Citation
A history of access of diverse student at the University of Colorado Boulder, 1964-2012

Material Information

Title:
A history of access of diverse student at the University of Colorado Boulder, 1964-2012
Creator:
Mugge-Cozza, Molly S
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Race relations ( fast )
Students ( fast )
Race relations -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
History. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
History ( fast )

Notes

Review:
Racial disparities have been, and continue to be, a major obstacle facing post-secondary educational institutions throughout the United States. In response to the call for institutional and external accountability by stakeholders interested in higher education, the aim of this dissertation is to provide an historical analysis of race and diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB). UCB was chosen as the focus for the current study because it is the flagship public university in the state of Colorado and is recognized as such by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). In order to relay the history of UCB accurately, a wide variety of sources are utilized, some published and others unpublished, including information obtained from the university's archives. Data collected in this study provide evidence of the lower college admission, retention, and graduation rates of minority (African American and Hispanic) students when compared to White and Asian students at the University of Colorado Boulder. Factors that contribute to the success of minority students on college campuses in general provide a starting point from which efforts being made to rectify the racial disparities present today at UCB can be assessed and analyzed in hopes of creating a campus environment to which minority students are attracted, admitted, retained, and graduated. As the higher education community of scholars continues to embrace the crucial role of diversity on college campuses and as the use of race-conscious educational policy continues to be threatened, this study highlights the role universities play in the larger debate. As UCB has historically struggled to attract, retain, and graduate students of color, I expect that a thorough examination of the data included here will inspire educational stakeholders to find new ways to provide new opportunities for educational advancement for minorities and seek to erase all evidence of a racial achievement gap into the future.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Colorado Denver. Educational leadership and innovation
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Molly S. Mugge-Cozza.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
863063863 ( OCLC )
ocn863063863

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012
by
Molly S. Mugge-Cozza
B.A., DePauw University, 2001
M.A., University of Denver, 2002
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2013


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by
Molly S. Mugge-Cozza
has been approved for the
Educational Leadership and Innovation Program
by
Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Chair
Rodney Muth, Advisor
Gregory Diggs
James Whiteside
February 25, 2013


Mugge-Cozza, Molly, S (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
A History of Access of Diverse Students at the University of Colorado Boulder,
1964-2012
Thesis directed by Professor Dorothy Garrison-Wade.
ABSTRACT
Racial disparities have been, and continue to be, a major obstacle facing post-
secondary educational institutions throughout the United States. In response to the call
for institutional and external accountability by stakeholders interested in higher
education, the aim of this dissertation is to provide an historical analysis of race and
diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB). UCB was chosen as the focus for
the current study because it is the flagship public university in the state of Colorado and
is recognized as such by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). In
order to relay the history of UCB accurately, a wide variety of sources are utilized, some
published and others unpublished, including information obtained from the universitys
archives. Data collected in this study provide evidence of the lower college admission,
retention, and graduation rates of minority (African American and Hispanic) students
when compared to White and Asian students at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Factors that contribute to the success of minority students on college campuses in general
provide a starting point from which efforts being made to rectify the racial disparities
present today at UCB can be assessed and analyzed in hopes of creating a campus
environment to which minority students are attracted, admitted, retained, and graduated.
As the higher education community of scholars continues to embrace the crucial role of
diversity on college campuses and as the use of race-conscious educational policy
continues to be threatened, this study highlights the role universities play in the larger


debate. As UCB has historically struggled to attract, retain, and graduate students of
color, I expect that a thorough examination of the data included here will inspire
educational stakeholders to find new ways to provide new opportunities for educational
advancement for minorities and seek to erase all evidence of a racial achievement gap
into the future.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Dorothy Garrison-Wade
IV


DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my amazing, outgoing, encouraging mother, Carolyn; my
easygoing and quiet cheerleader dad, Larry; my energizing and inspiring nana, Lilly; my
outspoken and persistent brother, Zach; my steady and supportive husband, Nick; my
spit-fire, rambunctious, intelligent daughter, Keeley; and, baby Cozza #2 who has
experienced the emotions undergone during this journey firsthand. My family has
persisted in this journey with me throughout the past eight years during which time I have
pursued my PhD. I would not be able to write this dedication today in the absence of their
constant support, encouragement, and love. They each have inspired me to become a
better granddaughter, daughter, sister, wife, mother, and student, never questioning
whether or not I would endure and reach the end of this journey Ive been on for much
longer than any of us ever imagined.
To the students I have been lucky enough to work with throughout my career and
those Ive yet to meet, I thank you for pushing me to ask difficult questions and for
sparking the desire to seek out the answers. To teachers and professors Ive been lucky
enough to learn from throughout my life, I thank you for instilling in me a love for
knowledge and a belief in the importance and vital role of education. I hope to instill this
same love for knowledge and belief in the power of education in my own students and
children.
v


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of the members of my committee who have supported my
work and pushed me to complete this dissertation; their patience and support is truly
appreciated and will never be forgotten. I would especially like to acknowledge my
adviser, Dr. Rodney Muth, who continued to support me during times when it seemed I
would never finish this dissertation. This journey would not have been the same without
the expertise and knowledge willingly shared with me by all of those serving on my
committee.
vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012................................................. 1
Research Goals........................................................3
The Role of Race in Education.........................................4
Race, Diversity, and Education........................................6
Critical Race Theory..................................................7
Tenet 1............................................................9
Tenet 2............................................................9
Tenet 3...........................................................10
Tenet 4...........................................................11
Tenet 5...........................................................12
Conducting Historical Research and Understanding Historical Method...13
Sources of Historical Information....................................15
Archives..........................................................16
Profusion of Records..............................................17
Establishing Facts................................................18
Method...............................................................19
Relevance of this Study..............................................21
Why This Study?......................................................22
Structure of Dissertation............................................25
II. A HISTORY OF RACE, DIVERSITY, AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY....................26
The Brown Decision: Overturning Precedent............................28
The Civil Rights Movement and Race Conscious Educational Policy......30
vii


Race and K-12 Education..................................................33
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1970)............... 35
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)..............36
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO (1973).................... 38
Affirmative Action.......................................................40
Race and the Pursuit of Higher Education.................................43
Race Conscious Admissions and the Judicial System........................45
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)....................................47
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)...............47
Hopwood v. Texas (1996)...............................................48
Texas v. LeSage (1997)................................................49
Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)................................ 50
Gratz and Grutter (2003) Decisions....................................51
Fisher v. Texas (not decided).........................................53
Race-Based State Legislation.............................................55
Beyond Affirmative Action................................................56
III. HISTORY OF RACE AND DIVERSITY IN COLORADO..................................61
The Territorial Days..................................................63
Sand Creek........................................................63
Blacks............................................................64
Asians............................................................65
Other minorities..................................................65
The Klan Period.......................................................66
Racism during the Post-War Years......................................68
The Stranglehold of Racism in Colorado................................69
viii


Educating Coloradoans: A Deeper Look..........................................71
Colorado Commission on Higher Education.......................................76
CCHE Admissions Standards Policy (2011)....................................77
Policy on Affirmative Action...............................................81
Race-Conscious Educational Policy in Colorado.................................84
IV. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
BOULDER..............................................................................87
The Founding of a State Flagship University...................................88
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President George Norlin.................91
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Ward Darley...................93
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Quigg Newton..................94
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Joseph R. Smiley..............95
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Frederick Patrick Thieme.... 101
Educational Opportunities Programs..................................102
Summer Tutorial Program.............................................103
Migrant Action Program..............................................104
Other Programs......................................................104
Addressing the Needs of the Underrepresented........................105
Creation of the Chancellors.........................................107
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Roland Curt Rautenstraus... 108
Race, UCB, and Leadership from 1980 to the Present....................109
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Arnold R. Weber.....110
Race and UCB under the Leadership of President E. (Elwood) Gordon Gee .... 113
Building on the Past and Transforming the Future.......................114
ix


V. THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON COLLEGE STUDENT
SUCCESS...................................................................118
College Readiness and Academic Preparedness..........................119
Student Success Interventions........................................120
Tintos Attributes of Effective Classrooms........................121
Expectations...................................................122
Support........................................................122
Assessment and feedback........................................123
Involvement....................................................124
Astins Involvement Theory........................................124
Learning Communities..............................................127
The Role of Faculty...............................................128
Student Success atUCB................................................129
CU-LEAD Alliance..................................................129
Pre-College Services..............................................132
Disability Services...............................................133
Upward Bound......................................................134
SORCE.............................................................134
Assessing and Improving Learning Goals at UCB........................135
Graduation and Retention Rates....................................137
VI. THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON CAMPUS CLIMATE......................139
A Focus on Diversity: Starting at the Top............................142
Campus Climate Surveys...............................................144
Assessing Campus Climate.............................................145
Campus Climate at UCB Today..........................................147
x


Comparisons Over Time..............................................150
Other Important Trends.............................................151
Are Perceptions Accurate Reflections of Reality?......................152
VII. RACE, DIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. .. 155
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges............................156
Characteristics of an Engaged Institution.............................159
Navigating the Rules of Engagement....................................161
Campus Compact........................................................165
Community Engagement at UCB...........................................168
Flagship 2030 and Community Engagement................................170
VIII. MAKING THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY AND IMPLEMENTING AN ACTION
PLAN........................................................................175
Making Campus Diversity Initiatives Work..............................178
Diversity Leaders at UCB..............................................181
UCB Diversity Plans...................................................183
The Presidents Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity (2006)........... 186
Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan..........................................192
Diversity at UCB through the 2000s....................................194
Beyond Diversity Plans: Initiatives and Programs at UCB...............200
IX. OTHER FACTORS IMPACTING MINORITY SUCCESS...............................202
Practitioner and Researcher...........................................203
Achievement Gap.......................................................204
High School Preparation............................................206
Measuring College Readiness........................................207
Standardized Testing...............................................207
xi


ACT s College Readiness Benchmarks.................................210
Predicting College Success: More than a Test-Score..................211
The Funding Equation...................................................213
Federal Level.......................................................216
College Cost Reduction and Access Act...........................217
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009...............217
State Level.........................................................218
TABOR...........................................................218
College Opportunity Fund........................................219
School Level........................................................220
X. RACE AND DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO BOULDER AND HIGHER EDUCATION NATIONALLY..............................222
Racial Inequities in Education.........................................225
Implications of Fisher v. Texas........................................226
Permanence of Racism in Colorado: Impact on Educational Opportunity...228
Permanence of Racism: Impact on the University of Colorado Boulder.....230
Promoting Student Success Initiatives..................................234
The Impact of Campus Climate........................................237
Embracing Community Engagement Efforts..............................239
Creating a Diverse Campus...........................................240
Expanding Educational Opportunity in Colorado for Underrepresented and
Low-Income Students.................................................243
Race Does Matter.......................................................246
History Leads to Insight............................................246
The Problem Continues...............................................247
Hopes for Progress..................................................247
xii


Conscious, Concerted Efforts Essential
248
Next Steps and Future Research..................................249
APPENDIX
A. CCHE Admissions Index..............................................251
B. The Educational Pipeline in this Country...........................252
C. Blueprint for Action Key Points....................................253
D. 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission Committee Recommendations..............264
E. Flagship 2030 Summary..............................................265
REFERENCES............................................................267
xiii


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
III. 1. In-State, total, and UCB enrollment levels of racial/ethnic groups, 2004-2009. 75
ID. 2. CCHE Colorado Public College/University Admission Index.......................79
IE. 3 Fall Enrollments by Institution, Student Level, Fall terms 2009-2011...........83
V.l. CU-LEAD Alliance at a Glance.....................................................132
V.2. Graduation and one-year retention rates of full-time first-time freshmen at the
original institution..................................................................138
VIII. 1. Diversity at UCB, 1999-2009..................................................196
X.l. Fall Census Headcounts by year, residency, and race/ethnicity....................224
xiv


CHAPTER I
A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012
Today about half of students with dreams and aspirations on their future receipt of
an earned certificate or degree leave with that dream either stalled or ended.
Access and completion rates for African American, Hispanic, and Native
American students have always lagged behind White and Asian students, as have
those for low-income students and students with disabilities. Although
postsecondary enrollment rates for students of color are at levels similar to White
and Asian students, access to four-year colleges, especially our nations most
selective institutions, remains inequitable. Beyond access, students of color have
not earned degrees at the same rates as other students. (Swail, Redd, & Perna,
2003, p. v)
Education is crucial and impacts both society and individuals as those individuals
who complete higher levels of education earn higher incomes and exhibit lower rates of
unemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Swail et al., 2003). Even so, higher
education in the United States continues to be plagued by debates over race, diversity,
and the use of educational policies, such as affirmative action, to provide students of
color access to, and ultimately success in, postsecondary institutions. Equal access
continues to be a problem in higher education, whether because of admissions or other
policies that guide higher-education practices or because of the insufficiency of
elementary-and secondary-school preparation of minority students for higher education
(Bok & Bowen, 1998; Kozol, 2005). Nevertheless, the success rates of students of color
who do gain access to the system of higher education also are problematic: In 2003, only
46 percent of African Americans and 47 percent of Hispanics . actually completed a
bachelors degree within six years, compared to 67 percent of Whites and 72 percent of
Asians (Swail et al., 2003, p. vii).
1


The reality and plight of minority students across the United States is both
disheartening and unacceptable to educational stakeholders (Harper, 2006; Swail et al.,
2003). How is it possible that nearly fifty years after the civil rights movement began and
monumental legal gains were made by minorities who had been discriminated against for
centuries, equality and equity are yet to be achieved? As a vital platform upon which our
country builds its future, institutions of education appear to have maintained the status
quo, contradicting the ideal role of educational institutions as described by Harper
(2006): Public universities can and should uphold the social contract by offering
equitable access and distributing resources to ensure success among diverse groups of
American citizens (p. vii).
In his study, Harper (2006) examined the number of Black male students enrolled
at flagship universities across the United States. His findings suggest the fifty public
institutions of higher education, designated as flagship universities in each state, are not
upholding the social contract, and fall short in their role of serving Black male students.
To illustrate the predicament facing Black male students across the state of Colorado,
Harper (2006) examined data from Colorados flagship university, The University of
Colorado Boulder: In 2000, 250 Black males were enrolled at the university, representing
.9% of the undergraduate population while comprising 2.2% of the states total Black,
male, college-aged student population (Harper, 2006). As Swail et al. (2003) discuss,
beyond access and admission, differences in six-year graduation rates were also found
across racial and gender groups at the University of Colorado Boulder with 47.2 % of
Black males, 67.5% of White males, and 63.9% of Black females graduating within six
years of enrolling. As these statistics demonstrate, racial disparities have been, and
2


continue to be, a major obstacle facing post-secondary institutions and a need exists for
institutional and external accountability as colleges and universities strive to resolve
these issues (Harper, 2006, p. 11).
In response to the call for institutional and external accountability, the aim of the
current study is to provide an historical analysis of the access of diverse students to the
University of Colorado Boulder (UCB). UCB was chosen as the focus for this study
because it is known as the flagship public university in the state of Colorado and is
recognized as such by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). Among
other duties, the eleven commissioners serving on the CCHE are responsible for
determining institutional roles and missions, as well as establishing statewide enrollment
policies and admission standards for the thirteen public, four-year universities, across the
state (Colorado Department of Education, 2010). In their CCHE Admissions Standards
Policy (2010), UCB is described as a comprehensive graduate research university with
selective admission standards. UCB is second in public admissions selectivity in the
state of Colorado, after the specialized and selective engineering school, the Colorado
School of Mines (CCHE, 2010).
Research Goals
The research goals for this study are to examine race, diversity, and relevant
educational policies utilizing a historical perspective to gain a deeper understanding of
the historical and present-day issues surrounding minority student access to the
University of Colorado Boulder. As a result, interested parties and educational
stakeholders should gain a better understanding and appreciation for the development and
evolution of the university in light of the complex issues surrounding race. Further, my
3


study should contribute to the expanding field of research on race, diversity, and the role
of educational policy in higher education as educational stakeholders make efforts to
improve and ensure equal and equitable access to post-secondary institutions across the
country for all racial minority group members.
In the state of Colorado, UCB is the premier, public higher education institution
and as such, its policies and performance relative to state mandates on diversity set the
tone for the state. Thus, my primary research question is, What is the history of access
of minority students to the University of Colorado Boulder? Second, I ask How have
questions about race, diversity, and the development of relevant educational policies
affected minority student access at UCB since the beginning of court-ordered
desegregation of schools mandated by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 through the
present day? As a historical policy study, my dissertation focuses on a problem that has
drawn considerable political attention, and . seeks a higher utility of results to
generate greater understanding of policy issues, actions, and impacts in resolving social
problems (Heck, 2004, p. 186).
The Role of Race in Education
The role of race in education has drawn political attention since the Brown
decision in 1954, and has raged on since the introduction of race-conscious educational
policies, such as affirmative action, enacted to transform educational and economic
opportunities for historically underrepresented students. As this historical debate rages on
in the political arena (Brown & Hirschman, 2006; Card & Krueger, 2005; Moses, Yun, &
Marin, 2009; Tierney, 1996), understanding the history and impact of these issues
continues to be crucial to all stakeholders. A complete understanding of the debate
4


requires that issues with race be considered in light of the history surrounding their
significance and reveal the kind of actions that have been taken to resolve a multitude of
issues with which race has, and continues to be, associated. This study draws upon the
past and aims to depict a modern portrayal of student diversity at UCB which is
representative of the more recent issues facing the system of higher education that have
plagued American society for decades (Tierney, 1996).
As a significant policy issue utilized to address the role of race in the history of
social and educational institutions in the United States, the development, implementation,
and impact of race-conscious educational policies in higher education has spanned
decades as disparities across racial groups have continued to surface in the educational
arena (Allen, Teranishi, Dinwiddie, & Gonzalez, 2000; Kozol, 2005; Tierney, 1996). In
policy research, the passage of time proves to be a critical aspect that guides research
design. Heck (2004), for one, discusses the role of time, suggesting that temporal issues
and the observation of change are . central to research on educational policy. Policy is
developed, is implemented, and produces impact over a considerable period of time (p.
188). Thus, my study focuses upon temporal issues as I examine the development,
implementation, and impact of race, diversity, and relevant educational policies
implemented from the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 to 2012. Through an in-
depth historical analysis, I examine how policies related to race and diversity at UCB, in
the state of Colorado, and across the country have been created, implemented, and
changed over time as determined by court decisions, legislation, and administrative
policy making, and how these policies have proven effective or have failed during the
past five decades.
5


Race, Diversity, and Education
Issues surrounding race and diversity have been, and continue to be, salient
factors in our society and are the focus of much debate and research, particularly within
the field of education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Marx, 2004). Examining the role of
race and racism in education has a long history, with the courts playing a crucial role in
many instances (e.g., Brown, 1954; Baake, 1978; Hopwood, 1996; Gratz and Grutter,
2003) to determine what constitutes equal and equitable educational opportunities for
majority and minority groups. In 1954, the court ruling in Brown us. Board of Education
ended the practice of de jure school segregation (imposed by the law), but regrettably it
did not end de facto school segregation (separation that exists in fact, but is not
imposed by law) (Valverde, 2004, p. 368). Throughout our countrys history, race has
mattered in education and race is still the focus of research and educational policies into
the present day.
Several researchers suggest that schools today, once under desegregation orders,
are being re-segregated with minority students becoming more isolated from the majority,
White, population (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Parker,
1998) . This trend is worrisome as research reveals that students attending desegregated
schools do not necessarily fare better than their segregated peers, as evidence of ability
grouping and tracking of lower-income and minority students at disproportionate rates
surface as common problems across the K-12 system (Chang, Witt-Sandis, Hakuta,
1999) . High school graduation rates for members of minority groups, particularly Blacks
and Latinos, continue to lag behind the graduation rates of their White and Asian peers
6


(Lee, 2002). Racial differences can also be found in test scores, college application and
acceptance rates, percentages of students taking remedial classes in college, and college
graduation rates (Perna, 2000). Clearly, race continues to plague educators, educational
stakeholders, and the education system as a whole.
Exploring issues associated with racism in educational settings such as unfair
discipline policies, the marginalization of students of color, and the low high school and
college success rates of minority students are ways the continued existence of both overt
and covert racism have been examined. Given its permanent nature, race and diversity, or
its lack, in higher education is an issue that continues to surface as one focus of the
educational debate about social justice in this country; the debate itself is another
example of the presence of racism in higher educational settings. The permanence of
racism forces the majority culture to recognize that racist hierarchical structures govern
all political, economic and social domains (DeCuir & Dixson, 2000, p. 27). The
permanence of racism within educational settings is highlighted in research across the
domains of academia (DeCuir & Dixson, 2000; Donnor, 2005; Duncan, 2002; Hatched,
2004). Critical race theorists, in particular, have conducted a great deal of research
highlighting the permanence of race in education.
Critical Race Theory
The first article that I read about Critical Race Theory was Toward a Critical
Race Theory of Education by Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995). Though I was unfamiliar
with these authors, I was vaguely familiar with critical theory having read Freire (1970,
1993) and works written about racial inequalities encountered in education by Kozol
(2005). As I read this article, I was immediately engrossed and recognized the power
7


such a theory could hold for me, my colleagues, and my students in our work to
transform our educational system, and to ensure all students have equal and equitable
opportunity to succeed and excel. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) discuss the continued
existence of race and disparities in education revolving around racial identity. The intent
of the authors in writing the article was to create a theory of race, to develop an analytical
tool to enhance understanding of school inequities, and to propose an alternative lens
through which the minority student achievement gap could be examined and explained.
Critical race theory of education is based upon the use of critical race theory by
legal scholars, and its scope is both wide and deep. As described by Ladson-Billings and
Tate (1995), critical race theory is based upon three central propositions: 1) Race
continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United States; 2) U.S.
society is based on property rights; and 3) The intersection of race and property creates
an analytic tool through which we can understand social (and, consequently, school)
inequity (p. 48).
Utilizing these three propositions, a conceptual framework composed of five
central tenets is central to critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). The purpose
of the framework created and used by critical race theorists in education is to have a
platform from which it is possible to expose racism in education and propose radical
solutions for addressing it (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005, p. 23). The five central tenets
encompassed within the critical race theory (CRT) framework are described in further
detail here (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
8


Tenet 1
Counter storytelling is a main feature of the CRT framework and is utilized in
many qualitative research studies conducted within the field of education (Duncan, 2002;
Ladson-Billings, 1998; Love, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). The purpose of counter
storytelling is to give a voice to groups of individuals that have historically been silenced
because of institutionalized racism (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1998). In
essence, counter storytelling is a device used to create and tell a narrative that is different
and may oppose a mainstream, White narrative.
Tenet 2
As the second tenet of the CRT framework, the permanence of racism forces the
majority culture to recognize, racist hierarchical structures govern all political, economic
and social domains (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004, p. 27). Much of the research conducted
utilizing the CRT framework provides examples of the permanence of racism,
particularly within educational settings (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Donnor, 2005; Duncan,
2002). Exploring issues associated with racism in educational settings such as unfair
discipline policies, the marginalization of students of color, and low graduation and
success rates of minority students across all levels of our educational system is one way
through which both overt and covert racism can be exposed. Through my work as a
school counselor, I am in an advantageous position to draw attention to inequities in
school polices, and to provide students with opportunities to succeed within our school
system. Recognizing the role that racism plays in society and in our schools is essential
for transforming the futures of all students.
9


Tenet 3
The third tenet of the CRT framework, Whiteness as property, is based largely
upon the work of a legal scholar (i.e. Harris) who utilizes the CRT framework (DeCuir &
Dixson, 2004). As stated by DeCuir and Dixson, according to Harris, property functions
on three levels: the right of possession, the right to use, and the right to disposition (p.
28). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) further argue that race continues to be a significant
factor in determining inequity in the United States; US society is based on property
rights; the intersection of race and property creates an analytic tool through which we can
understand social (and, consequently, school) inequity (p. 48). They also explain the
connection between property and Whiteness, as the United States is a capitalist economy
dependent upon a system of inequality. Whites continue to control the levers of the
economy and as a result Whiteness is maintained as a determinant of status, privilege and
power.
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement focused upon rectifying individual
rights, thus leaving minorities behind in terms of property rights. Perhaps more poignant
in todays economy, property rights influence the funding of schools, as those individuals
who own better property also generally attend better schools (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995; Kozol, 2005; Anyon, 2005). Whiteness as property can also be extended to include
intellectual property. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) discuss the variation of
curriculum depending upon where schools are located and the ethnic and racial make-up
of students attending those schools. Again, those individuals who own better property
have historically been entitled to better curriculum. Thus, due to the historical and current
impact of the US economy in education and the central role property rights play, Whites
10


are generally have access to the best neighborhoods, the best schools, the best classes,
and ultimately the best colleges (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002, 2004). As a tenet of CRT,
Whiteness must be recognized as a privilege that maintains the status quo.
Tenet 4
Interest convergence calls attention to the Civil Rights Movement and legal
victories, such as that of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and questions the
effectiveness of the gains fought for by minorities throughout history (DeCuir & Dixson,
2004; Bell, 1980). Chapman (2005) and Bell (1980) discuss the Brown decision which
came at a time in our countrys history when America needed to put her best foot forward
to expand global interests with European countries and to win the fight against
communism. The Supreme Courts decision made in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
is an example of the interest convergence principle, in that the majority, White, culture of
the United States suffered little to no consequences in granting minority students access
to White schools, while minorities evidently made few gains. DeCuir and Dixson (2004)
suggest, Given the vast disparities between elite Whites and most communities of color,
gains that coincide with the self-interests of White elites are not likely to make a
substantive difference in the lives of people of color (p. 28). Another example of the
interest-convergence principle can be illustrated as minority students are often granted
access to college based upon their athletic abilities, but comparatively few leave their
respective colleges and universities with a degree. Colleges and universities gain
financially as they attract spectators to major athletic events, but unless they graduate, the
athletes gain little in retrospect (Donnor, 2005).
11


Tenet 5
The last tenet of the critical race theory framework engages discussion
surrounding the idea of liberalism, which focuses upon the notion of colorblindness,
the neutrality of the legal system, and incremental changes in race relations within the
United States (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Though colorblindness outwardly appears to be
a worthy ideal, ultimately the salience of race in all aspects of our society cannot be
denied and race cannot be ignored. DeCuir and Dixson (2004) reiterate, Adopting a
colorblind ideology does not eliminate the possibility that racism and racist acts will
persist. (p. 29) Furthermore, the concept of equity in lieu of actual equality is a
cornerstone of the discussion concerning race neutral policies as it is necessary to
recognize that minority individuals, in general and made evident throughout history, have
not and do not have the same opportunities and experiences as Whites.
The Lens of Critical Race Theory
As described, critical race theory examines the role of the incremental changes
that have taken place throughout history to rectify racist practices in various aspects of
our social, economic, legal, and school systems. The slow pace of change in regard to the
role of race in the US system of education, even while backed by the judicial system, has
continued to the dissatisfaction of minority and other groups, but to the satisfaction of
those less likely to be directly affected by oppressive and marginalizing conditions
(DeCuir & Dixson, p. 29). Though the Civil Rights Movement spurred change as it
gained steam in the late 1960s, after the desegregation of schools was ordered in 1954,
the current minority student achievement gap in education provides evidence that little
progress has been made in regards to improving race relations in United States.
12


In this study, a discussion of critical race theory is included because it has
provided a lens that informs my work, both as a professional counselor in my everyday
career and as a researcher as I hoped to gain a better understanding of the history of
diverse student access at the University of Colorado Boulder, the state of Colorados
flagship university. Though CRT is both a theoretical framework and a method of
analysis utilized in research, in this study the framework was utilized as a filter through
which I was able to examine and think about issues related to the history of access of
diverse students on UCBs campus. It is important to note that though it may be possible
to utilize to utilize the framework to expand this research in the future, critical race theory
was not used as the theoretical framework that drove my research in this dissertation;
historical method is the framework utilized in this study to begin an informed discussion
of the history of diverse student access at UCB.
Conducting Historical Research and Understanding Historical Method
As a historical policy analysis, it is important to establish the use of historical
method and historical research as a valid research process utilized in my study.
Challenges posed to the historical discipline have forced those writing history to expand
the historical field to include a variety of perspectives. These perspectives may support or
contradict one another, but Tosh (2006) explains that real empowerment comes from
writing history which carries conviction beyond ones own community, and this means
conforming to the scholarly procedures which historians of all communities respect (p.
204). Thus, it is imperative to understand appropriate historical scholarly procedures.
First and foremost, historians rely heavily upon sources, both primary and secondary,
from which information is sought to bring historical perspectives into being.
13


Evans (1999) acknowledges, in light of the modern challenges facing the
historical discipline, that the distinction between primary and secondary sources on the
whole has survived the withering theoretical hail. The past does speak though the sources
and is recoverable through them (p. 108). Historians may interpret sources differently,
but the sources alone have been written in the past, by living people, for their own
purposes (Evans, 1999, p. 108). He further contends it is vital to understand the
difference between historical theory and historical method as part of the scholarly
procedure; accordingly, Evans clarifies that the historical method is based on the rules of
verification laid down by Ranke and elaborated in numerous ways since his time (p.
109). Ranke, the founder of historicism, was a history professor at Berlin University
from 1824 to 1872, who emphasized that in order to show things as they actually were,
historical knowledge [should be] based on research into records (Tosh, 2006, p. 68).
No matter what perspective or theoretical background a historian applies to interpret the
sources, historical method is utilized in a similar fashion by all.
Iggers (1997), like Evans (1999), also establishes the vital role of historical
method and scholarly inquiry. He suggests that, though the challenges posed to the
discipline have led to a variety of approaches to writing history, and scholarship has been
seen to improve in the field, historians have not given up the basic commitment to
historical inquiry that inspired Ranke and his colleagues (Iggers, 1997, p 144). Aware
of the challenges posed by postmodernists, among others, historians today have become
more aware of the biases they bring to their writings and the impact of bias on
objectivity. This awareness differs from the Rankean tradition which was deemed to be
more scientific in its nature. As Evans draws upon the role of sources, Iggers agrees the
14


historian is still bound by his or her sources, and the critical apparatus with which he or
she approaches them remains in many ways the same ... we view these sources more
cautiously (p. 144).
Tosh (2006) also writes extensively of historical method and the crucial role of
sources, whether primary or secondary, in the work of those writing history of any kind.
Tosh notes that the study of history has nearly always been based squarely on what the
historian can read in documents or hear from informants ... the emphasis has fallen
almost exclusively on the written word (p. 58). Writing for a broad and novice audience,
Tosh goes into great detail to describe primary and secondary sources. Primary sources
are described as the original sources and raw materials, evidence contemporary with the
event or thought to which it refers (p. 61). Secondary sources include everything that has
been written about the past by historians or others who were not present at the time an
event took place. Primary and secondary sources can overlap and some sources are more
primary than others (p. 61).
In the current study, I use a variety of primary and secondary sources, described
in further detail in the method section, to conduct a thorough historical analysis of the
access of diverse students to UCB.
Sources of Historical Information
Beyond establishing the primary and secondary status of sources historians use to
guide their work, sources are also classified in terms of published versus unpublished
(Tosh, 2006). Published sources generally refer to those that have been printed while
unpublished sources refer to those that are not published or readily available to be
perused by anyone and everyone (Tosh, 2006). Authorship is also important to Tosh as he
15


draws a distinction between sources produced by governments and those produced by
corporations, associations, or private individuals. Though it is important for historians to
pay attention to what types of sources they are using to guide their work, the sources
deemed to carry the most weight are the ones that arise directly from everyday business
or social intercourse, leaving open the task of interpretation (p. 62). Often, these types of
casual intercourse are unpublished and historians may have to go behind the published
word ... the greatest advances in modern historical knowledge have been based on
research into records-confidential documents such as letters, minutes and diaries (p. 68).
These types of sources can be found in numerous places, and may be maintained in
archives.
Archives
Paying heed to the importance of maintaining historical sources, the role of
archives in preserving documents from the past proves essential (Tosh, 2006). As Tosh
notes, archives are a more recent development and the survival of documents from the
remote past has often owed more to luck than good management (p. 78). Given the
fragile nature of documents maintained in an archive, it is no surprise that such
documents can fall victim to a variety of accidents or can be destroyed on purpose.
Archives are maintained on a variety of levels-goveminent, state, county, at libraries and
universities, and the list goes on. Archives can play an important role in maintaining
sources that will prove useful to historians, yet it is essential to recognize the limits of
documents maintained in the archives (Tosh, 2006).
16


Incomplete and Tainted Record
One of the major limitations to the usefulness of primary sources, and archival
documents in particular, is that the records available are likely incomplete (Tosh, 2006).
Tosh reiterates that some sources have disappeared by accident or have been tainted or
destroyed on purpose, but the record is also incomplete because a great deal that
happened left no trace material whatever (p. 178). Historical records are also not
necessarily all-inclusive and the historical record is forever rigged in favour of the ruling
class, which at all times has created the vast majority of the surviving sources (Tosh,
2006, p. 178). In light of these criticisms, Tosh feels confident that if historians follow
the critical method of analyzing the documents appropriately and unveiling the bias
contained within, meaning can still be extracted from the documents.
Profusion of Records
Upon establishing the unlikely reality of historians encountering a complete and
untainted record to guide their work, another difficulty facing historians is that source
documents exist in often unmanageable quantities (Tosh, 2006). Given the evolution of
history through the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, this problem becomes ever
larger as greater quantities of records and documents become available. Tosh suggests
that historians once believed they had exhausted the evidence available to them in
conducting their work and no new evidence would ever exist; yet, today historians are
faced with the virtually limitless content that history can embrace (p. 180). Taking this
situation into consideration, historians are ever more compelled to subject the notion of
historical fact to severe scrutiny (Tosh, 2006, p. 180).
17


Establishing Facts
Much of the debate about the role of establishing history as a discipline that can
be deemed as both truthful and objective seems to revolve around the ability of historians
to establish the factual nature of their work. The difficulty, as described previously, is
that most of what pass for the facts of history actually depends on inference (Tosh,
2006, p. 180). Often, historians cannot necessarily prove their facts by conducting a
scientific experiment. However, historians work to ensure the validity of their
perspectives which are based upon the deductions they make from the multiple sources
that they select to use in their analyses: the facts of history can be said to rest on
inferences whose validity is widely accepted by expert opinion (Tosh, 2006, p. 180).
Though facts are not chosen haphazardly by historians, it is imperative to recognize the
facts are not given, they are selected (Tosh, 2006, p. 181).
Thus, we are led back to the debate posed by postmodern theorists regarding the
inability of historians to express truth and objectivity through their work. Historians do
select which facts, sources, documents, and perspectives to include in their work yet all
observation whether of the natural or the human world is selective (Tosh, p. 183). It is
important to move beyond the debates which can be anticipated at every turn and
appreciate the contributions historians make to expand the field of knowledge. Tosh
(2006) recalls the words of Connell-Smith and Lloyd to end this eternal debate: History
is not the past, nor yet the surviving past. It is a reconstruction of certain parts of the past
(from surviving evidence) which in some way have had relevance for the present
circumstances of the historian who reconstructed them (p. 191).
18


Method
Due to the nature of this dissertation, the research questions that I ask required me
to utilize a historical approach in order to identify how diverse student access at the
University of Colorado at Boulder has changed over time as the development of relevant
educational policies, both local and national, have been introduced with the goal of
opening the doors of opportunity to include historically underrepresented groups of
students. Therefore, this study relies upon a wide variety of sources that were described
in the previous section; the majority of sources I used were published and others were
unpublished, some primary and others secondary. Oftentimes, when not known,
authorship may be presumed in many cases, but authors of some sources included in this
study are unknown and identified as such when encountered and cited.
Historical research requires an individual to uncover records from the past to
answer questions posed in the modern day. My research into records first led me to the
archive library at the University of Colorado Boulder to look for documents that would
be relevant to my study and to help me answer the questions I posed. After getting
permission to access the university archives, I began my search for relevant documents
and sources by focusing upon a few different search terms including, (a) Diversity; (b)
Affirmative Action; and (c) Minority Students. By focusing upon these search terms, I
was able to include primary sources in my study drawn from three different collections
found in the university archives: (a) Correspondence files; (b) Executive Vice President
of the University of Colorado; and, (c) Central Administration Vice President for Student
Affairs.
19


As one may anticipate, given the nature of historical research and the timeframe
that I chose to utilize in this study, I found many more documents than I could thoroughly
and thoughtfully include in this study. In my research, as I encountered a profusion of
records, it was necessary for me to eliminate many records and archival documents, yet I
recognize that due to the enormous amount of material available today, this study has
room to expand into the future as more documents are analyzed and included. It is also
necessary to recognize that though the focus of my study is upon unveiling the history of
diverse student access to the University of Colorado Boulder, records maintained in the
archives are incomplete and tainted. As discussed previously, sometimes records and
documents are destroyed or thrown out on purpose, and on the other hand it is nearly
impossible to document the daily happenings of every individual and every event
happening everywhere on any given day.
In the modern day and because of its widespread availability, a variety of
documents analyzed and included in this study have been collected from Websites,
generally the University of Colorado Boulder Website as well as local news outlets, and
are accessible to any member of the public. Given the nature of historical research and
the development of technological advancements now utilized to store documents and
disseminate information to the public, as described previously the profusion of records is
one of the obstacles that I faced in conducting my historical study of diverse student
access to UCB. For example, hundreds of newspaper articles from Boulders Daily
Camera, The Denver Post, The Rocky Mountain News, as well as the Universitys Silver
and Gold Record were readily available to add to my research. Many of the documents
included in this study are lengthy and detailed; though I have worked to analyze the data
20


and documents objectively, I must confess that my personal biases and belief that the
permanence of racism has had lasting negative effects upon institutions of education and
today flavor the tone and perspective of my research. To reiterate, the facts are not
given, they are selected as historians choose how to reconstruct the past to expand the
field of knowledge into the future (Tosh, 2006, p. 181).
Given the sensitive, controversial, and political nature of the topic I consider in
my research, the records that I did include in my study should not be believed to
represent the whole story of a history of diverse student access at UCB. One may
anticipate that only majority views were documented and preserved throughout the
universitys history, and though the focus of the current study is upon diverse student
access, the views of historically underrepresented minorities on campus were not
necessarily maintained in the universitys archives. In other words, the documentary
record maintained by the university represents the universitys official point of view.
Some sources of information, generally newspaper articles from the Daily Camera,
Rocky Mountain News, and The Denver Post, did document other perspectives and were
included in the research when possible. However, I acknowledge that documents
included in this dissertation were chosen by me, the researcher, to include because they
proved useful in helping me find answers to the questions I posed and to tell one version
of a story of the history of diverse student access to the University of Colorado Boulder.
Relevance of this Study
As an educator, issues associated with racial disparities continue to make their
way to the forefront of conversations held both inside and outside of my professional
work on a regular if not daily, basis. In my current school district, discussions concerning
21


race and the ever-present achievement gap continue as a top priority. As a member of the
staff and as a true proponent of diversity, I attempt to engage in conversations with
colleagues, parents, students, and other members of our community to derive potential
solutions to the inherent and complex reality of disparate achievement and graduation
rates. My goal as a counselor is to promote the growth and development of each of my
students, revealing to them through our discussions, difficult or not, that opportunities
abound. Of course, my hope is that for each of my students, opportunities truly are
abundant; my experiences have proven otherwise but I am not willing to accept this
reality as permanent just yet. Surely, there must be something I can do.
Upon graduating from college and a year later during my Masters program in
counseling, I immediately began working with a minority population of high school
students as the English Language Acquisition-Spanish Speaking counselor. Though I do
not remember having deep discussions concerning the goal of our school or district at the
time (2002) to prepare our students for a bright future, I believe I worked toward this end
anyway. This work included helping diverse students explore and access college
opportunities. Today, specific conversations and clear goals concerning the achievement
gap, and the disparate graduation rate of our historically underrepresented student groups
take place regularly in my school and across the school district. The reality posed by the
frequency of these conversations provides evidence that race continues to matter in
education.
Why This Study?
I have asked myself this question many times. Surely, another topic must exist
about which I could write extensively and complete in a timely fashion to earn my
22


doctorate degree. Yet, I chose this topic because I am truly interested in the subject of
race and education. Through my work as a high school counselor for the past eleven
years, I have worked with thousands of students who have graduated from high school
and have made plans to venture into the great, big world. The story each of these students
has to tell varies; some are similar in nature and some are very different, yet each is
unique because the story each of these students has to tell is theirs alone. With the great
invention of Facebook, several of my past students have reached out to me to tell me
where their lifes journey has led them.
As I began my career working with a large Hispanic population, many of my
students who graduated from high school found limited resources and opportunities
available to them to fulfill their goals and aspirations. I watched and stood by as a
helpless observer as students who had earned considerably high GPAs throughout high
school and had plans to become architects, doctors, nurses, and teachers, were unable to
continue their education, or struggled to balance the demands of culture, family, and
everyday life with their desire to attend school and improve their personal and family
lives into the future. I also watched as some of my students struggled throughout high
school, some wary of education altogether and others who were forced to care more
deeply about meeting their basic, every day needs. Yet, as a believer in the education
system and in the US, never did I or anyone else I have worked with, give up on any of
these students. These students were pushed to be the best they could be, yet it seems the
system still failed them.
As I moved on in my career as a high school counselor, I witnessed the success of
the majority of my students and the tragedies faced by a few. The population of students I
23


work with has also changed throughout the years, and over time, common trends have
emerged. My experiences have led me to understand the achievement gap does still exist
and racial disparities are commonplace. Though the issue is truly more complex than I
acknowledge here, I came to know certain students would be successful regardless of
our interactions, while others would struggle. I learned certain students would excel and
enjoy an abundance of opportunities and others would be lucky just to graduate from
high school. Perhaps what I have always known and recognized as I worked with
thousands of students is that race does matter.
As a White woman with good intentions, I could not deny the truth that I found in
the numbers when I finally looked at them. The numbers revealed that my minority
(Hispanic and Black) students were not achieving at the same rates as my majority
(White) students, they were not graduating at the same rates, they were not preparing for
college at the same rates or in the same way, and they were not exposed to and were not
enjoying post-secondary educational opportunities at the same rates. After a discussion
with an admissions officer at the University of Colorado Boulder one day at work, I could
not shake the hollow feeling I harbored upon hearing that each year at UCB considerably
low numbers of Black students enrolled each year as entering freshmen (see Table X.l).
At first, I did not believe the numbers could be that low, that only 300 Black students
were present on UCBs campus each year, but as I began to conduct my own research to
uncover the truth, the data I found proved the statement to be true. As I kept investigating
the history of diverse student access at UCB, I recognized that an in-depth discussion
concerning the presence of minority students on UCBs campus was nowhere to be
found. As no history of diverse student access to the university currently exists, this
24


dissertation should be interpreted as a first-step study concerning minority student access
to the university; as a result, opportunities to expand this research are abundant and
discussed in further detail in Chapter X.
Structure of Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into two sections. Section One includes three chapters
and focuses upon the historical aspects of race and diversity nationally, locally, and
specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder. Chapter II focuses upon race and
higher education policy and offers a discussion of educational policies that have
transformed our system of education and continue to shape national policy today. Chapter
III offers a discussion of the role of race and diversity in the state of Colorado,
uncovering a history of social and institutional racism. In Chapter IV, the historical
underpinnings of race and diversity specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder are
discussed from the founding of the University in 1876 through the 1990s. Section Two of
the dissertation turns to a modem day discussion of race and diversity, discussing more
recent trends utilized by institutions of higher education attempting to embrace diversity.
The efforts implemented specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder in recent
decades, from the 1990s through the present day, are explored in further detail.
25


CHAPTER II
A HISTORY OF RACE, DIVERSITY, AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY
The racial caste system present since the founding of the United States, and
exhibited in our public system of education, was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in
1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. In this case, the court ruled that no person of
African descent, regardless of their status as a slave or a free Black, was to be afforded
the status of citizenship or the rights that accompanied that status (Byrd-Chichester,
2000, p. 13). This law was upheld until the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
was adopted in 1868, which established all persons bom in the United States are
citizens, providing for the constitutional right of equal protection under the law (Byrd-
Chichester, 2000, p. 13). In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted, granting all
male citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race and status though (Byrd-
Chichester, 2000).
Despite the gains made with the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments, in 1896 the Supreme Court upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson the separate but
equal doctrine, and the racial caste system operating throughout the United States. The
racial caste system was historically maintained by Jim Crow laws that were introduced
during the period of Reconstruction in 1877 and required the separation of whites and
persons of color in public transportation and schools, and were extended to include
parks, cemeteries, theatres, restaurants and other public places to prevent contact between
blacks and whites as equal members of society (Jim Crow law, 2013). In Plessy (1896),
the Court upheld state imposed racial segregation and ignored the reality of racial
discrimination throughout the country (Byrd-Chichester, 2000; Plessy v. Ferguson,
26


1896). Though not as simple as presented in this brief historical overview, it was not until
1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted
differently by the courts and equality was upheld as Jim Crow legislation was struck
down; however, by that time segregation had become so institutionalized that without
affirmative steps and in the face of strong opposition to change, it continued in practice
(Byrd-ChiChester, 2000, p. 18). As an example of the stranglehold of segregation,
institutions of higher education in ten southern states operated racially dual systems
and were characterized by the separation of races until the end of the 1960s (Byrd-
Chichester, 2000). Today in the twenty-first century, educational stakeholders suggest
that segregation in K-12 and higher education facilities has resurfaced throughout the
United States as specific policies used to integrate the educational system have expired
(Anyon, 2005; Harvey, Harvey, & King, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995).
With the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, desegregation efforts in
higher education were put into motion and monitored by the US Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) throughout the South and across the country in the 1970s
and into the 1980s (Byrd-ChiChester, 2000). However, these efforts proved futile in
transforming a system historically rooted in discrimination, particularly in the southern
part of the country where de jure segregation practices were well established. As Byrd-
Chi Chester (2000) notes, In its review of 12 southern states, the Southern Education
Foundation (1998) found that not one of the 12 could demonstrate real success in
desegregating its higher education system (p. 19).
27


