Welcome to Today s Webcast Sponsored by: Our program will begin shortly with a brief introduction on how to use the desktop interface.
Desktop Interface Media Player Element Display Element Toolbar Quick Question Primary Toolbar
CPE Credit You must complete surveys to receive CPE credit Resource Page Click directly in the element area to answer survey questions
How to Ask Questions Select Expert from the dropdown menu Type your question Click on Submit The Online Experts InBox button will illuminate when you receive a response. To view the answer to your question, click on this button and then select Answered Questions.
Reviewing Elements To review elements, use the Review and Preview buttons in the Element toolbar. Click on the Sync button to rejoin the presenter. NOTE: This button appears unplugged if you are not synchronized with the presenter. Sync Review Preview Enlarge
Buffering If you experience sustained periods of buffering, click on the Speed button and select a lower stream rate. Contact the helpdesk at 1-800-462-4916. Speed Button
Trends and Issues in Recruiting and Retaining Women and Minority Faculty May 11, 2005
Introduction Jennifer Ma, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow TIAA-CREF Institute
Overview of Today s Program Some background information on trends in faculty employment Full-time vs. part-time faculty Faculty by tenure status Faculty distribution by gender and race/ethnicity Although the proportion of women faculty has been rising, women are still under-represented Same for minority faculty
Overview (continued) Under-representation of women in higher education (Ehrenberg) Statistics on the proportions of new PhDs awarded to minorities and women Reasons for the under-representation of female faculty Under-representation of minorities in higher education (Jones) Particularly apparent in science and engineering fields What can universities do to foster diversity on campus?
Trends in Faculty Employment Data Sources Two data sources from the National Center for Education Statistics The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) The National Postsecondary Study of Faculty (NPSOF) Both are national-level data
Trends in Employment in Higher Education continued In Fall 2001, nearly 3.1 million faculty and staff 1.1 million were faculty Between 1987 and 2001 Total number of faculty rose by 40.4% Total US civilian labor force rose by 27.5% Total full-time faculty rose by 18%
Total Full-Time Faculty as a Share of Total Faculty (1987-2001) 70.0% 66.0% 63.6% 64.8% 60.0% 59.6% 59.1% 57.5% 57.5% 55.5% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Proportion of Full-Time Instructional Faculty by Type and Control of Institution Percent 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 85.6 80.979.7 78.3 65.1 70.6 83.2 71.8 68.3 Fall 1987 Fall 1992 Fall 1998 74.5 69.4 66.8 63.0 63.5 64.5 61.4 60.9 59.7 55.2 51.451.8 47.9 39.8 36.1 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Public research Private research Public doctoral Private doctoral Public comprehensive Private comprehensive We Mean Business in Higher Education Private liberal arts Public 2-year
Tenure Status of Full-Time Faculty Tenured Not on Tenure Track 1987 58.4% 7.9% 1992 54.2% 11.2% 1998 53.1% 18.8%
Full-Time Instructional Faculty by Gender and Academic Rank (1991-2001) Total Men as a % of Total Women as a % of Total All Ranks 1991 520,324 68.2% 31.8% 1993 545,706 66.6% 33.4% 1995 550,822 65.4% 34.6% 1997 568,719 64.0% 36.0% 1999 590,937 62.8% 37.2% 2001 617,868 61.6% 38.4% Professors 1991 144,341 85.3% 14.7% 1993 157,253 83.0% 17.0% 1995 159,333 82.2% 17.8% 1997 163,632 80.2% 19.8% 1999 161,309 79.2% 20.8% 2001 163,466 77.3% 22.7%
