Sylvia Hurtado and Bryan Cook

1. Diverse Democracy Project Advisory Board Meeting Washington, D.C. August 16, 2002 Sylvia Hurtado and Bryan Cook

2. Project Goals • To learn how colleges are creating diverse learning environments • To explore how institutions are preparing students for a diverse democracy • To discover how students are learning from diverse peers • To understand and share how different campuses achieve goals for cognitive, social, and democratic outcomes

3. Arizona State University Norfolk State University University of California at Los Angeles University of Maryland University of Massachusetts University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of New Mexico University of Washington University of Vermont Participating Institutions

4. Project Activities Update • National Survey of Institutions (completed) • Longitudinal Student Survey (near completion) • Campus Site Visits (completed) • Working on case studies of participating campuses • Typology of Campus Initiatives (on website) • Focused Classroom-based Studies (completed) • Liaison meeting at AAC&U (October 22nd & 23rd)

5. Organizational Rhetoric or Reality?The Disparities Between Avowed Commitment to Diversity and Formal Programs and Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions http://www.umich.edu/~divdemo/aera2002(2)_slides.ppt

6. National Survey of Institutions • Purpose: Provide multi-campus consensus and discussion around a set of new outcomes for preparing students to live in a diverse democracy • 1400 campuses surveyed to share opinions on important democracy outcomes • 744 institutions responded • (53% return rate)

7. Regression Results *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

8. Regression Results *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

9. Discussion and Implications • There are indeed some disparities between avowed institutional commitment to diversity activity and diversity outcomes • While institutional characteristics and rhetoric were strong predictors of self-reported outcome measures, they were weak predictors of more objective outcome measures such as percentage of minority students and faculty. • To maximize diversity outcomes (tenured minority faculty) there must be an “interlocking” set of commitments including both structural and behavioral factors • There is a need to move beyond mission rhetoric to articulation of priorities, evaluation and rewards for diversity progress, and core leadership support, and development of a diverse student body

10. College Students’ Classroom Preparation for a Diverse Democracy http://www.umich.edu/~divdemo/aera2002_slides.ppt

11. Purpose Explore the effect of diversity courses on: • Quantity and quality of interaction with diverse peers • Level of importance students place on taking action for social justice

12. Methods 3 Courses • 2 Diversity Courses (1 Education and 1 Women’s Studies) • 1 Management Student Thinking and Interacting Survey (STIS) • Administered Pre and Post

13. Percentage of Students Indicating Some or Substantial Interaction with Students of Color

14. Beginning of Term Sex Race Acad. Self-Conf Invl w/ Frat/Sor (–) Invl w/ Political Act. Pos. Qual. of Interaction Neg. Qual. of Interaction (–) End of Term Pre-test Diversity Course Pos. Qual. of Interaction Predictors of the Level of Importance Students Place on Taking Action for Social Justice

15. Discussion and Implications • After controlling for student characteristics and predispositions, we still evidence a positive effect of diversity courses on commitment to taking social action • Implication for teaching: Attention to the quality of interaction should accompany efforts to increase interaction among diverse peers in the classroom

16. Intergroup Relations: Views from Different Racial/Ethnic Groups Entering College http://www.umich.edu/~divdemo/air2002_presentation.ppt

17. Pluralistic Orientation Item Loading • Ability to see the world from someone .61 else’s perspective • Tolerance of others with different beliefs .60 • Openness to having my views challenged .57 • Ability to work cooperatively with diverse .42 people • Ability to discuss and negotiate controversial .38 issues

18. Results: Effects of Background Characteristics on Pluralistic Orientation

19. Results: Effects of Pre-college Behaviors on Pluralistic Orientation

20. Results: Effects of Pre-college Interaction on Pluralistic Orientation

21. Results: Effects of Cognition/Knowledge on Pluralistic Orientation

22. Results: Effect of Values on Pluralistic Orientation

23. Results: Effect of Attitudes on Pluralistic Orientation

24. Trends Across All Groups • Student background variables were less likely to predict variance in the models • Cultural awareness was the strongest influence on students’ pluralistic orientation • Complex thinking is linked with the development of a pluralistic orientation • Interaction with diverse peers does result in a pluralistic orientation (but differs by group)

25. Implications • More research is needed on various racial/ethnic groups to understand their varying interactions and pluralistic orientation • Responsive diversity initiatives must take into account students’ cognitive and social skills in order to enhance student development • Institutional researchers may consider monitoring a pluralistic orientation as part of a range of skills needed for the workplace of the future

26. For copies of Diverse Democracy Project papers and presentations go towww.umich.edu/~divdemo

27. Dissemination Plan • Presentation at national conferences • Peer-reviewed journals • Produce book/edited volume on preparing students for a diverse democracy • Diversity Web (?) • Eric Clearinghouse (?) • Summer Institute for campuses interested (?) • Briefing papers (?)

28. Future Directions • Continuing data analysis • Continuing data collection into 4th Year of college, NSF proposal Advisory Board role? Other funding sources? Other ideas?