The Brown Decision: Overturning Precedent
Efforts to integrate educational institutions across the K-12 system began with
Brown (1954), a critical event in the abolition of Jim Crow (Leiter & Leiter, 2011, p.
90). In 1951 in Topeka, Kansas a class-action suit was filed against the Board of
Education by Oliver L. Brown and 11 additional plaintiffs based upon concerns of the
separate but equal policies of the Topeka schools. In the Topeka schools, and other
schools in districts across the country, African-American and Caucasian children were
educated separately though they were entitled to equal resources. This type of segregation
was legal, as set forth by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). However, Brown and
the other plaintiffs believed that the separate education of their children had detrimental
effects. The district court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, upholding precedent
case law from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896/ On appeal, Brown (1954) was heard before the
US Supreme Court in conjunction with four other cases representing the segregation of
minority students occurring in states and school districts throughout the country. On May
17, 1954, the Brown decision was unexpectedly read as reporters scrambled to the
courthouse to listen to the Supreme Courts opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl
Warren:
Education...represented a central experience in life. Those things that children
learned in school remained with them for the rest of their time on earth. The
critical question, then, was: Does segregation of children in public schools solely
on the basis of race... deprive the children of the minority group of equal
education opportunities? We believe it does. (Chafe, 2011, p. 146)
Overturning the Supreme Courts decision from 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, the
Brown (1954) decision resulted in the recognition by law that separate but equal
schools were inherently unequal (Kowalski, 2007, p. 24). Rossell (1995) describes
28


Brown as morally significant, as the goal was the elimination of racial discrimination
and state-sanctioned segregation in American life (p. 613). The Brown decision would
ultimately change the face of educational facilities but, it required commitment,
leadership, and tangible action if it were to become more than empty rhetoric (Chafe,
2011, p. 147). Commitment, leadership, and tangible action were not modeled by then
President Dwight Eisenhower who disapproved of the Brown decision because he
believed, the federal government should be passive on controversial issues (Chafe,
2011, p. 148). Passivity certainly characterized the early response to Brown, particularly
throughout the South.
In May of 1955, a second ruling in Brown was handed down by the Supreme
Court which stated, implementation procedures were to begin with all deliberate
speed, but no deadline was set (Chafe, 2011, p. 147). As a result of the inaction that
accompanied the Supreme Court decisions in Brown (1954) and Brown II (1955), schools
in the South remained segregated well beyond the 1950s (Wilkinson, 1979). Examples of
continued segregation were evident in K-12 schools and colleges throughout the south:
As late as 1962, not a single Negro attended White schools or colleges in Mississippi,
Alabama, or South Carolina (Wilkinson, 1979, p. 65).
In the 1950s and 1960s, desegregation of schools (i.e. education Whites and
Blacks together) in the Southern region of the United States was not a priority, and the
Supreme Court did not play an active role leading these efforts (Wilkinson, 1979).
Eisenhowers failure to take leadership left educational leaders, ready to begin integration
efforts, without direction and support (Chafe, 2011). As a result, state governments
shifted their attention from how to comply to how to circumvent by passing pupil
29


assignment laws that transferred authority over schools to local school boards to avoid
statewide suits by the NAACP (Chafe, 2011, p. 151). In the absence of leadership from
the President and Supreme Court, lower federal courts were left with the responsibility of
overseeing desegregation efforts in the public schools across the country (Wilkinson,
1979).
Though the Brown (1954) decision did not immediately usher in successful school
desegregation efforts across the country, ultimately the court ruling framed the racial
issues in America that needed to be addressed for the nation to progress past separate but
equal and other forms of segregation. Brown (1954) highlighted the detrimental effects of
racial discrimination and its impact extended far beyond schools to desegregate
neighborhoods, public facilities, and private organizations (Rossell, 1995, p. 613).
Brown (1954) also uncovered the inequities facing minority children who attended
schools that were underfunded and understaffed compared to schools White children
attended. In terms of higher education opportunities, minority students had limited access
to undergraduate and graduate programs when compared to their White peers, and
because programs were quickly established to accommodate minorities seeking higher
education, the programs offered were inferior to those options provided to White
students. Throughout the South, resistance to integration was commonplace, and was
ultimately challenged by Blacks fighting for their own civil rights.
The Civil Rights Movement and Race Conscious Educational Policy
Though the fight for civil rights continues today, as labeled in our countrys history, the
American Civil Rights Movement consisted of many major events that took place
between 1955 and 1968 aimed at terminating racial discrimination practices against
30


African Americans, particularly in the Southern region of the United States. Prior to
1955, organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) attempted to abolish discriminatory practices. As state-sanctioned
discrimination was struck down in Brown (1954), civil rights activists used nonviolent
protest and civil disobedience to bring about change (www.history.com, n.d., Civil
Rights Movement). Acts of civil disobedience included boycotts, such as the
Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama, sit-ins, and marches.
The historical Civil Rights Movement was accompanied by a variety of legal
victories including Brown v. Board of Education (1954), that deemed segregation in
public schools legally impermissible; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned
discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 that enabled African-Americans to vote; the Immigration and Nationality
Services Act of 1965 which dramatically changed U.S. immigration policy; and, the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discriminatory practices in the sale or
rental of housing. In 1968, the face and leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Reverend
Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated and the movement was forever changed;
however, issues of race and discrimination persisted, accumulating in several race riots
that took place throughout the 1970s (www.history.com, n.d.).
In the mid-1960s, the passage of the Civil Rights Act was seen as a major triumph
for minorities and liberals, but the legislation divided the nation and many public
facilities (Kowalski, 2007). The division occurred most extensively in the South which
remained segregated even after the passage of civil rights legislation (Anderson, T.,
2004). President Johnson put several programs into motion to support minorities
31


throughout the United States but was still pressured by Black leaders (i.e. Martin Luther
King Jr., Rosa Parks, Malcolm X) to compensate African Americans for more than two
hundred years of slavery and mistreatment (Chafe, 2011). These leaders called for a
domestic Marshall Plan which would include a deliberate effort made by the
government to include African Americans in all aspects of life in the United States
(Anderson, T., 2004). This deliberate effort to level the playing field included a program
of preferences and special treatment for African Americans, expected to endure for a
limited period of time. Other programs were also proposed by Black leaders, but most
liberals and the majority of citizens did not support special treatment of groups of
individuals (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 87). Under pressure from these Black leaders, in
1965, President Johnson decided more needed to be done to help African Americans in
particular (Anderson, T., 2004; Chafe, 2011; Leiter & Leiter, 2011).
Accepting responsibility on behalf of the government for the disparate economic
and social realities facing African Americans in the United States, Johnson and some
other liberals were now beginning to advocate opening the doors of opportunity. .
Equality became a policy of the Johnson administration (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 89). For
the Johnson administration, equality was associated with providing opportunities for
African Americans to receive extra help and to gain benefit from more social programs to
put underrepresented individuals on equal footing with other citizens. Thus, as disparities
were recognized, policies encouraging the integration of schools, such as mandatory
busing and affirmative action, evolved and were utilized to desegregate educational
institutions throughout the country (Leiter & Leiter, 2011).
32


Race and K-12 Education
Beginning in 1971, elementary and secondary schools across the country were
ordered by the Supreme Court to achieve appropriate levels of racial integration, an
appropriate mix of Whites and minority students. Based upon the precedent set forth in
Brown (1954) in which the Court declared separate is not equal, integration efforts
were designed to expunge educational inequality by placing proportionately sized
groups of African American and/or Hispanic children. . in the same classrooms as their
White peers (Leiter & Leiter, 2011, p. 95). Brown (1954) paved the way for
desegregation of schools but the court decision in Green (1968) mandated integration of
schools and marked the beginning of the period of affirmative action remedies
(Rossell, 1995, p. 616; Leiter & Leiter, 2011).
To achieve racial integration of K-12 schools, the mandatory busing of students to
and from various schools was put into place in school districts across the country as the
Supreme Court proposed in Swann (1971) that busing. . was a permissible tool for
dismantling a dual system (Rossell, 1995, p. 616). In the early 1970s, Tompkins (2000)
suggested the concept of busing students to schools was not new, but busing to achieve
racial balance was new. The mandatory busing of students to achieve racial integration
in K-12 schools was not isolated to Southern states, where de jure (i.e., legal) segregation
was prevalent, but took place in school districts across the country (Tompkins, 2000).
Racial balance laws were put into place in California, Massachusetts, and New York, but
northern states operated with uncertainty because no segregation laws had previously
been in place that resulted in the operation of dual school systems separated by race
(Rossell, 1995).
33


In Keyes (1973), described in further detail below, the Supreme Court expanded
the definition of de jure segregation as encompassing almost any action a school district
might take that resulted in racially imbalanced schools (Rossell, 1995, p. 619). As a
result, busing was mandated in Denver, Colorado, and other Northern states to
integrate minority and White students in schools, as minority schools were found to be
unequal to the schools populated by White students (Keyes, 1971; Leiter & Leiter, 2011;
Rossell, 1995; Tompkins, 2000). Busing became one of the most controversial topics in
both law and politics surrounding the school desegregation debate since it was introduced
in the 1970s, and many school districts across the country were released from mandatory
busing orders during the 1990s {Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005). Denver
Public School district was released from forced busing plans in September of 1995, even
though Denver schools in the 1990s were more racially segregated than ever (Brooke,
1995).
Mitchell (2011) describes the historical enrollment of students in the Denver
Public School system, which rebounded to 80,956 in 2011 after forced busing mandated
by the US Supreme Court led to a steady decline of student enrollment. In 1969, the total
pupil count in Denver schools reached its high of 97,849, plummeting to its lowest
enrollment numbers of 58,312 in 1989 as a result of White flight to surrounding,
suburban school districts (Mitchell, 2011). White flight refers to the departure of whites
from places (as urban neighborhoods or schools) increasingly or predominantly populated
by minorities (Merriam-Webster, 2013). In 2011, White students composed 56.1% of
the Denver Public Schools student population, followed by 31.9% Hispanic students,
4.8% Black students, 3.1% Asian, 3.1% Two or more Races, .8% American Indian, and
34


.2% Asian or Pacific Islander (Colorado Department of Education, 2011). Denver Public
Schools achieved an increased graduation rate of 73.9% in 2011, with Asian, White,
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and mixed-race students graduating at higher rates
than their Black, Hispanic, and American Indian peers (Colorado Department of
Education, 2011). Summaries of the three school integration cases described previously
are included here.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1970)
This case, brought by petitioners in 1965, concerned the maintenance of a
historically racially segregated school system operating in New Kent County, Virginia.
As described in the Supreme Court case summary, about half of the residents of the
county are Negroes 1 (Green v. County School Board, 1970). Though students attended
racially segregated schools, no residential segregation took place in the county. New Kent
School served White students from elementary to high school, and George W. Watkins
School served Negroes from elementary to high school. As detailed, twenty-one buses
transported students to and from school each day; eleven transported Negro students and
ten transported White students to their respective educational institutions. Constitutional
and statutory provisions in Virginia from 1902 and 1950 mandated racial segregation in
public education.
In response to Brown (1954) and Brown II (1955), the school board adopted the
Pupil Placement Act, repealed in 1966, which provided the State Pupil Placement Board
with the authority to assign students to schools. As of 1964, no Negro students had
applied for admission to New Kent and no White students had applied for admission to
1 Negroes is used throughout this section to refer to Blacks because this is the language included in the
official court documents in Green v. County School Board (1970), Swann (1971), and Keyes (1973).
35


Watkins. In August of 1965, the school board adopted a freedom of choice plan for
desegregating schools in order to remain eligible for federal financial aid. The freedom of
choice plan allowed students to choose the school they wanted to attend each year. If
students did not choose, they were automatically assigned to the school they attended
previously, although first and eighth graders were required to affirmatively choose a
school. As of 1967, no White students chose to attend Watkins, and although 115
Negroes chose to enroll at New Kent, the Court found a dual system, based on race,
continued to operate in the county. As decided by the Court in this case, the school board
was ultimately required to formulate a new plan and fashion steps which promise
realistically to convert promptly to a system with just schools instead of a White
school and a Negro school (Green v. County School Board, 1968).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
During the 1968-1969 school year, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system
served approximately 84,000 students in 107 schools. Of these 84,000 students, 71%
were White and 29% Negro. Of the 21,000 Negro students attending schools within the
city of Charlotte, approximately two-thirds, 14,000, attended 21 schools described as
totally Negro or more than 99% Negro {Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 1971). The
District Court ordered the school board to devise a desegregation plan, targeting both
students and faculty, in April of 1969. The board failed to submit an acceptable plan by
December of 1969, and the District Court appointed educational expert, Dr. John Finger,
to prepare a desegregation plan. In February, 1970, the board submitted a finalized plan
along with the Finger plan to the District Court.
36


In February 1970, the District Court ultimately agreed upon adopting the board
plan, with some modifications presented by Dr. Finger for the middle school and high
schools, and the Finger plan for elementary schools. Implementation of the desegregation
plan was delayed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 5, 1970. The
Court of Appeals agreed with the desegregation plans, as presented, for the secondary
schools but feared that the pairing and grouping of elementary schools would place an
unfair burden on the board and the systems pupils (Swann, 1970). Two new plans for
desegregating the systems elementary schools were submitted to the District Court: the
HEW plan submitted by the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and, the
Minority plan, submitted by 4 members of the 9 member school board. The District Court
found both plans, and the originally adopted Finger plan, to be acceptable and ordered
the board to adopt one of the plans or develop an alternative, effective plan on its own.
The Finger plan would remain in effect until the board decided upon a new plan. The
board acquiesced and accepted the Finger plan, and the District Court ordered its
adoption on August 7, 1970.
The District Court identified four problems at the center of student assignment to
schools. These four problem areas are described in detail by the District Court and
include (a) racial balances or racial quotas, (b) one-race schools, (c) remedial altering of
attendance zones, and (d) transportation of students. Each of these problem areas
contributed to the complexity facing schools and communities to foster successful
integration efforts across the United States. In the 1970s, mandatory busing orders were
put into place throughout the country as a means to remedy the segregation of schools.
Swann (1970) laid the foundation for promoting busing as a permissible tool for
37


dismantling a dual system as feasible (Rossell, 1995, p. 5). The Court didnt define
feasible, but suggested districts should consider time and distance, as well as the age of
the students when making decisions about busing students to integrate schools across a
particular system (Swann, 1970; Rossell, 1995).
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO (1973)
As described in the extensive case summary in Keyes (1971), unlike Virginia and
North Carolina, there has never been a law in Colorado requiring separate educational
facilities for different races (para. 7). The Denver Public School Board operated a
neighborhood school plan requiring children living within particular boundaries to attend
a centrally located school. In the 1960s, the Denver School Board assembled a variety of
committees to study the equality of educational opportunities offered to students
throughout the system. In 1962, upon recognizing the neighborhood school plan resulted
in concentrations of minority and racial groups at certain schools, the Voorhees
Committee recommended that the School Board consider racial, ethnic and
socioeconomic factors in establishing boundaries and locating new schools in order to
create heterogeneous school communities (para. 8). It wasnt until two years later, in
1964, that the Board acknowledged the shortcomings of the neighborhood school plan in
creating heterogeneous school populations and passed Policy 5100 to create changes that
would integrate schools. However, no changes were implemented.
In 1966, the Berge Committee examined the board policies concerning the
location of schools located in Northeast Denver and made suggestions to integrate those
schools. Once again, none of their recommendations were put into effect. In 1968, the
Noel Resolution was adopted by the board, which required the superintendent to submit a
38


school integration plan to the Board. A plan was submitted and three resolutions were
passed. The goal of each of these resolutions was to spread the Negro populations of
these schools to numerous schools by boundary changes. . Negro populations would
become roughly 20% {Keyes, 1971, para. 11). Before the newly adopted integration plan
could be passed, two candidates promising to rescind the Resolutions were elected to
serve on the board. The three original Resolutions were rescinded, and Resolution 1533
was passed, providing for a voluntary exchange program between elementary schools in
the Northeast section of the district with other elementary schools throughout the district.
As a result, the Keyes suit was filed.
The specific schools included in the suit were located in the Park Hill area, an
area heavily populated by Negroes. The District Court found that the Denver School
Board had engaged over almost a decade after 1960 in an unconstitutional policy of
deliberate racial segregation with respect to the Park Hill schools {Keyes, 1973, para. 2).
The District Court ordered the board to implement the three rescinded Resolutions to
desegregate the Park Hill schools. The petitioners in Keyes (1971), asked the District
Court to order desegregation of all segregated schools in Denver, but the Court did not
decide in their favor, citing lack of evidence of intentional discrimination in other areas
of the district. However, the District Court did find that the proofs established that
segregated core city schools were educationally inferior to the predominantly White or
Anglo schools in other parts of the district {Keyes, 1973, para. 4).
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Denver was described as a tri-ethnic
community, with the composition of the system detailed as follows: 66% Anglo, 14%
Negro, and 20% Hispano {Keyes, 1973, para. 7). Given this racial make-up of the city
39


and based upon research, the Supreme Court suggested, Negroes and Hispanos in
Denver suffer identical discrimination in treatment when compared with the treatment
afforded Anglo students {Keyes, 1973, para. 8). The District Court in Keyes (1971)
described inferior schools as those schools populated by 70-75% of Negro or Hispano
students. The Supreme Court suggested the need to consider the facts for each particular
case which would include the composition of a schools student body, the racial and
ethnic composition of faculty and staff, and the attitudes of the community and
administration toward the school {Keyes, 1973). Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of
the Court in June of 1973 in which the majority indicated the Denver school system was
guilty of segregation. This case is significant because it is one of the first instances of
segregation identified in Northern schools {Keyes, 1973).
Affirmative Action
Understanding the evolving history of race relations at the University of Colorado
Boulder is one important aspect of this study, yet it is also essential to understand race
relations in a broader context. This context is set against the background of the intense
debate surrounding the role of affirmative-action policies in institutions of education,
both across the nation and in the state of Colorado. Brown II and Donahoo (2003) define
affirmative action as
A government policy that seeks to remedy long-standing discrimination directed
at specific groups, including women and racial and ethnic minorities. The basic
purpose of affirmative action policies and programs is to increase access to, and
ensure the equitable distribution of, opportunities in higher education,
employment, government contracts, housing, and other social-welfare areas, (p. 1)
Rubio (2001) describes affirmative action as a governmental policy with major social
implications, implemented to even the playing field for individuals of minority
backgrounds in the United States. Introducing the complex nature of a divisive topic,
40


Rubio (2001) states, affirmative action is not just public policy or political and legal
history. It also represents a social and cultural struggle over whether there should exist a
property value in Whiteness and if equality should be really equal (p. xv). To Rubio,
affirmative action is a policy that has the capacity to ensure equality of resources and
opportunity for all Americans.
Though the term affirmative action was used prior to 1961, the policy as
understood today stems from executive order 10925 issued by President Kennedy in
March 1961 (Anderson, T., 2004; Brown II & Donahoo, 2003; Chafe 2011; Leiter &
Leiter, 2011). The goal of this executive order was to end discrimination in the realm of
employment and to support the national policy of nondiscrimination. Tracing the
evolution of the policy, Anderson (2004) explains how affirmative action expanded with
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil
Rights Act proposed by Johnson was both comprehensive and controversial, and included
a plan to integrate all public facilities and schools, prohibited discrimination in federally
funded programs, and ended discrimination in employment (Anderson, T., 2004; Brown
II & Donahoo, 2003; Leiter & Leiter, 2011).
President Johnson put several programs in motion to support minorities
throughout the United States but was still pressured by Black leaders to compensate
African Americans for more than two hundred years of slavery and mistreatment in the
United States (Anderson, T., 2004). These leaders called for a domestic Marshall Plan
which would include a deliberate effort made by the government to include African
Americans in all aspects of life in the United States, as well as a program of preferences
and special treatment for African Americans, lasting for a limited period of time. T.
41


Anderson (2004) notes that other programs were also proposed by Black leaders, but
most liberals and the majority of citizens did not support special treatment of groups of
individuals (p. 87). Under pressure from these minority leaders, in 1965 President
Johnson decided more needed to be done to help both the poor and African Americans in
particular (Anderson, J., 2002).
Accepting responsibility on behalf of the government for the disparate economic
and social realities facing African Americans in the United States, Johnson and some
other liberals were now beginning to advocate opening the doors of
opportunity... .equality became a policy of the Johnson administration (Anderson, T.,
2004, p. 89). For the Johnson administration, equality was associated with providing
opportunities for African Americans to receive extra help and to gain benefit from more
social programs to put underrepresented individuals on equal footing with other citizens.
Thus, though affirmative action did not initially call for the special treatment of a
particular group of individuals, as disparities were recognized, affirmative-action policies
evolved and were utilized to promote individuals, who belonged to particular groups (i.e.,
members of minority groups) over those who did not belong to those groups.
The Civil Rights Act (1964) was hotly debated in political and public spheres as
individuals questioned whether the proposed policies were fair. As this debate
progressed, to someespecially minorities and their liberal alliessome sort of
preferential treatment for past injustices and discrimination was fair; to othersmany
Whites and their conservative alliesthat was reverse discrimination and unfair
(Anderson, T., 2004, p. 76). Growing out of this lively debate, discussions about
preferences, quotas, compensation, and reverse discrimination plagued the nation and
42


Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter during the 1960s and 1970s. As affirmative-action
policy was implemented throughout these three presidential administrations, the focal
point of the debate shifted from a recognized need to level the playing field to the
questionable use of quotas and set-aside programs as specific goals for hiring women
and minorities began under the administration of President Richard Nixon (Kowalski,
2007, p. 27).
Race and the Pursuit of Higher Education
Education is an invaluable resource for individuals, groups, and nations as a
whole, and the higher education of students of color is not only important to the progress
of communities of color but equally important to the long-term needs and prosperity of
the nation (Anderson, J., 2002, p. 19). Education plays a vital role in the lives of all
Americans, and because of its importance, communities of color value education and
recognize its importance in providing opportunities for advancement in all aspects of life
(Leiter & Leiter, 2011). However, the history of discrimination and the segregation of
schools in the United States negatively impacts minorities and has worked to maintain the
status quo (Anderson, J., 2002; Garcia, 1997; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). According to Garcia
(1997), segregation resulted in unfair advantages for White students, though preferences
for White students throughout history have gone unacknowledged, particularly when
debating the fairness of affirmative action programs which are seen to favor minority
students.
Harvey, Harvey, and King (2004) discuss the impact of the Brown (1954)
decision on institutions of higher education suggesting, the text of the Brown decision
was about segregation at the elementary and secondary school level, [but] the subtext was
43


about justice and equality throughout the educational arena and entire social system (p.
328). As a result, the court decision in Brown (1954) opened the doors of colleges and
universities that had been closed to African Americans for years (Harvey et al., 2004, p.
328). The resistance to integration in elementary and secondary schools, particularly in
the Southern United States, was not encountered to the same degree in post-secondary
institutions. In fact, the student enrollment figures suggest that racial integration has
been more extensive, and, thus ostensibly more effective at the collegiate level than at the
K-12 level (p. 328). The numbers of Blacks enrolling in post-secondary institutions has
climbed steadily into the twenty-first century, but data have continued to demonstrate that
Hispanic and African-American groups of students are continually left behind,
highlighted by low enrollment and graduation rates from post-secondary institutions
across the United States (Harvey et al., 2004; Smith, Altbach, Lomotey, 2002; Sterrett,
2005).
In the early 1970s, many institutions of higher education adopted race-conscious
desegregation measures and affirmative action plans in admissions and financial aid. . to
enroll and support minority students, especially African Americans (Byrd-Chichester,
2000, p. 21). The use of race-conscious desegregation measures, widely recognized as
affirmative-action policies, were challenged by Whites and classified as reverse
discrimination as soon as they were introduced (Byrd-Chichester, 2000). The legal
system has been the platform from which many of these challenges have been launched,
and the use of race-conscious policies, like affirmative action in higher education
admission decisions and mandatory busing in K-12 schools, have been the target. Byrd-
Chichester (2000) provides a modem discussion of the plight of affirmative action in the
44


legal system: The Supreme Courts generally negative treatment of race-conscious
measures in the past decade and its refusal to review the two extremely harmful appellate
court decisions in higher education from the mid-1990s. . have encouraged the
opponents of affirmative action and resulted in a spate of recent challenges at all
educational levels to race-conscious efforts to remedy discrimination, segregation, and
racial isolation or to foster diversity (pp. 22-23).
Race Conscious Admissions and the Judicial System
Beginning with the Brown decision of 1954, the Court became a central battle
ground for leveling the playing field in education (Engoren, 2006; Wilkinson, 1979).
Through his exploration of the role of the Supreme Court in promoting school integration
efforts throughout the United States, Wilkinson (1979) asserts, Brown v. Board of
Education helped deliver the Negro from over three centuries of legal bondage. But
Brown acted to emancipate the White South and the Supreme Court as well (p. 11). The
Court decision in Brown (1954) was vital to the Civil Rights Movement, as the decision
set the stage to support an argument of equality and fairness for minorities who
historically had been excluded and segregated from mainstream American life. Allen et
al. (2000), discuss the value of education as an essential foundation of democracy. For
African-Americans, the centuries old struggle for access to and success in higher
education has become emblematic of a larger fight for personhood and equality (p. 3).
Today, race is still seen as a persistent and problematic factor throughout
American society and case law and Supreme Court decisions associated with affirmative
action in higher education has become increasingly complex. In exploring the history of
race in education, it becomes evident that the legal landscape concerning race-conscious
45


policies is constantly shifting (Chang, Witt-Sandis, and Hakuta, 1999, p. 12). Much of
the legal landscape surrounding race in education has revolved around the controversial
use of affirmative-action policies, or race conscious admission policies, and will once
again as the education community awaits a US Supreme Court decision in yet another
case concerning the use of race-conscious admission decisions in Fisher v. Texas (n.d.),
discussed further in this chapter. The court cases that have shaped the acceptable use of
affirmative action in higher education are summarized below.
Kingdon (2003, p. 198) states that developments in the political sphere are
powerful agenda setters and within the United States, the courts, particularly the
Supreme Court is seen as a major agenda setter. The Courts are one of many political
players, as political science defines political very broadly, including just about any
activity related to the authoritative allocation of values, or to the distribution of benefits
and costs (Kingdon, 2003, p. 145). Clearly the United States Supreme Court is involved
with both activities, allocating values and distributing benefits and costs to defendants
and plaintiffs. In regard to affirmative action, in the cases summarized below, the role of
the courts throughout history has proved to be both pivotal and powerful. The decisions
handed down in each of the cases against Michigan, as well as the others, brought before
the Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of affirmative action in admission
decisions, and the decisions of the Court reflected the value judgment concerning
educational equity issues in the United States (Stone, 2002). Though judges on the
Supreme Court are not necessarily politicians, they are heavily involved in political
activities through their mere presence within the governmental structure and their
assigned role to decide highly controversial and political issues. There is no doubt that
46


the decisions rendered in all of these cases brought before the Court were influenced by
the politics of each passing decade. Generally, the Courts have protected the use of race-
conscious educational policies, but this may change as educational stakeholders await a
decision anticipated this summer, 2013.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
As discussed at length previously in this chapter, Brown (1954) is recognized as
one of the most salient decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding both civil rights
and education in the United States. Brown (1954) provides important insight into the
historical underpinnings of the educational disparities faced by African-Americans within
the United States, and with it a deeper understanding of the persistent affirmative action
debate and the need for race-conscious education policies to transform a system presently
and historically dominated by the White majority.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke applied to the University of Califomia-Davis medical school in 1973
and 1974 and was denied admission both years. At the time of Baakes application, the
university employed two admission programs. The regular admissions program
considered applicants with a GPA of at least 2.5, along with their MCAT scores, letters of
recommendation, extracurricular activities and other biographical information thought to
be of importance to the admissions committee. Applicants were then given a benchmark
score and ranked against one another. A second, special admissions program was
reserved for students who considered themselves to be either economically or
educationally disadvantaged and/or members of a minority group. These applications
were reviewed in a similar process to that utilized in the general admissions pool, but the
47


2.5 minimum GPA requirement was waived and these students were not ranked against
the general pool of applicants, only against others in the special admissions pool. A set
number (i.e., a quota) was reserved to admit students from this special pool of applicants.
Bakke was denied admission to UC Davis in 1973 and 1974, even though his benchmark
score was higher than students admitted under the special admission program.
Bakke filed suit in the Superior Court of California asking for an injunction from
the court to order his admission to the medical school. A counter claim by the University
moved the case to the California Supreme Court, which decided in favor of Bakke. The
University appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. On June 28, 1978
the US Supreme Court handed down a decision in favor of Bakke, citing quotas as
unconstitutional but indicating that race could be used as one of many factors when
considering applicants to the medical school.
Hopwoodv. Texas (1996)
Cheryl Hopwood, a White woman, brought her case to the attention of the Center
for Individual Rights (CIR) in 1992 after being denied admission to the University Of
Texas School Of Law. She filed a lawsuit, with CIRs backing, against the University of
Texas in the US District Court in the Western Region of Texas, claiming that she was
denied admission to the law school even though she was better qualified than many of the
minority candidates that were admitted. The Center for Individual Rights was founded in
November of 1988, and began operating in April of 1989 as a non-profit, conservative,
public interest, law firm whose objective it is to defend individual liberties, particularly in
the realm of free speech and civil rights (Center for Individual Rights, n.d.). In its first
year of operation, CIR operated on a meager budget, $220,000, receiving grants from
48


conservative foundations and services from conservative, libertarian, and moderate
attorneys in for-profit firms. . [working on] precedent-setting cases involving real, live
plaintiffs (Center for Individual Rights, n.d.). Judge Sam Sparks, who heard this case in
the district court in 1994, indicated that the University of Texas was entitled to consider
race in admission decisions to maintain diversity and/or to remedy past discrimination
(Tarlton Guides, n.d.).
Hopwood appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the
most conservativeactually right wingbenches in the country. Judge Jerry E. Smith
issued the decision on March 18, 1996 reversing the decision made in the district court
and holding that the University Of Texas School Of Law could not consider race in
admission decisions. The University appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court in
1996, but the Court declined to review the case in July of 1996. The decision made in the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals greatly impacted the admission policies of higher
education institutions in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ending the use of race-
conscious affirmative action policies in the admissions process (.Hopwood, 1996).
Hopwood v. Texas (1996) proved to be a major victory for the Center of Individual
Rights.
Texas v. LeSage (1997)
Taking advantage of the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the
Hopwood v. Texas (1996) case, Francois LeSage pursued a lawsuit against the University
of Texas at Austin, charging that the Universitys entrance criteria for a doctoral
program in counseling psychology discriminated in favor of Black and Hispanic
applicants (Alger, 1999, p. 5). The case reached the US Supreme Court, and on
49


November 29, 1999 the court ruled that UT Austin could not be punished for using an
allegedly unconstitutional affirmative-action policy to reject a White applicant, so long as
the applicant would have been turned down anyway and the program is not now in use
(Alger, p. 5). Though the Supreme Court acknowledged that the university did use an
impermissible criterion, consideration of race, in the admission process, LeSages case
did not hold up because the university was able to demonstrate that he would have been
rejected on other grounds (Texas v. LeSage, 1997).
Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Until Fisher v. Texas (currently pending decision), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) have served as the most recent judicial pronouncements in the
policy debate concerning the use of affirmative action in higher education admission
decisions. Both cases were brought against the University of Michigan, with Gratz
challenging the use of race-conscious undergraduate admission policies and Grutter
challenging similar policies in the School of Law (Green, 2004).
Victory in Hopwood v. Texas (1996) proved encouraging and provided a
confidence boost for the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) and encouragement to bring
another anti-affirmative action case brewing against the University of Michigan all the
way to the Supreme Court (Green, 2004). As anti-affirmative action legislation proved
successful with Proposition 209 passing in California and Initiative 200 passing in
Washington in 1998, it appeared that the CIR recognized the public was paying attention
to, and at least some people were opposing, the affirmative action issue. The Supreme
Court victory and the passage of Proposition 209 and Initiative 200 became powerful
symbols, and focusing events, of the affirmative action problem as defined by the CIR.
50


According to Kingdon (2003), Symbols catch on and have important focusing effects
because they capture in a nutshell some sort of reality that people already sense in a
vaguer, more diffuse way (p. 97). In further describing the power of focusing events on
creating a policy window or change opportunity, Kingdon (2003) indicates that the
disaster acts as an early warning, but then needs to be combined with more solid
indication that the problem is widespread (p. 98). Bringing several cases to the attention
of the public was one way in which the Center for Individual Rights revealed that the use
of affirmative-action policies in college admission programs was a practice that was
indeed, widespread.
Because courts usually are bound by precedent, the CIR felt confident in filing the
cases against the University of Michigan following their recent victory in Hopwood
(1996). However, the University of Michigan was also able to rely upon past precedent,
particularly Bakke (1978) in which the Supreme Court indicated that higher education
admission committees could consider race and ethnicity as part of the admission process.
According to Kingdon (2003), in the process of policy development, recombination (the
coupling of already-familiar elements) is more important than mutation (the appearance
of wholly new forms).... There is change, but it involves the recombination of already-
familiar elements (p. 201). Thus, the many affirmative action cases already heard and
decided upon by the courts provided a starting point from which decisions in the current
cases against Michigan were drawn.
Gratz and Grutter (2003) Decisions
The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on June 23, 2003,
upholding the admission policies and practices of the University of Michigan School of
51


Law in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The Court found diversity to be a compelling interest
in higher education, and recognized that in order to achieve the diversity reflected in the
world community, race could be considered in the admission process (Killenbeck, 2004).
Leiter and Leiter (2011) propose that the Courts acceptance of the diversity argument
provided a constitutional platform supportive of preferential university admissions for
minorities (p. 300). In essence, the diversity argument championed by the Court for use
by colleges and universities had been proposed before in Brown (1954) and Green (1969)
under the guise of integration (Leiter & Leiter, 2011). Integration and diversity are
essentially the same thing, and both goals are supported by affirmative action policies
(Ford, 2008).
In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Court found that while race is one of several
factors that can be considered in an open admissions process like that used by the
University of Michigan School of Law, the automatic distribution of points to minority
students is not constitutional. This decision points toward the acceptable use of race-
conscious admission policies when considering applications on an individual basis in
order to achieve a critical mass of underrepresented minority students [who] could not
be enrolled if admission decisions were based primarily on undergraduate GPAs and
LSAT scores (Killenbeck, 2004, p. 15). Unlike theBakke (1978) decision, the Supreme
Court decision in Grutter (2003) favored affirmative action practices in higher education
admission processes: Arguably, the victory for affirmative consideration of race in
pursuit of a diverse student body was complete. In contrast to Bakke, a clear majority of
the Grutter Court agreed on the core holdings, the presence of a compelling interest and
52


approval of at least one admissions policy that met the narrow tailoring requirement
(Killenbeck, 2004, p. 17).
Though the 2003 decisions were somewhat reassuring to proponents of
affirmative action and institutions of higher education, it is already evident that these
policies will continue to be challenged well into the future, and they already have been.
In discussing the implications of the court decisions made in 2003, Elliott and Ewoh
(2005) draw attention to the likely possibility of future court struggles as we will witness
an ongoing tension between the traditional American ideal of equal opportunity and the
compelling arguments made for the desirability and, even necessity, of government
action to create a more inclusive society (p. 11). The decision pending in the most
current court struggle, Fisher v. Texas will impact the use of race conscious policies in
higher education admissions again in our immediate future.
Fisher v. Texas (not decided)
The United States Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of Fisher v. Texas
and the outcome of this particular case is greatly anticipated by those invested in higher
education policy initiatives on both sides of the political fence. The case was brought
before the courts by Abigail Fisher who was denied admission to the University of Texas
at Austin in 2008 after not qualifying for admission under the universitys Top 10
Percent Plan (.Fisher v. Texas, n.d.; The Chronicle in Higher Education, n.d.). After not
qualifying under the Top 10 Percent Plan, Fisher, a white Texan, was placed into the
broader pool of applicants in which race and diversity can be considered (The Chronicle
in Higher Education, n.d.; Legal Information Institute, n.d.).
53


In 1997, House Bill 588 was passed by the Texas legislature in response to the
court decision in Hopwood (1996) that struck down affirmative action policies practiced
at the University of Texas School of Law (Pinhel, 2008). California and Florida also
utilize percentage plans in admissions to state universities, and in Texas, the top 10%
law has had the greatest impact at the states flagship universities (Pinhel, 2008). Upon
admitting all automatic qualifiers, students in the remaining applicant pool are considered
for admission based upon a variety of academic and socioeconomic factors, including
race (Pinhel, 2008). According to data compiled in 2005 by the nonpartisan Texas House
Research Organization, Hispanic, African-American, and Asian-American enrollment at
the states flagship institutions were positively impacted by the top 10% law as the
presence of these underrepresented students on campus increased (Pinhel, 2008).
In the current case, Fisher argues that the universitys consideration of race for
applicants not admitted automatically under the top 10% law violates limits set by the
Supreme Court in Grutter in 2003(The Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d.). According
to The Chronicle of Higher Education article (n.d.), since 2003, the Supreme Court has
become more conservative and more hostile to racial preferences. The Supreme Court
may decide to uphold or strike down the policies currently used by the University of
Texas at Austin, or they may make a more sweeping decision and strike down all race-
conscious admission policies at the nations colleges, by rejecting its own precedents
holding that such policies serve a compelling government interest (The Chronicle of
Higher Education, n.d.). Various groups from both the private and public sector have
chimed in, urging the court to decide in the direction of each groups preferences.
54


Accordingly, the White House, among other groups, asked the justices to rule in the
universitys favor (The Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d.).
Race-Based State Legislation
California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, forbidding race and gender
from being considered in state contracting, employment, and higher education (Walker,
1999). In Washington, Initiative 200 was passed in 1998 ending the use of affirmative
action in the public sector and institutions of higher education (Walker, 1999). In
November 2006, Proposal 2 was passed by voters in Michigan banning racial preferences
in college admissions, college financial aid programs, state contracting, and state
employment decisions (Adversity.net, 2007; Kirwan Institute, 2008). In 2008, anti-
affirmative action ballot measures appeared in Colorado and Nebraska. Arizona,
Missouri, and Oklahoma were also originally targeted by Ward Connerly, an anti-
affirmative action activist and former University of California regent, who was
responsible for leading these efforts (www.civilrights.org, 2012).
In 2008, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 46, while Nebraska voters passed
Initiative 424 and became the fourth state to ban affirmative action (www.civlirights.org,
2012). The Kirwan Institute (2008) described the defeat of the Civil Rights Initiative by
Coloradoans, due in large part to the work of the No on 46 coalition, as a win for equal
opportunity across the country. After the 2008 election results were posted, in an
interview with The Colorado Independent, Connerly stated that he will likely halt his
nationwide push to end race and gender preferences (Kirwan Institute, 2008, p. 14). In
the 2012 election year, civil rights initiatives did not surface on any state ballots across
55


the country. Barack Obama, the first African-American to be elected President of the
United States, was re-elected to a second term.
In Colorado, the 1998 Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE) is the most updated
policy regarding the states stance on the use of affirmative-action policies in the college
admission process. Each college and university within the state implements policy and
monitors progress towards the goals outlined by the CCHE. Ultimately, the CCHE hopes
to see percentage or numeric increases of underrepresented groups in colleges and
universities across the state of Colorado. Best practices for institutions of higher
education are also outlined, and require Colorado colleges and universities to develop a
diversity plan and submit annual reports outlining their diversity related achievements.
With the goal of increasing post-secondary education opportunities for disadvantaged
students, the Commission requested state funded support of pre-collegiate programs
(CCHE, 1998). Since 1989, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education has reviewed
diversity reports, focusing upon the representation of minority faculty, staff, and students
in institutions of higher education throughout the state of Colorado. In 1998, the data
collected in these reports highlighted the continued underrepresentation of minorities in
higher education as compared to their percentages in the state population; though there
has been improvement (see Tables III. 1, VIII. 1, X.l), this trend continues today (CCHE,
1998; CDE, 2011).
Beyond Affirmative Action
The Brown (1954) decision formed the legal basis for allowing minority students
to seek admission to White colleges and universities (Anderson, J., 2002). The use of
affirmative action in higher education, once widely supported and utilized, was later
56


scrutinized because opponents believed minority students were not prepared to perform
and achieve in the post-secondary setting, and because the policy appeared to
discriminate against White applicants (Anderson, J., 2002). According to a study
conducted by Bowen and Bok (1998), both former Presidents of highly selective post-
secondary institutions, the use of affirmative action allows admission officers to admit
students based upon a variety of merits, instead of focusing solely upon grades and test
scores which have proven inherently biased against African Americans and other
minorities throughout our history.
The data collected in the study by Bowen and Bok (2002) reveals that minority
students admitted under affirmative action programs have attained success on college
campuses. As a result of the success of affirmative action programs, a backlash against
these programs quickly mounted (Bowen & Bok, 2002). One explanation for the backlash
is described as a result of the fierce and competitive nature of the college admissions
process. Competing for limited spots at top notch colleges and universities around the
United States, students applying for admission to the most highly selective schools cling
to every possibility of earning a spot in the class, though the majority of post-secondary
schools are not competitive and admit the majority of students that apply (Bowen & Bok,
2002). Given the ongoing controversy surrounding race conscious admission programs at
colleges and universities, it may be time to look beyond such policies in the field of
education (Busenberg & Smith, 1997; Garcia, 1997, Ibarra, 2001).
Garcia (1997), among other scholars (Busenberg & Smith, 1997; Ibarra, 2001),
believes in the power of policies such as affirmative action in transforming the face of
institutions of higher education, yet she is also aware that in light of recent legislation,
57


affirmative-action policies are in jeopardy of being discarded by colleges and universities
across the United States. She understands the role colleges and universities must play to
preserve the benefits of affirmative action and suggests,
Institutions of higher education must take a more active role in shaping public
policy. Inattention to our opponents, negligence in communicating our position to
the public, and a failure to document and convey our results has contributed to the
current state of affairs in which our commitment to inclusion and education for all
is being forcefully challenged. (Garcia, 1997, p. 252)
Colleges and universities are called upon to define affirmative action and actively
implement affirmative-action programs and policies. Busenberg and Smith (1997) admit
that affirmative-action has not been as effective in integrating the higher education
system as once hoped or believed, but given the legislative initiatives and the customs of
institutions, it has at least been a sincere attempt to keep colleges and universities
publically accountable (p. 169).
Ibarra (2001), a minority leader and professor in higher education, looks beyond
affirmative action and accepts the challenges faced by colleges and universities in
attracting minorities to systems of higher education. He draws attention to the importance
of the educational pipeline: Time-honored solutions for combating these inequities rely
on three essential ingredients: access, retention, and increasing the critical mass of
historically underrepresented populations (p. 8). Affirmative-action policies and
programs may lead to an increase of historically underrepresented students on college
campuses, but access and retention are vital pieces of the puzzle, which affirmative-
action policies do not necessarily directly impact. Colleges and universities, as well as
primary and secondary schools, must invest in efforts to provide educational access to
minorities and find successful means of retention. Providing access to institutions of post-
58


secondary education includes a need for adequate preparation of students across the K-12
system and active college orientation and admissions programs, while retention of
students depends upon appropriate and adequate funding of scholarship programs,
academic support, advising programs, and cultural support programs (Ibarra, 2001). In
essence, affirmative-action policies and programs will not transform the face of higher
education if race-conscious admission programs operate in isolation; institutions of
higher education must change their approach to educating students if they ever hope to
become inclusive institutions of learning in our society.
In the conclusion of her book, Garcia (1997) argues,
At this point in our history, especially in education, we must forcefully and
vigorously engage in the battle for the survival of affirmative action policies if we
are to be members of a just and democratic society. To us it is clear that until we
have reached equality for all of our citizens, affirmative action must be
maintained, (p. 249)
The future of the legal use of race conscious admission policies in higher education is
uncertain, but colleges and universities play a crucial role in maintaining these programs
and policies. Garcia offers suggestions to institutions of higher education, what she calls
strategies for a new era (p. 251). These strategies include the following: (a) calling
attention to the reality of the continued existence of discrimination in our country, (b)
encouraging open discussions about the ongoing discrimination, (c) calling upon colleges
and universities to define affirmative action on their own terms, (d) reviewing higher
education admission criteria, (e) encouraging faculty to conduct research concerning the
use of affirmative action and the advantages of diverse campuses, (f) collaborating with
K-12 systems to ensure adequate preparation of students, (g) recognizing all sides of the
affirmative-action debate, and (h) encouraging opponents of affirmative action to defend
59


their actions for change. With these suggestions, Garcia hopes to propel the higher
education system toward the day when color-blind admissions may be possible. Until that
day, educational leaders, stakeholders, and members of society at large have the
responsibility to provide opportunities for the advancement of all students.
In this dissertation, I attempt to utilize some of these strategies outlined by Garcia
(1997), in particular to call attention to the reality of the continued existence of
discrimination in one state, Colorado, at one institution of higher education, the
University of Colorado Boulder to contribute to the ongoing discussions about issues
with race and diversity in our education system taking place throughout our country. As a
case study of policies and practices surrounding race and diversity to facilitate minority
student access initiated at the University of Colorado Boulder, it may provide insight into
how some of Garcias (1997) strategies, beyond affirmative-action, may or may not
impact the university and surrounding community and ensure equal access and the
success of minority students with hopes of pursuing a post-secondary education. It is
essential for institutions of higher education to recognize the permanence of racism
throughout their systems and this understanding begins with uncovering our countrys
history with discrimination. In the next chapter, Colorados discriminatory history is
discussed in further detail.
60


CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF RACE AND DIVERSITY IN COLORADO
As established in the previous chapter, debates about the value of diversity and
the role of affirmative action in creating more diverse educational communities in
institutions of higher education continue today, more than 50 years after the introduction
of the Civil Rights Movement and race-conscious educational policies. Due to the
prevalence of these discussions, problems in education are often examined along racial
lines because racial disparities are vast and readily identifiable across the K-16
educational system in the United States. These disparities, often identified as differences
in academic achievement and high school and college graduation rates, contribute to
broader social and economic problems that continue to hinder progress in our country and
across the globe.
The role of educational policies focused on race in higher education continues to
be placed under the microscope. As these policies, namely the use of affirmative action,
continue to be questioned, clarifying their intention is ever more important. Further, race-
conscious policies that aim to remedy a past that includes limiting minority access to
educational opportunities also become ever more important (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999).
For example, the Supreme Court has supported race-conscious policies such as
affirmative action in the past and in the present day to remedy the effects of past
discrimination and foster diversity (Pursely, 2003). As a state or university operates under
the premise of remediating past discrimination, the ability to present direct evidence that
the effects of past discrimination within the institution in question continue to adversely
61


affect people may prove to play a crucial role in successfully defending race-conscious
educational policies, such as affirmative action (Pursely, 2003, p.l).
Because this dissertation focuses upon the history of race at the University of
Colorado Boulder, it is important to gain a deeper and broader understanding of
Colorados historical treatment of minorities. Colorado has not been isolated from issues
surrounding race and discrimination and, as Delgado and Stefancic (1999) note, if the
record discloses that a state such as ours, with a self-image that includes openness and
fair treatment for all, nevertheless has much to live down, the case of affirmative action
everywhere strengthens (p. 2).
The debate over the necessity and fairness of policies such as affirmative action
has been thoroughly documented, as the discussion in the previous chapter revealed. As a
result of the challenges posed to the use of race-conscious polices, the scope of
affirmative action and its use in higher education has been limited by legal decisions. In
the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court, Gratz and Grutter vs. Bollinger
(2003), both filed against the University of Michigan, the defense proposed that race-
conscious policies promoted diversity. Writing prior to the decisions made in the
Michigan cases, Delgado and Stefancic (1999) hypothesized that beyond promoting
diversity as a compelling interest, remedying past wrongs may be the only state interest
that can justify the use of race-conscious policies like affirmative action. Given the
potential allowance by the 14th Amendment for colleges and universities to utilize race
conscious programs and policies to make amends upon demonstrating past discrimination
against minorities on their campuses, it seems useful for colleges and universities to delve
deeply into their pasts to identify and prove specific and particular discriminatory
62


practices and to create plans for remediation that may be necessary to mitigate the past
wrongdoing (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999).
Understanding the history of ones own nation, state, and community is a vital
part of correcting wrongs that occurred in the past, solving problems that continue to
exist into the present, and making plans to move forward to address pressing social and
educational issues into the future (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Knowledge of the history
of race relations in each individual state throughout the US can provide insight and
understanding into the function of, as well as the mindset and mentality of, the people
who inhabit this particular place. Given the prominent role that race plays in discussions,
historical and current, on a national level, particularly in regard to education, examining
the role of race at the state level can prove informative as racial disparities in education
are found to exist across the country (Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995; Marx, 2004; Swail et al., 2003; Tierney, 1996; Valverde, 2004).
The Territorial Days
Colorados history of race and discrimination is certainly more complex, detailed,
and well-rounded than the account provided by Delgado and Stefancic (1999), but the
overview they provide highlights poignant and relevant issues concerning race and
discrimination in Colorado. Colorado was described as a rough and brutal place to live in
the early days, as White settlers flocked to Colorado in the 1850s in search of gold,
driving Indians off of the most desirable lands and eventually onto reservations (Delgado
& Stefancic, 1999).
Sand Creek. The Sand Creek Massacre (about 40 miles north of Fort Lyon in
southeastern Colorado), and a lesser-known attack of a peaceful Indian camp at Buffalo
63


Springs (near Fairplay), involved a Major David Nichols, among others, in 1864 (Abbott,
Leonard, & Noel, 2005; Massengale, 2009). In 1961, a residence hall located on the
University of Colorado Boulder campus was named in honor of Major Nichols; it wasnt
until 1987 that a UCB history professor, Patricia Limerick, was asked to investigate the
role Major Nichols played in the slaying of Arapaho and Cheyenne natives, and the
residence hall name was eventually changed to Cheyenne-Arapaho Hall (Delgado &
Stefancic, 1999; Massengale, 2009). Limericks research was seen as controversial, but
she asserted, the name was an affront to Indian students on campus, and the change
was best for the entire community (Massengale, 2009). Perhaps as a result of the
historical mistreatment of Native Americans in Colorado, their population in the state
(1.6%) and on the UCB campus (.8%) is miniscule.
Blacks. Colorados Black population was small from the beginning of the states
existence, constituting only two percent of the states population between 1870 and
1920, yet their legal status and treatment reflected broader national trends as Blacks
were denied the right to vote, and anti-miscegenation laws were included in the original
territorial constitution and remained in existence until 1954 (Abbott et al., 2005, p. 216;
Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Further, though never mandated by law Black and White
school children were segregated and educated in separate schools until the latter half of
the twentieth century {Keyes, 1973). Abbott et al. (2005) write about the successful fight
by African Americans in Central City and Denver to enroll their children in the citys
schools. Accordingly, though issues with segregation and integration throughout
Colorado still surface today, In 1873, the Denver School Board approved integration, a
principle incorporated into the state constitution two years later (Abbott et al., 2005, p.
64


213). In terms of quality of life, when comparing death rates, school attendance rates, and
literacy rates, statistical indicators showed that Colorados African Americans were
well-off compared to their counterparts elsewhere (Abbott, 2005, p. 218).
Asians. Around 1869, the Chinese came to Colorado to work in the mines and
railroads, drawing negative attention immediately from the local newspaper, The Rocky
Mountain News. When the News accused the residents of Denvers small Chinatown of
operating opium dens, gambling parlors, and houses of prostitution, readers of the paper
took the matter into their own hands instigating the Hop Ally Riot which resulted in the
destruction of homes and the deaths of several Chinese residents (Delgado & Stefancic,
1999, p. 6). After experiencing racial discrimination from the very beginning of their
presence in Colorado, the states population of Chinese dwindled to 291 by 1920
(Abbott et al., 2005, p. 208). Delgado and Stefancic (1999) highlight that even in 1969,
the Chinese made up a small proportion of Colorados population, and Asians constitute
only 2.9% of the states population today (United States Census Bureau, 2013).
Other minorities. Italians and Mexicans also were treated poorly by early Anglo
settlers; lynching incidents of members of these minority groups are documented in
Colorados history (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). During the
territorial days, minorities were hardly treated with the same dignity or provided with the
same opportunities as other settlers but were not necessarily mistreated because of their
racial identities (i.e., Black, Hispanic, or Chinese). Seemingly, these groups of people
were mistreated because they were competing for the same benefits, jobs, land and
development of new industries that those with more power (i.e. White settlers) felt were
theirs (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). As World War I ended, friction
65


increased as returning servicemen and women of color began to assert their rights
(Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 7).
The Klan Period
Colorado became a state in 1876, but statehood did nothing to alter race relations.
Indeed, by the 1920s, racism in Colorado took on an ugly new face with the rise of the
Ku Klux Klan, which announced itself in the Denver Times'. We proclaim to the lawless
element of the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado that we are not only
active now, but we were here yesterday, we are here today, and we shall be here
forever(Abbott et al., 2005, p. 271; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999) As will be detailed in
Chapter IV, the Klan period intersected with incidents that occurred specifically at the
University of Colorado Boulder under President Norlin. The Denver National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter formed in 1915
and began organizing under the leadership of Dr. Clarence Holmes, and during this same
time the Ku Klux Klan began organizing, too (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). According to
the accounts upon which Delgado and Stefancic (1999) constructed their research, in the
1920s Colorado was virtually taken over by the Klan (p. 8).
Under the leadership of Grand Dragon John Galen Locke, membership in the
KKK in Colorado climbed to include as many as 55,000 members at the peak of its
powerful existence (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). With elections looming in Denver in
1923, the Klan exploited social conditions and a corrupt and inefficient police force,
promising to clean up the city, and took over the city government with the election of
Benjamin F. Stapleton as mayor. Publically, Stapleton condemned the Klan but
privately, he was a good friend of John Galen Locke (Abbott et al, 2005; Delgado &
66


Stefancic, 1999, p. 8). Ultimately, as a result of this relationship, Klansmen held great
power in Denver as the Mayor, Chief of Police, and Justices of Peace represented and
protected their interests (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 9). In 1924, members of the Klan
won every state office, other than superintendent of public schools, and under Governor
Clarence Morley they maintained their control and power. As Governor, Morley
threatened University of Colorado Boulder President, George Norlin, saying that he
would cut appropriations for the University if Norlin did not dismiss all Catholic and
Jewish faculty (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 10).
In the 1920s, Denvers population stood at 256,000 persons, with only 6075
Black residents (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 11). Given their small numbers, Blacks
living in Denver were isolated in, an old and deteriorating neighborhood, still known
today as Five Points (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 11). Race Street, which still runs
through the city today, was identified as a locally understood racial barrier early on in
Denvers history, and measures to isolate and segregate the Black minority from the
White majority led to discriminatory housing practices that has had a lasting impact in the
city and county of Denver (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 7). Any efforts made to
integrate movie theaters, schools, social events, businesses, were met with strong
resistance and threats from the Klan. The Klan was unable to maintain its power and
control in the long run, reaching its peak of power in 1924, but undoubtedly, the Klans
period of power had lingering effects in Colorado (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado &
Stefancic, 1999, p. 12). After 1924, Abbott et al. (2005) explain that inability to translate
fear into legislation and internal squabbles led to a decline in the numbers of Klansmen
in Denver and ultimately to their loss of power (pp. 275-6). However, Delgado and
67


Stefancic (1999) highlight reports of housing discrimination and police brutality
throughout the 1950s and 1960s and into the 1990s and 2000s, evidence of the
permanence of racism practiced and promoted by Klan members (p. 13).
Racism during the Post-War Years
As an aside to the general direction of this dissertation, it is impossible to
overlook the role Colorado played after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan on December
7, 1941, sparking US entry into World War II. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin
D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, displacing nearly 113,000 people of Japanese
ancestry, more than two-thirds citizens of the United States, to internment camps
constructed in the Western United States (Burton, Farrell, Lord, & Lord, 1999). One of
the ten internment camps established to confine the Japanese was constructed near the
town of Granada, in southeastern Colorado, not far from the site of the Sand Creek
Massacre. The Government named the camp Amache, for the daughter of a Cheyenne
chief killed at Sand Creek (Burton, et al., 1999). At its peak, 7,318 Japanese evacuees
resided at the Granada internment camp, which was opened in August of 1942 and closed
in October of 1945, a few weeks after the war with Japan came to an end (Colorado State
Archives, 2006). In 1989, the US Government apologized to the Japanese-Americans and
offered them a redress of $20,000 for each surviving evacuee (Colorado State
Archives, 2006).
In light of the lasting impact of the Klan, discrimination and racism directed
toward African-Americans, Mexicans, Chinese and Japanese minority group members
are documented into the 1950s and beyond (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Evidence of
discriminatory practices was evident in Colorados law against interracial marriage,
68


which endured until 1954. Members of minority groups were not served at restaurants
and hotels, were segregated during mass, were not allowed to open businesses, and were
not allowed to swim in the same pools as Whites. Though the number and racial make-up
of faculty members is not the focus of the current study, as is documented by Delgado
and Stefancic (1999) and perhaps already widely known, The numbers of Blacks and
Mexicans in the professions and at the state universities and colleges was miniscule (p.
13).
To address concerns about racism and discrimination, Denvers newly elected and
liberal Mayor, Quigg Newton, established a task force on human relations in 1947. The
Denver Commission on Human Relations gathered oral stories, conducted surveys, and
issued reports to gain deeper cross-cultural understanding (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999).
Upon documenting discrimination, the commission shared its discoveries: (a) Minorities,
especially Blacks, were often denied access to health and medical services; (b) minorities
were highly residentially confined; (c) minorities were victims of high degrees of job
discrimination; and, (d) minorities experienced police brutality and were blamed for
committing a disproportionate number of crimes (Delgado and Stefancic, 1999). In-depth
discussions surrounding a history of racism and discrimination in all of these areas, as
documented by the commission, are well beyond the scope of this study, but certainly
provide greater insight into the history of Colorados treatment of minority group
members.
The Stranglehold of Racism in Colorado
The state of Colorados politics and Colorados system of education sheds light
on the racism practiced and tolerated in Colorado in the past and into the present. As
69


Colorados largest minority group, constituting 20.9% of the states population today,
Hispanics in particular seemingly suffered more discrimination than Blacks (Delgado &
Stefancic, 1999; United States Census Bureau, 2013). Delgado and Stefancic (1999) offer
a sociological perspective as an explanation of this discrimination disparity: where there
are two significant minorities in an area, the larger minority usually suffers more
discrimination (p. 25). Hispanics have been and continue to be Colorados largest
minority group; even so, Hispanics have rarely been elected as public servants.
According to Delgado and Stefancic (1999) in words that still ring true today, No person
of color has ever served as Governor of Colorado, and only a handful of Blacks and
Hispanics in the state legislature (p. 25). Delgado and Stefancic (1999) further document
the miniscule number of minorities who have served as Mayor of Denver: two African-
Americans, Wellington Webb and recently elected Michael B. Hancock and one Latino,
Federico Pena. Ken Salazar, most recently serving as the United States Secretary of the
Interior under President Barack Obama, was elected as United States Senator from
Colorado in 2004. Salazar also served as Colorado Attorney General from 1999 to 2005,
and was only one of two Hispanics to be nominated as US Senator since 1977 (Delgado
& Stefancic, 1999). However, recent progress cannot be overlooked as the Colorado
legislature that opened this past January of 2013 welcomed more Latinos and blacks
than in recent years, and a record number of gay lawmakers (Bartels & Lee, 2012). Five
Blacks are currently serving in the House, as well as twelve Latinos, and eight gay
lawmakers (Bartels & Lee, 2012).
Beyond politics, throughout Colorados history, educational opportunities
afforded to members of minority groups have also differed from those offered to White
70


students. As discussed in depth in Chapter II, in Keyes v. Denver Public Schools (1969),
the US Supreme Court found intentional, govemmentally backed segregation in the
Denver schools, and ordered the citys schools to desegregate (Delgado & Stefancic,
1999, p. 27). As a result of the Court ruling, White families fled Denver for the suburbs
in an effort to avoid busing and other desegregation efforts (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999).
Even with de jure segregation banned, race continues to be a factor in politics and schools
across the state of Colorado. Across Colorado and the Southwest, historic and recent
efforts to close the Hispanic achievement gap have proven elementary and unsuccessful.
The funding of public schools across the state of Colorado also is a major source of
contention, as the reliance on property taxes to fund school systems produces massive
discrepancies between poor and wealthy districts (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999): Poorer
districts tend to be mostly minority, while wealthier districts tend to be predominantly
White.
Educating Coloradoans: A Deeper Look
In the United States, individual states are largely responsible for ensuring
educational access and quality for students residing in the state (The National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education [NCPPHE], 2006). The NCPPHE (2006) grades
states on their performance in six categories including: (a) preparation of students for
education and training beyond high school, (b) participation in educational and training
opportunities beyond high school, (c) affordability of higher education, (d) completion of
certificates or degrees by students in a timely manner, (e) benefits the state receives from
having a highly educated population, and (f) student learning as a result of education and
training beyond high school. A letter grade is assigned to each state for each of the six
71


performance categories. In 2006, Colorado received the following grades for each of the
categories: (a) B+, (b) A-, (c) F, (d) B, (e) A-, and (f) Incomplete (NCPPHE, 2006).
Based on the information compiled in the NCPPHE (2006) report, Colorado
schools appeared to prepare students fairly well to succeed in education and training after
high school. However, 8% of Colorado students in 2006 completed the General
Education Development (GED) diploma in lieu of a high school diploma. This was one
of the highest percentages of GED recipients in the nation. In terms of participation,
many opportunities exist for students in Colorado to enroll in education and training
opportunities after high school, and approximately 84% of students take advantage of the
post-secondary options available to them throughout the state of Colorado (NCPPHE,
2006). Though post-secondary participation rates seem good, nearly 63% of Colorados
high school graduates enroll in college, the gap in the rate of college participation
between Whites and members of other ethnic groups has widened. For example, data
collected and disseminated by the Colorado Department of Education in 2011, revealed
that 78.2% of Colorados Asian high school graduates enroll in colleges or universities
throughout the state, while only 47.6% of Hispanic graduates choose to do the same.
High school graduation rates also vary across racial groups as CDEs most recent
statistics convey that while only 60.1% of Hispanic students graduated from high school,
81.7% of Asian students graduated (Colorado Department of Education, 2011). Similar
trends surface when examining six-year college graduation rates across the state, as
Asians boast the highest college graduation rate of 61.2% and African Americans, at
33.2%, are least likely to complete college (Colorado Department of Education, 2011).
Unfortunately, due to prevalent and complex funding issues which are discussed further
72


in Chapter IX, college in Colorado has become less affordable for middle-class and
lower-income families. Even so, though educational opportunities after high school are
costly, a high proportion of Colorado students do complete certificates and degrees, and
the gap between Whites and Hispanics completing certificates and degrees in Colorado
has narrowed within the last decade (NCPPHE, 2006).
The report of Colorados progress by the NCPPHE (2006) highlighted several
gains in Colorados state system of education. However, because of noticeable disparities
in high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and college graduation rates,
race continued to surface as an area upon which Colorados institutions of higher
education could focus and improve. The 2006 report highlighted the racial gap in
educational attainment levels between minority groups (Hispanics/Latinos and African
Americans) and White students. In Colorado, citizens and educational stakeholders
continue to share concern over the Colorado Paradoxthat Colorado ranks among the
top states in percentage of population with a college degree [but] the state ranks very low
in educating its native Colorado population (Corash, Baker, & Nawrocki, 2008, p. 7).
The paradox represents the success rates of all of Colorados students, but the state
government recognizes that the lower college admission and graduation rates of African
American and Hispanic students compared with White and Asian American students in
Colorado are an area of great concern.
Evidence of the racial achievement gap in Colorados institutions of higher
education have led to the development of this study which focuses upon the history of
diverse student access to the University of Colorado Boulder. Data collected and
analyzed from Colorados flagship university, the University of Colorado Boulder
73


(UCB), provides evidence of Colorados racial achievement gap, highlighted by the
lower college admission and graduation rates of minority (African American and
Hispanic) students when compared to White and Asian students. Table III. 1 provides a
quick glimpse into the enrollment levels of individuals across racial groups, from 2004-
2009, throughout the state of Colorado and specifically at UCB. This is the most recent
report of its kind available to date.
When comparing enrollment levels of students in institutions of higher education
in the state of Colorado across racial groups to the population estimates provided by the
United States Census Bureau (2013), the gaps are readily noticeable. Focusing solely on
UCB, 77.9% of students enrolled at the university in 2009 were identified as White, Non-
Hispanic, yet this same group represents only 69.7% of the states population and 63.4%
of the entire US population. Blacks and Hispanics comprised only 1.7% and 6.7% of the
student population at the university respectively, while comprising 4.3% and 20.9% of
Colorados state population and 13.1% and 16.7% of the US population (United States
Census Bureau, 2013).
Asian students are often left out of the discussion of educational and achievement
gaps because they tend to be overrepresented at institutions of higher education as is the
case at the University of Colorado Boulder. Asian students comprised 6.3% of the student
population at Boulder and only 2.7% of the states total population and 4.5% of the US
population in 2009. These statistics indicate a continuing underlying problem in Colorado
and the nation (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lee, 2002; Parker, 1998; Perna, 2000) and support
contentions that, racism is normal in American society and is often overlooked
(Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 7).
74


Table III. 1
In-State, total, and UCB enrollment levels of racial/ethnic groups, 2004-2009
Enrollment Level Race/Ethnicity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
In State Undergraduate Asian 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8
Black, Non-Hispanic 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.8
Hispanic 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.8
Native American 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3
Minority Subtotal 19 19.3 19.4 20 20.3 20.7
White, Non-Hispanic 75.7 75 74.3 74.5 73.2 71.7
NR Alien .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
Unknown 5.2 5.6 6.2 5.4 6.4 7.4
Total Undergraduate Asian 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
Black, Non-Hispanic 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.6
Hispanic 9.2 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.7 9.9
Native American 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Minority Subtotal 18.1 18.5 18.7 19.2 19.4 19.9
White, Non-Hispanic 75.6 74.9 74.1 74.3 72.8 71.2
NR Alien 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.5 1.4
Unknown 5.2 5.6 6.1 5.5 6.3 7.5
UCB Asian 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.3
Black, Non-Hispanic 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7
Hispanic 5.9 6 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.3
Native American .8 .7 .8 .7 .7 .8
Minority Subtotal 14.2 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.8 15.1
White, Non-Hispanic 78.6 78.3 78.2 78.4 78.3 77.9
NR Alien 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6
Unknown 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4
Note. Data represents all Colorado Public Four Year Institutions of Higher Education.
Student Unit Record Data System (SURDS) Enrollment Fall Term 2007-2009, 2010.
75


Colorado Commission on Higher Education
As colleges and universities across the state of Colorado attempted to no avail to
address issues centered on race, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE)
was established in 1965 by the legislature. The CCHE was given increased authority over
the states system of education with the passage of House Bill 1187 in 1985, to ensure
educational access and quality for Colorado residents and students in the states
institutions of higher education (CDE, n.d.a). In 2008, Senate bill 08-018 created a
separation of the Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE) from the Colorado
Commission on Higher Education, in essence clarifying the individual roles of the
separate entities. Prior to 2008, the Commission was recognized as a division of the
Colorado Department of Higher Education. Though no longer operating as a division of
the DHE, the Commission continues to focus upon providing "access to high-quality,
affordable education for all Colorados residents that is student-centered, quality driven
and performance-based (CDE, 2012a).
Ten commissioners, representing the geographic and political diversity of the
state of Colorado, currently serve on the Commission (CDE, 2012b). An advisory
committee, including both legislative and non-legislative members, also oversees the
CCHE (CDE, n.d.b) The CCHE is responsible for developing long-range plans for
Colorados evolving state system of higher education. According to the Colorado
Department of Higher Education Website, 28 public institutions of higher education
currently are located throughout the state of Colorado. Thirteen of the 28 schools are
four-year institutions, and 15 are two-year institutions. Private institutions and
occupational schools also operate in Colorado but are not overseen by the CCHE. Of the
76


students enrolled in the 28 public institutions in Colorado, 90.3% are undergraduate
students; 85.5% of students enrolled in Colorados public institutions of higher education
are Colorado residents (CDE, 2010).
CCHE Admissions Standards Policy (2011)
The Colorado Commission on Higher Education has general policy making and
oversight authority over the public institutions of higher education, and that authority has
been exercised by the commission to establish policies to recruit and retain minority
students to Colorados public colleges and universities. As published in the CCHE
Admission Standards Policy (2011), the CCHE aims to encourage diversity by supporting
the admission of applicants from underrepresented groups, applicants with special talents,
and applicants with disabilities (p. I-F-4). One of the responsibilities of the CCHE that
directly correlates to the stated goal of encouraging diversity on public college and
university campuses across the state of Colorado, is the development of statewide
enrollment policies and admission standards to each of the 28 public institutions
throughout the state of Colorado.
As stated in the Admission Standards Policy (CCHE, 2011), which has undergone
many revisions and was most recently updated on January 7, 2011, the original policy
was adopted by the Commission in 1986, implemented the following year, and
established state-level admission standards for both first-time freshmen and transfer
students at each of the Colorado baccalaureate public institutions (CCHE, 2011, p. I-F-
1). The admissions standards set forth by the CCHE represent minimum requirements for
admission to the states 4-year public institutions; the 2-year community colleges operate
under open admission policies, allowing all high school graduates and non-traditional
students to enroll regardless of high school grade point average, high school preparation,
77


and standardized test scores. CCHE outlines specific admissions standards, largely based
upon high school grade point average, standardized test scores, and high school
coursework; students who meet the outlined standards are considered as good candidates
for admission, though their admission is not guaranteed, as institutions consider a broad
range of factors in making admissions decisions (CCHE, 2008, 2011).
The CCHE follows the law described in detail in the Admissions Standards Policy
(CCHE, 2011) to determine and differentiate admission and program standards,
consistent with the unique institutional roles and mission of each institution as described
in the statute. Admission standards for first-time admitted freshmen students and transfer
students are established by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, in
consultation with the governing boards of each institution at all state-supported
baccalaureate and graduate institutions of higher education in Colorado. A combination
of standardized test scores, high school grade point average, and high school class rank,
are utilized to differentiate freshmen applicants at each of the public colleges and
universities across the state. High school class rank and grade point average are referred
to as high school performance measures, and ACT and/or SAT scores are labeled as
standardized performance measures. High school performance measures are combined
with standardized performance measures into a single index score to evaluate "the
achievement records of applicants (CCHE, 2011, p. 13). The Freshmen Admission
Index is widely used by students, high school staff, and community members to guide the
Colorado resident college application process (CCHE, 2011). The specific minimum
index scores required to be considered for admission at each Colorado public four-year
institution are summarized in Table III.2. The maximum index score is 146, which would
78


correspond with a student who has earned a 4.0 grade point average and a perfect score of
36 on the ACT. The CCHE Admission Eligibility Index is also included in Appendix A.
Table III.2.
CCHE Colorado Public College/University Admission Index
Institution Freshman Admission Index
Adams State College 80
Colorado School of Mines 110
Colorado State University 101
Colorado State University-Pueblo 86
Fort Lewis College 92
Mesa State College 85
Metropolitan State College of Denver 76
University of Colorado Boulder 103
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 92
University of Colorado at DHSC* 93
University of Northern Colorado 94
Western State College 80
*Now called the University of Colorado Denver.
Differences in the index scores as outlined are explained by the distinctive
institutional role and mission each state-supported institution of higher education in
Colorado has been assigned by the CCHE, as determined by their statutory guidelines
(CCHE, 2011). Because the University of Colorado Boulder is the focus of this
dissertation, it is important to understand the specific role and mission the university has
been assigned by the CCHE as a comprehensive graduate research university with
selective admission standards (CCHE, 2011, p. 3). Though the University of Colorado
Denver campus, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs campus, Colorado State
University, and the University of Northern Colorado also are described as having
selective admissions standards, the University of Colorado Boulder has a higher
admission index than these other institutions, as detailed in Table III.2 (CCHE, 2011).
The Colorado School of Mines has the highest admission index eligibility score of all
79


public institutions of higher education in the state of Colorado, suggesting it is the most
competitive of the public colleges and universities in the state (CCHE, 2011).
Beginning in the spring of 2008, the CCHE changed the admissions standards by
requiring applicants to prove their college readiness through the completion of
minimum, rigorous high school course requirements. The Colorado Higher Education
Admission Requirements (HEAR) are based upon college readiness research that
illustrates high school preparation across specific academic areas, at increasing levels of
rigor, positively impacts the success (i.e. completion of the baccalaureate degree in four
years) rates of students enrolled at post-secondary institutions (CCHE, 2011). The HEAR
requirements were increased for the first time in Colorado for students who began college
in the fall of 2010. Since these changes were implemented in the fall of 2010, high
school graduates are now required to complete an additional year of math, and at least
one year of a foreign/world language. In the fall of 2012, Colorado high school graduates
were required to meet the following HEAR to be considered as college ready
candidates for in-state college admission: 4 years of English, 4 years of Math, 3 years of
Natural Science (including 2 years of a lab-based science), 3 years of Social Studies
(including 1 year of US or World History), 1 year of foreign/world language, and 2 years
of academic electives (CCHE, 2008, Admission Eligibility Index, 2008-2010). The
HEAR differ from high school graduation requirements across the state. School districts
throughout Colorado are responsible for determining graduation requirements for
students and providing appropriate course offerings across academic fields of study to
prepare students for post-secondary education opportunities.
80


The Admissions Standards Policy is reviewed by the CCHE every three years to
determine if the policy is appropriate, and to assess its continued alignment with state
goals and priorities (CCHE, 2011). To monitor admission rates of students at the various
baccalaureate institutions, each institution is required to report the number of
undergraduate freshmen and transfer applicants using the Student Unit Record Data
System (SURDS) Undergraduate Applicant File (CCHE, 2011). The data submitted by
institutions to the CCHE via SURDS is utilized to monitor the compliance of each
institution with the admission standards set forth by the Commission, and to evaluate the
impact of the policy on institutions and students annually (CCHE, 2011, p. 2). The
diversity of the student body at institutions throughout the state of Colorado continues to
be an area of focus and concern for the Commission. In 1998, the Commission
established a Policy on Affirmative Action to address concerns over Colorados racial
achievement and educational attainment gap.
Policy on Affirmative Action
According to the Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE, 1998), the Commission
has reviewed reports on minority faculty, staff, and student representation in institutions
of higher education throughout the state of Colorado since 1989. Reports consistently
revealed the underrepresentation of minorities in higher education throughout Colorado
when compared to their percentages in the state population. The Policy on Affirmative
Action (CCHE, 1998) was developed under the direction of the General Assembly to
reflect the Commissions commitment to increasing diversity, and to establish a model of
continual improvement outlining an adjustment process to be used if institutions did not
show improvement. As stated in the Policy (CCHE, 1998), continuous improvement
81


may be shown in percentage increases or numeric increases of underrepresented groups.
It may also be shown in... other forms, which represent best practices... to increase the
presence of underrepresented groups (p. I-Q-2).
Since its inception, The Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE, 1998) has required
all institutions of higher education in the state of Colorado to submit annual diversity
reports to the CCHE. The CCHE has used, and continues to use, these reports to
summarize information about the states higher education system that includes the most
recent five-year trend data on the percentages and number of minority students, staff, and
faculty attending and working at the twenty-eight public universities and colleges across
Colorado (CCHE, 1998). The trend data includes specific information, including
undergraduate resident headcount, total undergraduate headcount, graduate resident
headcount, and total graduate headcount. Retention and graduation rates of students
across minority student groups are also included in these reports, as well as information
about transfer students and degree recipients from minority groups. Though not included
in the discussion presented in this dissertation, data on minority faculty and staff are also
summarized in these reports. An example of the type of data tracked by the CCHE, as
copied from SURDS is included in Table III.3. This table documents the enrollment
trends of student from various ethnic backgrounds between 2000-2011.
82


cn
oo
Table III.3
Fall Enrollments by Institution, Student Level, Fall terms 2009-2011
Ethnicity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Asian
Asian or Pacific Islander 5,088 5,157 5,391 5,486 5,683
Black or African American 3,251 3,362 3,439 3,571 3,717
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic 10,075 10,338 10,619 11,152 11,602
More than one Race/Ethnicity (non-Hispanic)
Native American or Alaskan Native 1,821 1,841 1,921 1,991 2,082
Non-Resident Alien 3,612 3,821 4,016 3,636 3,255
Unknown Ethnicity 4,990 5,705 6,151 6,811 7,306
White, non- Hispanic 92,437 94,504 97,566 100,006 100,964
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
5,898 5,645
5,690 5,875 6,094 6,150 6,467
3,836 3,852 4,059 4,246 4,736 4,945 5,092
196 250
11,703 11,784 12,194 12,410 13,267 15,894 17,702
2,063 3,199
2,127 2,200 2,287 2,293 2,390 1,826 1,767
2,963 3,136 2,706 3,987 4,007 4,396 5,024
7,768 8,620 7,722 9,118 11,111 8,962 8,611
99,776 98,644 99,913 98,779 101,771 105,038 105,085


The Commissions Policy on Affirmative Action (1998) describes best practices
to achieve a diverse student body, faculty, and staff members at each public institution in
Colorado. The best practices require each college and university to develop a yearly
diversity plan which addresses long-term and short-term goals focused upon increasing
the enrollment, retention, and graduation rates of minority students. Each institution is
further required to issue an annual diversity report and monitor their individual progress
towards achieving specific diversity goals. The Policy (CCHE, 1998) outlines a five-year
review process, overseen by the Commission, to monitor institutional progress towards
meeting diversity goals. As described, institutions that do not make progress or show
improvement are subject to an external review process initiated by the CCHE (CCHE,
1998). The purpose of the external review team is to make recommendations to improve
institutional performance, and present their recommendations as well as a plan of action
to the CCHE.
Race-Conscious Educational Policy in Colorado
As discussed in the previous chapter, the Colorado Commission on Higher
Education reinstated their Affirmative Action Policy in 1998 (CCHE) as anti-affirmative
action initiatives made their way onto state ballots and were ultimately adopted in
California in 1996, in Washington in 1998, and in Michigan in 2006. In 2008,
Coloradoans narrowly defeated (50.81% to 49.19%) a similar ballot initiative known as
Amendment 46: the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (Buescher, 2008). Adoption of anti-
affirmative action initiatives in California, Washington, and Michigan negatively
impacted the diversity of student bodies on college campuses, as public higher education
institutions in these states altered their policies and practices to comply with these new
84


laws (Saenz, 2008, p. 1). Saenz (2008) highlights data discussing the recent progress of
state university systems in Colorado, and at the University of Colorado system in
particular, which slowly increased the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its
undergraduate programs over the last seven years [since 2001], from 10% to 12%
(Saenz, 2008, p. 1). In 2008, Amendment 46 posed a major threat to this growth, as
California experienced significant dips in minority enrollment upon adoption of similar
legislation and is yet to recover (Saenz, 2008).
Bracing for the potential of Amendment 46 finding favor with Colorado voters,
the University of Colorado Boulder worked to devise means through which diversity on
the campus would be preserved no matter what (Anas, 2008). If Amendment 46 had
passed in 2008, more than one hundred donor-sponsored scholarships would have been in
jeopardy because of specific connections to race or gender requirements (Anas, 2008).
Though the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmative action policies in Grutter
(2003), new services such as geodemographic tagging that identifies and groups students
according to neighborhood and high school are being used by admissions officers in
Michigan, striving to maintain diversity on their campuses (Anas, 2008). A graduate
student at the University of Colorado Boulder, Matthew N. Gaertner, presented a paper in
2010, in which he explored new statistical approaches to support class-based affirmative
action at CU (p. 2). In short, Gaertner found, using a sizeable socioeconomic boost,
economic diversity increased compared with a system of race-based affirmative action
(Kahlenberg, 2010).
This new research proves promising in that it may be possible to use measures,
other than race specifically, to maintain diverse student bodies in light of the decision to
85


be handed down by a more conservative Supreme Court in the near future in Fisher v.
Texas that may end the legal use of race-conscious educational policies such as
affirmative action. Gaertners (2010) results are also alarming and suggestive of the long-
lasting, ill-effects of racism and discrimination and illustrate the connection between race
and economic policy and opportunity. In the next chapter, the history of race and
diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder will be discussed in detail to draw
attention to the long-lasting and ill-effects of racism and discrimination at UCB as the
university has worked alongside other institutions of higher education to attract a more
diverse campus community.
86


Full Text

PAGE 1

A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012 by Molly S. Mugge-Cozza B.A., DePauw University, 2001 M.A., University of Denver, 2002 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2013

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Molly S. Mugge-Cozza has been approved for the Educational Leadership and Innovation Program by Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Chair Rodney Muth, Advisor Gregory Diggs James Whiteside February 25, 2013

PAGE 3

iii Mugge-Cozza, Molly, S (Ph.D., Educational Leadershi p and Innovation) A History of Access of Diverse Students at the Univ ersity of Colorado Boulder, 1964-2012 Thesis directed by Professor Dorothy Garrison-Wade. ABSTRACT Racial disparities have been, and continue to be, a major obstacle facing postsecondary educational institutions throughout the U nited States. In response to the call for institutional and external accountability by st akeholders interested in higher education, the aim of this dissertation is to provi de an historical analysis of race and diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder (UC B). UCB was chosen as the focus for the current study because it is the flagship public university in the state of Colorado and is recognized as such by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE). In order to relay the history of UCB accurately, a wid e variety of sources are utilized, some published and others unpublished, including informa tion obtained from the universityÂ’s archives. Data collected in this study provide evid ence of the lower college admission, retention, and graduation rates of minority (Africa n American and Hispanic) students when compared to White and Asian students at the Un iversity of Colorado Boulder. Factors that contribute to the success of minority students on college campuses in general provide a starting point from which efforts being m ade to rectify the racial disparities present today at UCB can be assessed and analyzed i n hopes of creating a campus environment to which minority students are attracte d, admitted, retained, and graduated. As the higher education community of scholars conti nues to embrace the crucial role of diversity on college campuses and as the use of rac e-conscious educational policy continues to be threatened, this study highlights t he role universities play in the larger

PAGE 4

iv debate. As UCB has historically struggled to attract, retain, and graduate students of color, I expect that a thorough examination of the data included here will inspire educational stakeholders to find new ways to provid e new opportunities for educational advancement for minorities and seek to erase all ev idence of a racial achievement gap into the future. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Dorothy Garrison-Wade

PAGE 5

v DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my amazing, outgoing, encou raging mother, Carolyn; my easygoing and quiet cheerleader dad, Larry; my ener gizing and inspiring nana, Lilly; my outspoken and persistent brother, Zach; my steady a nd supportive husband, Nick; my spit-fire, rambunctious, intelligent daughter, Keel ey; and, baby Cozza #2 who has experienced the emotions undergone during this jour ney firsthand. My family has persisted in this journey with me throughout the pa st eight years during which time I have pursued my PhD. I would not be able to write this d edication today in the absence of their constant support, encouragement, and love. They eac h have inspired me to become a better granddaughter, daughter, sister, wife, mothe r, and student, never questioning whether or not I would endure and reach the end of this journey IÂ’ve been on for much longer than any of us ever imagined. To the students I have been lucky enough to work wi th throughout my career and those IÂ’ve yet to meet, I thank you for pushing me to ask difficult questions and for sparking the desire to seek out the answers. To tea chers and professors IÂ’ve been lucky enough to learn from throughout my life, I thank yo u for instilling in me a love for knowledge and a belief in the importance and vital role of education. I hope to instill this same love for knowledge and belief in the power of education in my own students and children.

PAGE 6

vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the members of my comm ittee who have supported my work and pushed me to complete this dissertation; t heir patience and support is truly appreciated and will never be forgotten. I would es pecially like to acknowledge my adviser, Dr. Rodney Muth, who continued to support me during times when it seemed I would never finish this dissertation. This journey would not have been the same without the expertise and knowledge willingly shared with m e by all of those serving on my committee.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012 ....................... ................................................... ..... 1Research Goals..................................... ................................................... ................ 3The Role of Race in Education ..................... ................................................... ....... 4Race, Diversity, and Education .................... ................................................... ........ 6Critical Race Theory .............................. ................................................... .............. 7Tenet 1 ........................................... ................................................... ................ 9Tenet 2 ........................................... ................................................... ................ 9Tenet 3 ........................................... ................................................... .............. 10Tenet 4 ........................................... ................................................... .............. 11Tenet 5 ........................................... ................................................... .............. 12Conducting Historical Research and Understanding Hi storical Method .............. 13Sources of Historical Information ................. ................................................... ..... 15Archives .......................................... ................................................... ............. 16Profusion of Records............................... ................................................... ..... 17Establishing Facts ................................ ................................................... ........ 18Method ............................................ ................................................... ................... 19Relevance of this Study ........................... ................................................... .......... 21Why This Study?.................................... ................................................... ............ 22Structure of Dissertation ......................... ................................................... ........... 25II. A HISTORY OF RACE, DIVERSITY, AND EDUCATIONAL P OLICY ................ 26The Brown Decision: Overturning Precedent ......... .............................................. 28The Civil Rights Movement and Race Conscious Educat ional Policy ................. 30

PAGE 8

viii Race and K-12 Education ........................... ................................................... ....... 33Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (19 70) .......................... 35Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ( 1971) ....................... 36Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO (1973) ....................................... 38Affirmative Action ................................ ................................................... ............. 40Race and the Pursuit of Higher Education .......... .................................................. 43Race Conscious Admissions and the Judicial System ......................................... 45Brown v. Board of Education (1954) .................................................. ............ 47Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1 978) ................................ 47Hopwood v. Texas (1996) .................................................. ............................. 48Texas v. LeSage (1997) .................................................. ................................. 49Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) .................................................. .......... 50Gratz and Grutter (2003) Decisions .................................................. ............. 51Fisher v. Texas (not decided) .................................................. ........................ 53Race-Based State Legislation ...................... ................................................... ...... 55Beyond Affirmative Action ......................... ................................................... ...... 56III. HISTORY OF RACE AND DIVERSITY IN COLORADO .... ................................. 61The Territorial Days .............................. ................................................... ....... 63Sand Creek. ....................................... ................................................... ..... 63Blacks. ........................................... ................................................... ......... 64Asians. ........................................... ................................................... ......... 65Other minorities. ................................. ................................................... ... 65The Klan Period ................................... ................................................... ........ 66Racism during the Post-War Years .................. ............................................... 68The Stranglehold of Racism in Colorado............. ........................................... 69

PAGE 9

ix Educating Coloradoans: A Deeper Look .............. ................................................ 71Colorado Commission on Higher Education ........... ............................................. 76CCHE Admissions Standards Policy (2011) ........... ....................................... 77Policy on Affirmative Action....................... ................................................... 81Race-Conscious Educational Policy in Colorado ..... ............................................ 84 IV. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF C OLORADO BOULDER ........................................... ................................................... .......................... 87The Founding of a State Flagship University ....... ................................................ 88Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Geor ge Norlin ....................... 91Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Ward Darley .......................... 93Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Quig g Newton ....................... 94Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Jose ph R. Smiley ................... 95Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Fred erick Patrick Thieme .... 101Educational Opportunities Programs ................ ............................................ 102Summer Tutorial Program ........................... ................................................. 1 03Migrant Action Program ............................ ................................................... 104Other Programs .................................... ................................................... ...... 104Addressing the Needs of the Underrepresented ...... ...................................... 105Creation of the Chancellors ....................... ................................................... 107Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Rola nd Curt Rautenstraus ... 108Race, UCB, and Leadership from 1980 to the Present ....................................... 109Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Arno ld R. Weber ................. 110Race and UCB under the Leadership of President E. ( Elwood) Gordon Gee .... 113Building on the Past and Transforming the Future .. ........................................... 114

PAGE 10

x V. THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON COLLEGE STUD ENT SUCCESS ........................................... ................................................... ......................... 118College Readiness and Academic Preparedness ....... .......................................... 119Student Success Interventions ..................... ................................................... ..... 120TintoÂ’s Attributes of Effective Classrooms ........ .......................................... 121Expectations. ..................................... ................................................... ... 122Support. .......................................... ................................................... ...... 122Assessment and feedback. .......................... ............................................ 123Involvement. ...................................... ................................................... .. 124AstinÂ’s Involvement Theory ........................ ................................................. 1 24Learning Communities............................... ................................................... 127The Role of Faculty ............................... ................................................... .... 128Student Success at UCB............................. ................................................... ...... 129CU-LEAD Alliance .................................. ................................................... 129Pre-College Services .............................. ................................................... .... 132Disability Services ............................... ................................................... ...... 133Upward Bound ...................................... ................................................... ..... 134SORCE ............................................. ................................................... .......... 134Assessing and Improving Learning Goals at UCB ..... ........................................ 135Graduation and Retention Rates .................... ............................................... 137VI. THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON CAMPUS CLIM ATE .............. 139A Focus on Diversity: Starting at the Top ......... ................................................. 1 42Campus Climate Surveys ............................ ................................................... ..... 144Assessing Campus Climate .......................... ................................................... .... 145Campus Climate at UCB Today ....................... .................................................. 147

PAGE 11

xi Comparisons Over Time ............................. .................................................. 150Other Important Trends............................. ................................................... 151Are Perceptions Accurate Reflections of Reality? .. ............................................ 152VII. RACE, DIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY, AND COMMUNITY ENG AGEMENT .... 155State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges ........ ............................................... 156Characteristics of an Engaged Institution ......... .................................................. 159Navigating the Rules of Engagement ................ ................................................. 1 61Campus Compact .................................... ................................................... ......... 165Community Engagement at UCB ....................... ................................................ 16 8Flagship 2030 and Community Engagement ............ .......................................... 170VIII. MAKING THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY AND IMPLEMENTIN G AN ACTION PLAN .............................................. ................................................... ............................. 175Making Campus Diversity Initiatives Work .......... ............................................. 178Diversity Leaders at UCB .......................... ................................................... ...... 181UCB Diversity Plans ............................... ................................................... ......... 183The PresidentÂ’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity (2006) ........................ 186Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan ...................... ................................................... ..... 192Diversity at UCB through the 2000s ................ ................................................... 194Beyond Diversity Plans: Initiatives and Programs at UCB ................................ 200IX. OTHER FACTORS IMPACTING MINORITY SUCCESS ...... ............................. 202Practitioner and Researcher ....................... ................................................... ...... 203Achievement Gap.................................... ................................................... ......... 204High School Preparation ........................... ................................................... 206Measuring College Readiness ....................... ................................................ 20 7Standardized Testing .............................. ................................................... .... 207

PAGE 12

xii ACT ‘s College Readiness Benchmarks ............... ........................................ 210Predicting College Success: More than a Test-Score ................................... 211The Funding Equation............................... ................................................... ....... 213Federal Level ..................................... ................................................... ........ 216College Cost Reduction and Access Act. ............ ................................... 217Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. ............................... 217State Level ....................................... ................................................... .......... 218TABOR. ............................................ ................................................... ... 218College Opportunity Fund. ......................... ............................................ 219School Level ...................................... ................................................... ........ 220X. RACE AND DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNIVERS ITY OF COLORADO BOULDER AND HIGHER EDUCATION NATIONALLY .. ............... 222Racial Inequities in Education .................... ................................................... ..... 225Implications of Fisher v. Texas .................................................. ......................... 226Permanence of Racism in Colorado: Impact on Educati onal Opportunity ......... 228Permanence of Racism: Impact on the University of C olorado Boulder............ 230Promoting Student Success Initiatives ............. ................................................... 234The Impact of Campus Climate ...................... .............................................. 237Embracing Community Engagement Efforts ............ .................................... 239Creating a Diverse Campus ......................... ................................................. 2 40Expanding Educational Opportunity in Colorado for U nderrepresented and Low-Income Students ............................... ................................................... 243Race Does Matter .................................. ................................................... ........... 246History Leads to Insight .......................... ................................................... ... 246The Problem Continues.............................. ................................................... 247Hopes for Progress ................................ ................................................... ..... 247

PAGE 13

xiii Conscious, Concerted Efforts Essential ............ ............................................ 248Next Steps and Future Research .................... ................................................... .. 249APPENDIX A. CCHE Admissions Index ............................. ................................................... ........... 251B. The Educational Pipeline in this Country .......... ................................................... ..... 252C. Blueprint for Action Key Points ................ ................................................... ............. 253D. 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission Committee Recommendatio ns ............................... 264E. Flagship 2030 Summary ............................. ................................................... ............. 265REFERENCES ........................................ ................................................... .................... 267

PAGE 14

xiv LIST OF TABLES TABLE III.1. In-State, total, and UCB enrollment levels o f racial/ethnic groups, 2004-2009 ...... 75III.2. CCHE Colorado Public College/University Admi ssion Index ................................ 79III.3 Fall Enrollments by Institution, Student Leve l, Fall terms 2009-2011Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…..83 V.1. CU-LEAD Alliance at a GlanceÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... ................132 V.2. Graduation and one-year retention rates of ful l-time first-time freshmen at the original institution. ............................. ................................................... .......................... 138VIII. 1. Diversity at UCB, 1999-2009Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… Â….............196 X.1. Fall Census Headcounts by year, residency, and race/ethnicityÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..224

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER I A HISTORY OF ACCESS OF DIVERSE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, 1964-2012 Today about half of students with dreams and aspira tions on their future receipt of an earned certificate or degree leave with that dre am either stalled or ended. Access and completion rates for African American, H ispanic, and Native American students have always lagged behind White a nd Asian students, as have those for low-income students and students with dis abilities. Although postsecondary enrollment rates for students of colo r are at levels similar to White and Asian students, access to four-year colleges, e specially our nation’s most selective institutions, remains inequitable. Beyond access, students of color have not earned degrees at the same rates as other stude nts. (Swail, Redd, & Perna, 2003, p. v) Education is crucial and impacts both society and i ndividuals as those individuals who complete higher levels of education earn higher incomes and exhibit lower rates of unemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Swa il et al., 2003). Even so, higher education in the United States continues to be plag ued by debates over race, diversity, and the use of educational policies, such as affirm ative action, to provide students of color access to, and ultimately success in, postsec ondary institutions. Equal access continues to be a problem in higher education, whet her because of admissions or other policies that guide higher-education practices or b ecause of the insufficiency of elementary-and secondary-school preparation of mino rity students for higher education (Bok & Bowen, 1998; Kozol, 2005). Nevertheless, the success rates of students of color who do gain access to the system of higher educatio n also are problematic: In 2003, “only 46 percent of African Americans and 47 percent of H ispanics . actually completed a bachelor’s degree within six years, compared to 67 percent of Whites and 72 percent of Asians” (Swail et al., 2003, p. vii).