Proportions of Full-Time Women Instructional Faculty by Academic Rank (1991-2001) 60.0% 1991 1993 1995 50.0% 1997 1999 2001 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% All Ranks Professors Associate Professors Assistant Professors Instructors Lecturers
Proportions of Full-Time Minority Faculty 1991 12.3% 1993 11.9% 1995 12.9% 1997 13.7% 1999 14.4% 2001 14.9%
Proportions of Full-Time Minority Faculty, by Academic Rank All Professors Associate Professors Assistant Professors 1991 12.3% 8.5% 10.9% 15.7% 1993 11.9% 9.1% 11.1% 14.8% 1995 12.9% 9.6% 11.9% 16.6% 1997 13.7% 10.5% 13.0% 17.4% 1999 14.4% 10.6% 14.0% 18.0% 2001 14.9% 11.1% 14.9% 17.8%
Full-Time Instructional Faculty in Degree-Granting Institutions by Race/Ethnicity (1991-2001) 7.0 6.2 6.0 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.5 5.8 Percent 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.6 Black 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.2 Hispanic 5.1 3.0 1.0 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Percentage Distribution of Full-Time Faculty by Gender and Race/Ethnicity Minority Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native 1991 11.8% 3.7% Men, All Ranks 2.1% 5.8% 0.3% 1993 11.3% 3.7% 2.1% 5.2% 0.3% 1995 12.3% 3.8% 2.2% 5.6% 0.4% 1997 13.2% 3.9% 2.4% 6.1% 0.4% 1999 13.9% 4.0% 2.6% 6.5% 0.4% 2001 14.4% 4.2% 2.8% 6.8% 0.4% Women, All Ranks 1991 13.4% 6.9% 2.5% 3.6% 0.4% 1993 13.2% 6.7% 2.5% 3.5% 0.4% 1995 14.0% 6.8% 2.7% 3.8% 0.5% 1997 14.7% 6.7% 2.9% 4.4% 0.5% 1999 15.3% 6.6% 3.1% 4.6% 0.5% 2001 15.7% 6.7% 3.3% 5.1% 0.5%
Section 1 Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Ph.D. Irving M. Ives Prof of ILR and Economics, Cornell University Director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute TIAA-CREF Institute Fellow
Topic Areas The Reasons for the Under Representation on the Faculty of Major American Universities of Females and People of Color are Different Present Data on the Percentages of New American Citizen Doctorates that are People of Color and Female Present Data for Economics on the Pipeline of Females in the Profession and Indicate Gender Differences in the Composition of Female Faculty Between Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges Discuss The Reasons Why Female Faculty Might Be Under Represented at Research Universities and Stress the Difficulties Female Faculty Face in Combining Family and Career at Universities Discuss the Policies to Make Research Universities More Family Friendly that have been adopted at the University of California and Other Places
Percentage Of New PhDs Granted By United States Universities Going To Temporary Residents Field/Year 1973 2003 All Fields 9.7 27.4 Physical Sciences 13.2 39.8 Engineering 18.9 57.3 Life Sciences 12.9 27.4 Social Sciences 9.3 18.9 Humanities 4.8 15.1 Source: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003 (Chicago IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2004), table 11. Excluded from the tabulations are PhD recipients who do not report their citizenship status
Percentages Of American Citizen Doctorates, By Race And Ethnicity Field/Year Asian Black Hispanic American Indian All 1983 2.1 3.9 2.3 0.3 2003 5.3 6.6 4.9 0.5 Physical Sciences 1983 3.1 0.9 1.3 0.3 2003 6.5 3.2 3.2 0.3 Engineering 1983 5.9 1.7 1.6 0.0 2003 11.1 3.7 4.9 0.5 Source: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003 (Chicago IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2004), table
Field/Year Asian Black Hispanic American Indian Life Sciences 1983 3.0 1.5 1.1 0.2 2003 8.5 3.6 4.0 0.3 Social Sciences 1983 1.3 3.8 2.8 0.2 2003 4.0 6.4 5.7 0.7 Humanities 1983 1.2 2.5 3.3 0.2 2003 3.4 3.8 5.4 0.4 Education 1983 1.2 8.1 2.9 0.7 2003 2.0 13.9 6.8 0.7 Source: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003 (Chicago IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2004), table
