Perpetuate Exclusion of Students of Color

Abstract


 
 
 The purpose of this paper is to explore the policies, practices and procedures of inclusion across three universities in the San Francisco Bay Area: Stanford University, the University of San Francisco, and the University of California at Berkeley. Using a rubric which measures inclusion based on a three point set of criteria (equity, sustainability, and mission-alignment), the authors analyzed four common statements in which inclusion policies for traditionally marginalized students and students of color are contained: university mission statement, diversity program mission statement, diversity statement, and values/goals statements. The analysis revealed that although the values/goals statements align with the missions of the three institutions analyzed, there is often incongruence between the diversity program mission and diversity statements and the missions of the universities. This tension reflects the practice of institutions of higher education to draft policies that reflect inclusion language for diverse populations without making the necessary structural changes that impact values, attitudes, and practices.
 
 

Mission Unaccomplished: Beyond “Talk[ing] a Good Game” To Promote Diversity and Inclusion

“…Consequently, they have the potential to reproduce and/or block the recognition of inequalities (Ahmed & Swan, 2006). Rather than working within the system that is in place, working within diversity and creating an inclusive environment must involve everyone's critically analyzing the institution's infrastructure (Templeton et al, 2016). However, many participants in this study stated that people tended not to "rock the boat" by disrupting the status quo at their institutions.…”

“…If they did, their concerns reportedly were invalidated. Participants' institutions apparently place little to no emphasis on the institutional climate resulting from infrastructures that maintain intersecting systems of (dis)advantage (Templeton et al, 2016).…”

Life Paths to Leading Systems-Level Change: Higher Education's Pitfalls and Potential

“…exclusionary barriers for marginalized or nontraditional students, and 3.) the inadequacy of the ways they (dis)empower students toward agency in their education (Anft, 2017;Gravett & Kinchin, 2020;Templeton et al, 2016).…”

“…Although education can help motivate careers in socio-environmental leadership (Chawla, 1999), several barriers continue to inhibit both access to and opportunities within educational institutions toward such careers. First, higher education institutions have been found to perpetuate programmatic barriers for marginalized students, such as students of color (Banks & Dohy, 2019;Templeton et al, 2016) or refugees (Lambrechts, 2020) and fail to promote flexibility and inclusion for nontraditional learners (Schuetze & Slowey, 2002). In addition, they may not appropriately consider class inequality in recruitment and retention of students (Alon, 2009).…”

Students Perspectives on Holistic Mentoring Practices in STEM Fields

“…Mentoring practices could be one campus effort toward inclusion of underrepresented students, amidst many policies and practices that may be perceived as exclusive (Templeton, Love, Davis, & Davis, 2016). The lack of identification of specific mentoring practices that Students of Color might perceive as beneficial and culturally sensitive is problematic because faculty mentors may have positive intentions, but little understanding of how to actually practice culturally sensitive mentoring (McCoy et al, 2015).…”