PAGE 16

2 The reality and plight of minority students across the United States is both disheartening and unacceptable to educational stake holders (Harper, 2006; Swail et al., 2003). How is it possible that nearly fifty years a fter the civil rights movement began and monumental legal gains were made by minorities who had been discriminated against for centuries, equality and equity are yet to be achiev ed? As a vital platform upon which our country builds its future, institutions of educatio n appear to have maintained the status quo, contradicting the ideal role of educational in stitutions as described by Harper (2006): “Public universities can and should uphold the social contract by offering equitable access and distributing resources to ensu re success among diverse groups of American citizens” (p. vii). In his study, Harper (2006) examined the number of Black male students enrolled at flagship universities across the United States. His findings suggest the fifty public institutions of higher education, designated as fla gship universities in each state, are not upholding the social contract, and fall short in th eir role of serving Black male students. To illustrate the predicament facing Black male stu dents across the state of Colorado, Harper (2006) examined data from Colorado’s flagshi p university, The University of Colorado Boulder: In 2000, 250 Black males were enr olled at the university, representing .9% of the undergraduate population while comprisin g 2.2% of the state’s total Black, male, college-aged student population (Harper, 2006 ). As Swail et al. (2003) discuss, beyond access and admission, differences in six-yea r graduation rates were also found across racial and gender groups at the University o f Colorado Boulder with 47.2 % of Black males, 67.5% of White males, and 63.9% of Bla ck females graduating within six years of enrolling. As these statistics demonstrat e, racial disparities have been, and

PAGE 17

3 continue to be, a major obstacle facing post-second ary institutions and a need exists for “institutional and external accountability” as coll eges and universities strive to resolve these issues (Harper, 2006, p. 11). In response to the call for institutional and exter nal accountability, the aim of the current study is to provide an historical analysis of the access of diverse students to the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB). UCB was chose n as the focus for this study because it is known as the flagship public universi ty in the state of Colorado and is recognized as such by the Colorado Commission on Hi gher Education (CCHE). Among other duties, the eleven commissioners serving on t he CCHE are responsible for determining institutional roles and missions, as we ll as establishing statewide enrollment policies and admission standards for the thirteen p ublic, four-year universities, across the state (Colorado Department of Education, 2010). In their CCHE Admissions Standards Policy (2010), UCB is described as “a comprehensive graduate research university with selective admission standards.” UCB is second in p ublic admissions selectivity in the state of Colorado, after the specialized and selective engineering school, the C olorado School of Mines (CCHE, 2010). Research Goals The research goals for this study are to examine ra ce, diversity, and relevant educational policies utilizing a historical perspec tive to gain a deeper understanding of the historical and present-day issues surrounding m inority student access to the University of Colorado Boulder. As a result, intere sted parties and educational stakeholders should gain a better understanding and appreciation for the development and evolution of the university in light of the complex issues surrounding race. Further, my

PAGE 18

4 study should contribute to the expanding field of r esearch on race, diversity, and the role of educational policy in higher education as educat ional stakeholders make efforts to improve and ensure equal and equitable access to po st-secondary institutions across the country for all racial minority group members. In the state of Colorado, UCB is the premier, publi c higher education institution and as such, its policies and performance relative to state mandates on diversity set the tone for the state. Thus, my primary research quest ion is, “What is the history of access of minority students to the University of Colorado Boulder?” Second, I ask “How have questions about race, diversity, and the developmen t of relevant educational policies affected minority student access at UCB since the b eginning of court-ordered desegregation of schools mandated by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 through the present day?” As a historical policy study, my diss ertation focuses on a problem that has “drawn considerable political attention, and . seeks a higher utility of results to generate greater understanding of policy issues, ac tions, and impacts in resolving social problems” (Heck, 2004, p. 186). The Role of Race in Education The role of race in education has drawn political a ttention since the Brown decision in 1954, and has raged on since the introd uction of race-conscious educational policies, such as affirmative action, enacted to tr ansform educational and economic opportunities for historically underrepresented stu dents. As this historical debate rages on in the political arena (Brown & Hirschman, 2006; Ca rd & Krueger, 2005; Moses, Yun, & Marin, 2009; Tierney, 1996), understanding the hist ory and impact of these issues continues to be crucial to all stakeholders. A comp lete understanding of the debate

PAGE 19

5 requires that issues with race be considered in lig ht of the history surrounding their significance and reveal the kind of actions that ha ve been taken to resolve a multitude of issues with which race has, and continues to be, as sociated. This study draws upon the past and aims to depict a modern portrayal of stude nt diversity at UCB which is representative of the more recent issues facing the system of higher education that have plagued American society for decades (Tierney, 1996 ). As a significant policy issue utilized to address t he role of race in the history of social and educational institutions in the United S tates, the development, implementation, and impact of race-conscious educational policies i n higher education has spanned decades as disparities across racial groups have co ntinued to surface in the educational arena (Allen, Teranishi, Dinwiddie, & Gonzalez, 200 0; Kozol, 2005; Tierney, 1996). In policy research, the passage of time proves to be a critical aspect that guides research design. Heck (2004), for one, discusses the role of time, suggesting that “temporal issues and the observation of change are . central to research on educational policy. Policy is developed, is implemented, and produces impact over a considerable period of time” (p. 188). Thus, my study focuses upon temporal issues a s I examine the development, implementation, and impact of race, diversity, and relevant educational policies implemented from the passage of the Civil Rights Ac t in 1964 to 2012. Through an indepth historical analysis, I examine how policies r elated to race and diversity at UCB, in the state of Colorado, and across the country have been created, implemented, and changed over time as determined by court decisions, legislation, and administrative policy making, and how these policies have proven e ffective or have failed during the past five decades.

PAGE 20

6 Race, Diversity, and Education Issues surrounding race and diversity have been, an d continue to be, salient factors in our society and are the focus of much de bate and research, particularly within the field of education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 199 5; Marx, 2004). Examining the role of race and racism in education has a long history, wi th the courts playing a crucial role in many instances (e.g., Brown 1954; Baake 1978; Hopwood 1996; Gratz and Grutter 2003) to determine what constitutes equal and equit able educational opportunities for majority and minority groups. In 1954, the court r uling in Brown vs. Board of Education ended the practice of “de jure school segregation ( imposed by the law), but regrettably it did not end de facto school segregation (separation that exists “in fact,” but is not imposed by law)” (Valverde, 2004, p. 368). Througho ut our country’s history, race has mattered in education and race is still the focus o f research and educational policies into the present day. Several researchers suggest that schools today, onc e under desegregation orders, are being re-segregated with minority students beco ming more isolated from the majority, White, population (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Kozol, 20 05; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Parker, 1998). This trend is worrisome as research reveals that students attending desegregated schools do not necessarily fare better than their s egregated peers, as evidence of ability grouping and tracking of lower-income and minority students at disproportionate rates surface as common problems across the K-12 system ( Chang, Witt-Sandis, Hakuta, 1999). High school graduation rates for members of minority groups, particularly Blacks and Latinos, continue to lag behind the graduation rates of their White and Asian peers

PAGE 21

7 (Lee, 2002). Racial differences can also be found i n test scores, college application and acceptance rates, percentages of students taking re medial classes in college, and college graduation rates (Perna, 2000). Clearly, race conti nues to plague educators, educational stakeholders, and the education system as a whole. Exploring issues associated with racism in educatio nal settings such as unfair discipline policies, the marginalization of student s of color, and the low high school and college success rates of minority students are ways the continued existence of both overt and covert racism have been examined. Given its per manent nature, race and diversity, or its lack, in higher education is an issue that cont inues to surface as one focus of the educational debate about social justice in this cou ntry; the debate itself is another example of the presence of racism in higher educati onal settings. The permanence of racism forces the majority culture to recognize tha t “racist hierarchical structures govern all political, economic and social domains” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2000, p. 27). The permanence of racism within educational settings is highlighted in research across the domains of academia (DeCuir & Dixson, 2000; Donnor, 2005; Duncan, 2002; Hatchell, 2004). Critical race theorists, in particular, have conducted a great deal of research highlighting the permanence of race in education. Critical Race Theory The first article that I read about Critical Race T heory was “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education” by Ladson-Billings and Ta te (1995). Though I was unfamiliar with these authors, I was vaguely familiar with cri tical theory having read Freire (1970, 1993) and works written about racial inequalities e ncountered in education by Kozol (2005). As I read this article, I was immediately e ngrossed and recognized the power

PAGE 22

8 such a theory could hold for me, my colleagues, and my students in our work to transform our educational system, and to ensure all students have equal and equitable opportunity to succeed and excel. Ladson-Billings a nd Tate (1995) discuss the continued existence of race and disparities in education revo lving around racial identity. The intent of the authors in writing the article was to create a theory of race, to develop an analytical tool to enhance understanding of school inequities, and to propose an alternative lens through which the minority student achievement gap could be examined and explained. Critical race theory of education is based upon the use of critical race theory by legal scholars, and its scope is both wide and deep As described by Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), critical race theory is based upon thr ee central propositions: “1) Race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United States; 2) U.S. society is based on property rights; and 3) The int ersection of race and property creates an analytic tool through which we can understand so cial (and, consequently, school) inequity” (p. 48). Utilizing these three propositions, a conceptual fr amework composed of five central tenets is central to critical race theory ( Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). The purpose of the framework created and used by critical race theorists in education is to have a platform from which it is possible to “expose racis m in education and propose radical solutions for addressing it” (Dixson & Rousseau, 20 05, p. 23). The five central tenets encompassed within the critical race theory (CRT) f ramework are described in further detail here (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Ladson-Billings 1998; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).

PAGE 23

9 Tenet 1 Counter storytelling is a main feature of the CRT f ramework and is utilized in many qualitative research studies conducted within the field of education (Duncan, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Love, 2004; Delgado & Stefan cic, 1999). The purpose of counter storytelling is to give a voice to groups of indivi duals that have historically been silenced because of institutionalized racism (DeCuir & Dixso n, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1998). In essence, counter storytelling is a device used to c reate and tell a narrative that is different and may oppose a “mainstream”, White narrative. Tenet 2 As the second tenet of the CRT framework, the perma nence of racism forces the majority culture to recognize, “racist hierarchical structures govern all political, economic and social domains” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004, p. 27). Much of the research conducted utilizing the CRT framework provides examples of th e permanence of racism, particularly within educational settings (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Donnor, 2005; Duncan, 2002). Exploring issues associated with racism in e ducational settings such as unfair discipline policies, the marginalization of student s of color, and low graduation and success rates of minority students across all level s of our educational system is one way through which both overt and covert racism can be e xposed. Through my work as a school counselor, I am in an advantageous position to draw attention to inequities in school polices, and to provide students with opport unities to succeed within our school system. Recognizing the role that racism plays in s ociety and in our schools is essential for transforming the futures of all students.

PAGE 24

10 Tenet 3 The third tenet of the CRT framework, Whiteness as property, is based largely upon the work of a legal scholar (i.e. Harris) who utilizes the CRT framework (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). As stated by DeCuir and Dixson, “acc ording to Harris, property functions on three levels: the right of possession, the right to use, and the right to disposition” (p. 28). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) further argue that “race continues to be a significant factor in determining inequity in the United States ; US society is based on property rights; the intersection of race and property creat es an analytic tool through which we can understand social (and, consequently, school) inequ ity” (p. 48). They also explain the connection between property and Whiteness, as the U nited States is a capitalist economy dependent upon a system of inequality. Whites conti nue to control the levers of the economy and as a result Whiteness is maintained as a determinant of status, privilege and power. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement focused upo n rectifying individual rights, thus leaving minorities behind in terms of property rights. Perhaps more poignant in today’s economy, property rights influence the f unding of schools, as those individuals who own better property also generally attend bette r schools (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Kozol, 2005; Anyon, 2005). Whiteness as prope rty can also be extended to include ‘intellectual’ property. Ladson-Billings and Tate ( 1995) discuss the variation of curriculum depending upon where schools are located and the ethnic and racial make-up of students attending those schools. Again, those i ndividuals who own better property have historically been entitled to better curriculu m. Thus, due to the historical and current impact of the US economy in education and the centr al role property rights play, Whites

PAGE 25

11 are generally have access to the best neighborhoods the best schools, the best classes, and ultimately the best colleges (Solrzano & Ornel as, 2002, 2004). As a tenet of CRT, Whiteness must be recognized as a privilege that ma intains the status quo. Tenet 4 Interest convergence calls attention to the Civil R ights Movement and legal victories, such as that of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and questions the effectiveness of the gains fought for by minorities throughout history (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Bell, 1980). Chapman (2005) and Bell (1980) d iscuss the Brown decision which came at a time in our country’s history when Americ a needed to put her best foot forward to expand global interests with European countries and to win the fight against communism. The Supreme Court’s decision made in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of the interest convergence principle in that the majority, White, culture of the United States suffered little to no consequence s in granting minority students access to White schools, while minorities evidently made f ew gains. DeCuir and Dixson (2004) suggest, “Given the vast disparities between elite Whites and most communities of color, gains that coincide with the self-interests of Whit e elites are not likely to make a substantive difference in the lives of people of co lor” (p. 28). Another example of the interest-convergence principle can be illustrated a s minority students are often granted access to college based upon their athletic abiliti es, but comparatively few leave their respective colleges and universities with a degree. Colleges and universities gain financially as they attract spectators to major ath letic events, but unless they graduate, the athletes gain little in retrospect (Donnor, 2005).

PAGE 26

12 Tenet 5 The last tenet of the critical race theory framewor k engages discussion surrounding the idea of liberalism, which focuses u pon the notion of “colorblindness,” the neutrality of the legal system, and incremental changes in race relations within the United States (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Though color blindness outwardly appears to be a worthy ideal, ultimately the salience of race in all aspects of our society cannot be denied and race cannot be ignored. DeCuir and Dixso n (2004) reiterate, “Adopting a colorblind ideology does not eliminate the possibil ity that racism and racist acts will persist.” (p. 29) Furthermore, the concept of equit y in lieu of actual equality is a cornerstone of the discussion concerning race neutr al policies as it is necessary to recognize that minority individuals, in general and made evident throughout history, have not and do not have the same opportunities and expe riences as Whites. The Lens of Critical Race Theory As described, critical race theory examines the rol e of the incremental changes that have taken place throughout history to rectify racist practices in various aspects of our social, economic, legal, and school systems. Th e slow pace of change in regard to the role of race in the US system of education, even wh ile backed by the judicial system, has continued to the dissatisfaction of minority and ot her groups, but to the satisfaction of those “less likely to be directly affected by oppre ssive and marginalizing conditions” (DeCuir & Dixson, p. 29). Though the Civil Rights M ovement spurred change as it gained steam in the late 1960s, after the desegrega tion of schools was ordered in 1954, the current minority student achievement gap in edu cation provides evidence that little progress has been made in regards to improving race relations in United States.

PAGE 27

13 In this study, a discussion of critical race theory is included because it has provided a lens that informs my work, both as a pro fessional counselor in my everyday career and as a researcher as I hoped to gain a bet ter understanding of the history of diverse student access at the University of Colorad o Boulder, the state of Colorado’s flagship university. Though CRT is both a theoretic al framework and a method of analysis utilized in research, in this study the fr amework was utilized as a filter through which I was able to examine and think about issues related to the history of access of diverse students on UCB’s campus. It is important t o note that though it may be possible to utilize to utilize the framework to expand this research in the future, critical race theory was not used as the theoretical framework that drov e my research in this dissertation; historical method is the framework utilized in this study to begin an informed discussion of the history of diverse student access at UCB. Conducting Historical Research and Understanding Hi storical Method As a historical policy analysis, it is important to establish the use of historical method and historical research as a valid research process utilized in my study. Challenges posed to the historical discipline have forced those writing history to expand the historical field to include a variety of perspe ctives. These perspectives may support or contradict one another, but Tosh (2006) explains th at “real empowerment comes from writing history which carries conviction beyond one ’s own community, and this means conforming to the scholarly procedures which histor ians of all communities respect” (p. 204). Thus, it is imperative to understand appropri ate historical scholarly procedures. First and foremost, historians rely heavily upon so urces, both primary and secondary, from which information is sought to bring historica l perspectives into being.

PAGE 28

14 Evans (1999) acknowledges, in light of the modern c hallenges facing the historical discipline, that “the distinction betwee n primary and secondary sources on the whole has survived the withering theoretical hail. The past does speak though the sources and is recoverable through them” (p. 108). Historia ns may interpret sources differently, but the sources alone have been “written in the pas t, by living people, for their own purposes” (Evans, 1999, p. 108). He further contend s it is vital to understand the difference between historical theory and historical method as part of the scholarly procedure; accordingly, Evans clarifies that the “h istorical method is based on the rules of verification laid down by Ranke and elaborated in numerous ways since his time” (p. 109). Ranke, the founder of “historicism”, was a hi story professor at Berlin University from 1824 to 1872, who emphasized that in order to show things as they actually were, “historical knowledge [should be] based on research into ‘records’” (Tosh, 2006, p. 68). No matter what perspective or theoretical backgroun d a historian applies to interpret the sources, historical method is utilized in a similar fashion by all. Iggers (1997), like Evans (1999), also establishes the vital role of historical method and scholarly inquiry. He suggests that, tho ugh the challenges posed to the discipline have led to a variety of approaches to w riting history, and scholarship has been seen to improve in the field, “historians have not given up the basic commitment to historical inquiry that inspired Ranke and his coll eagues” (Iggers, 1997, p 144). Aware of the challenges posed by postmodernists, among ot hers, historians today have become more aware of the biases they bring to their writin gs and the impact of bias on objectivity. This awareness differs from the Rankea n tradition which was deemed to be more scientific in its nature. As Evans draws upon the role of sources, Iggers agrees “the

PAGE 29

15 historian is still bound by his or her sources, and the critical apparatus with which he or she approaches them remains in many ways the same . we view these sources more cautiously” (p. 144). Tosh (2006) also writes extensively of historical m ethod and the crucial role of sources, whether primary or secondary, in the work of those writing history of any kind. Tosh notes that “the study of history has nearly al ways been based squarely on what the historian can read in documents or hear from inform ants . the emphasis has fallen almost exclusively on the written word” (p. 58). Wr iting for a broad and novice audience, Tosh goes into great detail to describe primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are described as the original sources and raw mater ials, “evidence contemporary with the event or thought to which it refers” (p. 61). Secon dary sources include everything that has been written about the past by historians or others who were not present at the time an event took place. Primary and secondary sources can overlap and “some sources are more primary than others” (p. 61). In the current study, I use a variety of primary an d secondary sources, described in further detail in the method section, to conduct a thorough historical analysis of the access of diverse students to UCB. Sources of Historical Information Beyond establishing the primary and secondary statu s of sources historians use to guide their work, sources are also classified in te rms of published versus unpublished (Tosh, 2006). Published sources generally refer to those that have been printed while unpublished sources refer to those that are not pub lished or readily available to be perused by anyone and everyone (Tosh, 2006). Author ship is also important to Tosh as he

PAGE 30

16 draws a distinction between sources produced by gov ernments and those produced by corporations, associations, or private individuals. Though it is important for historians to pay attention to what types of sources they are usi ng to guide their work, the sources deemed to “carry the most weight are the ones that arise directly from everyday business or social intercourse, leaving open the task of int erpretation” (p. 62). Often, these types of casual intercourse are unpublished and historians m ay have to “go behind the published word . the greatest advances in modern historic al knowledge have been based on research into records-confidential documents such a s letters, minutes and diaries” (p. 68). These types of sources can be found in numerous pla ces, and may be maintained in archives. Archives Paying heed to the importance of maintaining histor ical sources, the role of archives in preserving documents from the past prov es essential (Tosh, 2006). As Tosh notes, archives are a more “recent development and the survival of documents from the remote past has often owed more to luck than good m anagement” (p. 78). Given the fragile nature of documents maintained in an archiv e, it is no surprise that such documents can fall victim to a variety of accidents or can be destroyed on purpose. Archives are maintained on a variety of levels-gove rnment, state, county, at libraries and universities, and the list goes on. Archives can pl ay an important role in maintaining sources that will prove useful to historians, yet i t is essential to recognize the limits of documents maintained in the archives (Tosh, 2006).

PAGE 31

17 Incomplete and Tainted Record One of the major limitations to the usefulness of p rimary sources, and archival documents in particular, is that the records availa ble are likely incomplete (Tosh, 2006). Tosh reiterates that some sources have disappeared by accident or have been tainted or destroyed on purpose, but the record is also incomp lete because “a great deal that happened left no trace material whatever” (p. 178). Historical records are also not necessarily all-inclusive and “the historical recor d is forever rigged in favour of the ruling class, which at all times has created the vast majo rity of the surviving sources” (Tosh, 2006, p. 178). In light of these criticisms, Tosh f eels confident that if historians follow the critical method of analyzing the documents appr opriately and unveiling the bias contained within, meaning can still be extracted fr om the documents. Profusion of Records Upon establishing the unlikely reality of historian s encountering a complete and untainted record to guide their work, another diffi culty facing historians is that source documents exist in often unmanageable quantities (T osh, 2006). Given the evolution of history through the twentieth and into the twenty-f irst century, this problem becomes ever larger as greater quantities of records and documen ts become available. Tosh suggests that historians once believed they had exhausted th e evidence available to them in conducting their work and no new evidence would eve r exist; yet, today historians are “faced with the virtually limitless content that hi story can embrace” (p. 180). Taking this situation into consideration, historians are ever m ore “compelled to subject the notion of historical fact to severe scrutiny” (Tosh, 2006, p. 180)

PAGE 32

18 Establishing Facts Much of the debate about the role of establishing h istory as a discipline that can be deemed as both truthful and objective seems to r evolve around the ability of historians to establish the factual nature of their work. The difficulty, as described previously, is that “most of what pass for the facts of history ac tually depends on inference” (Tosh, 2006, p. 180). Often, historians cannot necessarily prove their facts by conducting a scientific experiment. However, historians work to ensure the validity of their perspectives which are based upon the deductions th ey make from the multiple sources that they select to use in their analyses: “the fac ts of history can be said to rest on inferences whose validity is widely accepted by exp ert opinion” (Tosh, 2006, p. 180). Though facts are not chosen haphazardly by historia ns, it is imperative to recognize “the facts are not given, they are selected” (Tosh, 2006 p. 181). Thus, we are led back to the debate posed by postmo dern theorists regarding the inability of historians to express truth and object ivity through their work. Historians do select which facts, sources, documents, and perspec tives to include in their work yet “all observation whether of the natural or the human wor ld is selective” (Tosh, p. 183). It is important to move beyond the debates which can be a nticipated at every turn and appreciate the contributions historians make to exp and the field of knowledge. Tosh (2006) recalls the words of Connell-Smith and Lloyd to end this eternal debate: “History is not the past, nor yet the surviving past. It is a reconstruction of certain parts of the past (from surviving evidence) which in some way have ha d relevance for the present circumstances of the historian who reconstructed th em” (p. 191).

PAGE 33

19 Method Due to the nature of this dissertation, the researc h questions that I ask required me to utilize a historical approach in order to identi fy how diverse student access at the University of Colorado at Boulder has changed over time as the development of relevant educational policies, both local and national, have been introduced with the goal of opening the doors of opportunity to include histori cally underrepresented groups of students. Therefore, this study relies upon a wide variety of sources that were described in the previous section; the majority of sources I used were published and others were unpublished, some primary and others secondary. Oft entimes, when not known, authorship may be presumed in many cases, but autho rs of some sources included in this study are unknown and identified as such when encou ntered and cited. Historical research requires an individual to uncov er records from the past to answer questions posed in the modern day. My resear ch into records first led me to the archive library at the University of Colorado Bould er to look for documents that would be relevant to my study and to help me answer the q uestions I posed. After getting permission to access the university archives, I beg an my search for relevant documents and sources by focusing upon a few different search terms including, (a) Diversity; (b) Affirmative Action; and (c) Minority Students. By f ocusing upon these search terms, I was able to include primary sources in my study dra wn from three different collections found in the university archives: (a) Correspondenc e files; (b) Executive Vice President of the University of Colorado; and, (c) Central Adm inistration Vice President for Student Affairs.

PAGE 34

20 As one may anticipate, given the nature of historic al research and the timeframe that I chose to utilize in this study, I found many more documents than I could thoroughly and thoughtfully include in this study. In my resea rch, as I encountered a profusion of records, it was necessary for me to eliminate many records and archival documents, yet I recognize that due to the enormous amount of materi al available today, this study has room to expand into the future as more documents ar e analyzed and included. It is also necessary to recognize that though the focus of my study is upon unveiling the history of diverse student access to the University of Colorad o Boulder, records maintained in the archives are incomplete and tainted. As discussed p reviously, sometimes records and documents are destroyed or thrown out on purpose, a nd on the other hand it is nearly impossible to document the daily happenings of ever y individual and every event happening everywhere on any given day. In the modern day and because of its widespread ava ilability, a variety of documents analyzed and included in this study have been collected from Websites, generally the University of Colorado Boulder Websit e as well as local news outlets, and are accessible to any member of the public. Given t he nature of historical research and the development of technological advancements now u tilized to store documents and disseminate information to the public, as described previously the profusion of records is one of the obstacles that I faced in conducting my historical study of diverse student access to UCB. For example, hundreds of newspaper a rticles from BoulderÂ’s Daily Camera, The Denver Post, The Rocky Mountain News, as well as the UniversityÂ’s Silver and Gold Record were readily available to add to my research. Many of the documents included in this study are lengthy and detailed; th ough I have worked to analyze the data

PAGE 35

21 and documents objectively, I must confess that my p ersonal biases and belief that the permanence of racism has had lasting negative effec ts upon institutions of education and today flavor the tone and perspective of my researc h. To reiterate, “the facts are not given, they are selected” as historians choose how to reconstruct the past to expand the field of knowledge into the future (Tosh, 2006, p. 181). Given the sensitive, controversial, and political n ature of the topic I consider in my research, the records that I did include in my s tudy should not be believed to represent the whole story of a history of diverse s tudent access at UCB. One may anticipate that only majority views were documented and preserved throughout the university’s history, and though the focus of the c urrent study is upon diverse student access, the views of historically underrepresented minorities on campus were not necessarily maintained in the university’s archives In other words, the documentary record maintained by the university represents the university’s official point of view. Some sources of information, generally newspaper ar ticles from the Daily Camera, Rocky Mountain News, and The Denver Post, did document other perspectives and were included in the research when possible. However, I acknowledge that documents included in this dissertation were chosen by me, th e researcher, to include because they proved useful in helping me find answers to the que stions I posed and to tell one version of a story of the history of diverse student access to the University of Colorado Boulder. Relevance of this Study As an educator, issues associated with racial dispa rities continue to make their way to the forefront of conversations held both ins ide and outside of my professional work on a regular if not daily, basis. In my curren t school district, discussions concerning

PAGE 36

22 race and the ever-present achievement gap continue as a top priority. As a member of the staff and as a true proponent of diversity, I attem pt to engage in conversations with colleagues, parents, students, and other members of our community to derive potential solutions to the inherent and complex reality of di sparate achievement and graduation rates. My goal as a counselor is to promote the gro wth and development of each of my students, revealing to them through our discussions difficult or not, that opportunities abound. Of course, my hope is that for each of my s tudents, opportunities truly are abundant; my experiences have proven otherwise but I am not willing to accept this reality as permanent just yet. Surely, there must b e something I can do. Upon graduating from college and a year later durin g my MasterÂ’s program in counseling, I immediately began working with a mino rity population of high school students as the English Language Acquisition-Spanis h Speaking counselor. Though I do not remember having deep discussions concerning the goal of our school or district at the time (2002) to prepare our students for a bright fu ture, I believe I worked toward this end anyway. This work included helping diverse student s explore and access college opportunities. Today, specific conversations and cl ear goals concerning the achievement gap, and the disparate graduation rate of our histo rically underrepresented student groups take place regularly in my school and across the sc hool district. The reality posed by the frequency of these conversations provides evidence that race continues to matter in education. Why This Study? I have asked myself this question many times. Surel y, another topic must exist about which I could write extensively and complete in a timely fashion to earn my

PAGE 37

23 doctorate degree. Yet, I chose this topic because I am truly interested in the subject of race and education. Through my work as a high schoo l counselor for the past eleven years, I have worked with thousands of students who have graduated from high school and have made plans to venture into the great, big world. The story each of these students has to tell varies; some are similar in nature and some are very different, yet each is unique because the story each of these students has to tell is theirs alone. With the great invention of Facebook, several of my past students have reached out to me to tell me where their lifeÂ’s journey has led them. As I began my career working with a large Hispanic population, many of my students who graduated from high school found limit ed resources and opportunities available to them to fulfill their goals and aspira tions. I watched and stood by as a helpless observer as students who had earned consid erably high GPAs throughout high school and had plans to become architects, doctors, nurses, and teachers, were unable to continue their education, or struggled to balance t he demands of culture, family, and everyday life with their desire to attend school an d improve their personal and family lives into the future. I also watched as some of my students struggled throughout high school, some wary of education altogether and other s who were forced to care more deeply about meeting their basic, every day needs. Yet, as a believer in the education system and in the US, never did I or anyone else I have worked with, give up on any of these students. These students were pushed to be th e best they could be, yet it seems the system still failed them. As I moved on in my career as a high school counsel or, I witnessed the success of the majority of my students and the tragedies faced by a few. The population of students I

PAGE 38

24 work with has also changed throughout the years, an d over time, common trends have emerged. My experiences have led me to understand t he achievement gap does still exist and racial disparities are commonplace. Though the issue is truly more complex than I acknowledge here, I came to “know” certain students would be successful regardless of our interactions, while others would struggle. I le arned certain students would excel and enjoy an abundance of opportunities and others woul d be “lucky” just to graduate from high school. Perhaps what I have always known and r ecognized as I worked with thousands of students is that race does matter. As a White woman with good intentions, I could not deny the truth that I found in the numbers when I finally looked at them. The numb ers revealed that my minority (Hispanic and Black) students were not achieving at the same rates as my majority (White) students, they were not graduating at the s ame rates, they were not preparing for college at the same rates or in the same way, and t hey were not exposed to and were not enjoying post-secondary educational opportunities a t the same rates. After a discussion with an admissions officer at the University of Col orado Boulder one day at work, I could not shake the hollow feeling I harbored upon hearin g that each year at UCB considerably low numbers of Black students enrolled each year as entering freshmen (see Table X.1). At first, I did not believe the numbers could be th at low, that only 300 Black students were present on UCB’s campus each year, but as I be gan to conduct my own research to uncover the truth, the data I found proved the stat ement to be true. As I kept investigating the history of diverse student access at UCB, I rec ognized that an in-depth discussion concerning the presence of minority students on UCB ’s campus was nowhere to be found. As no history of diverse student access to t he university currently exists, this

PAGE 39

25 dissertation should be interpreted as a first-step study concerning minority student access to the university; as a result, opportunities to ex pand this research are abundant and discussed in further detail in Chapter X. Structure of Dissertation This dissertation is divided into two sections. Sec tion One includes three chapters and focuses upon the historical aspects of race and diversity nationally, locally, and specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder. Chapter II focuses upon race and higher education policy and offers a discussion of educational policies that have transformed our system of education and continue to shape national policy today. Chapter III offers a discussion of the role of race and div ersity in the state of Colorado, uncovering a history of social and institutional ra cism. In Chapter IV, the historical underpinnings of race and diversity specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder are discussed from the founding of the University in 18 76 through the 1990s. Section Two of the dissertation turns to a modern day discussion o f race and diversity, discussing more recent trends utilized by institutions of higher ed ucation attempting to embrace diversity. The efforts implemented specifically at the Univers ity of Colorado Boulder in recent decades, from the 1990s through the present day, ar e explored in further detail.

PAGE 40

26 CHAPTER II A HISTORY OF RACE, DIVERSITY, AND EDUCATIONAL POLIC Y The racial caste system present since the founding of the United States, and exhibited in our public system of education, was af firmed by the US Supreme Court in 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford In this case, the court ruled that “no person of African descent, regardless of their status as a sl ave or a free Black, was to be afforded the status of citizenship or the rights that accomp anied that status” (Byrd-Chichester, 2000, p. 13). This law was upheld until the Fourtee nth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868, which established “all persons born in the United States are citizens,” providing for the constitutional right o f equal protection under the law (ByrdChichester, 2000, p. 13). In 1870, the Fifteenth Am endment was adopted, granting all male citizens the right to vote, regardless of thei r race and status though (ByrdChichester, 2000). Despite the gains made with the passage of the Four teenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in 1896 the Supreme Court upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson the “separate but equal” doctrine, and the racial caste system operat ing throughout the United States. The racial caste system was historically maintained by Jim Crow laws that were introduced during the period of Reconstruction in 1877 and req uired the separation of whites and “persons of color” in public transportation and sch ools, and were extended to include parks, cemeteries, theatres, restaurants and other public places to prevent contact between blacks and whites as equal members of society (Jim Crow law, 2013). In Plessy (1896), the Court upheld state imposed racial segregation a nd ignored the reality of racial discrimination throughout the country (Byrd-Chiches ter, 2000; Plessy v. Ferguson

PAGE 41

27 1896). Though not as simple as presented in this br ief historical overview, it was not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted differently by the courts and equality was upheld a s Jim Crow legislation was struck down; however, by that time “segregation had become so institutionalized that without affirmative steps and in the face of strong opposit ion to change, it continued in practice” (Byrd-Chichester, 2000, p. 18). As an example of th e stranglehold of segregation, institutions of higher education in ten southern st ates operated “racially dual systems” and were characterized by the separation of races u ntil the end of the 1960s (ByrdChichester, 2000). Today in the twenty-first centur y, educational stakeholders suggest that segregation in K-12 and higher education facil ities has resurfaced throughout the United States as specific policies used to integrat e the educational system have expired (Anyon, 2005; Harvey, Harvey, & King, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). With the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, desegregation efforts in higher education were put into motion and monitored by the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) throughout the South a nd across the country in the 1970s and into the 1980s (Byrd-Chichester, 2000). However these efforts proved futile in transforming a system historically rooted in discri mination, particularly in the southern part of the country where de jure segregation practices were well established. As Byr dChichester (2000) notes, “In its review of 12 south ern states, the Southern Education Foundation (1998) found that not one of the 12 coul d demonstrate real success in desegregating its higher education system” (p. 19).

PAGE 42

28 The Brown Decision: Overturning Precedent Efforts to integrate educational institutions acros s the K-12 system began with Brown (1954), “a critical event in the abolition of Jim Crow” (Leiter & Leiter, 2011, p. 90). In 1951 in Topeka, Kansas a class-action suit was filed against the Board of Education by Oliver L. Brown and 11 additional plai ntiffs based upon concerns of the “separate but equal” policies of the Topeka schools In the Topeka schools, and other schools in districts across the country, African-Am erican and Caucasian children were educated separately though they were entitled to eq ual resources. This type of segregation was legal, as set forth by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). However, Brown and the other plaintiffs believed that the separate edu cation of their children had detrimental effects. The district court ruled in favor of the B oard of Education, upholding precedent case law from Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896 ) On appeal, Brown (1954) was heard before the US Supreme Court in conjunction with four other cas es representing the segregation of minority students occurring in states and school di stricts throughout the country. On May 17, 1954, the Brown decision was unexpectedly read as reporters scrambl ed to the courthouse to listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren: Education…represented a central experience in life. Those things that children learned in school remained with them for the rest o f their time on earth. The critical question, then, was: Does segregation of c hildren in public schools solely on the basis of race…deprive the children of the mi nority group of equal education opportunities? We believe it does. (Chafe 2011, p. 146) Overturning the Supreme Court’s decision from 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson the Brown (1954) decision resulted in the recognition by law “that ‘separate but equal’ schools were inherently unequal” (Kowalski, 2007, p 24). Rossell (1995) describes

PAGE 43

29 Brown as “morally significant”, as “the goal was the elim ination of racial discrimination and state-sanctioned segregation in American life” (p. 613). The Brown decision would ultimately change the face of educational facilitie s but, “it required commitment, leadership, and tangible action if it were to becom e more than empty rhetoric” (Chafe, 2011, p. 147). Commitment, leadership, and tangible action were not modeled by then President Dwight Eisenhower who disapproved of the Brown decision because he believed, “the federal government should be passive on controversial issues” (Chafe, 2011, p. 148). Passivity certainly characterized th e early response to Brown particularly throughout the South. In May of 1955, a second ruling in Brown was handed down by the Supreme Court which stated, “implementation procedures were to begin with ‘all deliberate speed,’ but no deadline was set” (Chafe, 2011, p. 1 47). As a result of the inaction that accompanied the Supreme Court decisions in Brown (1954) and Brown II (1955), schools in the South remained segregated well beyond the 19 50s (Wilkinson, 1979). Examples of continued segregation were evident in K-12 schools and colleges throughout the south: “As late as 1962, not a single Negro attended White schools or colleges in Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina” (Wilkinson, 1979, p. 65 ). In the 1950s and 1960s, desegregation of schools (i .e. education Whites and Blacks together) in the Southern region of the Unit ed States was not a priority, and the Supreme Court did not play an active role leading t hese efforts (Wilkinson, 1979). Eisenhower’s failure to take leadership left educat ional leaders, ready to begin integration efforts, without direction and support (Chafe, 2011 ). As a result, “state governments shifted their attention from how to comply to how t o circumvent” by passing pupil

PAGE 44

30 assignment laws “that transferred authority over sc hools to local school boards to avoid statewide suits by the NAACP” (Chafe, 2011, p. 151) In the absence of leadership from the President and Supreme Court, lower federal cour ts were left with the responsibility of overseeing desegregation efforts in the public scho ols across the country (Wilkinson, 1979). Though the Brown (1954) decision did not immediately usher in succe ssful school desegregation efforts across the country, ultimatel y the court ruling framed the racial issues in America that needed to be addressed for t he nation to progress past separate but equal and other forms of segregation. Brown (1954) highlighted the detrimental effects of racial discrimination and “its impact extended far beyond schools to desegregate neighborhoods, public facilities, and private organ izations” (Rossell, 1995, p. 613). Brown (1954) also uncovered the inequities facing minorit y children who attended schools that were underfunded and understaffed comp ared to schools White children attended. In terms of higher education opportunitie s, minority students had limited access to undergraduate and graduate programs when compare d to their White peers, and because programs were quickly established to accomm odate minorities seeking higher education, the programs offered were inferior to th ose options provided to White students. Throughout the South, resistance to integ ration was commonplace, and was ultimately challenged by Blacks fighting for their own civil rights. The Civil Rights Movement and Race Conscious Educat ional Policy Though the fight for civil rights continues today, as labeled in our country’s history, the American Civil Rights Movement consisted of many ma jor events that took place between 1955 and 1968 aimed at terminating racial d iscrimination practices against

PAGE 45

31 African Americans, particularly in the Southern reg ion of the United States. Prior to 1955, organizations such as the National Associatio n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attempted to abolish discriminatory practices. As state-sanctioned discrimination was struck down in Brown (1954), “civil rights activists used nonviolent protest and civil disobedience to bring about chang e” (www.history.com, n.d., Civil Rights Movement). Acts of civil disobedience includ ed boycotts, such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama, sit-ins, and mar ches. The historical Civil Rights Movement was accompan ied by a variety of legal victories including Brown v. Board of Education (1954), that deemed segregation in public schools legally impermissible; the Civil Rig hts Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in employment practices and public a ccommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that enabled African-Americans to vote; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 which dramatically changed U.S immigration policy; and, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discriminatory practices in the sale or rental of housing. In 1968, the face and leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated and the mo vement was forever changed; however, issues of race and discrimination persiste d, accumulating in several race riots that took place throughout the 1970s (www.history.c om, n.d.). In the mid-1960s, the passage of the Civil Rights Act was seen as a major triumph for minorities and liberals, but the legislation di vided the nation and many public facilities (Kowalski, 2007). The division occurred most extensively in the South which remained segregated even after the passage of civil rights legislation (Anderson, T., 2004). President Johnson put several programs into motion to support minorities

PAGE 46

32 throughout the United States but was still pressure d by Black leaders (i.e. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Malcolm X) to compensate Afri can Americans for more than two hundred years of slavery and mistreatment (Chafe, 2 011). These leaders called for a “domestic Marshall Plan” which would include a deli berate effort made by the government to include African Americans in all aspe cts of life in the United States (Anderson, T., 2004). This deliberate effort to lev el the playing field included a program of preferences and special treatment for African Am ericans, expected to endure for a limited period of time. Other programs were also pr oposed by Black leaders, “but most liberals and the majority of citizens did not suppo rt special treatment of groups of individuals” (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 87). Under pre ssure from these Black leaders, in 1965, President Johnson decided more needed to be d one to help African Americans in particular (Anderson, T., 2004; Chafe, 2011; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). Accepting responsibility on behalf of the governmen t for the disparate economic and social realities facing African Americans in th e United States, “Johnson and some other liberals were now beginning to advocate openi ng the doors of opportunity. . Equality became a policy of the Johnson administrat ion” (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 89). For the Johnson administration, equality was associated with providing opportunities for African Americans to receive extra help and to gain benefit from more social programs to put underrepresented individuals on equal footing w ith other citizens. Thus, as disparities were recognized, policies encouraging the integrati on of schools, such as mandatory busing and affirmative action, evolved and were uti lized to desegregate educational institutions throughout the country (Leiter & Leite r, 2011).