Number Of U.S Citizen Doctorate Recipients By Race And Ethnicity, By Field Of Study In The Sciences And Engineering In 2003 Field Asian Black Hispanic Am. Indian All 1350 1708 1270 133 Physical Sciences Physics and Astronomy 45 13 23 0 Chemistry 62 35 38 2 Earth Sciences 10 17 13 2 Mathematics 38 14 14 2 Computer Science 43 17 8 2 Engineering Aerospace Engineering 7 1 4 0 Bio and Biomedical Eng. 23 11 5 0 Chemical Engineering 43 8 15 1 Civil Engineering 17 5 11 1
Number Of U.S Citizen Doctorate Recipients By Race And Ethnicity, By Field Of Study In The Sciences And Engineering In 2003 (cont.) Field Asian Black Hispanic Am. Indian Electrical Engineering 104 17 15 4 Material Science 21 4 11 0 Mechanical Engineering 49 9 13 1 Life Sciences* Biochemistry 70 16 20 1 Cell Biology 29 7 9 0 Ecology 10 5 12 0 Molecular Biology 75 4 20 0 Neuroscience 52 10 12 3 Social Sciences Economics 48 8 13 1 * Only subfields with at least 300 new PhDs are listed Source: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003 (Chicago IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2004), Appendix Table A-2 We Mean Business in Higher Education
Percentages Of Doctorate Recipients That Are Female 1973-2003 Field/Year 1973 1983 1993 2003 All Fields 18.0 33.7 38.3 45.3 Physical Sciences 7.2 13.9 20.9 26.7 Engineering 1.4 4.5 9.3 17.1 Life Sciences 17.8 31.0 42.0 48.4 Social Sciences 21.0 39.5 49.5 55.4 Humanities 28.6 43.7 47.8 50.8 Education 24.6 50.4 58.8 66.1 Prof. Fields 12.7 29.4 36.1 44.9 Source: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003 (Chicago IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2004), table 7
The Percentage of Economists in the Pipeline Who Are Female at All PhD Granting Economics Departments Year (number of departments) 1 st Year PhD Students New PhDs Assistant Professors (non tenured) Associate Professors (tenured) Full Professors (tenured) 1994 (111) 29.0 26.8 22.9 13.6 6.3 1995 (95) 30.5 23.2 24.2 12.9 7.5 1996 (98) 30.5 24.1 23.8 15.4 8.4 1997 (95) 31.3 25.0 26.0 13.4 6.5 1998 (92) 32.2 29.9 25.9 14.0 6.1 1999 (77) 35.6 34.2 27.8 15.1 6.5 2000 (76) 38.8 28.0 21.4 16.2 7.4 2001 (69) 31.9 29.4 22.5 15.3 5.8 2002 (83) 33.9 27.2 23.2 17.0 8.9 2003 (95) 34.0 29.8 26.1 19.9 9.4 2004 (98) 33.9 27.9 26.3 21.2 8.4 Source: Newsletter of the Committee We on Mean the Status Business of Women in Higher in the Economics EducationProfession (Winter 2005), Table 1
Contrasting Female Faculty Percentages at PhD Granting Economics Departments and Economics Departments in Liberal Arts Colleges in 2004-2005 Doctorate Granting Liberal Arts Colleges Assistant Professor (non tenured on track) Associate Professor (tenured) 26.3 38.9 21.2 30.0 Professor (tenured) 8.4 25.0 All Tenure and Tenure Track 15.0 27.7 All Non Tenure Track 32.3 38.8 Source: Newsletter of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (Winter 2000), tables 2 and 4 We Mean Business in Higher Education
Why Are Female Faculty Members Underrepresented at Research Universities Relative to Liberal Arts Colleges Gender differences in preferences for teaching vs. research Perceptions by female PhDs that research universities are not hospitable environments for them Perceptions by female PhDs that there is more gender discrimination against female faculty at research universities Actual gender discrimination against female PhDs in the hiring process and against female faculty in salary, tenure, promotion and resource allocation decisions at research universities The difficulty of combining family and career at research universities
Issues Relating To The Conflict Between Family And Career That Professional Women Face Are Not Unique To Academia Why are female lawyers underrepresented among the partners of large law firms? Why are female doctors underrepresented among neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons and overrepresented among family practice physicians and pediatricians?
Family Issues Analyses of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients a large biennial national longitudinal study that follows about 160,000 PhD Recipients - indicate that for people who received their PhDs between 1978 and 1984, started off in tenure track positions at universities and were still working in academia 12 to 14 years later.
Family Issues Men who had children within 5 years of receiving their PhDs were 38% more likely to have received tenure than their female counterparts who had children within 5 years of receiving their PhDs. While 70% of the male faculty members with tenure were married with children, only 44% of the female faculty members with tenure were married with children. Moreover, female faculty members with tenure were twice as likely as male faculty members with tenure to be single. Only one in three women who takes a university job before having a child ever becomes a mother Women with tenure or on tenure-tracks who were married at the time they began their first academic jobs were much more likely than their male counterparts to get divorced or separated Moreover, women were twice as likely as men in a survey of all tenure and tenure-track faculty at the University of California System to indicate that they had fewer children than they wanted Source: Mary Ann Mason and Mark Goulden, Do Babies Matter (Part II)? Academe (November/December 2004) We Mean Business in Higher Education
The University Of California Family Friendly Programs The ability of tenured or tenure-track faculty with newborn or newly adopted children to request partial or full-relief from teaching duties for one semester The ability of tenure-track faculty to similarly request that their tenure clock be stopped for a year Paid leave for six weeks and unpaid leave for up to a year for the care of a child or the child of a spouse or a domestic partner
UC Survey Results Very few faculty members in general and female faculty members in particular used these policies because: Information on the programs was not known to all faculty Information on eligibility was not always known The workplace climate discouraged women from taking advantage of these policies for example, fears that tenure committees would assume that women who had taken leaves to take care of children were not serious about their academic work or would devalue resumes that had gaps in publications because of the time off.
The Result With the assistance of the Albert P. Sloan Foundation, the UC System has developed THE UC FAMILY FRIENDLY EDGE to alter the workplace and faculty culture to accommodate families.
The UC Family Friendly Edge A flexible part-time option for tenured and tenure-track faculty that can be used for up to 5 years as life-course needs arise A guarantee to make high quality child care available A commitment to assist new faculty members with spousal/partner employment issues A postdoctoral fellowship program to encourage PhDs who have taken time off from their careers for family reasons to reenter academia Educating faculty committees that family-related gaps in resumes should be discounted in hiring and tenure decisions Establishing summer camps and school-break child care for faculty children Establishing emergency backup child care programs Establishing benefits for faculty who want to adopt children
Other Examples of Family Friendly Policies Adopted or Being Considered Funding for child care when faculty members are presenting papers at conferences The development of permanent part-time tenure track positions Concern for a wider range of issues that families face, for example serious illnesses of self or family members, and elder care and support for faculty facing these problems.