PAGE 47

33 Race and K-12 Education Beginning in 1971, elementary and secondary school s across the country were ordered by the Supreme Court to achieve appropriate levels of racial integration, an appropriate mix of Whites and minority students. Ba sed upon the precedent set forth in Brown (1954) in which the Court declared “separate is not equal,” integration efforts were designed to “expunge educational inequality” b y placing “proportionately sized groups of African American and/or Hispanic children . in the same classrooms as their White peers” (Leiter & Leiter, 2011, p. 95). Brown (1954) paved the way for desegregation of schools but the court decision in Green (1968) mandated integration of schools and marked the “beginning of the period of affirmative action remedies” (Rossell, 1995, p. 616; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). To achieve racial integration of K-12 schools, the mandatory busing of students to and from various schools was put into place in scho ol districts across the country as the Supreme Court proposed in Swann (1971) that “busing. . was a permissible tool for dismantling a dual system” (Rossell, 1995, p. 616). In the early 1970s, Tompkins (2000) suggested the concept of busing students to schools was not new, but busing to achieve “racial balance” was new. The mandatory busing of s tudents to achieve racial integration in K-12 schools was not isolated to Southern states where de jure (i.e., legal) segregation was prevalent, but took place in school districts a cross the country (Tompkins, 2000). Racial balance laws were put into place in Californ ia, Massachusetts, and New York, but northern states operated with uncertainty because n o segregation laws had previously been in place that resulted in the operation of dua l school systems separated by race (Rossell, 1995).

PAGE 48

34 In Keyes (1973), described in further detail below, the Supr eme Court expanded the definition of de jure segregation “as encompass ing almost any action a school district might take that resulted in racially imbalanced sch ools” (Rossell, 1995, p. 619). As a result, busing was mandated in Denver, Colorado, an d other “Northern” states to integrate minority and White students in schools, a s minority schools were found to be unequal to the schools populated by White students ( Keyes 1971; Leiter & Leiter, 2011; Rossell, 1995; Tompkins, 2000). Busing became one o f the most controversial topics in both law and politics surrounding the school desegr egation debate since it was introduced in the 1970s, and many school districts across the country were released from mandatory busing orders during the 1990s ( West’s Encyclopedia of American Law 2005). Denver Public School district was released from forced bus ing plans in September of 1995, even though Denver schools in the 1990s were “more racia lly segregated than ever” (Brooke, 1995). Mitchell (2011) describes the historical enrollment of students in the Denver Public School system, which rebounded to 80,956 in 2011 after forced busing mandated by the US Supreme Court led to a steady decline of student enrollment. In 1969, the total pupil count in Denver schools reached its high of 9 7,849, plummeting to its lowest enrollment numbers of 58,312 in 1989 as a result of “White flight” to surrounding, suburban school districts (Mitchell, 2011). White f light refers to the “departure of whites from places (as urban neighborhoods or schools) inc reasingly or predominantly populated by minorities” (Merriam-Webster, 2013). In 2011, Wh ite students composed 56.1% of the Denver Public Schools student population, follo wed by 31.9% Hispanic students, 4.8% Black students, 3.1% Asian, 3.1% Two or more R aces, .8% American Indian, and

PAGE 49

35 .2% Asian or Pacific Islander (Colorado Department of Education, 2011). Denver Public Schools achieved an increased graduation rate of 73 .9% in 2011, with Asian, White, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and mixed-race students graduating at higher rates than their Black, Hispanic, and American Indian pee rs (Colorado Department of Education, 2011). Summaries of the three school int egration cases described previously are included here. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (19 70) This case, brought by petitioners in 1965, concerne d the maintenance of a historically racially segregated school system oper ating in New Kent County, Virginia. As described in the Supreme Court case summary, abo ut half of the residents of the county “are Negroes” 1 ( Green v. County School Board 1970). Though students attended racially segregated schools, no residential segrega tion took place in the county. New Kent School served White students from elementary to hig h school, and George W. Watkins School served Negroes from elementary to high schoo l. As detailed, twenty-one buses transported students to and from school each day; e leven transported Negro students and ten transported White students to their respective educational institutions. Constitutional and statutory provisions in Virginia from 1902 and 1950 mandated racial segregation in public education. In response to Brown (1954) and Brown II (1955), the school board adopted the Pupil Placement Act, repealed in 1966, which provid ed the State Pupil Placement Board with the authority to assign students to schools. A s of 1964, no Negro students had applied for admission to New Kent and no White stud ents had applied for admission to 1 Negroes is used throughout this section to refer t o Blacks because this is the language included in t he official court documents in Green v. County School Board (1970), Swann (1971), and Keyes (1973).

PAGE 50

36 Watkins. In August of 1965, the school board adopte d a freedom of choice plan for desegregating schools in order to remain eligible f or federal financial aid. The freedom of choice plan allowed students to choose the school t hey wanted to attend each year. If students did not choose, they were automatically as signed to the school they attended previously, although first and eighth graders were required to affirmatively choose a school. As of 1967, no White students chose to atte nd Watkins, and although 115 Negroes chose to enroll at New Kent, the Court foun d a dual system, based on race, continued to operate in the county. As decided by t he Court in this case, the school board was ultimately required “to formulate a new plan an d fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly” to a system with “just schools” instead of a White school and a “Negro” school ( Green v. County School Board 1968). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ( 1971) During the 1968-1969 school year, the Charlotte-Mec klenburg school system served approximately 84,000 students in 107 schools Of these 84,000 students, 71% were White and 29% Negro. Of the 21,000 Negro stude nts attending schools within the city of Charlotte, approximately two-thirds, 14,000 attended 21 schools described as “totally Negro or more than 99% Negro” ( Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 1971). The District Court ordered the school board to devise a desegregation plan, targeting both students and faculty, in April of 1969. The board f ailed to submit an acceptable plan by December of 1969, and the District Court appointed educational expert, Dr. John Finger, to prepare a desegregation plan. In February, 1970, the board submitted a finalized plan along with the “Finger plan” to the District Court.

PAGE 51

37 In February 1970, the District Court ultimately agr eed upon adopting the board plan, with some modifications presented by Dr. Fing er for the middle school and high schools, and the Finger plan for elementary schools Implementation of the desegregation plan was delayed by the Court of Appeals for the Fo urth Circuit on March 5, 1970. The Court of Appeals agreed with the desegregation plan s, as presented, for the secondary schools but “feared that the pairing and grouping o f elementary schools would place an unfair burden on the board and the system’s pupils” ( Swann, 1970). Two new plans for desegregating the system’s elementary schools were submitted to the District Court: the HEW plan submitted by the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and, the Minority plan, submitted by 4 members of the 9 memb er school board. The District Court found both plans, and the originally adopted “Finge r plan,” to be acceptable and ordered the board to adopt one of the plans or develop an a lternative, effective plan on its own. The “Finger plan” would remain in effect until the board decided upon a new plan. The board acquiesced and accepted the “Finger plan,” an d the District Court ordered its adoption on August 7, 1970. The District Court identified four problems at the center of student assignment to schools. These four problem areas are described in detail by the District Court and include (a) racial balances or racial quotas, (b) o ne-race schools, (c) remedial altering of attendance zones, and (d) transportation of student s. Each of these problem areas contributed to the complexity facing schools and co mmunities to foster successful integration efforts across the United States. In th e 1970s, mandatory busing orders were put into place throughout the country as a means to remedy the segregation of schools. Swann (1970) laid the foundation for promoting busing as “a permissible tool for

PAGE 52

38 dismantling a dual system as ‘feasible’” (Rossell, 1995, p. 5). The Court didn’t define “feasible,” but suggested districts should consider time and distance, as well as the age of the students when making decisions about busing stu dents to integrate schools across a particular system ( Swann, 1970; Rossell, 1995). Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO (1973) As described in the extensive case summary in Keyes (1971), unlike Virginia and North Carolina, “there has never been a law in Colo rado requiring separate educational facilities for different races” (para. 7). The Denv er Public School Board operated a neighborhood school plan requiring children living within particular boundaries to attend a centrally located school. In the 1960s, the Denve r School Board assembled a variety of committees to study the equality of educational opp ortunities offered to students throughout the system. In 1962, upon recognizing th e neighborhood school plan resulted in concentrations of minority and racial groups at certain schools, the Voorhees Committee “recommended that the School Board consid er racial, ethnic and socioeconomic factors in establishing boundaries an d locating new schools in order to create heterogeneous school communities” (para. 8). It wasn’t until two years later, in 1964, that the Board acknowledged the shortcomings of the neighborhood school plan in creating heterogeneous school populations and passe d Policy 5100 to create changes that would integrate schools. However, no changes were i mplemented. In 1966, the Berge Committee examined the board pol icies concerning the location of schools located in Northeast Denver and made suggestions to integrate those schools. Once again, none of their recommendations were put into effect. In 1968, the Noel Resolution was adopted by the board, which req uired the superintendent to submit a

PAGE 53

39 school integration plan to the Board. A plan was su bmitted and three resolutions were passed. The goal of each of these resolutions was t o “spread the Negro populations of these schools to numerous schools by boundary chang es. . Negro populations would become roughly 20%” ( Keyes, 1971, para. 11). Before the newly adopted integrati on plan could be passed, two candidates promising to rescin d the Resolutions were elected to serve on the board. The three original Resolutions were rescinded, and Resolution 1533 was passed, providing for a voluntary exchange prog ram between elementary schools in the Northeast section of the district with other el ementary schools throughout the district. As a result, the Keyes suit was filed. The specific schools included in the suit were loca ted in the Park Hill area, an area heavily populated by Negroes. The District Cou rt found that the Denver School Board “had engaged over almost a decade after 1960 in an unconstitutional policy of deliberate racial segregation with respect to the P ark Hill schools” ( Keyes, 1973, para. 2). The District Court ordered the board to implement t he three rescinded Resolutions to desegregate the Park Hill schools. The petitioners in Keyes (1971), asked the District Court to order desegregation of all segregated scho ols in Denver, but the Court did not decide in their favor, citing lack of evidence of i ntentional discrimination in other areas of the district. However, the District Court did fi nd “that the proofs established that segregated core city schools were educationally inf erior to the predominantly “White” or “Anglo” schools in other parts of the district” ( Keyes, 1973, para. 4). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Denver was describe d as a “tri-ethnic community,” with the composition of the system deta iled as follows: “66% Anglo, 14% Negro, and 20% Hispano” ( Keyes, 1973, para. 7). Given this racial make-up of the ci ty

PAGE 54

40 and based upon research, the Supreme Court suggeste d, “Negroes and Hispanos in Denver suffer identical discrimination in treatment when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo students” ( Keyes, 1973, para. 8). The District Court in Keyes (1971) described “inferior schools” as those schools popul ated by 70-75% of Negro or Hispano students. The Supreme Court suggested the need to c onsider the facts for each particular case which would include the composition of a schoo l’s student body, the racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff, and the at titudes of the community and administration toward the school ( Keyes 1973). Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court in June of 1973 in which the majority ind icated the Denver school system was guilty of segregation. This case is significant bec ause it is one of the first instances of segregation identified in Northern schools ( Keyes, 1973). Affirmative Action Understanding the evolving history of race relation s at the University of Colorado Boulder is one important aspect of this study, yet it is also essential to understand race relations in a broader context. This context is set against the background of the intense debate surrounding the role of affirmative-action p olicies in institutions of education, both across the nation and in the state of Colorado Brown II and Donahoo (2003) define affirmative action as A government policy that seeks to remedy long-stand ing discrimination directed at specific groups, including women and racial and ethnic minorities. The basic purpose of affirmative action policies and programs is to increase access to, and ensure the equitable distribution of, opportunities in higher education, employment, government contracts, housing, and othe r social-welfare areas. (p. 1) Rubio (2001) describes affirmative action as a governmental policy with major social implications, implemented to even the playing field for individuals of minority backgrounds in the United States. Introducing the complex nature of a divisive topic,

PAGE 55

41 Rubio (2001) states, “affirmative action is not jus t public policy or political and legal history. It also represents a social and cultural s truggle over whether there should exist a property value in Whiteness and if equality should be really equal” (p. xv). To Rubio, affirmative action is a policy that has the capacit y to ensure equality of resources and opportunity for all Americans. Though the term “affirmative action” was used prior to 1961, the policy as understood today stems from executive order 10925 i ssued by President Kennedy in March 1961 (Anderson, T., 2004; Brown II & Donahoo, 2003; Chafe 2011; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). The goal of this executive order was to end discrimination in the realm of employment and to support the national policy of no ndiscrimination. Tracing the evolution of the policy, Anderson (2004) explains h ow affirmative action expanded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by Pr esident Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil Rights Act proposed by Johnson was both comprehensi ve and controversial, and included a plan to integrate all public facilities and schoo ls, prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs, and ended discrimination in employ ment (Anderson, T., 2004; Brown II & Donahoo, 2003; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). President Johnson put several programs in motion to support minorities throughout the United States but was still pressure d by Black leaders to compensate African Americans for more than two hundred years o f slavery and mistreatment in the United States (Anderson, T., 2004). These leaders called for a “domestic Marshall Plan” which would include a deliberate effort made by the government to include African Americans in all aspects of life in the United Stat es, as well as a program of preferences and special treatment for African Americans, lastin g for a limited period of time. T.

PAGE 56

42 Anderson (2004) notes that other programs were also proposed by Black leaders, “but most liberals and the majority of citizens did not support special treatment of groups of individuals” (p. 87). Under pressure from these min ority leaders, in 1965 President Johnson decided more needed to be done to help both the poor and African Americans in particular (Anderson, J., 2002). Accepting responsibility on behalf of the governmen t for the disparate economic and social realities facing African Americans in th e United States, “Johnson and some other liberals were now beginning to advocate openi ng the doors of opportunity….equality became a policy of the Johnso n administration” (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 89). For the Johnson administration, equal ity was associated with providing opportunities for African Americans to receive extr a help and to gain benefit from more social programs to put underrepresented individuals on equal footing with other citizens. Thus, though affirmative action did not initially c all for the special treatment of a particular group of individuals, as disparities wer e recognized, affirmative-action policies evolved and were utilized to promote individuals, w ho belonged to particular groups (i.e., members of minority groups) over those who did not belong to those groups. The Civil Rights Act (1964) was hotly debated in po litical and public spheres as individuals questioned whether the proposed policie s were “fair.” As this debate progressed, “to some—especially minorities and thei r liberal allies—some sort of preferential treatment for past injustices and disc rimination was fair; to others—many Whites and their conservative allies—that was rever se discrimination and unfair” (Anderson, T., 2004, p. 76). Growing out of this li vely debate, discussions about preferences, quotas, compensation, and reverse disc rimination plagued the nation and

PAGE 57

43 Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter during the 19 60s and 1970s. As affirmative-action policy was implemented throughout these three presi dential administrations, the focal point of the debate shifted from a recognized need to level the playing field to the questionable use of quotas and set-aside programs a s “specific goals for hiring women and minorities began under the administration of Pr esident Richard Nixon” (Kowalski, 2007, p. 27). Race and the Pursuit of Higher Education Education is an invaluable resource for individuals groups, and nations as a whole, and “the higher education of students of col or is not only important to the progress of communities of color but equally important to th e long-term needs and prosperity of the nation” (Anderson, J., 2002, p. 19). Education plays a vital role in the lives of all Americans, and because of its importance, communiti es of color value education and recognize its importance in providing opportunities for advancement in all aspects of life (Leiter & Leiter, 2011). However, the history of di scrimination and the segregation of schools in the United States negatively impacts min orities and has worked to maintain the status quo (Anderson, J., 2002; Garcia, 1997; Leite r & Leiter, 2011). According to Garcia (1997), segregation resulted in unfair advantages f or White students, though preferences for White students throughout history have gone una cknowledged, particularly when debating the fairness of affirmative action program s which are seen to ‘favor’ minority students. Harvey, Harvey, and King (2004) discuss the impact of the Brown (1954) decision on institutions of higher education sugges ting, “the text of the Brown decision was about segregation at the elementary and seconda ry school level, [but] the subtext was

PAGE 58

44 about justice and equality throughout the education al arena and entire social system” (p. 328). As a result, the court decision in Brown (1954) opened “the doors of colleges and universities that had been closed to African Americ ans for years” (Harvey et al., 2004, p. 328). The resistance to integration in elementary a nd secondary schools, particularly in the Southern United States, was not encountered to the same degree in post-secondary institutions. In fact, “the student enrollment figu res suggest that racial integration has been more extensive, and, thus ostensibly more effe ctive at the collegiate level than at the K-12 level” (p. 328). The numbers of Blacks enrolli ng in post-secondary institutions has climbed steadily into the twenty-first century, but data have continued to demonstrate that Hispanic and African-American groups of students ar e continually left behind, highlighted by low enrollment and graduation rates from post-secondary institutions across the United States (Harvey et al., 2004; Smit h, Altbach, Lomotey, 2002; Sterrett, 2005). In the early 1970s, many institutions of higher ed ucation “adopted race-conscious desegregation measures and affirmative action plans in admissions and financial aid. . to enroll and support minority students, especially Af rican Americans” (Byrd-Chichester, 2000, p. 21). The use of race-conscious desegregati on measures, widely recognized as affirmative-action policies, were challenged by Whi tes and classified as “reverse discrimination” as soon as they were introduced (By rd-Chichester, 2000). The legal system has been the platform from which many of the se challenges have been launched, and the use of race-conscious policies, like affirm ative action in higher education admission decisions and mandatory busing in K-12 sc hools, have been the target. ByrdChichester (2000) provides a modern discussion of t he plight of affirmative action in the

PAGE 59

45 legal system: “The Supreme Court’s generally negati ve treatment of race-conscious measures in the past decade and its refusal to revi ew the two extremely harmful appellate court decisions in higher education from the mid-19 90s. . have encouraged the opponents of affirmative action and resulted in a s pate of recent challenges at all educational levels to race-conscious efforts to rem edy discrimination, segregation, and racial isolation or to foster diversity” (pp. 22-2 3). Race Conscious Admissions and the Judicial System Beginning with the Brown decision of 1954, the Court became a central battl e ground for leveling the playing field in education (Engoren, 2006; Wilkinson, 1979). Through his exploration of the role of the Supreme Court in promoting school integration efforts throughout the United States, Wilkinson (19 79) asserts, “ Brown v. Board of Education helped deliver the Negro from over three centuries of legal bondage. But Brown acted to emancipate the White South and the Suprem e Court as well” (p. 11). The Court decision in Brown (1954) was vital to the Civil Rights Movement, as the decision set the stage to support an argument of equality an d fairness for minorities who historically had been excluded and segregated from mainstream American life. Allen et al. (2000), discuss the value of education as “an e ssential foundation of democracy. For African-Americans, the centuries old struggle for a ccess to and success in higher education has become emblematic of a larger fight f or personhood and equality” (p. 3). Today, race is still seen as a persistent and probl ematic factor throughout American society and case law and Supreme Court dec isions associated with affirmative action in higher education has become increasingly complex. In exploring the history of race in education, it becomes evident that “the leg al landscape concerning race-conscious

PAGE 60

46 policies is constantly shifting” (Chang, Witt-Sandi s, and Hakuta, 1999, p. 12). Much of the legal landscape surrounding race in education h as revolved around the controversial use of affirmative-action policies, or race conscio us admission policies, and will once again as the education community awaits a US Suprem e Court decision in yet another case concerning the use of race-conscious admission decisions in Fisher v. Texas (n.d.), discussed further in this chapter. The court cases that have shaped the acceptable use of affirmative action in higher education are summariz ed below. Kingdon (2003, p. 198) states that “developments in the political sphere are powerful agenda setters” and within the United Stat es, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court is seen as a major agenda setter. The Courts are one of many political players, as “political science defines ‘political’ very broadly, including just about any activity related to the authoritative allocation of values, or to the distribution of benefits and costs” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 145). Clearly the Uni ted States Supreme Court is involved with both activities, allocating values and distrib uting benefits and costs to defendants and plaintiffs. In regard to affirmative action, in the cases summarized below, the role of the courts throughout history has proved to be both pivotal and powerful. The decisions handed down in each of the cases against Michigan, as well as the others, brought before the Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of affirmative action in admission decisions, and the decisions of the Court reflected the value judgment concerning educational equity issues in the United States (Sto ne, 2002). Though judges on the Supreme Court are not necessarily politicians, they are heavily involved in political activities through their mere presence within the g overnmental structure and their assigned role to decide highly controversial and po litical issues. There is no doubt that

PAGE 61

47 the decisions rendered in all of these cases brough t before the Court were influenced by the politics of each passing decade. Generally, the Courts have protected the use of raceconscious educational policies, but this may change as educational stakeholders await a decision anticipated this summer, 2013. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) As discussed at length previously in this chapter, Brown (1954) is recognized as one of the most salient decisions made by the Supre me Court regarding both civil rights and education in the United States. Brown (1954) provides important insight into the historical underpinnings of the educational dispari ties faced by African-Americans within the United States, and with it a deeper understandi ng of the persistent affirmative action debate and the need for race-conscious education po licies to transform a system presently and historically dominated by the White majority. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1 978) Allan Bakke applied to the University of California -Davis medical school in 1973 and 1974 and was denied admission both years. At th e time of BaakeÂ’s application, the university employed two admission programs. The reg ular admissions program considered applicants with a GPA of at least 2.5, a long with their MCAT scores, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities and othe r biographical information thought to be of importance to the admissions committee. Appli cants were then given a benchmark score and ranked against one another. A second, spe cial admissions program was reserved for students who considered themselves to be either economically or educationally disadvantaged and/or members of a min ority group. These applications were reviewed in a similar process to that utilized in the general admissions pool, but the

PAGE 62

48 2.5 minimum GPA requirement was waived and these st udents were not ranked against the general pool of applicants, only against others in the special admissions pool. A set number (i.e., a quota) was reserved to admit studen ts from this special pool of applicants. Bakke was denied admission to UC Davis in 1973 and 1974, even though his benchmark score was higher than students admitted under the s pecial admission program. Bakke filed suit in the Superior Court of Californi a asking for an injunction from the court to order his admission to the medical sch ool. A counter claim by the University moved the case to the California Supreme Court, whi ch decided in favor of Bakke. The University appealed this decision to the United Sta tes Supreme Court. On June 28, 1978 the US Supreme Court handed down a decision in favo r of Bakke, citing quotas as unconstitutional but indicating that race could be used as one of many factors when considering applicants to the medical school. Hopwood v. Texas (1996) Cheryl Hopwood, a White woman, brought her case to the attention of the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) in 1992 after being den ied admission to the University Of Texas School Of Law. She filed a lawsuit, with CIRÂ’ s backing, against the University of Texas in the US District Court in the Western Regio n of Texas, claiming that she was denied admission to the law school even though she was better qualified than many of the minority candidates that were admitted. The Center for Individual Rights was founded in November of 1988, and began operating in April of 1 989 as a non-profit, conservative, public interest, law firm whose objective it is to defend individual liberties, particularly in the realm of free speech and civil rights (Center f or Individual Rights, n.d.). In its first year of operation, CIR operated on a meager budget, $220,000, receiving grants from

PAGE 63

49 conservative foundations and services from “conserv ative, libertarian, and moderate attorneys in for-profit firms. . [working on] pre cedent-setting cases involving real, live plaintiffs” (Center for Individual Rights, n.d.). J udge Sam Sparks, who heard this case in the district court in 1994, indicated that the Univ ersity of Texas was entitled to consider race in admission decisions to maintain diversity a nd/or to remedy past discrimination (Tarlton Guides, n.d.). Hopwood appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative—actually right wing—benches in th e country. Judge Jerry E. Smith issued the decision on March 18, 1996 reversing the decision made in the district court and holding that the University Of Texas School Of Law could not consider race in admission decisions. The University appealed the de cision to the US Supreme Court in 1996, but the Court declined to review the case in July of 1996. The decision made in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals greatly impacted the admission policies of higher education institutions in Texas, Louisiana and Miss issippi, ending the use of raceconscious affirmative action policies in the admiss ions process ( Hopwood 1996). Hopwood v. Texas (1996) proved to be a major victory for the Center of Individual Rights. Texas v. LeSage (1997) Taking advantage of the decision of the Fifth Circu it Court of Appeals in the Hopwood v. Texas ( 1996) case, Francois LeSage pursued a lawsuit again st the University of Texas at Austin, charging “that the University’s entrance criteria for a doctoral program in counseling psychology discriminated in f avor of Black and Hispanic applicants” (Alger, 1999, p. 5). The case reached t he US Supreme Court, and on

PAGE 64

50 November 29, 1999 the court ruled that UT Austin co uld not “be punished for using an allegedly unconstitutional affirmative-action polic y to reject a White applicant, so long as the applicant would have been turned down anyway an d the program is not now in use” (Alger, p. 5). Though the Supreme Court acknowledge d that the university did use an “impermissible criterion,” consideration of race, i n the admission process, LeSage’s case did not hold up because the university was able to demonstrate that he would have been rejected on other grounds ( Texas v. LeSage, 1997). Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Until Fisher v. Texas (currently pending decision), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) have served as the most recent judicial pro nouncements in the policy debate concerning the use of affirmative act ion in higher education admission decisions. Both cases were brought against the Univ ersity of Michigan, with Gratz challenging the use of race-conscious undergraduate admission policies and Grutter challenging similar policies in the School of Law ( Green, 2004). Victory in Hopwood v. Texas (1996) proved encouraging and provided a confidence boost for the Center for Individual Righ ts (CIR) and encouragement to bring another anti-affirmative action case brewing agains t the University of Michigan all the way to the Supreme Court (Green, 2004). As anti-aff irmative action legislation proved successful with Proposition 209 passing in Californ ia and Initiative 200 passing in Washington in 1998, it appeared that the CIR recogn ized the public was paying attention to, and at least some people were opposing, the aff irmative action issue. The Supreme Court victory and the passage of Proposition 209 an d Initiative 200 became powerful symbols, and focusing events, of the affirmative ac tion problem as defined by the CIR.

PAGE 65

51 According to Kingdon (2003), “Symbols catch on and have important focusing effects because they capture in a nutshell some sort of rea lity that people already sense in a vaguer, more diffuse way” (p. 97). In further descr ibing the power of focusing events on creating a policy window or change opportunity, Kin gdon (2003) indicates that “the disaster acts as an early warning, but then needs t o be combined with more solid indication that the problem is widespread” (p. 98). Bringing several cases to the attention of the public was one way in which the Center for I ndividual Rights revealed that the use of affirmative-action policies in college admission programs was a practice that was indeed, widespread. Because courts usually are bound by precedent, the CIR felt confident in filing the cases against the University of Michigan following their recent victory in Hopwood (1996). However, the University of Michigan was als o able to rely upon past precedent, particularly Bakke (1978) in which the Supreme Court indicated that h igher education admission committees could consider race and ethnic ity as part of the admission process. According to Kingdon (2003), “in the process of pol icy development, recombination (the coupling of already-familiar elements) is more impo rtant than mutation (the appearance of wholly new forms)…. There is change, but it invo lves the recombination of alreadyfamiliar elements” (p. 201). Thus, the many affirma tive action cases already heard and decided upon by the courts provided a starting poin t from which decisions in the current cases against Michigan were drawn. Gratz and Grutter (2003) Decisions The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark d ecision on June 23, 2003, upholding the admission policies and practices of t he University of Michigan School of

PAGE 66

52 Law in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The Court found diversity to be a compelli ng interest in higher education, and recognized that in order t o achieve the diversity reflected in the world community, race could be considered in the ad mission process (Killenbeck, 2004). Leiter and Leiter (2011) propose that the Court’s a cceptance of the diversity argument “provided a constitutional platform supportive of p referential university admissions for minorities” (p. 300). In essence, the diversity arg ument championed by the Court for use by colleges and universities had been proposed befo re in Brown (1954) and Green (1969) under the guise of integration (Leiter & Leiter, 20 11). Integration and diversity are essentially the same thing, and both goals are supp orted by affirmative action policies (Ford, 2008). In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Court found that while race is one of several factors that can be considered in an open admission s process like that used by the University of Michigan School of Law, the automatic distribution of points to minority students is not constitutional. This decision point s toward the acceptable use of raceconscious admission policies when considering appli cations on an individual basis in order to achieve a “critical mass of underrepresent ed minority students [who] could not be enrolled if admission decisions were based prima rily on undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores” (Killenbeck, 2004, p. 15). Unlike the Bakke (1978) decision, the Supreme Court decision in Grutter (2003) favored affirmative action practices in hig her education admission processes: “Arguably, the victory for aff irmative consideration of race in pursuit of a diverse student body was complete. In contrast to Bakke, a clear majority of the Grutter Court agreed on the core holdings, the presence of a compelling interest and

PAGE 67

53 approval of at least one admissions policy that met the narrow tailoring requirement” (Killenbeck, 2004, p. 17). Though the 2003 decisions were somewhat reassuring to proponents of affirmative action and institutions of higher educa tion, it is already evident that these policies will continue to be challenged well into t he future, and they already have been. In discussing the implications of the court decisio ns made in 2003, Elliott and Ewoh (2005) draw attention to the likely possibility of future court struggles as “we will witness an ongoing tension between the traditional American ideal of equal opportunity and the compelling arguments made for the desirability and, even necessity, of government action to create a more inclusive society” (p. 11). The decision pending in the most current court struggle, Fisher v. Texas will impact the use of race conscious policies in higher education admissions again in our immediate future. Fisher v. Texas (not decided) The United States Supreme Court is currently hearin g the case of Fisher v. Texas and the outcome of this particular case is greatly anticipated by those invested in higher education policy initiatives on both sides of the p olitical fence. The case was brought before the courts by Abigail Fisher who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 after not qualifying for admissio n under the university’s “Top 10 Percent Plan” ( Fisher v. Texas n.d.; The Chronicle in Higher Education, n.d.). A fter not qualifying under the Top 10 Percent Plan, Fisher, a white Texan, was placed into the broader pool of applicants in which race and divers ity can be considered (The Chronicle in Higher Education, n.d.; Legal Information Instit ute, n.d.).

PAGE 68

54 In 1997, House Bill 588 was passed by the Texas leg islature in response to the court decision in Hopwood (1996) that struck down affirmative action policie s practiced at the University of Texas School of Law (Pinhel, 2 008). California and Florida also utilize percentage plans in admissions to state uni versities, and in Texas, “the top 10% law has had the greatest impact at the state’s flag ship universities” (Pinhel, 2008). Upon admitting all automatic qualifiers, students in the remaining applicant pool are considered for admission based upon a variety of academic and socioeconomic factors, including race (Pinhel, 2008). According to data compiled in 2005 by the nonpartisan Texas House Research Organization, Hispanic, African-American, and Asian-American enrollment at the state’s flagship institutions were positively i mpacted by the top 10% law as the presence of these underrepresented students on camp us increased (Pinhel, 2008). In the current case, Fisher argues that the univers ity’s consideration of race for applicants not admitted automatically under the top 10% law violates limits set by the Supreme Court in Grutter in 2003(The Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d.). A ccording to The Chronicle of Higher Education article (n.d.) since 2003, the Supreme Court has become “more conservative and more hostile to racia l preferences.” The Supreme Court may decide to uphold or strike down the policies cu rrently used by the University of Texas at Austin, or they may make a more sweeping d ecision and “strike down all raceconscious admission policies at the nation’s colleg es, by rejecting its own precedents holding that such policies serve a compelling gover nment interest” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, n.d.). Various groups from both t he private and public sector have chimed in, urging the court to decide in the direct ion of each group’s preferences.

PAGE 69

55 Accordingly, the White House, among other groups, a sked the justices to rule in the university’s favor (The Chronicle of Higher Educati on, n.d.). Race-Based State Legislation California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, f orbidding race and gender from being considered in state contracting, employm ent, and higher education (Walker, 1999). In Washington, Initiative 200 was passed in 1998 ending the use of affirmative action in the public sector and institutions of hig her education (Walker, 1999). In November 2006, Proposal 2 was passed by voters in M ichigan banning racial preferences in college admissions, college financial aid progra ms, state contracting, and state employment decisions (Adversity.net, 2007; Kirwan I nstitute, 2008). In 2008, antiaffirmative action ballot measures appeared in Colo rado and Nebraska. Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma were also originally targete d by Ward Connerly, an antiaffirmative action activist and former University o f California regent, who was responsible for leading these efforts (www.civilrig hts.org, 2012). In 2008, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 46, whi le Nebraska voters passed Initiative 424 and became the fourth state to ban a ffirmative action (www.civlirights.org, 2012). The Kirwan Institute (2008) described the de feat of the Civil Rights Initiative by Coloradoans, due in large part to the work of the “ No on 46” coalition, as a win for equal opportunity across the country. After the 2008 elec tion results were posted, in an interview with The Colorado Independent “Connerly stated that he will ‘likely halt his nationwide push to end race and gender preferences” (Kirwan Institute, 2008, p. 14). In the 2012 election year, civil rights initiatives di d not surface on any state ballots across

PAGE 70

56 the country. Barack Obama, the first African-Americ an to be elected President of the United States, was re-elected to a second term. In Colorado, the 1998 Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE) is the most updated policy regarding the stateÂ’s stance on the use of a ffirmative-action policies in the college admission process. Each college and university with in the state implements policy and monitors progress towards the goals outlined by the CCHE. Ultimately, the CCHE hopes to see percentage or numeric increases of underrepr esented groups in colleges and universities across the state of Colorado. Best pra ctices for institutions of higher education are also outlined, and require Colorado c olleges and universities to develop a diversity plan and submit annual reports outlining their diversity related achievements. With the goal of increasing post-secondary educatio n opportunities for disadvantaged students, the Commission requested state funded sup port of pre-collegiate programs (CCHE, 1998). Since 1989, the Colorado Commission o n Higher Education has reviewed diversity reports, focusing upon the representation of minority faculty, staff, and students in institutions of higher education throughout the state of Colorado. In 1998, the data collected in these reports highlighted the continue d underrepresentation of minorities in higher education as compared to their percentages i n the state population; though there has been improvement (see Tables III.1, VIII.1, X.1 ), this trend continues today (CCHE, 1998; CDE, 2011). Beyond Affirmative Action The Brown (1954) decision formed the legal basis for allowing minority students to seek admission to White colleges and universitie s (Anderson, J., 2002). The use of affirmative action in higher education, once widely supported and utilized, was later

PAGE 71

57 scrutinized because opponents believed minority stu dents were not prepared to perform and achieve in the post-secondary setting, and beca use the policy appeared to discriminate against White applicants (Anderson, J. 2002). According to a study conducted by Bowen and Bok (1998), both former Pres idents of highly selective postsecondary institutions, the use of affirmative acti on allows admission officers to admit students based upon a variety of “merits,” instead of focusing solely upon grades and test scores which have proven inherently biased against African Americans and other minorities throughout our history. The data collected in the study by Bowen and Bok (2 002) reveals that minority students admitted under affirmative action programs have attained success on college campuses. As a result of the success of affirmative action programs, a backlash against these programs quickly mounted (Bowen & Bok, 2002). One explanation for the backlash is described as a result of the fierce and competit ive nature of the college admissions process. Competing for limited spots at top notch c olleges and universities around the United States, students applying for admission to t he most highly selective schools cling to every possibility of earning a spot in the class though the majority of post-secondary schools are not competitive and admit the majority of students that apply (Bowen & Bok, 2002). Given the ongoing controversy surrounding ra ce conscious admission programs at colleges and universities, it may be time to look b eyond such policies in the field of education (Busenberg & Smith, 1997; Garcia, 1997, I barra, 2001). Garcia (1997), among other scholars (Busenberg & Sm ith, 1997; Ibarra, 2001), believes in the power of policies such as affirmati ve action in transforming the face of institutions of higher education, yet she is also a ware that in light of recent legislation,

PAGE 72

58 affirmative-action policies are in jeopardy of bein g discarded by colleges and universities across the United States. She understands the role colleges and universities must play to preserve the benefits of affirmative action and sug gests, Institutions of higher education must take a more a ctive role in shaping public policy. Inattention to our opponents, negligence in communicating our position to the public, and a failure to document and convey ou r results has contributed to the current state of affairs in which our commitment to inclusion and education for all is being forcefully challenged. (Garcia, 1997, p. 2 52) Colleges and universities are called upon to define affirmative action and actively implement affirmative-action programs and policies. Busenberg and Smith (1997) admit that affirmative-action has not been as effective i n integrating the higher education system as once hoped or believed, “but given the le gislative initiatives and the customs of institutions, it has at least been a sincere attemp t to keep colleges and universities publically accountable” (p. 169). Ibarra (2001), a minority leader and professor in h igher education, looks beyond affirmative action and accepts the challenges faced by colleges and universities in attracting minorities to systems of higher educatio n. He draws attention to the importance of the educational pipeline: “Time-honored solution s for combating these inequities rely on three essential ingredients: access, retention, and increasing the critical mass of historically underrepresented populations” (p. 8). Affirmative-action policies and programs may lead to an increase of historically un derrepresented students on college campuses, but access and retention are vital pieces of the puzzle, which affirmativeaction policies do not necessarily directly impact. Colleges and universities, as well as primary and secondary schools, must invest in effor ts to provide educational access to minorities and find successful means of retention. Providing access to institutions of post-

PAGE 73

59 secondary education includes a need for adequate pr eparation of students across the K-12 system and active college orientation and admission s programs, while retention of students depends upon appropriate and adequate fund ing of scholarship programs, academic support, advising programs, and cultural s upport programs (Ibarra, 2001). In essence, affirmative-action policies and programs w ill not transform the face of higher education if race-conscious admission programs oper ate in isolation; institutions of higher education must change their approach to educ ating students if they ever hope to become inclusive institutions of learning in our so ciety. In the conclusion of her book, Garcia (1997) argues At this point in our history, especially in educati on, we must forcefully and vigorously engage in the battle for the survival of affirmative action policies if we are to be members of a just and democratic society. To us it is clear that until we have reached equality for all of our citizens, affi rmative action must be maintained. (p. 249) The future of the legal use of race conscious admis sion policies in higher education is uncertain, but colleges and universities play a cru cial role in maintaining these programs and policies. Garcia offers suggestions to institut ions of higher education, what she calls “strategies for a new era” (p. 251). These strategi es include the following: (a) calling attention to the reality of the continued existence of discrimination in our country, (b) encouraging open discussions about the ongoing disc rimination, (c) calling upon colleges and universities to define affirmative action on th eir own terms, (d) reviewing higher education admission criteria, (e) encouraging facul ty to conduct research concerning the use of affirmative action and the advantages of div erse campuses, (f) collaborating with K-12 systems to ensure adequate preparation of stud ents, (g) recognizing all sides of the affirmative-action debate, and (h) encouraging oppo nents of affirmative action to defend

PAGE 74

60 their actions for change. With these suggestions, G arcia hopes to propel the higher education system toward the day when color-blind ad missions may be possible. Until that day, educational leaders, stakeholders, and members of society at large have the responsibility to provide opportunities for the adv ancement of all students. In this dissertation, I attempt to utilize some of these strategies outlined by Garcia (1997), in particular to call attention to the real ity of the continued existence of discrimination in one state, Colorado, at one insti tution of higher education, the University of Colorado Boulder to contribute to the ongoing discussions about issues with race and diversity in our education system tak ing place throughout our country. As a case study of policies and practices surrounding ra ce and diversity to facilitate minority student access initiated at the University of Color ado Boulder, it may provide insight into how some of Garcia’s (1997) strategies, “beyond aff irmative-action,” may or may not impact the university and surrounding community and ensure equal access and the success of minority students with hopes of pursuing a post-secondary education. It is essential for institutions of higher education to r ecognize the permanence of racism throughout their systems and this understanding beg ins with uncovering our country’s history with discrimination. In the next chapter, C olorado’s discriminatory history is discussed in further detail.

PAGE 75

61 CHAPTER III HISTORY OF RACE AND DIVERSITY IN COLORADO As established in the previous chapter, debates abo ut the value of diversity and the role of affirmative action in creating more div erse educational communities in institutions of higher education continue today, mo re than 50 years after the introduction of the Civil Rights Movement and race-conscious edu cational policies. Due to the prevalence of these discussions, problems in educat ion are often examined along racial lines because racial disparities are vast and readi ly identifiable across the K-16 educational system in the United States. These disp arities, often identified as differences in academic achievement and high school and college graduation rates, contribute to broader social and economic problems that continue to hinder progress in our country and across the globe. The role of educational policies focused on race in higher education continues to be placed under the microscope. As these policies, namely the use of affirmative action, continue to be questioned, clarifying their intenti on is ever more important. Further, raceconscious policies that aim to remedy a past that i ncludes limiting minority access to educational opportunities also become ever more imp ortant (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). For example, the Supreme Court has supported race-c onscious policies such as affirmative action in the past and in the present d ay to remedy the effects of past discrimination and foster diversity (Pursely, 2003) As a state or university operates under the premise of remediating past discrimination, the ability to present “direct evidence that the effects of past discrimination within the insti tution in question continue to adversely

PAGE 76

62 affect people” may prove to play a crucial role in successfully defending race-conscious educational policies, such as affirmative action (P ursely, 2003, p.1). Because this dissertation focuses upon the history of race at the University of Colorado Boulder, it is important to gain a deeper and broader understanding of Colorado’s historical treatment of minorities. Colo rado has not been isolated from issues surrounding race and discrimination and, as Delgado and Stefancic (1999) note, “if the record discloses that a state such as ours, with a self-image that includes openness and fair treatment for all, nevertheless has much to li ve down, the case of affirmative action everywhere strengthens” (p. 2). The debate over the necessity and fairness of polic ies such as affirmative action has been thoroughly documented, as the discussion i n the previous chapter revealed. As a result of the challenges posed to the use of race-c onscious polices, the scope of affirmative action and its use in higher education has been limited by legal decisions. In the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court, Gratz and Grutter vs. Bollinge r (2003), both filed against the University of Michig an, the defense proposed that raceconscious policies promoted diversity. Writing prio r to the decisions made in the Michigan cases, Delgado and Stefancic (1999) hypoth esized that beyond promoting diversity as a compelling interest, remedying past wrongs may be the only state interest that can justify the use of race-conscious policies like affirmative action. Given the potential allowance by the 14th Amendment for colle ges and universities to utilize race conscious programs and policies to make amends upon demonstrating past discrimination against minorities on their campuses, it seems usef ul for colleges and universities to delve deeply into their pasts to identify and prove speci fic and particular discriminatory

PAGE 77

63 practices and to create plans for remediation that may be necessary to mitigate the past wrongdoing (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Understanding the history of oneÂ’s own nation, stat e, and community is a vital part of correcting wrongs that occurred in the past solving problems that continue to exist into the present, and making plans to move fo rward to address pressing social and educational issues into the future (Delgado & Stefa ncic, 1999). Knowledge of the history of race relations in each individual state througho ut the US can provide insight and understanding into the function of, as well as the mindset and mentality of, the people who inhabit this particular place. Given the promin ent role that race plays in discussions, historical and current, on a national level, partic ularly in regard to education, examining the role of race at the state level can prove infor mative as racial disparities in education are found to exist across the country (Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1998; LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995; Marx, 2004; Swail et al., 20 03; Tierney, 1996; Valverde, 2004). The Territorial Days ColoradoÂ’s history of race and discrimination is ce rtainly more complex, detailed, and well-rounded than the account provided by Delga do and Stefancic (1999), but the overview they provide highlights poignant and relev ant issues concerning race and discrimination in Colorado. Colorado was described as a rough and brutal place to live in the early days, as White settlers flocked to Colora do in the 1850s in search of gold, driving Indians off of the most desirable lands and eventually onto reservations (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Sand Creek. The Sand Creek Massacre (about 40 miles north of Fo rt Lyon in southeastern Colorado), and a lesser-known attack o f a peaceful Indian camp at Buffalo

PAGE 78

64 Springs (near Fairplay), involved a Major David Nic hols, among others, in 1864 (Abbott, Leonard, & Noel, 2005; Massengale, 2009). In 1961, a residence hall located on the University of Colorado Boulder campus was named in honor of Major Nichols; it wasn’t until 1987 that a UCB history professor, Patricia L imerick, was asked to investigate the role Major Nichols played in the slaying of Arapaho and Cheyenne natives, and the residence hall name was eventually changed to Cheye nne-Arapaho Hall (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999; Massengale, 2009). Limerick’s rese arch was seen as controversial, but she asserted, “the name was an affront to Indian st udents on campus,” and the change was best for the entire community (Massengale, 2009 ). Perhaps as a result of the historical mistreatment of Native Americans in Colo rado, their population in the state (1.6%) and on the UCB campus (.8%) is miniscule. Blacks. Colorado’s Black population was small from the begi nning of the state’s existence, constituting only two percent “of the st ate’s population between 1870 and 1920”, yet their legal status and treatment reflect ed broader national trends as Blacks were denied the right to vote, and anti-miscegenati on laws were included in the original territorial constitution and remained in existence until 1954 (Abbott et al., 2005, p. 216; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Further, though never m andated by law Black and White school children were segregated and educated in sep arate schools until the latter half of the twentieth century ( Keyes, 1973). Abbott et al. (2005) write about the success ful fight by African Americans in Central City and Denver to enroll their children in the city’s schools. Accordingly, though issues with segregatio n and integration throughout Colorado still surface today, “In 1873, the Denver School Board approved integration, a principle incorporated into the state constitution two years later” (Abbott et al., 2005, p.

PAGE 79

65 213). In terms of quality of life, when comparing d eath rates, school attendance rates, and literacy rates, “statistical indicators showed that Colorado’s African Americans were well-off compared to their counterparts elsewhere” (Abbott, 2005, p. 218). Asians. Around 1869, the Chinese came to Colorado to work i n the mines and railroads, drawing negative attention immediately f rom the local newspaper, The Rocky Mountain News When the News accused the residents of Denver’s small Chinatown “ of operating opium dens, gambling parlors, and houses of prostitution,” readers of the paper took the matter into their own hands instigating th e Hop Ally Riot which resulted in the destruction of homes and the deaths of several Chin ese residents (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 6). After experiencing racial discriminati on from the very beginning of their presence in Colorado, the state’s population of Chi nese “dwindled to 291 by 1920” (Abbott et al., 2005, p. 208). Delgado and Stefanci c (1999) highlight that even in 1969, the Chinese made up a small proportion of Colorado’ s population, and Asians constitute only 2.9% of the state’s population today (United S tates Census Bureau, 2013). Other minorities. Italians and Mexicans also were treated poorly by e arly Anglo settlers; lynching incidents of members of these mi nority groups are documented in Colorado’s history (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). During the territorial days, minorities were hardly treated wi th the same dignity or provided with the same opportunities as other settlers but were not n ecessarily mistreated because of their racial identities (i.e., Black, Hispanic, or Chines e). Seemingly, these groups of people were mistreated because they were competing for the same benefits, jobs, land and development of new industries that those with more power (i.e. White settlers) felt were theirs (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 1 999). As World War I ended, “friction

PAGE 80

66 increased as returning servicemen and women of colo r began to assert their rights” (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 7). The Klan Period Colorado became a state in 1876, but statehood did nothing to alter race relations. Indeed, by the 1920s, racism in Colorado took on an ugly new face with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which “announced itself in the Denver Times : ‘We proclaim to the lawless element of the City and County of Denver and the St ate of Colorado that we are not only active now, but we were here yesterday, we are here today, and we shall be here forever’”(Abbott et al., 2005, p. 271; Delgado & St efancic, 1999) As will be detailed in Chapter IV, the Klan period intersected with incide nts that occurred specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder under President Norl in. The Denver National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP) chapter formed in 1915 and began organizing under the leadership of Dr. Cl arence Holmes, and during this same time the Ku Klux Klan began organizing, too (Delgad o & Stefancic, 1999). According to the accounts upon which Delgado and Stefancic (1999 ) constructed their research, in the 1920s “Colorado was virtually taken over by the Kla n” (p. 8). Under the leadership of Grand Dragon John Galen Loc ke, membership in the KKK in Colorado climbed to include as many as 55,00 0 members at the peak of its powerful existence (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Wit h elections looming in Denver in 1923, the Klan exploited social conditions and a co rrupt and inefficient police force, promising to clean up the city, and took over the c ity government with the election of Benjamin F. Stapleton as mayor. Publically, Staplet on “condemned the Klan” but privately, he was a good friend of John Galen Locke (Abbott et al, 2005; Delgado &

PAGE 81

67 Stefancic, 1999, p. 8). Ultimately, as a result of this relationship, Klansmen held great power in Denver as the Mayor, Chief of Police, and Justices of Peace represented and protected their interests (Delgado & Stefancic, 199 9, p. 9). In 1924, members of the Klan won every state office, other than superintendent o f public schools, and under Governor Clarence Morley they maintained their control and p ower. As Governor, Morley threatened University of Colorado Boulder President George Norlin, saying that he would “cut appropriations for the University if Nor lin did not dismiss all Catholic and Jewish faculty” (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 10). In the 1920s, “Denver’s population stood at 256,000 persons, with only 6075 Black residents” (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 11) Given their small numbers, Blacks living in Denver were isolated in, “an old and dete riorating neighborhood”, still known today as Five Points (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 11). Race Street, which still runs through the city today, was identified as a “locall y understood racial barrier” early on in Denver’s history, and measures to isolate and segre gate the Black minority from the White majority led to discriminatory housing practi ces that has had a lasting impact in the city and county of Denver (Delgado & Stefancic, 199 9, p. 7). Any efforts made to integrate movie theaters, schools, social events, b usinesses, were met with strong resistance and threats from the Klan. The Klan was unable to maintain its power and control in the long run, reaching its peak of power in 1924, but undoubtedly, “the Klan’s period of power had lingering effects in Colorado” (Abbott et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 12). After 1924, Abbott et al. (2005) explain that “inability to translate fear into legislation and internal squabbles” led t o a decline in the numbers of Klansmen in Denver and ultimately to their loss of power (pp 275-6). However, Delgado and

PAGE 82

68 Stefancic (1999) highlight reports of “housing disc rimination and police brutality throughout the 1950s and 1960s” and into the 1990s and 2000s, evidence of the permanence of racism practiced and promoted by Klan members (p. 13). Racism during the Post-War Years As an aside to the general direction of this disser tation, it is impossible to overlook the role Colorado played after Pearl Harbo r was attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941, sparking US entry into World War II. On Fe bruary 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, displacin g nearly 113,000 people of Japanese ancestry, more than two-thirds citizens of the Unit ed States, to internment camps constructed in the Western United States (Burton, F arrell, Lord, & Lord, 1999). One of the ten internment camps established to confine the Japanese was constructed near the town of Granada, in southeastern Colorado, not far from the site of the Sand Creek Massacre. The Government named the camp “Amache,” f or the daughter of a Cheyenne chief killed at Sand Creek (Burton, et al., 1999). At its peak, 7,318 Japanese evacuees resided at the Granada internment camp, which was o pened in August of 1942 and closed in October of 1945, a few weeks after the war with Japan came to an end (Colorado State Archives, 2006). In 1989, the US Government apologi zed to the Japanese-Americans and offered “them a redress of $20,000 for each survivi ng evacuee” (Colorado State Archives, 2006). In light of the lasting impact of the Klan, discrim ination and racism directed toward African-Americans, Mexicans, Chinese and Jap anese minority group members are documented into the 1950s and beyond (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Evidence of discriminatory practices was evident in Colorado’s law against interracial marriage,

PAGE 83

69 which endured until 1954. Members of minority group s were not served at restaurants and hotels, were segregated during mass, were not a llowed to open businesses, and were not allowed to swim in the same pools as Whites. Th ough the number and racial make-up of faculty members is not the focus of the current study, as is documented by Delgado and Stefancic (1999) and perhaps already widely kno wn, “The numbers of Blacks and Mexicans in the professions and at the state univer sities and colleges was miniscule” (p. 13). To address concerns about racism and discrimination Denver’s newly elected and liberal Mayor, Quigg Newton, established a task for ce on human relations in 1947. The Denver Commission on Human Relations gathered oral stories, conducted surveys, and issued reports to gain deeper cross-cultural unders tanding (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Upon documenting discrimination, the commission sha red its discoveries: (a) Minorities, especially Blacks, were often denied access to heal th and medical services; (b) minorities were highly residentially confined; (c) minorities were victims of high degrees of job discrimination; and, (d) minorities experienced pol ice brutality and were blamed for committing a disproportionate number of crimes (Del gado and Stefancic, 1999). In-depth discussions surrounding a history of racism and dis crimination in all of these areas, as documented by the commission, are well beyond the s cope of this study, but certainly provide greater insight into the history of Colorad o’s treatment of minority group members. The Stranglehold of Racism in Colorado The state of Colorado’s politics and Colorado’s sy stem of education sheds light on the racism practiced and tolerated in Colorado i n the past and into the present. As

PAGE 84

70 Colorado’s largest minority group, constituting 20. 9% of the state’s population today, Hispanics in particular seemingly suffered more dis crimination than Blacks (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999; United States Census Bureau, 2013) Delgado and Stefancic (1999) offer a sociological perspective as an explanation of thi s discrimination disparity: “where there are two significant minorities in an area, the larg er minority usually suffers more discrimination” (p. 25). Hispanics have been and co ntinue to be Colorado’s largest minority group; even so, Hispanics have rarely been elected as public servants. According to Delgado and Stefancic (1999) in words that still ring true today, “No person of color has ever served as Governor of Colorado, a nd only a handful of Blacks and Hispanics in the state legislature” (p. 25). Delgad o and Stefancic (1999) further document the miniscule number of minorities who have served as Mayor of Denver: two AfricanAmericans, Wellington Webb and recently elected Mic hael B. Hancock and one Latino, Federico Pena. Ken Salazar, most recently serving a s the United States Secretary of the Interior under President Barack Obama, was elected as United States Senator from Colorado in 2004. Salazar also served as Colorado A ttorney General from 1999 to 2005, and was only one of two Hispanics to be nominated a s US Senator since 1977 (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). However, recent progress cannot be overlooked as the Colorado legislature that opened this past January of 2013 w elcomed “more Latinos and blacks than in recent years, and a record number of gay la wmakers” (Bartels & Lee, 2012). Five Blacks are currently serving in the House, as well as twelve Latinos, and eight gay lawmakers (Bartels & Lee, 2012). Beyond politics, throughout Colorado’s history, edu cational opportunities afforded to members of minority groups have also di ffered from those offered to White

PAGE 85

71 students. As discussed in depth in Chapter II, in Keyes v. Denver Public Schools (1969), the US Supreme Court found “intentional, government ally backed segregation in the Denver schools,” and ordered the city’s schools to desegregate (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999, p. 27). As a result of the Court ruling, Whit e families fled Denver for the suburbs in an effort to avoid busing and other desegregatio n efforts (Delgado & Stefancic, 1999). Even with de jure segregation banned, race continue s to be a factor in politics and schools across the state of Colorado. Across Colorado and t he Southwest, historic and recent efforts to close the Hispanic achievement gap have proven elementary and unsuccessful. The funding of public schools across the state of C olorado also is a major source of contention, as the reliance on property taxes to fu nd school systems produces massive discrepancies between poor and wealthy districts (D elgado & Stefancic, 1999): Poorer districts tend to be mostly minority, while wealthi er districts tend to be predominantly White. Educating Coloradoans: A Deeper Look In the United States, individual states are largely responsible for ensuring educational access and quality for students residin g in the state (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education [NCPPHE], 2006). The NCPPHE (2006) grades states on their performance in six categories inclu ding: (a) preparation of students for education and training beyond high school, (b) part icipation in educational and training opportunities beyond high school, (c) affordability of higher education, (d) completion of certificates or degrees by students in a timely man ner, (e) benefits the state receives from having a highly educated population, and (f) studen t learning as a result of education and training beyond high school. A letter grade is assi gned to each state for each of the six

PAGE 86

72 performance categories. In 2006, Colorado received the following grades for each of the categories: (a) B+, (b) A-, (c) F, (d) B, (e) A-, a nd (f) Incomplete (NCPPHE, 2006). Based on the information compiled in the NCPPHE (20 06) report, Colorado schools appeared to prepare students fairly well to succeed in education and training after high school. However, 8% of Colorado students in 20 06 completed the General Education Development (GED) diploma in lieu of a hi gh school diploma. This was one of the highest percentages of GED recipients in the nation. In terms of participation, many opportunities exist for students in Colorado t o enroll in education and training opportunities after high school, and approximately 84% of students take advantage of the post-secondary options available to them throughout the state of Colorado (NCPPHE, 2006). Though post-secondary participation rates se em good, nearly 63% of ColoradoÂ’s high school graduates enroll in college, the gap in the rate of college participation between Whites and members of other ethnic groups h as widened. For example, data collected and disseminated by the Colorado Departme nt of Education in 2011, revealed that 78.2% of ColoradoÂ’s Asian high school graduate s enroll in colleges or universities throughout the state, while only 47.6% of Hispanic graduates choose to do the same. High school graduation rates also vary across racia l groups as CDEÂ’s most recent statistics convey that while only 60.1% of Hispanic students graduated from high school, 81.7% of Asian students graduated (Colorado Departm ent of Education, 2011). Similar trends surface when examining six-year college grad uation rates across the state, as Asians boast the highest college graduation rate of 61.2% and African Americans, at 33.2%, are least likely to complete college (Colora do Department of Education, 2011). Unfortunately, due to prevalent and complex funding issues which are discussed further

PAGE 87

73 in Chapter IX, college in Colorado has become less affordable for middle-class and lower-income families. Even so, though educational opportunities after high school are costly, a high proportion of Colorado students do c omplete certificates and degrees, and the gap between Whites and Hispanics completing cer tificates and degrees in Colorado has narrowed within the last decade (NCPPHE, 2006). The report of Colorado’s progress by the NCPPHE (20 06) highlighted several gains in Colorado’s state system of education. Howe ver, because of noticeable disparities in high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and college graduation rates, race continued to surface as an area upon which Col orado’s institutions of higher education could focus and improve. The 2006 report highlighted the racial gap in educational attainment levels between minority grou ps (Hispanics/Latinos and African Americans) and White students. In Colorado, citizen s and educational stakeholders continue to share concern over the “Colorado Parado x”--that “Colorado ranks among the top states in percentage of population with a colle ge degree [but] the state ranks very low in educating its native Colorado population” (Coras h, Baker, & Nawrocki, 2008, p. 7). The paradox represents the success rates of all of Colorado’s students, but the state government recognizes that the lower college admiss ion and graduation rates of African American and Hispanic students compared with White and Asian American students in Colorado are an area of great concern. Evidence of the racial achievement gap in Colorado’ s institutions of higher education have led to the development of this study which focuses upon the history of diverse student access to the University of Colorad o Boulder. Data collected and analyzed from Colorado’s flagship university, the U niversity of Colorado Boulder

PAGE 88

74 (UCB), provides evidence of Colorado’s racial achie vement gap, highlighted by the lower college admission and graduation rates of min ority (African American and Hispanic) students when compared to White and Asian students. Table III.1 provides a quick glimpse into the enrollment levels of individ uals across racial groups, from 20042009, throughout the state of Colorado and specific ally at UCB. This is the most recent report of its kind available to date. When comparing enrollment levels of students in ins titutions of higher education in the state of Colorado across racial groups to th e population estimates provided by the United States Census Bureau (2013), the gaps are re adily noticeable. Focusing solely on UCB, 77.9% of students enrolled at the university i n 2009 were identified as White, NonHispanic, yet this same group represents only 69.7% of the state’s population and 63.4% of the entire US population. Blacks and Hispanics c omprised only 1.7% and 6.7% of the student population at the university respectively, while comprising 4.3% and 20.9% of Colorado’s state population and 13.1% and 16.7% of the US population (United States Census Bureau, 2013). Asian students are often left out of the discussion of educational and achievement gaps because they tend to be overrepresented at ins titutions of higher education as is the case at the University of Colorado Boulder. Asian s tudents comprised 6.3% of the student population at Boulder and only 2.7% of the state’s total population and 4.5% of the US population in 2009. These statistics indicate a con tinuing underlying problem in Colorado and the nation (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lee, 2002; P arker, 1998; Perna, 2000) and support contentions that, “racism is normal in American soc iety” and is often overlooked (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 7).

PAGE 89

75 Table III.1 In-State, total, and UCB enrollment levels of racia l/ethnic groups, 2004-2009 Enrollment Level Race/Ethnicity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 In State Undergraduate Asian 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 Black, Non-Hispanic 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 Hispanic 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.8 Native American 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 Minority Subtotal 19 19.3 19.4 20 20.3 20.7 White, Non-Hispanic 75.7 75 74.3 74.5 73.2 71.7 NR Alien .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Unknown 5.2 5.6 6.2 5.4 6.4 7.4 Total Undergraduate Asian 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 Black, Non-Hispanic 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.6 Hispanic 9.2 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.7 9.9 Native American 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Minority Subtotal 18.1 18.5 18.7 19.2 19.4 19.9 White, Non-Hispanic 75.6 74.9 74.1 74.3 72.8 71.2 NR Alien 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.5 1.4 Unknown 5.2 5.6 6.1 5.5 6.3 7.5 UCB Asian 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.3 Black, Non-Hispanic 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 Hispanic 5.9 6 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.3 Native American .8 .7 .8 .7 .7 .8 Minority Subtotal 14.2 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.8 15.1 White, Non-Hispanic 78.6 78.3 78.2 78.4 78.3 77.9 NR Alien 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 Unknown 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 Note Data represents all Colorado Public Four Year Ins titutions of Higher Education. Student Unit Record Data System (SURDS) Enrollment Fall Term 2007-2009, 2010.

PAGE 90

76 Colorado Commission on Higher Education As colleges and universities across the state of Co lorado attempted to no avail to address issues centered on race, the Colorado Commi ssion on Higher Education (CCHE) was established in 1965 by the legislature. The CCH E was given increased authority over the state’s system of education with the passage of House Bill 1187 in 1985, to ensure educational access and quality for Colorado residen ts and students in the state’s institutions of higher education (CDE, n.d.a). In 2 008, Senate bill 08-018 created a separation of the Colorado Department of Higher Edu cation (DHE) from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, in essence clarifyi ng the individual roles of the separate entities. Prior to 2008, the Commission wa s recognized as a division of the Colorado Department of Higher Education. Though no longer operating as a division of the DHE, the Commission continues to focus upon pro viding "access to high-quality, affordable education for all Colorado’s residents t hat is student-centered, quality driven and performance-based” (CDE, 2012a). Ten commissioners, representing the geographic and political diversity of the state of Colorado, currently serve on the Commissio n (CDE, 2012b). An advisory committee, including both legislative and non-legis lative members, also oversees the CCHE (CDE, n.d.b) The CCHE is responsible for devel oping long-range plans for Colorado’s evolving state system of higher educatio n. According to the Colorado Department of Higher Education Website, 28 public i nstitutions of higher education currently are located throughout the state of Color ado. Thirteen of the 28 schools are four-year institutions, and 15 are two-year institu tions. Private institutions and occupational schools also operate in Colorado but a re not overseen by the CCHE. Of the

PAGE 91

77 students enrolled in the 28 public institutions in Colorado, 90.3% are undergraduate students; 85.5% of students enrolled in Colorado’s public institutions of higher education are Colorado residents (CDE, 2010). CCHE Admissions Standards Policy (2011) The Colorado Commission on Higher Education has ge neral policy making and oversight authority over the public institutions of higher education, and that authority has been exercised by the commission to establish polic ies to recruit and retain minority students to Colorado’s public colleges and universi ties. As published in the CCHE Admission Standards Policy (2011), the CCHE aims to “encourage diversity by supporting the admission of applicants from underrepresented g roups, applicants with special talents, and applicants with disabilities” (p. I-F-4). One of the responsibilities of the CCHE that directly correlates to the stated goal of encouragi ng diversity on public college and university campuses across the state of Colorado, i s the development of statewide enrollment policies and admission standards to each of the 28 public institutions throughout the state of Colorado. As stated in the Admission Standards Policy (CCHE, 2011), which has undergone many revisions and was most recently updated on Jan uary 7, 2011, “the original policy was adopted by the Commission in 1986, implemented the following year, and established state-level admission standards for bot h first-time freshmen and transfer students at each of the Colorado baccalaureate publ ic institutions” (CCHE, 2011, p. I-F1). The admissions standards set forth by the CCHE represent minimum requirements for admission to the state’s 4-year public institutions ; the 2-year community colleges operate under open admission policies, allowing all high sc hool graduates and non-traditional students to enroll regardless of high school grade point average, high school preparation,

PAGE 92

78 and standardized test scores. CCHE outlines specifi c admissions standards, largely based upon high school grade point average, standardized test scores, and high school coursework; students who meet the outlined standard s are considered as good candidates for admission, though their admission is not guaran teed, “as institutions consider a broad range of factors in making admissions decisions” (C CHE, 2008, 2011). The CCHE follows the law described in detail in the Admissions Standards Policy (CCHE, 2011) to determine and differentiate admissi on and program standards, consistent with the unique institutional roles and mission of each institution as described in the statute. Admission standards for first-time admitted freshmen students and transfer students are established by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, in consultation with the governing boards of each inst itution at all state-supported baccalaureate and graduate institutions of higher e ducation in Colorado. A combination of standardized test scores, high school grade poin t average, and high school class rank, are utilized to differentiate freshmen applicants a t each of the public colleges and universities across the state. High school class ra nk and grade point average are referred to as high school performance measures, and ACT and /or SAT scores are labeled as standardized performance measures. High school perf ormance measures are combined with standardized performance measures into a singl e index score to evaluate "the achievement records of applicants” (CCHE, 2011, p. 13). The Freshmen Admission Index is widely used by students, high school staff and community members to guide the Colorado resident college application process (CCHE 2011). The specific minimum index scores required to be considered for admissio n at each Colorado public four-year institution are summarized in Table III.2. The maxi mum index score is 146, which would

PAGE 93

79 correspond with a student who has earned a 4.0 grad e point average and a perfect score of 36 on the ACT. The CCHE Admission Eligibility Index is also included in Appendix A. Table III.2. CCHE Colorado Public College/University Admission I ndex Institution Freshman Admission Index Adams State College 80 Colorado School of Mines 110 Colorado State University 101 Colorado State University-Pueblo 86 Fort Lewis College 92 Mesa State College 85 Metropolitan State College of Denver 76 University of Colorado Boulder 103 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 92 University of Colorado at DHSC* 93 University of Northern Colorado 94 Western State College 80 *Now called the University of Colorado Denver. Differences in the index scores as outlined are ex plained by the distinctive institutional role and mission each state-supported institution of higher education in Colorado has been assigned by the CCHE, as determin ed by their statutory guidelines (CCHE, 2011). Because the University of Colorado Bo ulder is the focus of this dissertation, it is important to understand the spe cific role and mission the university has been assigned by the CCHE “as a comprehensive gradu ate research university with selective admission standards” (CCHE, 2011, p. 3). Though the University of Colorado Denver campus, University of Colorado, Colorado Spr ings campus, Colorado State University, and the University of Northern Colorado also are described as having selective admissions standards, the University of C olorado Boulder has a higher admission index than these other institutions, as d etailed in Table III.2 (CCHE, 2011). The Colorado School of Mines has the highest admiss ion index eligibility score of all

PAGE 94

80 public institutions of higher education in the stat e of Colorado, suggesting it is the most competitive of the public colleges and universities in the state (CCHE, 2011). Beginning in the spring of 2008, the CCHE changed t he admissions standards by requiring applicants to prove their “college readin ess” through the completion of minimum, rigorous high school course requirements. The Colorado Higher Education Admission Requirements (HEAR) are based upon colleg e readiness research that illustrates high school preparation across specific academic areas, at increasing levels of rigor, positively impacts the success (i.e. complet ion of the baccalaureate degree in four years) rates of students enrolled at post-secondary institutions (CCHE, 2011). The HEAR requirements were increased for the first time in C olorado for students who began college in the fall of 2010. Since these changes were impl emented in the fall of 2010, high school graduates are now required to complete an ad ditional year of math, and at least one year of a foreign/world language. In the fall o f 2012, Colorado high school graduates were required to meet the following HEAR to be cons idered as “college ready” candidates for in-state college admission: 4 years of English, 4 years of Math, 3 years of Natural Science (including 2 years of a lab-based s cience), 3 years of Social Studies (including 1 year of US or World History), 1 year o f foreign/world language, and 2 years of academic electives (CCHE, 2008, Admission Eligib ility Index, 2008-2010). The HEAR differ from high school graduation requirement s across the state. School districts throughout Colorado are responsible for determining graduation requirements for students and providing appropriate course offerings across academic fields of study to prepare students for post-secondary education oppor tunities.

PAGE 95

81 The Admissions Standards Policy is reviewed by the CCHE every three years to determine if the policy is appropriate, and to asse ss its continued alignment with state goals and priorities (CCHE, 2011). To monitor admis sion rates of students at the various baccalaureate institutions, each institution is req uired to report the number of undergraduate freshmen and transfer applicants usin g the Student Unit Record Data System (SURDS) Undergraduate Applicant File (CCHE, 2011). The data submitted by institutions to the CCHE via SURDS is utilized to m onitor the compliance of each institution with the admission standards set forth by the Commission, and “to evaluate the impact of the policy on institutions and students a nnually” (CCHE, 2011, p. 2). The diversity of the student body at institutions throu ghout the state of Colorado continues to be an area of focus and concern for the Commission. In 1998, the Commission established a Policy on Affirmative Action to addre ss concerns over Colorado’s racial achievement and educational attainment gap. Policy on Affirmative Action According to the Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE 1998), the Commission has reviewed reports on minority faculty, staff, an d student representation in institutions of higher education throughout the state of Colorad o since 1989. Reports consistently revealed the underrepresentation of minorities in h igher education throughout Colorado when compared to their percentages in the state pop ulation. The Policy on Affirmative Action (CCHE, 1998) was developed under the directi on of the General Assembly to reflect the Commission’s commitment to increasing d iversity, and to establish a model of continual improvement outlining an adjustment proce ss to be used if institutions did not show improvement. As stated in the Policy (CCHE, 19 98), “continuous improvement

PAGE 96

82 may be shown in percentage increases or numeric inc reases of underrepresented groups. It may also be shown in… other forms, which represe nt best practices… to increase the presence of underrepresented groups” (p. I-Q-2). Since its inception, The Policy on Affirmative Acti on (CCHE, 1998) has required all institutions of higher education in the state o f Colorado to submit annual diversity reports to the CCHE. The CCHE has used, and continu es to use, these reports to summarize information about the state’s higher educ ation system that includes the most recent five-year trend data on the percentages and number of minority students, staff, and faculty attending and working at the twenty-eight p ublic universities and colleges across Colorado (CCHE, 1998). The trend data includes spec ific information, including undergraduate resident headcount, total undergradua te headcount, graduate resident headcount, and total graduate headcount. Retention and graduation rates of students across minority student groups are also included in these reports, as well as information about transfer students and degree recipients from minority groups. Though not included in the discussion presented in this dissertation, d ata on minority faculty and staff are also summarized in these reports. An example of the type of data tracked by the CCHE, as copied from SURDS is included in Table III.3. This table documents the enrollment trends of student from various ethnic backgrounds b etween 2000-2011.

PAGE 97

83 Table III.3 Fall Enrollments by Institution, Student Level, Fal l terms 2009-2011 Ethnicity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Asian 5,898 5,645 Asian or Pacific Islander 5,088 5,157 5,391 5,486 5,683 5,690 5,875 6,094 6,150 6,467 Black or African American 3,251 3,362 3,439 3,571 3,717 3,836 3,852 4,059 4,246 4,736 4,945 5,092 Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 196 250 Hispanic 10,075 10,338 10,619 11,152 11,602 11,703 11,784 12,194 12,410 13,267 15,894 17,702 More than one Race/Ethnicity (non-Hispanic) 2,063 3,199 Native American or Alaskan Native 1,821 1,841 1,921 1,991 2,082 2,127 2,200 2,287 2,293 2,390 1,826 1,767 Non-Resident Alien 3,612 3,821 4,016 3,636 3,255 2,963 3,136 2,706 3,987 4,007 4,396 5,024 Unknown Ethnicity 4,990 5,705 6,151 6,811 7,306 7,768 8,620 7,722 9,118 11,111 8,962 8,611 White, nonHispanic 92,437 94,504 97,566 100,006 100,964 99,776 98,644 99,913 98,779 101,771 105,038 105,085

PAGE 98

84 The Commission’s Policy on Affirmative Action (1998 ) describes best practices to achieve a diverse student body, faculty, and sta ff members at each public institution in Colorado. The best practices require each college a nd university to develop a yearly diversity plan which addresses long-term and shortterm goals focused upon increasing the enrollment, retention, and graduation rates of minority students. Each institution is further required to issue an annual diversity repor t and monitor their individual progress towards achieving specific diversity goals. The Pol icy (CCHE, 1998) outlines a five-year review process, overseen by the Commission, to moni tor institutional progress towards meeting diversity goals. As described, institutions that do not make progress or show improvement are subject to an external review proce ss initiated by the CCHE (CCHE, 1998). The purpose of the external review team is t o make recommendations to improve institutional performance, and present their recomm endations as well as a plan of action to the CCHE. Race-Conscious Educational Policy in Colorado As discussed in the previous chapter, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education reinstated their Affirmative Action Polic y in 1998 (CCHE) as anti-affirmative action initiatives made their way onto state ballot s and were ultimately adopted in California in 1996, in Washington in 1998, and in M ichigan in 2006. In 2008, Coloradoans narrowly defeated (50.81% to 49.19%) a similar ballot initiative known as Amendment 46: the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (Buescher, 2008). Adoption of antiaffirmative action initiatives in California, Washi ngton, and Michigan negatively impacted the diversity of student bodies on college campuses, as public higher education institutions in these states “altered their policie s and practices to comply with these new

PAGE 99

85 laws” (Saenz, 2008, p. 1). Saenz (2008) highlights data discussing the recent progress of state university systems in Colorado, and at the Un iversity of Colorado system in particular, which “slowly increased the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its undergraduate programs over the last seven years [s ince 2001], from 10% to 12%” (Saenz, 2008, p. 1). In 2008, Amendment 46 posed a major threat to this growth, as California experienced significant dips in minority enrollment upon adoption of similar legislation and is yet to recover (Saenz, 2008). Bracing for the potential of Amendment 46 finding f avor with Colorado voters, the University of Colorado Boulder worked to devise means through which diversity on the campus would be preserved no matter what (Anas, 2008). If Amendment 46 had passed in 2008, more than one hundred donor-sponsor ed scholarships would have been in jeopardy because of specific connections to race or gender requirements (Anas, 2008). Though the Supreme Court upheld the use of affirmat ive action policies in Grutter (2003), new services such as “geodemographic taggin g that identifies and groups students according to neighborhood and high school” are bein g used by admissions officers in Michigan, striving to maintain diversity on their c ampuses (Anas, 2008). A graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder, Matt hew N. Gaertner, presented a paper in 2010, in which he “explored new statistical approac hes to support class-based affirmative action at CU” (p. 2). In short, Gaertner found, “us ing a sizeable socioeconomic boost, economic diversity increased compared with a system of race-based affirmative action” (Kahlenberg, 2010). This new research proves promising in that it may b e possible to use measures, other than race specifically, to maintain diverse s tudent bodies in light of the decision to

PAGE 100

86 be handed down by a more conservative Supreme Court in the near future in Fisher v. Texas that may end the legal use of race-conscious educa tional policies such as affirmative action. GaertnerÂ’s (2010) results are a lso alarming and suggestive of the longlasting, ill-effects of racism and discrimination a nd illustrate the connection between race and economic policy and opportunity. In the next ch apter, the history of race and diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder wil l be discussed in detail to draw attention to the long-lasting and ill-effects of ra cism and discrimination at UCB as the university has worked alongside other institutions of higher education to attract a more diverse campus community.

PAGE 101

87 CHAPTER IV A BRIEF HISTORY OF RACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER In an introductory overview of race, ethnicity, and gender2 at the University of Colorado, 1876-2002, Hays (n.d.) recalls the egalit arian tradition upon which the University was founded: “CU was established to prov ide an equal education to men and women . The University of Colorado was also an early opponent of Jim Crow practices” (p. 1). Three detailed histories of the University of Colorado have been written by Davis (1965); Allen, Foster, Andrade, Mitterling and Scamehorn (1976); and James (1979). These histories detailed the changing conte xts of the University including its size, demographics, and structure during the first 100 ye ars of its existence. Hays (n.d.) outlined these changes in a brief narrative which d escribed three time periods through which the University was seen to expand dramaticall y in size; two distinct periods of administration/student relations; and, three distin ct periods of race relations in the United States. Currently, the University of Colorado has three cam puses, with the largest campus, Boulder, serving approximately 30,000 under graduate and graduate students each year. Since 1968, the relationship between the administration and students has evolved and with the end of a period described by J ames (1979) as “in locus parentis,” students today are treated as adults instead of as children seen to be the responsibility of 2 Although histories about UCB, like the paper writ ten by Hays, include a discussion of gender, my study does not include a discussion of g ender and focuses solely on the role of race and ethnicity.

PAGE 102

88 the University (Hays, n.d.). The University of Colo rado has also evolved through three distinct periods of race relations: established in a racially segregated society (1876), emerging through the period of desegregation (19381965), and blossoming during the period of integration beginning in the 1970s (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1965; James, 1979). The current chapter focuses primarily upon t he University as it was established in a racially segregated society and emerged through t he period of desegregation. The remaining chapters focus upon the role of race and diversity as UCB blossomed during the period of integration and beyond. Recognition o f race as a pressing issue in American society and across the system of education became r elevant as our country worked toward desegregation. Efforts to desegregate variou s segments of society were met with resistance, and many would suggest were unsuccessfu l. This resistance can be seen at the University of Colorado Boulder, as well. The Founding of a State Flagship University As President George Norlin, quoting Cicero, express ed to graduates in 1939, and as is still expressed to graduates at commencement each year, “Who knows only his own generation always remains a child” (CU Heritage Cen ter, n.d.). This quote is particularly relevant as the purpose of this dissertation is to understand the history of the University in order to transcend its past and transform its futur e. To analyze and discuss UCB as an institution, and the multitude of issues facing UCB and institutions of higher education across the country today, it is essential to unders tand the long history of the college and university system in the United States. Allen et al (1976) include a discussion of the American college and university system in their boo k, describing how institutions of higher education are organized and function. Univer sities are described as public, private,

PAGE 103

89 large, and small; they have different academic stan dards and operate under separate educational philosophies. Higher education has evol ved since its beginning in America, growing substantially since the founding of Harvard University, which opened in 1636. The state university is a term used to describe a s ubset of institutions of higher education that are “subsidized by state tax dollars in order to minimize tuition, and its governing board is appointed or elected through the political process” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 10). Throughout our country’s history, the state university evolved, particularly as a result of The Morrill Federal Land-Grant Act of 186 2 (Allen et al., 1976). The Morrill Federal Land-Grant Act was introduced by Justin Mor rill who wanted to open the doors of higher education institutions to serve a more di verse population, and include a broader, more practical, curriculum. As described by Allen e t al. (1976), “The Morrill Act was in fact a federal endowment for higher education”, and as such, at least one university in each state that included a broad range of curricula r studies including agriculture and mechanic arts, would receive support from the sale of land grants (p. 11). In the 1870s, Colorado opened an engineering college, an agricult ural college, and a university. The School of Mines in Golden, the Agricultural College at Fort Collins, and the University of Colorado Boulder were the three public instituti ons of higher education to open their doors (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1965). The University of Colorado Boulder, among the other s, was founded in “an unpromising environment” characterized by low enrol lment, lack of funding, and uncertainty about the Colorado state system of educ ation in general and at the university specifically (Allen et al., 1976, p. 14). After muc h debate about its location, the land upon which it would be constructed, funding sources, lea dership and decision-making bodies,

PAGE 104

90 in the fall of 1877 UCB “began operations in an atm osphere reflecting inadequacy in every major particular area except its physical pla nt” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 32). From its founding until George Norlin was appointed to the p residency in 1919, UCB developed considerably and established its role as the leadin g institution of higher education in the state of Colorado (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1965) In their comprehensive history of UCB, spanning fro m 1876-1976, Allen et al. (1976) described UCB as having “a special character … serving as a cosmopolitan institution with students and faculty com[ing] from all over the world” (p. ix). Davis (1965) also describes the creation and maintenance of the University of Colorado Boulder throughout the nineteenth century, and the many fac tors affecting the institution as the decades ticked by. Among the many factors discussed by Davis (1965) and Allen et al. (1976), race enters into the discussion as civil ri ghts issues surfaced on both national and international fronts, at times taking center stage, during our country’s history. Race relations at UCB mirror the attitude of our country as a whole. Since UCB first welcomed students in 1877 willful ignorance of the many econ omic and educational problems related to race and our country’s history of discri mination gave way to modest recognition with the gains made by civil rights act ivists in the 1960s and beyond. Ultimately, acknowledgment that solutions were need ed to address disparities associated with race was made on the UCB campus, throughout Co lorado, and across the United States. Today, similar to other universities and organizati ons throughout the US, UCB continues its work to create solutions to provide e qual and equitable educational opportunities to all men and women in Colorado and across the globe. As leaders at UCB

PAGE 105

91 today look for new solutions to overcome issues cen tered on race and educational access and opportunity, it is helpful to understand and ac knowledge the past.. Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Geor ge Norlin Serving as the President of UCB from 1919 to 1939, following the resignation of President Livingston Farrand, Dr. George Norlin is fondly remembered for the impact he made both as a scholar and as a leader of the Unive rsity (Allen, et al., 1976; Davis, 1965). Undoubtedly, each president throughout the history of UCB played a significant role in promoting and establishing the university. However, in terms of addressing issues of race and bigotry, President Norlin is recognized foremos t because he stood up to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), which dominated Colorado government in the 1920s (CU Heritage Center, 2011; Delgado & Stefancic, 2009). In the 1920s, UCB was growing rapidly, but its facilities were inadequate. Already facing a defici t of nearly $100,000, Norlin initiated an amendment to the State Constitution “which provided for education purposes an additional levy of one mill” (Davis, 1965, p. 267). Spurring on alumni to take part in the campaign to garner support for and spread knowledge of the University, the Amendment passed by a margin of 7 to 1 in November, 1920 (Dav is, 1965). In the elections of 1924, the Ku Klux Klan took ove r the city of Denver and the state of Colorado (Abbott, et al., 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 2009). During this time, Norlin was approached by the KKK who demanded that he fire all Catholic and Jewish staff at the University; he did not comply with the se demands and the University lost a vital source of revenues as a new appropriation bil l benefiting the school died (Allen et al., 1976; CU Heritage Center, 2011; Davis 1965). The bill died because the state legislature adjourned without voting on it; the adj ournment was allegedly orchestrated by

PAGE 106

92 the KKK (Davis, 1965). Described as an ethical and democratic humanitarian, Norlin later reflected upon his experience with the KKK an d noted, “We can, perhaps, afford to play politics with many things, but not with educat ion” (CU Heritage Center, 2011). Unfortunately, as discussed in latter chapters thro ughout this dissertation, politics do come into play in education, particularly when the contentious topic of race is involved. After Norlin’s encounter with the KKK during his e arly years as president, his ethics and humanitarianism led him to originate an antidiscrimination campaign at UCB, including appointment of an Ethnic Minorities Commi ttee during the late 1930s. The purpose of the committee was “to investigate proble ms peculiar to minority students and to suggest corrective actions,” though the problems and corrective actions are not described in further detail (Allen et al., 1976, p. 176). Issues related to racism and discrimination continu ed to surface during the subsequent presidencies of Robert Stearns, Ward Dar ley, Quigg Newton and Joseph Smiley (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1965). Toward th e end of the 1940s under President Stearns, “the A.S.U.C. (Associated Students of the University of Colorado) passed a resolution by a 9 to 1 vote that: There shall be no discrimination because of color, national origin, or creed in campus activities and social life” (Davis, 1965, p. 508). Over the next few years, the university adopted other an ti-discriminatory measures. Enrollment at UCB grew significantly under Darley, but discrim ination continued to be the most troublesome problem facing his administration, and efforts to eliminate it became a significant part of student life (Allen et al., 197 6; Davis, 1965).

PAGE 107

93 Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Ward Darley In an effort to eliminate discriminatory practices from the lives of students, from 1953 through 1956 Darley “sought to bring an end to long-established restrictive practices in the selection of members for honorary, professional, and social organizations on the Boulder campus” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 175; Davis, 1965). Working toward the goal to end racial bias on campus, honorary and pro fessional groups were ordered to eliminate discriminatory clauses from their chapter s’ charters within five years. Social sororities and fraternities were required to report to a special committee their progress on eliminating such clauses from their national charte rs (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1965). All but one honorary and professional organization on c ampus met the deadline of June 1953. Because of its non-compliance, the University Commi ttee on Student Organizations and Social Life revoked the charter of Alpha Chi Sigma, a chemistry professional society (Davis, 1965). However, the charter was later reins tated as the Regents ruled in a split vote (3-2) that the group fit into the social rathe r than the professional category (Allen et al., 1976). As a result of the reinstatement of the group, the members of the University’s governing board were split and “the anti-bias crusa de [became] a partisan issue” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 178). Sororities initially appeared to make quick progres s to remove discriminatory clauses from their national charters; by 1949, all sororities at UCB had done so (Davis, 1965). Though discriminatory clauses were removed, in 1955, reports of “behind-theback” discrimination in sororities were made public and discrimination by social groups remained a contentious topic on campus (Allen et al ., 1976). This reality highlights the persistence of racism among individuals populating the country, state, and the UCB

PAGE 108

94 campus despite policies to the contrary. Compared t o UCB sororities, fraternities on the other hand moved much more slowly in eliminating di scriminatory clauses from their national charters; in 1953, the national charters o f all ten fraternities on the Boulder campus maintained discriminatory clauses (Davis, 19 65). It was not until March of 1956 that the Regents adopted an antidiscrimination poli cy to deal with the racism and bias on campus. After a 9 hour open hearing on the discri mination issue, the Regents voted to adopt a resolution requiring all fraternities, soci al organizations, and social groups that wished to remain a part of the UCB campus to elimin ate discriminatory provisions from their national charters by 1962. President Quigg Ne wton thus was faced with ensuring this deadline was met (Allen et al., 1976; Davis, 1 965). Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Quig g Newton Quigg Newton served as President of the University from 1956-1963. In 1958, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) criticized Newton and the Boulder campus for “the use of Negro figures in Homecoming Decorations” to align with the Homecoming theme, “A Little Bit O’Dixie” (Davis, 1965, p. 744). Newton responded via telegram to the NAACP affirming no offense was intended. As documented by Allen et al. (1976) and Davis (1965), no further discussion of the matter is recorded and no further interactio n took place between the NAACP and UCB. During Newton’s presidency, the 1962 deadline approached for compliance by fraternities and sororities of the anti-discriminat ory clause adopted by the Regents in 1956. By August of 1956, 36 of the 37 sororities an d fraternities on campus had complied with the mandate (Davis, 1965). Phi Delta Theta fra ternity was placed on probation for non-compliance. Probation lasted for a few days unt il the national organization made

PAGE 109

95 efforts to allow for local autonomy in membership s election. Thus, discriminatory practices by student organizations appeared to be r esolved under Newton. Though changes were being made and Newton’s goal of elevating UCB to prestigious status was underway, “opposition to the Newton administration, in time led by Regents and others who aspired to the presidency coalesced as an expression of conservatism, a reaction against change” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 196). In spring 1961, naysayers publically labeled Boulder as liberal and communist (Allen, 1976). Given the nature of the political atmosphere and the results of the election of 1962 during which “Republicans were swept into power,” capturing both the governor’s office and the state legislature, Newton resigned from his presidency to serve as the chief administrator of The Commonwealth Fund of New York (Allen et al., 19 76, p. 202). From 1953 to 1963, the University changed significa ntly, no longer isolated as an “ivory tower,” but thrust into mainstream life and politics, “an arena for conflicting interests” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 204). An atmosph ere of unrest present in Colorado in the 1960s was reflected in the publics’ attitude toward the University: “Popular support for higher education, at least for the University, had given way to disillusionment if not distrust” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 204). As a result of the public distrust, continued expansion of the University was in doubt. Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Jose ph R. Smiley Following Quigg Newton’s retirement, Joseph R. Smil ey was appointed to the presidency of the University of Colorado Boulder. U ndeniably, Newton had made great strides to lead the University to “acquire new stat ure and prestige” (James, 1979, p. 12). With Smiley serving as the new leader of UCB, growt h and change continued to take

PAGE 110

96 place on campus, mirrored on university campuses ac ross the country (Allen et al., 1976). One of the major changes taking place on college ca mpuses locally and nationally was substantial growth in the size of the student body and faculty (Allen et al., 1976; James, 1979). Allen et al. (1976) describe the substantia l growth taking place throughout the country: “Between 1960 and 1970 the number of stude nts enrolled nationally for degree credit more than doubled . to 7.1 million” (p. 206). The rising demand for higher education was linked to several factors including t he population growth of the 1940s resulting in a larger college-aged group in the 196 0s; an end to discrimination that resulted in educational access for a new groups of students; the growing dependence upon colleges and universities by businesses and go vernment agencies to provide specialized training and education for employees; a nd, personal higher expectations for career advancement which led to an increased need f or a college education (Allen et al., 1976). During this time-frame and through 1975, Colorado a lso changed substantially as the state’s population grew rapidly to become “almo st 30 percent larger than in 1960,” (1.7 million to approximately 2.5 million) and Colo rado’s economy continued to evolve (Allen et al., 1976, p. 206; United States Census B ureau, n.d.). With 19 public institutions of higher education in Colorado, a need to define i nstitutional roles and ensure the equal distribution of opportunities for education across the state became pertinent. In order to assert control over higher education in Colorado, t he Legislature created the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (C.C.H.E) in 1965 (A llen et al., 1976; James, 1979). As described in Chapter III, the C.C.H.E. was given the responsibility to “develop longrange plans, review budget requests, and recommend priorities for funding” and “furnish

PAGE 111

97 important leadership for the evolution of higher ed ucation in Colorado” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 207). This atmosphere of growth and change accompanied th e beginning of Joseph R. Smiley’s presidency as he began serving as the 9th president of the University of Colorado Boulder. The party politics that accompani ed the exit of Quigg Newton continued into the mid-1970s and with Republicans i n control, Smiley “had to deal with a state government that was less inclined to raise ta xes and improve public services” (Allen et al., 1965, p. 211). Further, from 1966 onward, “ the Republicans had a majority on the governing board of the University” (Allen et al., p 211). Smiley’s presidency was also greatly impacted by both national and international events, and students at UCB and universities around the country demonstrated using “teach-ins, bitch-ins, and sit-ins to not only call attention to their assertions but to dema nd attention” (James, 1979, p. 24). In Boulder, topics for teach-ins included Vietnam, fre e speech, religion, and civil liberties, among others. The Rocky Mountain News featured a report by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee written by an anonymous indiv idual who alleged several professors at CU were “leading the student protest movement and being Communist sympathizers” (James, 1979, p. 25). Though these al legations were false, the liberal image of the Boulder campus and community left room for conservatives to assert their negative views of the University into the future. Smiley led the university during a time when nation al tragedy, controversy, and hope for a better tomorrow ran deep as the country witnessed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November of 1963, the beginning of Vietnam, and the delivery of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” s peech to hundreds of thousands in