Questions? Select Expert from the dropdown menu Type your question Click on Submit
Section 2: Keeping Our Faculties: Recruiting, Retaining, and Advancing Faculty of Color in Higher Education Robert J. Jones, Ph.D. Senior Vice President University of Minnesota TIAA-CREF Institute Fellow
Overview Review data regarding demographic shift for faculty of color Under-representation in STEM Essential elements of a successful faculty diversity plan Faculty recruitment, retention and advancement model Scholarly Research---The Study of New Scholars Implications for the future
National Access to Post-secondary Ed Enrollment Increases Group 1980 2000 (% change) American Indian 83,900 151,200 (+80) Asian American 286,400 978,200 (+242) Black 1,106,800 1,730,300 (+56) Hispanic 471,700 1,461,800 (+210) White 9,833,000 10,462,100 (+6) Foreign 305,000 528,700 (+73) Students of color grew from 16% of the total enrollment to 28% of the total. Have we been able to diversify the professoriate in response to changes? Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, August 29, 2003 We Mean Business in Higher Education
Ethnicity % 1981 2001 Doctorates White African American Hispanic Asian American Native American 91 4.2 2.2 1.9.32 83 6.1 4.8 5.3.57 Full-Time Faculty [Faculty of Color] 8.9 14.4 Rank [Faculty] Professor Associate Assistant Instructor 6 8 10 10 10 14 18 17
% Faculty by Rank, Race, and Ethnicity 2001 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 White Men White Women Men of Color Women of Color 10 0 Instructor Asst Prof Assc Prof Full Prof
% Faculty by Ethnicity 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1979-80 1989-90 1997-98 1999-2000 African Am Hispanic Asian Am Am Indian
Employment Status, Race, 2001 100% 90% 80% 70% 86% 88% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 54% 49% 41% 30% 32% 27% 28% 21% 17% 8% 9% 6% 3% FT Tenured TT NTT PT White AA/H/NA Asian/PI
AAU Campuses Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty by Gender and Ethnicity 2003 (Source: University of Minnesota Institutional Research and Reporting) Campus Total Full-time % Women %Faculty of Color UT-Austin 1,835 27.0 16.4 Florida 2,169 22.4 15.9 N. Western 1,154 24.7 13.8 OSU 2,574 28.2 14.3 PSU 1,743 27.9 16.0 Purdue 1,635 23.1 14.6 Maryland C-P 1,432 27.9 17.2 Illinois 1,905 28.0 18.4 Berkeley 1,312 25.1 16.3 Michigan 2,352 26.9 19.2 Minnesota TC 2,354 27.9 12.5 UNC Chapel Hill 1,598 28.9 12.3
National Ph.D. Production in Science, Engineering and Math in 2000 S&E Including Medical and Other Life Sciences 79% African American Native American Asian 4% 10% 1% 4% 2% Hispanic American Caucasian Other We Mean Business in Higher Education Source: NSF
Distribution of FOC by Academic Department Humanities/ Education Math Science Engineering African- American 32% 2% Chicana/Latina 34% 3% Women FOC 34% 3%
UMB Meyerhoff Scholars Program Increasing participation of Underrepresented Minorities in Science, Engineering and Mathematics 1988 - Founded by Freeman Hrabowski with initial gift from Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Initially addressed the shortage of African American males pursuing terminal degrees in STEM fields 1989 - first class of 19 African American males; women included in 1990 1996 - Open to all high-achieving high school students (majority remain African American) 416 Graduates since 1993; 261 current students Intensive, deliberate program focused on student success and advancement toward the Ph.D. Source: J. Lynn Zimmerman, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
The Meyerhoff Program Results Source: J. Lynn Zimmerman, University of Maryland-Baltimore County Since 1993, Meyerhoff Program has graduated 416 students 338 (81%) are currently enrolled in or have completed graduate and/or professional programs (as of Aug 2004) Post-Bac MD/MPH DDS MBA JD Employed MS Tech. MS other MD/PhD MD Ph.D. 6 3 2 4 8 37 42 55 70 71 117 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Indicators of Success for Meyerhoff Program Overall 14-Year Retention rate > 95% Average GPA of 3.53 for all current students 1st in USA in undergrad biochemistry degrees granted to African Americans (UMBC accounted for ~30% of US total in 2000) Matriculation to top PhD and MD/PhD programs If current PhD graduation rate continues, UMBC will be leading in the production of African Americans STEM PhD s Source: J. Lynn Zimmerman, University of Maryland-Baltimore County
7 Essential Components of a Successful Faculty Diversity Plan Commitment from the top Recurring allocation of resources Central oversight but decentralized responsibility Strategic Hiring Process Benchmarks / Track Results A supportive culture Accountability & Rewards
Strategic Hiring Process Caroline Turner, Arizona State University Hypothesis: At predominantly white institutions most faculty hires of persons of color will occur when at least one of the three conditions are met: A diverse search committee A job description written expressly to enhance the candidate pool An institutional intervention strategy.