PAGE 112

98 1963 (James, 1979). Civil rights issues seemingly m ade their way into the consciousness of students and faculty. The absence of minorities on campus was noted by James (1979) who wrote, “Until 1966, when administrators were pr essured to admit more minority students, most Blacks on campus could be accounted for on one of the athletic teams except for a few women, and Spanish surnamed studen ts were as rare” (p. 26). The antidiscrimination policy adopted by the Regents in 195 6 surfaced once again as Sigma Chi Fraternity was placed on probation in 1965, when th e Regents learned the fraternity’s national office did not support the membership of r acial minorities. The decision made by the Regents in this case was upheld by a federal co urt. The suspension of the chapter was lifted in April of 1967, but Sigma Chi had already moved “off campus” (James, 1979). In general, students supported the university’s anti-d iscrimination policy and took it even further in 1969 when “the CU student body voted to assess itself $5 per semester for ten years to help with minority scholarships” (James, 1 979, p. 46). Undeniably, Smiley’s presidency was met and challen ged by powerful social changes taking place throughout the country. James (1979) wrote about the role of minority students on Boulder’s campus during these changing times and emphasized, “minorities, particularly the Blacks, were demandin g the right to a fuller education on a much broader basis than had been open to them in th e past” (p. 52). Historical accounts paint a picture of UCB as an open and accepting cam pus, but minorities were undeniably underrepresented. As the sole Black faculty member, English Professor Charles Nilon, “estimated there were between fifty and sixty Black s enrolled” in the early 1960s (James, 1979, p. 52). In a memorandum obtained from the Ex ecutive Vice President’s office, written by John P. Holloway, the University’s willi ngness to accept and embrace

PAGE 113

99 minorities was supported by the Discrimination Poli cy of the University, which stated admission would be offered to students regardless o f race, religion, or nationality (Holloway, 1967). As stated by Holloway (1967), “Th e policy of non-discrimination is constitutional…. and so far as I am advised, has be en in practice since the founding of the University.” Former Black student, W. Harold Flowers, began his studies at UCB in 1963 and graduated from the school of law in 1969. When aske d about the presence of minority students on campus during his years as a student, “ Flowers estimated there were eighteen Blacks on campus. He said he was aware of only two Chicanos on campus” (James, 1979, p. 53). Though the policy of non-discriminati on was in place at UCB, efforts to attract minority students to campus were seemingly absent. Flowers also felt the stereotypical view of Black students as athletes an d incapable academics was definitely present on the UCB campus (James, 1979). In assessi ng reasons Blacks existed in such small numbers on campus, Flowers offered the follow ing explanation: “They didn’t go to C.U. because of preparation and, since there were s o few Blacks, they didn’t go for social reasons either” (James, 1979, p. 53). The death of Martin Luther King “brought the studen t’s interest and the University’s concern together” as President Smiley held a meeting with the Faculty Senate announcing the appropriation of funds for re cruiting minority students to campus for summer programs. Upon completing the program, p articipants would be allowed to enroll at UCB for the upcoming school year (James, 1979, p. 53). As detailed by James (1979) and through the numerous documents obtained from the archives concerning the history of UCB, aside from dealing with the problem s associated with discrimination in

PAGE 114

100 social organizations, President Smiley was the firs t to commit monetary resources to the recruitment of minority students. Serving as Vice P resident and in charge of academic affairs, Thurston E. Manning was credited by Presid ent Smiley and Associate Dean of Faculties, Ronald Rautenstraus, for his support of minority affairs (James, 1979). However, these efforts to include a more diverse gr oup of students on the Boulder campus were not widely embraced by all members of t he campus community. James (1979) notes that as race riots and other violence took place on campuses and in cities across the country, “the attitude of those in admin istration [at UCB] towards admitting large numbers of minorities was mixed” (p. 54). President Smiley led the University of Colorado Bou lder through turbulent times, during which major changes were taking place not on ly at the University but throughout the state of Colorado, the nation and the world. Wi dely admired and supported for his leadership capabilities, Smiley resigned from the p residency in February of 1969. James (1979) summarizes the many changes that took hold d uring Smiley’s presidency with “the end of in loco parentis changes in faculty and student government, change s in curriculum, more positive alumni attitudes, the beg innings of a strong minority enrollment program” (p. 81). As a more diverse grou p of students were welcomed to campus than ever before, new construction was commo nplace and the campus continued to capture the eye of past, present, and future sta keholders (James, 1979; Allen et al., 1976). Through all of the ups and downs Smiley enco untered as president, particularly in terms of politics, when all was said and done “the University remained in its place of high standing and fine regard among public institut ions” (James, 1979, p. 82). However, historical statistical data suggest that the presen ce of a diverse and heterogeneous student

PAGE 115

101 body continued to elude UCB, and more would need to be done to change the attitudes of those in administration, and the campus community a t large, to transform the make-up of the student body. Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Fred erick Patrick Thieme Serving the university in various roles for 26 year s, Eugene H. Wilson also served as the tenth interim President of the University fo r three months after Smiley resigned. During the few months Wilson held office, “the summ er program to prepare minority students to deal better with college was proving a success” (James, 1979, p. 85). The Student Tutorial Program and Migrant Action Program included Blacks, Chicanos and Native Americans, and expanded in size during its s econd year of existence in summer 1969. The Medical Center also started a summer prog ram with the goal of recruiting more minority and disadvantaged students, as “only one Black and one Chicano were enrolled” at the time (James, 1979, p. 85). The tr end toward minority involvement and inclusion continued with the selection of the eleve nth President of the University, Frederick Patrick Thieme. According to James (1979) “the first two years of Thieme’s administration were years when the most convulsive minority demonstrations occurred” (p. 100). Along with Thieme, Dean Roland Rautenstraus played an active role in advocating for the needs and desires of minority st udents on campus, and he worked to convince the regents that minority programs were ne eded because of the positive impact they made across campus. The educational opportunit y programs that started in the summer of 1968 proved successful; and during the 19 69-70 school year, “approximately 800 students, [including minority students], were r eceiving financial aid on the Boulder,

PAGE 116

102 [Denver, and Colorado Springs campuses]” (Allen et al., 1976, p. 240). Dean Rautenstraus believed in the need for minority prog rams, suggesting that they were “not just [a] philosophical issue, but an institutional obligation” (James, 1979, p. 101). Throughout the 1970s, issues concerning minority st udents continued to surface and Thieme wanted to make the minority programs at the University work, though “there were several administrators who were not enthusiast ic and even “sabotaging” the efforts” (James, 1979, p. 103). Educational Opportunities Programs As the funds ($180,000) were made available, the St udent Tutorial Program, serving 48 Black students, and the Migrant Action P rogram, serving 25 MexicanAmericans, were put into place during the summer of 1968 (James, 1979). A summary of programs described under the umbrella of Educationa l Opportunities Programs from July 1, 1969, was maintained in the papers of the Presid ent’s Office in the UCB Archives. The first Student Tutorial Program (STP) and Migrant Ac tion Program (MAP) were started in the summer of 1968 and are discussed in the summary report. Seventy students who participated in the summer programs continued at th e university during the 1968-1969 school year and “approximately fifty of these stude nts completed the freshman year successfully” and planned to return for the next sc hool year (Hannon, 1969, p. 1). Serving as the director of EOP programs, Hannon (1969) desc ribed the university’s plan to enroll 550 minority and disadvantaged students in the fall of 1969, with 275 students continuing as regular university students upon their successfu l completion of the summer programs, and 225 freshman and junior college students admitt ed with “special financial aid consideration” (p. 2).

PAGE 117

103 Summer Tutorial Program As described in the EOP Summary Report (Hoover, 196 9), the Summer Tutorial Program from 1968-1969 included 47 students from a disadvantaged background. These students took remedial courses in English compositi on, Political Science, and English Literature taught by volunteer faculty and supporte d by volunteer tutors. As the program continued into the fall semester, students enrolled in 11 to 13 college credit hours, taking courses in English, special reading (non-credit), a nd Mexican-American and AfricanAmerican Studies. Students were provided with the s upport of tutors, and were required to attend study tables Sunday-Thursday, from seven until nine in the evening. After the first semester, the program was changed to better m eet the individual needs of the students. The changed program was labeled the “Coun selor-Tutor Plan,” and included the support of tutors, optional study tables, and an up perclassman or graduate student who was assigned to serve as a counselor for four to fi ve students. The counselor would be a member of a minority group, and would anticipate th e needs of the students and essentially serve as a mentor (Hoover, 1969). Sugge stions from the program participants were taken into consideration to improve the experi ence for future students. Summer Tutorial Program participants suggested the summer experience needed to be more demanding to lead to their success as students enro lled in the university during the school year (Hoover, 1969). Data, including student GPAs a nd credit hours earned, was maintained by the EOP Office to track student progr ess and program effectiveness and are included in the summary report.

PAGE 118

104 Migrant Action Program As described by Hoover (1968) in the EOP Summary Re port, the Migrant Action Program (MAP) was “designed to provide educational opportunities for rural SpanishAmerican and Mexican-American children” (p. 17). Tw enty-three students participated in the MAP program during the summer of 1968. The comp osition of the students participating in the program was detailed by Hoover (1968), who described the age range of the students, from 17 to 33, their rank in high school classes, and their College Entrance Examination Board Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. The students participating in this program “experienced a greater degree of su ccess than would normally be expected . earning a mean, cumulative grade poi nt average of 2.118” (Hoover, 1968, p. 17). The program participants supported each other emotionally and socially, and volunteer tutors provided academic support across a cademic disciplines. Approximately 50 students were expected to participate in the MAP as the program continued into the fall of 1969 (Hoover, 1968). Other Programs Many other programs that fall under the Educational Opportunities Program Office were detailed in the EOP Office Summary Repo rt (Hoover, 1969). The EOP programs not described in further detail here inclu de (a) Education Research Action College located at Manual High School, (b) C.U.De nver Public Schools Tutorial Program, (c) School of Law Summer Tutorial Program, (d) Graduate School programs, (e) School of Education Programs, (f) Junior Colleg e Transfer Program, and (g) VISTADenver Public School Training Program. The EOP Offi ce Summary Report (1969) also included a description of the EOP Tutorial Support Program put into place in the fall of

PAGE 119

105 1969 for the 1969-1970 school year. The Black Studi es and Mexican-American Studies programs designed for the 1969-70 school year are a lso described in detail in the report. The last part of the extensive EOP Office Summary R eport (1969) includes a report submitted to the Colorado Commission on High er Education, in response to a request from the CCHE to provide answers to specifi c questions concerning opportunities for minorities at the university. A list of courses offered at UCB “primarily directed to minority group history, culture, problems, attainme nts, etc.” was outlined in the report (Yetter, 1969, p. 48). Efforts to hire minority per sonnel in administrative, faculty, and non-academic positions from 1965 on were also docum ented and outlined for the CCHE. The last area addressed in the report described eff orts, plans, and problems encountered in recruiting minority and disadvantaged students t hrough 1970. Addressing the Needs of the Underrepresented The Faculty Council authorized a study known as The Jessor Report named after Richard Jessor who was a professor of psychology an d chairman of the Faculty Council Committee on Minority Programs, in 1970 (James, 197 9; Jessor, 1970). The Jessor Report outlined the goals of the minority student program s at UCB and the committee made 17 recommendations, including the need to make a commitment to substantially increase minority enrollment so “that by the 1974-7 5 academic year the number of minorities should reflect the proportion of minorit ies in the state or fifteen percent” (Allen et al., 1967; James, 1979; Jessor, 1970). Th e 17 recommendations made by Jessor and the other faculty members who served on the com mittee were “sympathetic to the educational needs of minorities” (James, 1979, p. 1 02). As noted previously, all faculty and administrators were not supportive of the effor ts being made to expand educational

PAGE 120

106 access and opportunity available to minority studen ts, but as discussed previously, most students seemed sympathetic to the cause as they “v oted in the spring of 1969 to add $5 per semester to their tuition to be used for minori ty financial support for ten years” (James, 1979, p. 102). The use of these funds to su pport minorities on campus was later deemed unconstitutional by the State Attorney Gener al. However, the University, under Thieme later reached an agreement to enroll more Ch icano and Black students and, “[Thieme] said his policy position was to make the minority programs work” (James, 1979, p. 103). The Colorado Commission on Higher Education made a decision in the fall of 1972 to limit enrollment at the University of Color ado Boulder to 20,000 students (James, 1979). As a result of this decision, higher standards for admission were put into place; this posed even more difficulty for the Univ ersity as they worked toward recruiting, admitting, and enrolling more minority students (James, 1979). When asked about the higher standards, President Thieme discus sed his support of “a total evaluation of the person to see if he can graduate as an ordin ary student at the University,” and further suggested “the University should go all out to help the disadvantaged student who was admitted” (James, 1979, p. 103). During the 197 0s, minority speakers came together on the Colorado Springs campus to discuss discrimin ation in education and “they raised the issue of parity in enrollment” (James, 1979, p. 103). James (1979) recognized that “the issue of parity, though long a minority goal, has never been resolved” (p. 102). The parity issue would be addressed again during th e fall of 1973 as the University’s affirmative action policies were criti cized by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (H.E.W) for “underutilization or low utilization of women and

PAGE 121

107 minorities throughout the University workforce and faculty” (James, 1979, p. 144). A task force was established to address these issues and Thieme appointed Barbara Jones as the director of affirmative action programs at the University. Four resolutions were then passed by the Faculty Council, supporting affirmati ve action as a means to eliminate inequities (James, 1979). The campus Affirmative Ac tion Plan was endorsed by the regents in October of 1973, and The Minority Task F orce was assigned to work out the details of the plan and draw up a separate plan for each of the University of Colorado campuses (James, 1979). Creation of the Chancellors As an important aside to the work Thieme accomplis hed during his presidency, specifically in regard to addressing the needs of u nderrepresented students, he also was responsible for creating the four campus University of Colorado system (Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, and the medical campus), overseen by the President and each led by a Chancellor. Under his strong but controver sial leadership, vast improvements were made on both the Denver and Colorado Springs c ampuses. Thieme appointed Chancellors to lead each of the four campuses, beco ming the “first President of CU as a multi-campus system”, and altering the structure of leadership and control over the University through the present day (CU Heritage Cen ter, n.d.). In 2005, under the Presidency of Hank Brown, the Board of Regents vote d to move the President’s office from Boulder to Denver, a discussion that had taken place during the presidencies of Weber and Gee (Dodge, 2005). Regents in favor of th e move suggested that the President would be able “to create a plan to maintain a meani ngful presence on each of the campuses” (Dodge, 2005). After Thieme left the offi ce of the President, the role of

PAGE 122

108 campus chancellors grew considerably in terms of ov erseeing the enactment of university policies, such as those related to minority student recruitment, retention, and success. Current university president Bruce Benson appointed the 11th Chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder, Phil DiStefano, in May 2009 (Office of the Chancellor, n.d.). Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Rola nd Curt Rautenstraus Unrest among the faculty, as well as the “continuin g problems of finance, management, and priorities”, ultimately led to the firing of President Thieme (James, 1979, p. 149). In 1974, Roland Curt Rautenstraus wa s appointed interim President and he was named the 12th President of the University in J anuary of 1975. As an advocate of, and mediator for, minority students, Rautenstraus c ontinued to work to resolve discriminatory practices at UCB early in his presid ency. In 1976, African Americans gained prominent roles in university administration and governance with the appointment of Mary Frances Berry as permanent chancellor of th e Boulder campus; “the first woman and the first Black” to do so, and of Rachel Noel, a prominent figure on the Denver School Board, to the Board of Regents (James, 1979, p. 159). Even with these minority women appointed to significant positions, three yea rs after the Affirmative Action Plan had been put into place, the director of women’s st udies, Carol Pearson, expressed concern over its effectiveness in altering the numb er of women and minorities in administrative and faculty positions, which were de scribed as “minute on campus” (James, 1979, p. 164). Progress had been made over the years to enroll mor e minority students at the University, but Dean William E. Briggs noted, “ther e are many people who feel it’s still

PAGE 123

109 below what it should be” (James, 1979, p. 165). In particular, Representative Morgan Smith and Regent Rachel Noel were critical of the S chool of Law for its failure to hire women and minorities (James, 1979). A search into e nrollment records now maintained on the university’s Website did not prove fruitful in obtaining the actual, raw numbers of minority students on campus since UCB’s first acade mic year in 1877. Enrollment records maintained on the university’s Planning, Bu dget, and Analysis Website (http://www.colorado.edu/pba) that include a breakd own of racial groups begin with the year 1988 through the present day. Race, UCB, and Leadership from 1980 to the Present The three comprehensive histories compiled since th e founding of the University of Colorado end with the presidency of Roland C. Ra utenstraus in 1980. Since 1980, nine other individuals have served as leaders of the Uni versity of Colorado system, and issues concerning race and the presence, or lack thereof, of minorities on campus have continued to surface. Evidence of this struggle can be found in the UCB archives, in local, state, and national news articles, and on th e UCB Website. Today, President Bruce D. Benson and the chancellors of each of the Univer sity of Colorado campuses lead university diversity efforts. There are now three c ampuses run by Chancellor’s as the University of Colorado Denver and Anschutz Medical Campus merged. The president’s stance on race and diversity can be found on the We bsite associated with the Office of the President: The University of Colorado’s efforts in diversity a re among our most important activities. As a university, we have a special obli gation to ensure that the students we educate (and the faculty and staff who deliver that education) reflect the diversity of our state and society. One of CU’s gu iding principles, as articulated by the Board of Regents, stresses the importance o f diversity in all its forms. (Benson, n.d.)

PAGE 124

110 Race and UCB under the Leadership of President Arno ld R. Weber Arnold R. Weber served as President of UCB from 198 0-1985. Papers maintained in the university archives reveal the intense strug gle Weber faced as President with issues related to affirmative action at UCB. A letter from Colorado House Minority Leader Federico Pena (1981), received by Weber on Septembe r 9, 1981, complained of “statistics showing plummeting minority student enr ollments on the C.U. campuses and of the lack of minority personnel recruitment and p romotion at the University.” Indeed, data for UCB reveal that minority student enrollmen t declined from the late 1970’s into the early 1980’s, from 9.31% in 1977-78 to 7.85% in 1981-82, and 7.87% in 1982-83 (Minority Student Analysis, 1983). Pena, on behalf of the minority legislators, asked Weber to “rectify the poor affirmative action situa tion now existing at the University” (p. 1). After receipt of this letter, action to rectify the situation seemed to get underway quickly. On May 6, 1982, Chancellor Harrison Shull submitted the annual Affirmative Action Report for the Boulder campus to President W eber. In this report, concerns over decreasing minority enrollments on the Boulder camp us were discussed and the Affirmative Action Office acknowledged, “efforts in this area need to be emphasized to maximize the education and advancement of minority individuals” (Affirmative Action Report, 1982, p. 54). Plans to evaluate and revise the Affirmative Action Program at UCB were discussed, as well. Under President Weber’s leadership and likely in re sponse to the criticism of the UCB campus regarding minority enrollment, a Regents Committee was formed by Sandy F. Kraemer and Rachel B. Noel, “to investigate and recommend ways to improve minority enrollment and retention” at UCB (Kraemer Noel Report, 1984). Kraemer and

PAGE 125

111 Noel, co-chairs of the ad-hoc committee, took respo nsibility for the material presented in their report to the other Regents, the President, a nd the campus community. Developing a three-pronged approach, the co-chairs identified th ree “critical intervention points” upon which minority programming efforts should focus: (a ) pre-collegiate academic assistance, (b) recruitment, and (c) retention (Kraemer & Noel, 1984). Discussion and reaction to the report by the other Regents is included in the docu ment found in the archives and suggests an overall sense of agreement surrounding the goal to graduate students from the University, and increase retention and graduation r ates of minority students in particular. Several documents maintained in the archives discus s the recommendations and findings presented in the Kraemer Noel Report (1984). At a t ime when a plan was desperately needed, this report appeared to fill the void and p rovide a base from which action could stem. As the discussion among the Regents is documented, Kraemer commented on an important graphic included in the report titled, “T he Educational Pipeline in This Country” (see Appendix B). Utilizing this graphic, Kraemer and Noel (1984) highlighted the dilemma facing UCB, and the nation, in preparin g all students for a bright future. The educational pipeline graphic illustrates the gradua tion gap as “the numbers of those who graduate from high school are compared with those c ompleting college . the statistics are alarming and the need is great” (Kraemer & Noel 1984, p. 512). The pipeline referred to by Kraemer and Noel (1984) was borrowed from a study conducted by Astin (1982) and breaks down percentag es of high school graduation, college entrance, and college completion rates by r ace. In the graphic, 83% of White students graduate from high school, of the 83%, 38% enter college, 23% of those students

PAGE 126

112 complete college, 14% enter graduate or professiona l college, and 8% complete graduate or professional school. These statistics contrast w ith those of students from minority groups, with Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians posting the lowest high school graduation rate of 55%, and ultimately the l owest completion rate of graduate or professional school, 2%. The high school graduation rate of Black students in this graphic was 72%, with 29% entering college, 12% completing college, 8% entering graduate or professional college, and 4% completing graduate or professional school. While presenting their report to the Board of Regen ts, Noel declared, “I hope in 1994 a report like this will not ever have to be wr itten” (Kraemer & Noel, 1984, p. 511). Yet today, though progress has been made since 1984 similar discussions continue to take place and more reports have been written. In t he state of Colorado, a more recent educational pipeline graphic described as “The Colo rado Paradox,” continues to draw attention to the high school to college graduation gap in Colorado. The Colorado Paradox refers to Colorado’s rank as one of the top five st ates nationwide for the greatest number of college-degree holders per capita, juxtaposed wi th Colorado’s rank in the bottom quartile of the number of high school graduates ear ning a degree in one of our state’s institutions of higher education (only 1 in 5 high school graduates earn a degree in Colorado). The persistence of the Colorado Paradox is evidence of an educational system that continues to fall short of serving all student s equally and equitably. In response to the recommendations made in the Krae mer-Noel Report (1984), President Weber’s office made efforts to establish a Student Retention Task Force to “address the needs of all students but give emphasi s to the particular needs of minority students” (Breivik, 1985, p. 1). As proposed, the Task Force would include staff

PAGE 127

113 members serving as representatives from all of the University of Colorado campuses, working to embrace the university system’s goal of improving the retention rates of minority students across the CU system. Because the CU system includes four different campuses, each with its own history and goals, a sy stem-wide task force was not welcomed with open arms. Chancellor Neal Lane, serv ing at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS), compiled a lengthy repo rt in response to Kraemer and Noel (1984) suggesting, “the task force report contains major flaws in the conceptual nature of the document and the subsequent recommendations” (L ane, 1985, p. 1). Though supportive of developing a task force to address sy stem-wide minority recruitment and retention issues, Lane (1985) felt that campus auto nomy needed to be maintained when dealing with issues surrounding race, diversity, af firmative action, and equal opportunity. Documents obtained from the UCB archives indicated the ongoing struggle encountered throughout the university system to imp lement the Kraemer-Noel recommendations in 1984. Data collected and maintai ned by the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado Commission of Higher Edu cation from the state’s colleges and universities reveals that not all campuses have struggled as mightily as Boulder to attract, retain, and graduate members of minority g roups. Race and UCB under the Leadership of President E. ( Elwood) Gordon Gee E. Gordon Gee took over the presidency of UCB from Arnold Weber in 1985 and served the University until 1990. Given the immedia cy of the release of the Kraemer Noel report and Gee’s term as president, discussion s about race, diversity, affirmative action, and equal opportunity continued throughout his presidency. In May of 1988, President Gee received a letter from Leslie S. Fran klin, Director of the Governor’s Job

PAGE 128

114 Training Office. Franklin identified “extreme displ easure regarding the current level of enrollment of minority students generally, and of B lack students in particular, at the Boulder Campus of the University of Colorado” (p.1) Gee (1988) replied to Mr. Franklin’s letter, expressing his personal concern with the underrepresentation of minorities, particularly of Black students, and emp hasized the growing proportion of minority students planning to enroll at UCB in the fall of 1987. Responding during the summer months, Gee (1988) highlighted the growth of Black students who had confirmed their enrollment the previous year, incre asing from 1.7% in 1986 to 2.2% in 1987. In an undated letter to his colleagues, Presi dent Gee discussed his commitment to creating a University community that “will become r icher as we increase its diversity” (Gee, n.d., Archives University of Colorado at Boul der Libraries). Building on the Past and Transforming the Future Efforts to increase campus diversity seemed to take center stage at UCB, across the University of Colorado system, in Colorado, and around the country in the 1990s, and this trend toward embracing diversity has seemingly continued into the present day. Since E. Gordon Gee’s presidency ended in 1990, six other s have served as president of the University of Colorado system, including: William E Baughn, 1985, 1990-1991; the first woman President, Judith E.N. Albino (1991-1995); Jo hn C. Buechner (1995-2000); Alexander E. Bracken (2000); the second woman presi dent, Elizabeth Hoffmann (20002005); Hank Brown (2005-2008); and current Presiden t, Bruce Benson who began leading the University system in 2008. Each of thes e individuals faced their own obstacles as they led the University through the up s and downs in Colorado, in the United States, and across the globe, particularly as they worked to improve the diversity of

PAGE 129

115 students on all of the university campuses. Many of the efforts initiated by these individuals to address concerns surrounding the und errepresentation of minority students in the University of Colorado system and specifical ly at the University of Colorado Boulder in the 1990s have continued today. As times and tides have continued to change, the state legislature has remained actively involve d in efforts to propel Colorado forward by opening the doors of opportunity for all student s interested in attending the colleges and universities throughout the state. In 1990, the Colorado Commission on Higher Educatio n “accepted a state goal to increase minority graduation rates to equal the 198 8/1989 high school graduation rate of 18.6% to be achieved by the year 2000” (Cunningham & Chisholm, 1992, p. 1). The CCHE adopted this goal as a result of a state legis lature directive set forth in HB 1187,“to the Commission to adopt statewide affirmative actio n policies for student-supported institutions of higher education” (Cunningham & Chi sholm, 1992, p. 1). In 1989, the CCHE approved the goal of increasing minority stude nt college graduation rates to meet part of its affirmative action responsibilities. A financial incentive was attached to the graduation goal and the Commission approved, “that .5% of the base funding for higher education be used to reward institutions that impro ve their minority graduation rates” (Cunningham & Chisholm, 1992, p. 1). In 1992, the C ommission increased the percentage of base funding from .5% to 1%. As docum ented by CCHE, UCB met the CCHE affirmative action goals, as outlined, in 1990 and 1991. As discussed in Chapter III, the Colorado Commissio n on Higher Education adopted a new policy on affirmative action in Octob er of 1998. Unlike the policy adopted in 1990, the 1998 policy included multiple indicato rs of institutional progress toward

PAGE 130

116 achieving diversity instead of focusing solely on m inority graduation rates, represented a continuous improvement model for institutional succ ess, provided for more flexibility allowing every institution of higher education in C olorado more options to succeed, and pledged to seek new appropriations for higher educa tion to financially support precollegiate programs. As a result of the change in t he CCHE policy, UCB responded by creating a new campus diversity plan, A Blueprint for Action, that many students opposed (Dodge, 1999). During this time, Ofelia Miramontes, then Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity, made plans to meet with various student and campus groups to get feedback to include in a second draft of the plan she planned t o prepare and submit to the Board of Regents in March of 2000. Students opposed the firs t draft of the plan “because it lacked specific goals” which had been included, as require d by CCHE, in previous diversity plans (Dodge, 1999). Wary of the potential for lega l misinterpretation of numerical goals as quotas, Miramontes planned to meet with Universi ty counsel to discuss the inclusion of numerical diversity goals in the second draft of the plan. Criticism of the university’s diversity plan came not only from students, but sta ff members, like Ray Chavez, who felt the commitment to put diversity plans into action h ad to come from the top (Dodge, 1999). With the creation of the Associate Vice Chan cellor for Diversity position and the devotion of significant funding for diversity progr amming, Miramontes believed the efforts being made by the university to implement c hange and to create a more diverse community of students, staff, and faculty members w ere indicative of the commitment to diversity being made by campus administrators as th e 21st century began (Dodge, 1999). The remaining chapters of this dissertation will di scuss the present-day state of race and diversity affairs on the University of Col orado Boulder campus, as outlined on

PAGE 131

117 the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Enga gement (ODECE) Website. The ODECE office was founded on the UCB campus in the f all of 2006 and was originally led by Sally McKee. ODECE is currently led by Vice Chancellor, Robert Boswell and Assistant Vice Chancellor, Alphonse Keasley. The OD ECE Website highlights several areas related to diversity and equity efforts champ ioned on college campuses across the country. The remaining chapters in this dissertatio n will focus upon describing the relationship between race and diversity with campus climate, community engagement, and student success to offer an explanation for the ir inclusion on ODECEÂ’s Website, to make the case for diversity, and to further analyze UCBÂ’s efforts to attract, retain, and graduate a more diverse student population.

PAGE 132

118 CHAPTER V THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON COLLEGE STUDENT SUCCESS According to a report prepared by The Adams Group I nc. (2007) for the Colorado Department of Education, Colorado boasts one of the most highly educated populations in the United States and “in 2005, Colorado ranked third among the fifty states in percentage of its population with a college degree” (p. 21). Clearly, an educated population benefits the state of Colorado as “colle ge educated adults are more likely to be healthy, to vote and to volunteer their time” (p. 2 4). In their research on successful diversity programming at colleges and universities across the U.S., Wade-Golden and Matlock (2007) highlighted the importance of focusi ng upon the retention and graduation rates of underrepresented students, student success rates, instead of solely focusing upon their admission numbers. Enrolling students is part of the equation but ultimately, graduation is the goal from which benefits, economi c, institutional, and personal, will be reaped. The decline of college educated young adults popula ting our country is characterized by “The OECD data [that] show that th e U.S. is still near the top in college participation rates but ranks near the bottom among OECD nations in college completion rates” (Moore & Shulock, 2009, p. 1). Focusing upon retention, graduation, and transfer rates of college students may not provide a complet e picture of successful college outcomes but these are the measures currently utili zed by state systems that have been developed to track student progress toward degree c ompletion (Moore & Shulock, 2009). Research cited by Moore and Shulock (2009) highligh ts factors traditionally associated

PAGE 133

119 with college success of students which includes, (a ) higher-income level of families, (b) a family tradition of college attendance, (c) stronge r academic preparation in high school, (d) close proximity of college enrollment and high school graduation, (e) strong commitment to degree completion, and (f) ability to attend college full time without interruption. Focusing upon these factors can lead to greater student success in the college environment. College Readiness and Academic Preparedness In a study of two-year-college students pursuing ca reers in specific and identified career clusters, D’Amico, Morgan, and Robertson (20 11) conducted a comprehensive literature review of factors contributing to studen t success. They acknowledge that “academic preparedness is one factor to consider wh en measuring retention and graduation rates” (D’Amico et al., 2011, p. 4). Dis cussing past research by Gerlaugh, Thompson, Boylan and Davis (2007, cited in D’Amico et al., 2011) on academic preparedness and the impact upon graduation rates f rom two year colleges, D’Amico et al. (2011) draw attention to the lower graduation r ates of those students who enter college in need of remediation. In fact, “fewer than half o f students required to complete a developmental course complete that course and pass their first college-level course in the corresponding subject” (p. 5). The results of anoth er research study by Kolajo (2004, cited in D’Amico et al., 2011, p. 5) suggest that t he more developmental or remedial classes taken by students, the more likely it is fo r graduation to be delayed. Further, in the same study males were found to take longer than the ir female counterparts to graduate, as were younger students in comparison to older studen ts. Other researchers (Knapp, KellyReid, Ginder, & Miller, 2008 cited by D’Amico et al ., 2011) found “Black non-Hispanic

PAGE 134

120 and Hispanic students graduate at lower rates than Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islanders” (p. 5). D’Amico et al. (2011) focused their attention upon examining success factors of two-year college students, but the research base fr om which their study stems seems applicable to the four-year college or university s etting, as well. In their review of the literature, specific student characteristics were c onnected to student attrition. The characteristics identified by Habley and McClanahan (2004, cited in D’Amico et al., 2011) include academic preparation, financial resou rces, motivation, and external demands on time (p. 5). Action oriented, D’Amico et al. (2011) encourage pro-active interventions to positively impact student success. They draw upon research by Tinto (1993, cited in D’Amico, 2011) who found, “academic and social integration at an institution contributes to enhanced retention” (p. 6). Student Success Interventions D’Amico et al. (2011) suggest that focusing upon th e academic preparation of K12 students is essential to provide them with a gre ater opportunity to succeed in the college environment. With the introduction of Highe r Education Admission Requirements (HEAR) in fall 2010, the Colorado Comm ission on Higher Education implemented a top-down approach to ensure that coll ege-bound high school graduates would be prepared to meet the demands of academic l ife that they would encounter on college campuses across the state and around the co untry. Because local school districts maintain control over graduation requirements, fund ing, and course offerings, there is no guarantee that all Colorado students will meet HEAR standards and graduate from high school prepared to achieve in all academic discipli nes encountered on a college campus.

PAGE 135

121 With the recent introduction of the Common Core, di scussed in more detail in the conclusion, the Colorado Department of Education re cognizes the importance of offering all students a standard academic core to ensure tha t they are receiving a high quality education and are ultimately prepared to succeed in post-secondary education and the workforce. Even so, because college attendance toda y has become more the rule today than the exception, students will continue to atten d college with various levels of academic preparation. Pressure to graduate students prepared or not, from college is likely to continue into the future. Research sugges ts college campuses can implement a variety of strategies to help students find success in individual classrooms and to ultimately earn a college degree. Tinto’s Attributes of Effective Classrooms Tinto (2011) discusses the positive changes that ha ve developed over the past 40 years in higher education, namely, that access has improved and college enrollment has continued to increase. However, improved access and larger numbers of students enrolling in college has not resulted in higher gra duation rates for students from colleges and universities throughout the US as “only about h alf of all college students in the U.S. earn a degree or certificate within six years” (Tin to, 2011, p. 1). College graduation rates are worse for community college students, as well a s low-income and first-generation college students. Tinto (2011) discusses the improv ement programs colleges and universities have implemented to make a positive im pact on completion rates. However, these efforts haven’t made a significant impact bec ause they have not been implemented on a large enough scale, and these efforts have not targeted improving the college classroom environment (Tinto, 2011). The classroom experience is perhaps the most vital

PAGE 136

122 of college and university experiences because this is “the one place students connect with faculty and students engage in learning” (Tinto, 20 11, p. 1). Because the classroom is the only place where all students have an opportunity t o get involved, focusing on “improving success in the classroom, particularly d uring a student’s first year” seems pivotal (Tinto, 2011, p. 1). Tinto (2011) refers to a long history of research that has identified attributes of classrooms in which studen ts have the greatest opportunities for success, and “these are within the grasp of institu tions to modify if they are serious about enhancing student success” (Tinto, 2011, p. 3). Expectations. The first attribute Tinto (2011) identifies as a co ntributor to student success is that of expectations. According to Tinto (2011), “high expectations are a condition for student success, low expectations a h arbinger of failure” (p. 3). In the college or university environment, faculty members are responsible for setting expectations for their students and for communicati ng these expectations through various means. Course syllabi, assignments, online manageme nt sites, and conversations are the means through which expectations are generally comm unicated from professor to student. Tinto (2011) suggests, “students pick up q uickly what is expected of them in the classroom and adjust their behaviors” (p. 3). Support. First-year college students benefit from support al igned with classroom demands, especially students who may be under-prepa red to succeed in the college environment (Tinto, 2011). Tinto explains, “alignme nt of support enables students to more easily translate support into success in the c lassroom” (2011, p. 3). Academic support is often vital to college students and othe r forms of support, such as social and financial, can also be important contributors to st udent success. Students need support to

PAGE 137

123 meet the high expectations set forth by faculty, st aff, and other members of the college or university community. Though few examples of succes sful academic support programs exist, Tinto (2011) discusses the success of the In tegrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Initiative introduced in Washingt on State. The I-BEST Initiative provides students in need of remediation with basic skills instruction and college-level vocational and technical training at the same time, and is taught by a team of faculty members. Results of the initiative showed, among ot her successes, student participants were 9 times more likely to graduate than their pee rs. Though expensive to run, results so far have demonstrated the investment pays off as th e success rates of students seemingly soars. Assessment and feedback. The first year of college or university academic li fe often poses new obstacles and demands for students. As former students return to my office to discuss their grades in college courses, they observe that their final grade in a course is often based upon their success or failure on a few assignments, a mid-term, and a final exam. Sensibly, students who are assessed a nd given feedback throughout a semester are likely to be more successful than thos e who don’t have an opportunity to make adjustments to their behaviors to promote succ ess (Tinto, 2011). Classroom assessment techniques are not necessarily new, but new technologies can be used to “easily capture and analyze more and different data in ways that can provide a clearer view into student learning” (Tinto, 2011, p. 4). Pu rdue University utilizes such technologies and The Signals Project has proven eff ective in identifying students who could benefit from additional resources to find suc cess in their courses. These types of

PAGE 138

124 intervention have proven most effective during the first two years of the college or university academic journey (Tinto, 2011). Involvement. Student involvement and engagement has been found t o be a viable predictor of student success (Astin, 1999; Tinto, 2 011). Past research reveals students who are involved and engaged in various aspects of campus life, particularly in the realm of academics, are more likely to earn their degree. In particular, “the more students are academically and socially engaged with faculty, sta ff, and peers, especially in classroom activities, the more likely they are to succeed in the classroom” (Tinto, 2011, p. 3). Learning communities are one way through which grow th in basic skills and promotion of academic and social support for students can be fostered. Through the use of cooperative and problem-based learning, students ex perience curriculum and learning in new ways (Tinto, 2011; Astin, 1999). Learning commu nities have been discussed thoroughly by Astin (1999), as effective means thro ugh which students can engage with their college or university coursework. Astin’s Involvement Theory Tinto (2011) discusses the importance of colleges a nd universities promoting student involvement and engagement as a component o f student success. Student involvement “refers to the amount of physical and p sychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (Astin, 1999, p 518). Astin (1999) stresses the behavioral components of involvement rather than a student’s personal feelings and thoughts associated with being involved. Involvemen t Theory, as proposed by Astin (1999) includes five postulates: (a) Involvement re fers to the investment, both physical and psychological as described previously, in vario us objects which can be general or

PAGE 139

125 specific in nature; (b) Involvement occurs along a continuum in that differences exist amongst students and within each individual student ; (c) Involvement includes quantitative and qualitative features; (d) Student learning and development is directly proportional to quality and quantity of student inv olvement; and, (e) Effectiveness of educational practices and policies are related to t heir capacity to increase student involvement. Astin (1999) discusses the development of learning theory as he was searching for a “mediating mechanism that would explain how these educational programs and policies are translated into student achievement and develop ment” (p. 520). Oftentimes, it appears that administrators and faculty members are unaware of the educational theory guiding their work with students. In college and university settings, three common pedagogical theories emerged in Astin’s (1999) research and dev elopment of involvement theory. The first approach is described by Astin (1999) as the subject-matter theory through which students are seen as passive learners absorbing the knowledge of their professors who serve as subject-matter experts. High-achieving, we ll-prepared, and motivated students will likely stay connected and involved under this approach to learning while underprepared or slower students are unlikely to ac hieve. The next approach to learning is described as Resou rce Theory (Astin, 1999). Resources are described as physical facilities, hum an resources, and fiscal resources, and “if adequate resources are brought together in one place, student learning and development will occur” (Astin, 1999, p. 520). Res ources, such as student-faculty ratio, can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively. H owever, trade-offs can occur because institutional resources often cannot be devoted to addressing both quantity and quality

PAGE 140

126 (Astin, 1999). Astin (1999) further describes this quandary as colleges and universities make decisions to commit resources to recruiting to p-notch faculty or students, but the existence of high-quality faculty and students are not infinite. A second problem identified by Resource Theory is that once resource s have been dedicated to a particular source, administrators and other stakeholders may n ot take the time to determine how the expenditure positively impacts students. The last p edagogical approach described by Astin (1999) is Individualized or Eclectic Theory. Expensive to implement because of its focus on the individual needs of students, this app roach to learning includes student experiences both inside and outside of the classroo m, but emphasizes the importance of elective choices to fulfill individual student need s and desires (Astin, 1999). Pedagogical approaches are important but Involvemen t Theory “can provide a link between the variables emphasized in these theo ries and the learning outcomes desired by the student and the professor” (Astin, 1 999, p. 522). Again, Astin (1999) stresses the importance of the behaviors of student s and the processes that can promote student development. Student development into colle ge graduates is believed to be directly related to the amount of time students are able to devote to getting involved in all aspects of campus life (Astin, 1999). Research supp orting Involvement Theory is abundant and Astin’s own prior research conducted i n 1977, supported his notion that student involvement leads to college success (Astin 1999). Astin’s analysis of 200,000 students and more than 80 outcomes in 1977 led him to conclude, “nearly all forms of student involvement are associated with greater tha n average changes in entering freshman characteristics” (Astin, 1999, p. 524). Am ong other forms of involvement

PAGE 141

127 highlighted by Astin (1999), frequent student-facul ty interaction was “more strongly related to satisfaction with college than any other type of involvement” (p. 525). Learning Communities Research has shown underrepresented students tend t o persist in post-secondary education when they have the opportunity to make vi able connections to the entire community through academic and social interaction w ith peers (Astin, 1999; Swail et al., 2003; Tinto, 2011). Research has also exposed the v ital role played by faculty members in college settings; in fact, relationships with fa culty members have been found to positively impact the college success rates of Afri can American students in particular (Astin, 1999, Swail et al., 2003; Tinto, 2011). Tin to (2003) discusses important and positive changes taking place in colleges and unive rsities throughout the US as research in the 1980s led institutions of higher education t o pursue more active and involved learning opportunities to engage and involve their students. Tinto (2003) describes these efforts as “learning communities and the collaborat ive pedagogy that underlies them” (p. 1). Colleges and universities implement the idea of lea rning communities in many different ways. The basic concept of learning commu nities is to connect students and curriculum to each other in an organized and purpos eful format (Tinto, 2003). Tinto (2003) highlights the common features of all learni ng communities: (a) shared knowledge; (b) shared knowing; and, (c) shared resp onsibility. Utilizing and expanding upon these common features, some colleges and unive rsities have created living and learning communities, where freshmen students are e nrolled in the same classes and live within close proximity to one another. Learning com munities may also include a

PAGE 142

128 community-service component, sometimes known as ser vice-learning (Tinto, 2003). Citing Jacoby (1996), Tinto (2003) defines service learning as a “pedagogical strategy, an inductive approach to education, grounded in the as sumption that thoughtfully organized experience is the foundation for learning” (p. 4). Few comprehensive research studies have examined th e impact of learning communities, but Tinto (2003) did conduct such a st udy and found positive results. His research revealed students engaged in learning comm unities “spent more time together outside of class than did students in traditional, unrelated stand-alone classes and they did so in ways which students saw as supportive” (Tinto 2003, p. 5). Learning communities encouraged students to actively involve themselves and one another in their learning experiences, to spend time learning together outsid e of class and to bridge the academic and social divide often characteristic of college a nd university life (Tinto, 2003). Students involved in learning communities also felt enriched by their learning experiences, and because of their engagement in their own and others ’ learning these students persisted at higher rates than traditional students (Tinto, 2003 ). The Role of Faculty Past research (Astin, 1999; Williams, 2006; Swail e t al., 2003; Tinto, 2003, 2011) recognized the vital role faculty members can play in the success rates of students, particularly when discussing the success rates of u nderrepresented student groups. However, empty interactions between faculty and stu dents are not effective in and of themselves; faculty members must learn to actively engage their students in the curriculum. Tinto (2011) acknowledges “faculty. . are not trained to teach their students” (p. 5). As faculty members work with a wi der variety of students with different

PAGE 143

129 needs and different skills, they need to be exposed to “pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment in ways that would help them to be more effective with their students” (Tinto, 2011, p. 5). Thus, faculty-development programs tha t are well developed, far reaching, and required of all new faculty could prove fruitfu l as a collegial atmosphere can assist new and old faculty members to develop of effective skills needed to promote student success in college and university classrooms (Tinto 2011). Student Success at UCB Student success is one of the components upon which ODECE focuses and recognizes as vital to improving diversity programs and policies at UCB (ODECE, n.d.b). A separate tab for student success exists on the OD ECE Website, and the goal for student success at UCB facilitated by ODECE is clearly stat ed: The goal of the student success component of ODECE is to work in partnership with all students, student-serving groups, academic support units across the schools and colleges, the Office of Admissions, an d the Graduate School to attract and retain successful undergraduate and gr aduate students from diverse backgrounds. (ODECE, n.d.b) On the Student Success tab, four UCB programs are h ighlighted and links to each program’s specific Webpage are included: (a) CU-LEA D; (b) Pre-College Services; (c) Disability Services; and, (d) Upward Bound. Other r esources for student success on the ODECE Website include Graduate Students and Program s (no link to additional Websites included), UROP (includes a dead link to a n additional Website), Study Abroad, and SORCE (Student Outreach and Retention C enter for Equity). CU-LEAD Alliance The CU Leadership, Excellence, Achievement and Dive rsity (CU-LEAD) Alliance, established in 2000 by ODECE, is describe d as a set of learning communities

PAGE 144

130 that include students, faculty and staff who work t ogether to promote inclusive excellence (ODECE, n.d.b). These learning communities target s tudents of color and first generation students and are characterized by enhanced instruct ion, small group classes, leadership activities, computer labs, personal connections to faculty and staff, scholarships, research experiences, advising, mentoring, tutoring, and com munity service (ODECE, n.d.b). The learning communities supported by the CU-LEAD Allia nce include programs specific to schools and colleges at UCB, as well as programs th at serve students regardless of their declared majors. Currently, seven programs operate under a specific school/college and four programs serve students across majors and disc iplines. The school/college specific CU-LEAD programs are de scribed in detail on individual Webpages to which links are provided fro m the ODECE homepage. These programs have been developed in the following areas : (a) Architecture and Planning, Designers Without Boundaries; (b) Arts and Sciences Miramontes Arts and Sciences Program (MASP); (c) Business, Diverse Scholars Prog ram; (d) Education, Education Diversity Scholars Program; (e) Engineering, the Br oadening Opportunity through Leadership and Diversity (BOLD) Program; (f) Journa lism, Journalism Diversity Scholars Program; and (g) Music, Diverse Musicians Alliance Program. Programs that are identified as serving students across schools a nd colleges at UCB include: (a) ChancellorÂ’s Leadership Residential Academic Progra m (CLR) and Ethnic Living and Learning Community (ELLC), (b) Honors CU-Lead Schol ars Program, (c) McNeill Academic Program, and (d) Ronald E. McNair Post Bac calaureate Achievement Program. Program overviews and program reports are available for public perusal, with links from the ODECE-> CU-LEAD Webpages.