Conclusion Institutional practices that simply follow usual procedures will not yield diverse hires and that unless institutions employ active intervention strategies, little progress will be made.
Intervention Strategies for Racial/Ethnic Hires American Indian 33% 17% 50% African American 14% 36% 23% 27% Latino 57% 17% 7% 19% Asian American 82% * 12% 5% White 77% 12% * 10% All 29% 24% Regular Search Diversity in Job Description Special Hire & Diversity in Job Description Special Hire 23% 24% * *=1%
Minnesota Model Recurring Resources Faculty and spousal bridge funds President s Faculty Multicultural Research Award President s Postdoctoral Fellowship for Academic Diversity Visiting Scholars Program
Minnesota Model Faculty Development Reception and orientation Promotion and tenure workshops Grant writing workshops Faculty development funds
3500 ACADEMIC STAFF PROFILE Regular Faculty of Color by Ethnicity 3000 2500 3201 3216 3190 3142 3086 2963 2938 2817 2821 2893 2948 2954 2000 1500 1000 500 0 254 8% 269 8% 272 9% 288 9% 290 9% 287 10% 302 10% 306 11% 322 11% 354 12% 383 13% 387 13% '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 White Faculty of Color
ACADEMIC STAFF HIRING New Regular Faculty of Color by Ethnicity 250 200 150 100 50 155 152 118 113 119 87 83 92 174 181 223 112 White Faculty of Color 0 29 19% 28 18% 14 12% 31 27% 27 23% 14 16% 19 23% 22 24% 34 20% 43 24% 48 22% 29 17% '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02
Faculty Attrition Rate Ten year Avg. Ten year Turnover Men 5.2% 41.8% Women 4.9% 45.9% Faculty of color 5.3% 31.8%
The Study of New Scholars Gather satisfaction data by gender, race, and field in a standardized fashion so that it is comparable over time and across institutions. Create a constructive competition among academic institutions to be a great place to work for all junior faculty. Bring market forces to bear on an otherwise insular academy. Provide a diagnostic tool to aid in the recruitment and retention of junior faculty. Source: Richard Chait and Cathy Trower, Harvard University, Graduate College of Education
The Study of New Scholars Purpose Make the academy a more equitable and appealing place for new faculty to work in order to recruit and retain top talent. Increase the recruitment, retention, status, success, and satisfaction of faculty of color and white women. Create a better informed doctoral student and faculty population. Give voice to early career faculty. Ultimately produce culture change on campuses!
All things considered, how satisfied are you with your department as a place to work? Very Dissatisfied 7% 11% Somewhat Dissatisfied 13% 24% Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 4% 5% White Faculty Faculty of Color Somewhat Satisfied 37% 42% Very Satisfied 24% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Relationships/Quality of Life Balance Mentoring Percent Very Dissatisfied 21% 21% 21% 32% Faculty of color more dissatisfied than White faculty on most dimensions "Fit" in department 8% 16% White Faculty Faculty of Color Opportunities to collaborate 14% 26% Senior faculty interest 11% 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Questions? Select Expert from the dropdown menu Type your question Click on Submit
Data Sources American Council on Education. 2003. Minorities in Higher Education: Annual Status Report, 2002-2003. Washington, DC. Babco, Eleanor L. and Nathan E. Bell. 2004. Professional Women and Minorities: A Total Human Resources Compendium. Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Menges & Exum. 1983. Barriers to the progress of women and minority faculty, Journal of Higher Education 54(2). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. NCES 2003-060, by Thomas D. Snyder and Charlene M. Hoffman. Turner, C.S.V., 2004. Hiring Faculty of Color: Research on the Search Committee Process and Implications for Practice. KOF conference presentation. Villalpadno and Bernal. 2002. A critical race theory analysis of barriers that impede the success of faculty of color in Smith et al. The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education.
Thank You For Your Participation Please Complete The Online Evaluation