PAGE 145

131 Beyond these specific learning communities develope d for participants in the CULEAD Alliance, affiliated programs in existence at UCB to further support these students are also identified on the Webpage. The Center for Multicultural Affairs (CMA), First Generation Scholars Program, White Antelope Memoria l Scholarship Program (WAMS), and Career Services provide a variety of support se rvices for underrepresented students and students enrolled in the CU-LEAD Alliance progr ams. Beyond the aforementioned programs that support the academic and personal/soc ial goals of identified student groups at UCB, three feeder programs exist to provide pote ntial UCB students with the information and support they need to eventually ear n a college degree. The Academic Excellence Program, Pre-Collegiate Development Prog ram, and Upward Bound provide opportunities to both college and high school stude nts to actively engage in the UCB campus community before, during, and after they pur sue college degrees. Again, extensive information about each of these programs is readily available on each program’s specific Webpage. The CU-LEAD Alliance Fact Sheet (2004) is available on the Webpage and provides information about the success of the vario us programs in operation from 1998 through the 2003-2004 school year. The primary goal of the Alliance neighborhoods as stated on this fact sheet is to “increase recruitme nt, retention, and graduation rates for students of color and first generation students” (O DECE, 2004). The success rates of program participants, last updated in 2003-04, were summarized as an 85% retention rate and 79% graduation rate. The growth of the CU-Lead Alliance programs from 1998-99 through 2003-04 can be seen in Table V.1. The 11 pr ograms existing in 2003-04 continue to support students in 2012-2013.

PAGE 146

132 Table V.1. CU-LEAD Alliance at a Glance Academic Year ’98-‘99 ’99-‘00 ’00-‘01 ’01-‘02 ’02-‘ 03 ’03-‘04 Number of CU-LEAD Programs 2 3 5 7 8 11 Number of Student Participants* 258 319 400 481 936 1109 Number of Scholarships Awarded* 0 52 98 249 379 485 Total Scholarship Dollar Amounts (rounded)* 0 $52k $65k $259k $385k $500k *Approximate numbers Pre-College Services Pre-College services at UCB fall under the governan ce of the Pre-Collegiate Development Program (PCDP). Information about the P CDP at UCB can be found on the Webpage located at http://www.colorado.edu/odece/pc dp/index.html. As described on this Webpage, the PCDP at Boulder “is an institutio nally-funded academic enhancement program for targeted middle and high school student s. It is designed to motivate and prepare first generation students in pursuit of hig her education” (ODECE, n.d.c). The program provides students with opportunities for ac ademic enhancement, leadership development, helps students explore college and car eer options, provides assistance with the college application and financial aid process, prepares students for college entrance examinations, and otherwise removes barriers that m ay pose obstacles for underrepresented and first-generation students inte rested in pursuing a higher education. The PDCP is not open to all students throughout the state of Colorado; instead, the PCDP has developed a list of target middle and high schools from which they hope to recruit, retain, and graduate a more diverse group of students from UCB. Students must apply to the PCDP, and their parents must be active ly involved in the activities and

PAGE 147

133 services provided to help students and their parent s become college ready. The central activity of the PCDP includes a one-month long resi dential summer session that takes place on the Boulder campus for students who have c ompleted their junior year of high school. Of the 71 PCDP participants in the program at UCB during the 2011-2012, all applied for admission to UCB; 59 of these students were offered admission to the Boulder campus and 29 of those accepted ultimately enrolled at the university (Office of Academic Affairs, 2012). Of the 71 program particip ants on the Boulder campus, 94% reported they intended to attend a four-year colleg e upon graduating from high school (Office of Academic Affairs, 2012). Disability Services Disability Services provide services and/or accommo dations to qualified students with the intention of providing “equal educational opportunity through programmatic access to the Boulder campus community” (ODECE, n.d .d). On the Webpage, disabilities are described as learning disabilities, psychiatric /psychological disabilities, physical/systemic, visual, hearing, ADD/ADHD, and t raumatic brain injury. On the Disability Services Webpage and in the brochure, th e following statement regarding diversity is made: “We are proud that CU-Boulder is committed to diversity and includes students with disabilities as one of the many group s that make up our campus community” (Disability Services Brochure, 2007, p. 2). Extensive information about disabilities, accommodations and services available to students, the process for determining services an individual may qualify for, and resources for faculty and staff are available directly on the Disability Services Webpa ge.

PAGE 148

134 Upward Bound A Federal TRIO Program first established in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, Upward Bound “provides fundamental support to participants in their preparation for college entrance” (ODECE, n.d.e). T he Upward Bound program at UCB provides 80 high school students, from targeted are as located on or near 13 Native American reservations throughout the country, with academic instruction and an opportunity to experience college before high schoo l graduation (ODECE, n.d.e). First generation and/or low-income high school students i n grades 9-11 from the targeted areas or high schools are eligible to apply to the progra m. Participants spend six weeks on the Boulder campus, live in dorms, and take classes. Up on completing the summer program, students become eligible to earn a total of $140 in stipend monies, and a chance to earn extra high school credits (ODECE, n.d.,e). During t he regular school year, the participants are given monthly homework assignments and can receive a monthly stipend of $20 if the assignments are completed in a timely manner. The UCB Upward Bound program Webpage provides extensive information abou t the various aspects encompassed within the program, as well as contact information. SORCE Student Outreach and Retention Center for Equity (S ORCE) came to life during the 1999-2000 school year. Developed by students fo r students, the purpose of the center is to provide underrepresented students with resour ces, plan community events for community building, and prevent burn-out. As envisi oned early on, “the student center was a method of changing the campus climate by enco mpassing multiculturalism, acting

PAGE 149

135 as a centralized hub for all outreach and retention programs on campus, incorporating student driven initiatives, and embracing all under represented students” (SORCE, n.d.). In Spring of 2000, Dara Burwell and the students wh o originated the concept of SORCE, asked for seed money and drafted legislation which later passed through the University of Colorado Student Union. From spring o f 2000 to fall of 2003, SORCE was an active group on campus, secured a center locatio n in the newly renovated Student Memorial Center surrounded by the underrepresented student group office. In spring of 2004 SORCE became a fully operational cost center u nder the leadership of the newly elected tri-executives, a legislative council, Dive rsity Director Kerry Kite, and Student Affairs Director Joseph Neguse. The SORCE Website p rovides extensive information about its mission, history, outreach, programs, and community events (SORCE, n.d.). Victor Hernandez currently serves as director of SO RCE, assisted by Karen Shimamoto and five other diverse members of the UCB student b ody. Assessing and Improving Learning Goals at UCB In May of 2012, the Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis summarized the various ways through which undergraduate student le arning and outcomes are assessed and improved upon at the University of Colorado Bou lder (University of Colorado Boulder PBA, 2012). Expectations for degree recipie nts, known as skill and knowledge goals, are published by each Bachelor’s degree prog ram in the CU-Boulder catalog. Each school and college is responsible for assessing the se goals and making changes and improvements to teaching methods, course content, c ourse offerings, degree requirements, and advising. The Provost and Council of Deans approved a list of learning goals for BA graduates in 2011.

PAGE 150

136 At UCB, 70% of undergraduates are required to compl ete a core curriculum in the College of Arts and Sciences. Students complete cou rsework across seven content areas and are provided with a variety of elective choices to fulfill the requirements. Research based writing instruction is provided to students a t all undergraduate levels utilizing The Program for Writing and Rhetoric. Professional facu lty members teach writing to undergraduate students and a writing support center is available to all students on campus. To improve retention and graduation rates of firstyear, full-time students UCB requires all students to participate in orientation sessions prior to the start of the academic school year where students register for courses, ge t advising, and learn about the campus. A new mathematics assessment, ALEKS, was most recen tly implemented in 2012 to ensure new students are placed correctly into mathe matics courses. Advising in the School of Arts and Sciences has also been tailored to provide a more personalized service to first year students. Each department and school encompassed within the University is focused upon the learning outcomes of students, as defined by the completion of a set of key courses or acquiring specific knowledge and ski lls within each discipline. New technologies are being introduced and utilized by schools and departments at UCB to enhance student understanding and to activel y engage students in the learning process. The Faculty Teaching and Excellence Progra m, Graduate Teacher Program, and the PresidentÂ’s Teaching Scholars Program are examp les of programs that have been implemented to improve teaching and learning. The r esults from student surveys and Faculty Course Questionnaires are analyzed and made public on the Web to improve programs and teaching. Graduation rates and time to degree are monitored and

PAGE 151

137 publicized, and are used to better understand and u ltimately improve the experiences of students at University of Colorado Boulder. Graduation and Retention Rates In September of 2010, the Colorado Department of Hi gher Education (DHE) conducted a review of the performance contract of t he University of Colorado System, originally established in 2004, signed into existen ce in 2005, and implemented through June 30, 2009. Upon this last performance review co nducted by the Colorado Department of Higher Education in 2010, retention and graduati on rates of underrepresented students, among other measures, were of particular interest. As of the publish date of this report, the retention rates of resident, first-time, full-t ime degree seeking minority students from fall 2003 to fall 2007 at UCB, ranged from a high o f 85% in fall 2006 to a low of 82% in 2005 and 2007 (CCHE Performance Contract Review, 20 10). Graduation and retention rates of full-time first-time freshmen at UCB are d etailed in Table V.2. Six-year graduation rates for the same group of st udents were also tracked from 1997 to 2002. UCB reported graduation rates from a low of 58% in 1997 and 2000, to a high of 61% in 2002. UCBÂ’s graduation rates are sub stantially higher than those reported by either the University of Colorado at Denver or U niversity of Colorado at Colorado Springs (CCHE Performance Contract Review, 2010, p. 8). Upon review of the most updated performance contract established through 20 09, the DHE extended the monitoring time-line until December 31, 2015 and es tablished new goals for retention and graduation rates of all first-time, full-time s tudents. The University of Colorado System goal for retention of all students stands at 85%, and at 88% specifically at UCB; the state retention average in this report was iden tified as 73% (CCHE Performance

PAGE 152

138 Contract Review, 2010, p. 17). The goal for increas ing six-year graduation rates across the University System to 66% is well above the 50% national average. By 2015, Boulder is expected to increase the six-year graduation rat e of all first-time, full-time students to 71% from 66.8% (CCHE Performance Contract Review, 2 010, p. 17). Among other measures specified in the performance contract (200 5), the University is required to report retention and graduation rates on a yearly b asis to the Colorado Department of Higher Education. Table V. 2 Graduation and one-year retention rates of full-tim e first-time freshmen at the original institution Group Measure At UCB Highest in State* UCB Rank* All freshmen 4 yr Grad Original Entry School 37.5% 41.6% 2 5 yr Grad 60.9% 60.9% 1 6 yr Grad 67.7% 67.7% 1 1 yr retention 83.1% 83.1% 1 Minority freshmen 6 yr Grad 59.6% 59.6% 1 1 year retention 83.0% 83.0% 1 *Comparison to others in state does not include Col orado School of Mines or private colleges. (CCHE, 2004).

PAGE 153

139 CHAPTER VI THE IMPACT OF RACE AND DIVERSITY ON CAMPUS CLIMATE According to Swail, Redd, and Perna (2003), campus climate is a critical factor for predicting and achieving successful student out comes in college, particularly for students of color. Research suggests that campus cl imate is a critical factor related to student retention and ultimately, college degree co mpletion. Campus climate is described by Swail et al. (2003) as a mediator of: undergraduates’ academic and social experiences in college. Minority students inadequately prepared for non-academic challenges c an experience culture shock. Lack of diversity in the student population, facult y, staff, and curriculum often restrict the nature and quality of minority student s’ interactions within and out of the classroom, threatening their academic performan ce and social experiences. (p. 8) Cress (2008) succinctly describes campus climate as “the metaphorical temperature gauge by which we measure a welcoming and receptive versus a cool and alienating learning environment” (p. 96). As discussed in previous chapters throughout this d issertation, many benefits are associated with a students’ ability to persist and earn their college degree. Of the benefits discussed, prolonging life and earning occupational prestige are among the most important (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999). Data tracking college persistence rates toward degree attainment have remained stable at 45% since 1885; unfortunately, over time ethnicity has proven to be an important factor in success as well (Porter, 1990). Acknowledging Porter’s (199 0) research, Cabrera et al. (1999) discuss the role ethnicity plays in the success rat es of students, with data indicating that “African Americans are 20% less likely to complete college within a six year period. For

PAGE 154

140 every two White students who drop out in this time frame, three African Americans have departed from a postsecondary institution” (p. 3). Given the reality highlighted by such data, researc hers have examined the persistence rates of minority students working towa rd earning a college degree. Several hypotheses to explain the racial differences in col lege graduation rates have been proposed as possible explanations for such differen ces, including academic preparedness and financial-aid packages (Cabrera et al., 1999, p 3). As hypotheses are proposed, discriminatory campus climates have emerged as one of the main explanations for differences in the college success rates of minorit y and White students (Cabrera et al., 1999, p. 3). As Cabrera et al. (1999) describe, “ex periences of prejudice and discrimination are associated with psychological di stress that can lead to maladjustment of students in their respective institutions” (p. 4 ). In this regard, the transactional model discussed and cited by Cabrera et al. (1999) was pr oposed by Munoz (1987) and Smedley, Myers, and Harrell (1993). This model is s pecific to minority students because stressors associated with discriminatory climates h ave been found to be present only among minority students, negatively impacting their academic performance (Cabrera et al., 1999, p. 3). However, research on discriminato ry practices and their effects is somewhat limited, as “firm conclusions regarding th e effect of discrimination and prejudice on the adjustment of students to college remain to be established” (Cabrera et al., 1999, p. 4). In their study of factors influencing college adjus tment and perceptions of discrimination on college campuses across the count ry, Cabrera et al. (1999) found a variety of factors influence the college lives of W hite and minority students making this

PAGE 155

141 transition. As revealed in their study, both White and African American students perceive racial discrimination on college campuses and are g reatly impacted by these perceptions. However, they found that discriminatory racial prac tices impacted “goal commitments only among Whites and social experiences only among African Americans” (p. 20). Though responses to discriminatory practices on col lege campuses vary across student populations, persistence decisions among Whites and African Americans seem to be related to similar factors, including academic prep aredness, interactions with faculty and other students, parental support and encouragement, and academic success in college (p. 21). Cabrera et al. (1999) recognized that their study i s not comprehensive, but the implications suggest that students appear to adjust to the college setting in similar ways. Cureton (2003) conducted a similar study that produ ced similar results and revealed that campus environment significantly predicts the acade mic success of Black college students; in this study, factors believed to hinder the academic progress of minority students were not race specific. The academic progr ess and college transition of all students appears to be mediated by several factors, including but not limited to, socioeconomic status, self-concept, adverse situati ons, and university reputation. Though no significant race-specific findings were i dentified by Cabrera et al. (1999) or Cureton (2003) in these particular studie s, it is important to continue exploring college experiences utilizing a racial lens to addr ess “students’ needs and effectively [deal] with matriculation, attrition, and retention ” (Cureton, 2003, p. 308). Cabrera et al. (1999) reiterate the importance of acknowledging ra cial differences and educating all individuals that are part of the campus community. After all, if college campuses are

PAGE 156

142 more diverse, and diversity is truly valued, all st udents should be provided with the opportunity to learn with and about other people an d cultures in a formal way (Cabrera et al., 1999, p. 22). Education can be provided to stu dents, faculty, and staff members through a variety of contexts to reduce acts of dis crimination and to garner a better sense of community and caring on college campuses. A Focus on Diversity: Starting at the Top In 1999, Freeman Hrabowski III, published an articl e titled, “Creating a Climate for Success”. At the time, Hrabowski was serving as President of University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC), founded as a historically diverse institution upon its opening in 1966, and enrolling a student population that co nsisted of approximately 30% minority students. One of the first encounters he experience d with students on campus was with a group of minority students who were protesting “cli mate” issues; a staff member reassured the new president that he had no need to worry: “This happens every spring” (Hrabowski, 1999, p. 1). Recognizing the role he pl ayed as President of an institution priding itself upon the diversity of its students, Hrabowski did worry, and he took action. UMBC is known for strong science, math and engineer ing programs, but student success rates in these disciplines had not been exa mined thoroughly prior to Hrabowski’s arrival as President. He created a President’s Coun cil consisting of faculty and administrators to better understand why students we re not succeeding and to develop a plan to improve the academic achievement of all stu dents. The data examined by the Council revealed several minority students, among o thers, did not possess the academic skills that they needed to succeed. Utilizing this information, the President, faculty, staff, and students worked to strengthen tutorial and acad emic support centers across the

PAGE 157

143 campus, examined admission standards, and focused o n creating a more positive campus climate for minority students (Hrabowski, 1999, p. 2). Further, the University established a special program, the Meyerhoff Program, and creat ed a competitive and desirable scholarship, focused upon recognizing the academic success of African-Americans in science and engineering. The success of UMBC in educating and preparing mino rity students for careers in a demanding and competitive realm is respectable, b ut Hrabowski’s focus and leadership were admirable. He recognized the importance of bri nging the entire campus community together and acknowledged, “Our success has been th e result of a constant effort by faculty and administrators, working together, to un derstand the issues related to minority achievement and to implement best practices” (Hrabo wski, 1999, p. 1). UMBC’s success provides a platform from which other college campus es can launch their efforts to improve minority student achievement. Of course, as UMBC and the leaders there model, the success of such efforts rely upon participation from “every facet of the campus experience” (Hrabowski, 1999, p. 1). Hrabowski would likely be labeled as a transformati onal leader; he was a leader focused upon increasing “the institutional capacity to select its purposes and to support changes in teaching and learning” (Cartner, Love, & Trammell, 2010, p. 1). According to Love et al. (2010), transformational leadership is one fruitful avenue through which the needs of minority students can be identified and ac knowledged, and through which changes that benefit all students can take place. F ocusing primarily on African-American students at predominantly White institutions, Love et al. (2010), reported that “AfricanAmerican students find it difficult to assimilate o n predominantly White campuses due to

PAGE 158

144 cultural differences and learning styles” (p. 1). I n order to address the needs of these students, leaders need to “enact institutional chan ge through a shared and authentic vision,” adopting the successful measures used by t ransformational leaders to “create a learning environment that engages a shared communit y” (Love et al., 2010, p. 1). An important piece of enacting change is understanding what needs to be changed; campus climate surveys are one tool leaders can utilize to determine what kind of change may be needed. Campus Climate Surveys Cress (2008) conducted a national survey of student s attending 130 American colleges and universities to gain insight into thei r perceptions of campus climate. Though research introduced here suggests that Black and Wh ite students experience similar issues during their transitions into the college setting ( Cabrera et al., 1999; Cureton, 2003), the research conducted by Cress (2008) suggests, “Stude nts of color were significantly more likely than White students to report that they perc eived negative behaviors and hostile attitudes directed toward women and ethnic/racial m inorities on their campus” (p. 98). Further, she found Black students perceived a more negative campus climate than the other groups of students included in the study (Cre ss, 2008, p. 99). This study also revealed that students are more likely to perceive discrimination coming from students and targeting students, than coming from individual faculty members or other institutional sources (Cress, 2008. p. 102). The role of individual faculty members proves to be even more vital, as “positive student-faculty relationships have a strong mitigat ing effect on campus climate” (Cress, 2008, p. 104). Further, students who experience pos itive faculty relationships are likely to

PAGE 159

145 earn higher grade point averages and feel more conf ident in their academic abilities, which are factors indicative of persisting in and u ltimately, graduating from college and becoming successful citizens in our global economy (Cress, 2008). Fostering personal and academic relationships between students and fac ulty members seems to be a reasonable expectation that has the potential to pr oduce positive outcomes, particularly for students on the margins and students of color, in particular. The importance of faculty members in the lives of students further highlights the need for a more diverse faculty presence on college campuses throughout the country an issue far broader than the scope of this dissertation. Assessing Campus Climate Assessing campus climate is not a new concept. In t he UCB Archives, results of a September 1969 Report of the Community Relations Se rvice Student Unrest Survey provide insight into the Boulder campus climate dec ades ago. The Community Relations Service (1969) surveyed students at101 secondary sc hools with at least 10% minority enrollment and thirty nine colleges and/or universi ties with a 5% minority population. The survey was conducted in seventeen states, inclu ding Colorado. Student perspectives on campus climate at UCB were included in this repo rt. The surveyors were particularly interested in understanding “student unrest” on col lege and high school campuses across the United States. As reported, 76% of the surveyed institutions of hi gher learning indicated some form of student unrest during the 1968 school year. The majority of college students and college administrators interviewed felt student unr est would continue, and students stated emphatically that the problems generating unrest ha d not been resolved. In the incidents

PAGE 160

146 reported by those interviewed, police were called i n to settle disturbances, or as a preventive measure, over 60% of the time, and used force in over half of these situations. Though the symptoms of unrest were seen to vary at both the high school and college levels, three fundamental issues emerged; the most prominent issue concerned the existence of institutional racism. To address their concerns, students made four major demands of their educational institutions including, (a) placing more minority p ersonnel policy making positions (38% of the college students made demands not only for m ore minority administrators but instructors and students, and 23% of the colleges s urveyed listed this demand), and (b) ending racism and other discriminating, demoralizin g practices be ended in all school activities (i.e., fraternities, athletics, sororiti es, debating teams, etc.). Harassment of minorities by students, teachers, and/or administra tors should cease. These demands were made in 45% of high schools and 31% of the colleges surveyed. (c) Forty-three percent of high schools made requests for more minority awaren ess studies. Fifty percent of colleges made some demand for setting up these stud ies or modifying existing programs. (d) Forty-seven percent of colleges received demand s for student power and policy making. Demands included having an equal student vo ice in curriculum planning, in creating codes of student conduct, dress, and in hi ring and firing of faculty. Results from 1969 are demonstrative of the unstable and turbulen t nature of the times. It is important to keep in mind the context of the time period when in terpreting the results, especially if one wishes to make connections to present-day campus cl imate survey results

PAGE 161

147 Campus Climate at UCB Today The most recent UCB campus climate survey results f rom 2010 are discussed in some detail in this section. The Campus Climate Sur vey (2010) conducted at UCB included the responses of 7,777 students. This grou p of survey respondents included perspectives shared by individuals representing all racial and ethnic backgrounds of graduate and undergraduate students on the campus a s follows: 74% White, 6.9% Hispanic, 6.5% Asian, 5.25% International, 1.6% Afr ican American, and 1% Native American. The majority of respondents expressed a p ositive view of the climate at UCB, with 80% of these undergraduate and graduate studen ts reporting “feeling welcome and accepted either often or very often” (Campus Climat e Survey, 2010, p. 1). Eighty-eight percent of students participating in the survey rep orted feeling comfortable in classes, 80% felt intellectually stimulated, and the majorit y felt UCB was accepting of diverse perspectives inside (81%) and outside of the classr oom (63%) (Campus Climate Survey, 2010). Data across student groups suggests the campus clim ate during the survey year, 2010, was relatively positive; however, African Ame rican students and students with psychological or psychiatric disabilities rated the campus climate lower than other groups of individuals, but the ratings for the campus rema ined above average. In comparison with 2001 and 2006, climate changes on the campus a s revealed by the 2010 survey seem positive, as African American students reported fee ling more comfortable on and off the campus. This trend was similar among other student groups, which also reported an upward trend in positive perceptions of the campus climate since 2006.

PAGE 162

148 In 2010, students reported that the Boulder communi ty, staff, and administrators valued diversity at higher rates than in the past ( Campus Climate Survey, 2010). On the contrary, students reported that student government course instructors, and other students valued diversity at lower rates than those reported in previous years. Another important item on the UCB Campus Climate Survey (2010) asked students to rate how important diversity should be at the University. Since, 2001, students have indicated diversity should be valued at high levels by the University; in 2010, student ratings increased over previous years, suggesting diversity should continu e to be a high priority because it is valued by the entire UCB community. The 2006 Campus Climate Survey conducted at UCB inc luded a sample of 418 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students wh o successfully and voluntarily completed a Web-based questionnaire. Of the undergr aduate and graduate survey respondents, 25% were classified as White and the r emaining 75% were classified as minority group members or international students. I n 2001, 629 undergraduate and graduate students responded to the Campus Climate S urvey and represented the same 25% White/75% minority/international student breakd own as the 2006 survey. Similar to earlier discussions of the importance of campus cli mate (Cabrera et al., 1999; Cureton, 2003), survey questions concerning campus climate s hould be specific and focused upon the particular experiences of the respondents to ge t a true sense of a schoolÂ’s campus climate. The 2006 UCB Campus Climate Survey asked s tudents about their level of comfort on the campus and in the community, whether they felt they fit in and were welcome at UCB, and their experiences with stereoty ping and negative remarks and behaviors directed toward others.

PAGE 163

149 Campus wide results in 2006 appeared to be relative ly positive with the majority of respondents reporting the campus to be “friendly and welcoming” inside and outside of the classroom (Campus Climate Survey, 2006, p. 1 ). Further, “approximately 80% of both undergraduate and graduate students report tha t they are comfortable being in class” (p. 1). Nevertheless, students viewed the campus en vironment outside of the classroom setting less favorably, “with less than half of bot h undergraduates and graduates saying that CU-Boulder is accepting of diversity outside t he classroom” (p. 1). As previous research (Cureton, 2003) indicated, positive intera ctions and relationships with faculty members can have a mitigating effect on perceptions of a negative campus climate. At Boulder, faculty members appear to make a positive impact as 80% of students indicate: “Faculty value diversity and seldom make disparagin g remarks directed toward others” (p. 1). Overall campus wide results appear favorabl e of the campus climate at UCB. Although differences across racial and ethnic group s at UCB were relatively small, African American students rated the campus a nd surrounding community climate less favorably than other groups (UCB Campus Climat e Survey, 2006). African Americans and Hispanics also reported hearing derog atory remarks more frequently than other racial/ethnic student groups. These findings are in line with previous research by Cress (2008), who indicated African Americans, part icularly males, are more likely than other students to perceive a negative campus climat e. In terms of gender differences, men and women had similar perspectives in terms of camp us climate, with both groups reporting generally positive experiences at UCB and the surrounding community. Women did report hearing disparaging remarks toward others more frequently than men, and were more likely to challenge such remarks and/ or behaviors.

PAGE 164

150 Undergraduate and graduate students also reported s imilar perceptions of campus climate (UCB Campus Climate Survey, 2006). However, graduate students reported feeling more comfortable with the academic setting and interacting with faculty members on campus. Given the nature of the undergraduate ve rsus the graduate experience, it seems likely graduate students are more comfortable interacting with faculty members because they have more experience doing so. Regardl ess, research on campus climate does highlight the importance of faculty-student in teractions and relationships (Cress, 2008; Cureton, 2003; Cabrera et al., 1999) in navig ating successfully through the college process. International students are another subgroup whose r esponses were examined closely utilizing the Campus Climate Survey (2006). Though these students expressed general feelings of comfort with all aspects of the academic and social settings at UCB and in the surrounding community, results in 2006 d emonstrated a noticeable decline since 2001. East Asian international students, in p articular, reported feeling less comfortable with social settings on campus and in B oulder and reported hearing derogatory remarks more often than other groups of students (UCB Campus Climate Survey, 2006). Comparisons Over Time The 2010 administration of the Campus Climate Surve y was the third in BoulderÂ’s history, following the administration of the 2006 and 2001 climate surveys. In 1994 and 1998, community surveys were administered to assess campus climate, differing from the campus climate surveys because o f their focus on making comparisons and assessing the perceptions of members across rac ial/ethnic groups. Though these

PAGE 165

151 surveys differ from each other, comparisons of the results collected through all survey administrations can be used to make comparisons ove r time. Overall, since 1994, survey results reveal little change in undergraduates’ and graduates’ ratings of campus climate through 2010. Though few differences are found in s urvey responses over time, some differences were notable in the campus climate rati ngs shared by African American students, both negative and positive. African American students reported feeling more com fortable being in class, interacting with faculty outside of class, and feel ing accepted in 2001 and 2006, compared to 1994 and 1998. However, perceptions of the social climate at UCB outside of the classroom setting and ratings of UCB as “the place to be” declined between 2001 and 2006. In 2006, African Americans also reported feeling “different and overwhelmed” (Campus Climate Survey Results, 2006). A positive c hange for African American students was reported in 2010, as the group reporte d feeling more comfortable on campus than in 2006 Even so, the 2010 survey suggests a need for contin ued improvement in promoting and accepting diversity with all members of the campus community, especially student government, course instructors, and other students. Other Important Trends Student respondents to the UCB campus climate surve ys were asked to associate themselves with one group identity they felt was mo st salient. Students who chose race/ethnicity as their most salient identity expre ssed a less favorable view of campus climate than those who chose other identities. Furt her, this group of respondents reported that faculty members had lower expectations of memb ers of their group. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) student perspectiv es were collected and analyzed for

PAGE 166

152 the 2006 survey. In general, these students were no t as positive as other students about the campus climate at UCB. This group of students a lso reported feeling “different” at a much higher rate than non-GLBT students. Similarly, students with disabilities shared important perspectives regarding campus climate at UCB in 2006. Though this group of students rated the climate less favorably than stud ents without disabilities, they still deemed classrooms to be accessible and comfortable. When interpreting the results of the various campus climate surveys on the UCB campus, a relatively positive, comfortable, and acc epting climate seemingly emerges overall as reported by all student groups represent ed on the campus. Faculty members at UCB also seem accepting and encouraging of all stud ents and are perceived by their students to value diversity. However, the climate s urveys draw attention to some shortcomings. As stated in the 2006 report, “campus diversity efforts seem to be making a difference for African-American undergraduate stu dents. . but more work needs to be done to ensure that they are comfortable here” (p. 5). The perceptions of international students reflect additional areas to which UCB must pay attention and take action to make changes. A campus wide effort to make changes to positively impact campus climate seems necessary. Cress (2008) suggests invo lving the entire campus community, specifically White students and faculty members who make up the majority of college campuses to, “create learning communities that are characterized by equality of opportunity as well as by equality of treatment” (p 108). Are Perceptions Accurate Reflections of Reality? In their study of campus climate, Gurin, Matlock, Wade-Golden, and Gurin (2004) focused upon racial tension as they recogniz ed that, “whether the perception of

PAGE 167

153 racial tension is used by advocates of diversity to rationalize institutional reforms that support the success of students of color or by crit ics of affirmative action to rationalize the ending of race conscious policies in higher edu cation, we need a more complex understanding of what racial tension means to stude nts on our campuses” (p. 6). To gain insight into this complex issue, the researchers an alyzed perception data of students collected from a 1994 survey of students attending the University of Michigan. Findings reflected that 60% of African Americans co mpared to 25% of Asian American and White students perceived much interrac ial tension and racial conflict on campus (Gurin et al., 2004, p. 6). However, when th ose surveyed were asked to reflect upon their personal experiences with interracial te nsion and racial conflict during their college years, a minority of African American stude nts (13%-20%), though a considerably higher percentage than Asian and White students (1-2% of Whites and 10% of Asians), reported personal experiences with raci al tension and conflict. Data led the researchers to conclude that perceptions of racial tension and interracial conflict are more abundant than real student experiences with these i ssues in their personal relationships with others. Further, survey respondents also recog nized the importance of the positive cross-cultural relationships that they had develope d during their college years. Interestingly, Gurin et al. (2004) discovered that “perception of tension reflected a particular socio-political viewpoint” across studen t groups (p. 8). Those students who perceived interracial conflict and racial tension o n campus also believed most strongly that racial barriers still exist, believe instituti ons and other structural forces contribute to inequality, and were the most favorable toward affi rmative action policies (p. 8). As survey respondents participated in the survey throu ghout their time at the university,

PAGE 168

154 students’ evolving socio-political viewpoints were also tracked and changes were noted. Changes in racial tension were found to be associat ed with increasing awareness of racial barriers and greater support of affirmative action policies to counteract structural inequality (Gurin et al., 2004). As this study illustrates, perceptions and actual e xperiences do differ, but perceptions are just as real as the experiences of students living, learning, interacting and growing during their college years. As highlighted by other data presented here (Cabrera et al., 1999; Cureton, 2003; Cress, 2008), African American students tend to perceive campus climate more negatively than other student g roups. Gurin et al. (2004) suggest experiencing racial tension is to be expected, “whe n students who have rarely interacted across race/ethnicity in our very segregated societ y are brought together on college campuses” (p. 9). Regardless, universities and coll eges should take an active role to provide all students with structured opportunities for positive interactions with diverse groups of people (p. 9). Gurin et al. (2004) highli ght, “campus experiences with diversity did not foster negative views of the campus climate ” (p. 9). How should universities structure opportunities for students to interact positively with diverse groups of people? What has UCB done to address issues associated with promoting a positive racial climate by providing th ese types of opportunities to students, faculty, staff, and community members? UCB’s experi ence with diversity will be discussed in further detail in Chapters VII and VII I.

PAGE 169

155 CHAPTER VII RACE, DIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT In recent years, the role of universities in promot ing and participating in community engagement efforts, positively impacting the communities each serves, has become increasingly significant (McNall, Reed, Brow n, & Allen, 2008). The growing importance of community engagement became evident w hen the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification was established in 2006 ( McNall et al., 2008). This classification will be maintained and overseen by t he Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the New England Resourc e Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) (McNall et al., 2008). Currently, 196 inst itutions of higher education have been classified in Community Engagement. In Colorad o, Colorado State University, Regis University and the University of Denver earne d the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification in 2008. Community engagement is included as a chapter in th is dissertation because community engagement draws attention from the Offic e of Diversity and Community Engagement (ODECE) at the University of Colorado Bo ulder, if only because of the name of the office. Community Engagement is defined by the Carnegie Foundation (2009) as “the collaboration between institutions o f higher education and larger communities (local, regional/state, national, globa l) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partners hip and reciprocity” (p. 1). Due to several factors, including the Carnegie Community E ngagement Classification system established in 2006, an abundance of professional d evelopment opportunities and networks, and the inclusion of community engagement indicators by regional

PAGE 170

156 accreditation bodies assessing institutional qualit y, engagement has become a new buzzword in higher education. As is often the case with rhetoric, implementation efforts have been inconsistent across colleges and universi ties throughout the United States. Weerts and Sandmann (2010) acknowledge that, “while interest in community engagement in higher education is on the rise. . research universities have been slower to implement engagement compared to non-research in stitutions” (p. 703). Several factors explain the lack of or slower implementatio n of community-engagement efforts at research universities, including (a) the size of th ese universities, (b) the complexity of the governing structures that characterize these univer sities, and (c) the reputation of wellknown and widely respected researchers who “advance traditional forms of scholarship” and work at larger research universities (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010, p. 703). State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges In 1995, the National Association of State Universi ties and Land-Grant Colleges sought the support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation “ to examine the future of higher education” as the dawning of a new era was seemingl y accompanied by deep-rooted changes taking place in these institutions (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 15). The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State Universit ies and Land-Grant Institutions [Kellogg Commission] (1999), discusses the rich his tory of the land-grant ideal of public university service to communities and the nation. T he concept of the state university and land-grant college was founded by Justin Morrill an d Abraham Lincoln “to provide a new kind of education to suit the needs of agricultural workers and industrial labor”, as universities enlightened and educated workers in th ese fields and helped transform the local, national, and international economy (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 18). As a

PAGE 171

157 result of their early efforts, “together, state col leges and universities and land-grant institutions have educated hundreds of millions of Americans at very affordable prices” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 17). In their analys is of the vital historical and future role state universities and land-grant colleges pla y in contributing to American society and transforming our global economy, the Kellogg Co mmission (1999) includes the efforts made by “1862 institutions and the historic ally Black colleges universities and tribal institutions brought into the fold in 1890 a nd 1994, respectively,” as well as “every public institution intent on meeting community need s through teaching, research, and service” (p. 17). Embodying equal access to educati on and service to communities, the institutions identified as state universities and l and-grant colleges have proven successful in providing educational access and serving their c ommunities, but there is much work left to be done. The success of students who have attended public in stitutions is undeniable, but often over-looked and underestimated by the America n public. Responsible for awarding two-thirds of all bachelor’s degrees and approximat ely three-quarters of all doctoral degrees, as well as 70% of the nation’s engineering and technical degrees, the economic impact made by public institutions is truly remarka ble. Every sector of American life, from health care to the arts, has been positively i mpacted by efforts of these state universities and land-grant institutions, through a combination of instruction, research, and service. The same institutions that are respons ible for making a positive impact, however, are often perceived by the American public as “aloof and out of touch, arrogant and out of date” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 20). Though these perceptions may be due to a lack of knowledge by the public about the structure, purpose, function, and

PAGE 172

158 finances of colleges and universities, “perceptions quickly define reality,” and these perceptions, accurate or not, must be understood an d addressed by the system of higher education across the U.S (p. 20). Colleges and universities must balance a wide varie ty of pressures surrounding enrollment, finances and student funding, accountab ility and productivity, and a continued emphasis on data and research that is urg ently needed to find solutions to various national and international problems (Kellog g Commission, 1999). In the midst of these pressures, public institutions also have to r ecognize and respond to the changing shape and nature of higher education in an era of r apid technological advances. Enrollment in public education beyond high school h as “grown enormously. Since the 1960s, the number of four-year public institutions increased dramatically and enrollment mushroomed” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 21). Twoyear community colleges have emerged since 1965, representing “new ventures in t he outreach business” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 21). Funding of institutions of higher education has als o undergone dramatic change as student aid has replaced institutional support. Und eniably, “however we measure state financial support it has declined practically every where in recent decades” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 23). Private, profit-making ed ucational institutions have also emerged and continue to grow as technological advan ces create new means through which outreach can be conducted and knowledge acqui red. As state funding per student has decreased, college costs have been on the rise. Constituents served by the university and college system throughout the United States hav e also changed dramatically as minorities, women, and older students populate camp uses in larger numbers than ever

PAGE 173

159 before (Kellogg Commission, 1999). Given these chan ges and the growing globalization of our world, colleges and universities must develo p ways to respond and to continue to make positive contributions to our local, national, and international economies. Those institutions best equipped to juggle the many respo nsibilities and the numerous changes facing post-secondary education are recognized as “ engaged institutions” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 25). Characteristics of an Engaged Institution The Kellogg Commission (1999), wrote openly to pres idents and chancellors of its member institutions about the growing need to “ organize our institutions to serve both local and national needs in a more coherent and eff ective way” (p. 3). Utilizing the experiences of 11 member institutions, exploratory portraits of engagement activities led the Kellogg Commission (1999) to emphasize seven ch aracteristics that contribute to the success of university-community engagement efforts. These seven characteristics are described as (a) Responsiveness, which refers to ho w university-community interaction is taking place, what questions are being asked, and h ow universities are responding to information they receive from the communities, regi ons, and state they serve. (b) Respect for Partners, which brings together universities an d communities that must work together to create an engaged atmosphere, and all stakeholde rs must be respected as learning takes place along the way. (c) Academic Neutrality, which refers to the reality of community problems and public policy that can involve content ious social, economic, and political issues. Ideally, the university should serve as a n eutral facilitator and source of information for outreach efforts. (d) Accessibility which suggests the university system can be confusing to outsiders. Resources, programs, and expertise should be equally

PAGE 174

160 accessible to all constituents within the community and across the state, particularly minority and underrepresented constituents. (e) Int egrating Engagement into Institutional Mission, which suggests the service mission of a un iversity should be integrated with the responsibility of developing intellectual capital a nd trained intelligence. Interdisciplinary work is likely the key to successful integration ef forts, and students and faculty members should be encouraged to participate in the facilita tion of these efforts. (f) Successful Coordination of Outreach and Service Efforts, ensur ing that all stakeholders are aware of community engagement efforts and the impact of such efforts. (g) Resource Adequacy, which can diminish the costs associated with engage ment efforts since such efforts are not free, and funding must come from somewhere. The most successful university engagement efforts are characterized by the develop ment of healthy relationships and have garnered support from partners in government, business, and the non-profit world (Kellogg Commission, 1999). The Kellogg Commission (1999) refers to engagement as “redesigned teaching, research, and extension and service functions that are sympathetically and productively involved with the communities universities serve, h owever community is defined” (p. 27). Often, service efforts can be interpreted as o ne bestowing something on another unit, instead of engaging in an ongoing interaction or pa rtnership. Engagement on the other hand refers to a partnership and focuses upon the “ commitment to sharing and reciprocity” (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 27). Wee rts and Sandmann (2008) draw upon research by the Kellogg Commission and Carnegi e Foundation and further describe engagement as a “collaborative model in which commu nity partners play a significant role in creating and sharing knowledge to the mutua l benefit of institutions and society”

PAGE 175

161 (p. 74). Though a movement towards engagement make s sense for universities and colleges on a number of levels, collaboration and p artnering can prove complicated for a multitude of reasons, as highlighted in the descrip tion of the seven characteristics of engaged institutions previously (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Navigating the Rules of Engagement Beyond the seven characteristics of successfully en gaged institutions identified by the Kellogg Commission (1999), other researchers ha ve made ambitious efforts to identify successful rules of engagement, particular ly at research universities due to the complex nature of these larger systems (Weerts & Sa ndmann, 2008, 2010). Through their research, Weerts and Sandmann (2008) identified sev eral key themes that played a role in successful university-community engagement efforts, including (a) attention to language, (b) leadership behaviors, (c) organizational struct ures, and (d) the development of boundary spanners. Though these themes are importan t, the history, mission, and context of each institution also “influence challenges and opportunities for adopting engagement” (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, p. 86). As research unive rsities lag behind their peers in adopting engagement as fundamental to their institu tional missions, focusing upon language, leadership, organizational structures, an d the development and role of boundary spanners may prove useful to universities wishing to become engaged centers of teaching, learning, and research (Kellogg Commis sion, 1999; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). The language used by leaders of colleges and univer sities, as well as campus documents that describe interactions with the publi c are critical to stakeholders invested in understanding the level of engagement a universi ty or college practices (Weerts &

PAGE 176

162 Sandmann, 2008). In their study of different types of public universities and land-grant colleges making the transition to become more activ ely engaged with their communities, Weerts and Sandmann encountered both an absence and deliberate use of a language of engagement that varied by the type of university or institution. Recent studies of university-community engagement efforts suggest res earch universities lag behind other types of institutions in engaging with their commun ities (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). Instead, in this particular study of the engagement efforts of different types of colleges and universities, Weerts and Sandmann (2008) found “urban research institutions in our sample more easily adopted the language and underst anding of a two-way approach to engagement” (p.88). Urban institutions in the study also made direct connections in the cities in which they were located, capitalizing upo n “their metropolitan location to become a multi-directional or two-way learning labo ratory and have positioned their university as their city’s intellectual resource” ( Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, p. 88). As previously indicated, an institution’s history and mission are important factors to consider as institutions make the transition to include the language of engagement as a central component of its mission (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Leadership has emerged as common theme throughout t his dissertation and the Kellogg Commission (1999) also highlighted the vita l role that college and university leaders play in creating an engaging campus culture In their study, Weerts and Sandmann (2008) recognized the role of leadership i n stimulating successful universitycommunity engagement efforts. As they describe it, leadership was important for two reasons: (a) communicating the value of engagement both internally and externally, and (b) aligning administrative structures and resource s to promote engagement. The role of

PAGE 177

163 Presidents and Chancellors at each of the instituti ons is the focus of much of the study conducted by Weerts and Sandmann (2008), but the ro le of faculty members serving as leaders of engagement efforts also surfaces. Their discussion stems from the apparent underutilization of faculty members in university e ngagement efforts primarily because community service is not recognized in the tenure a nd promotion process to which these faculty members are subjected. Teaching and researc h do factor greatly into the tenure and promotion process and thus, faculty members may sacrifice service and engagement opportunities to focus on teaching and research eff orts which have been deemed more important, and certainly vital, to the longevity of their personal careers (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Engagement efforts at the universities and institut ions included in the study by Weerts and Sandmann (2008) were driven by the effor ts of academic and professional staff, referred to as “boundary spanners” (p. 93). In their study, successful and unsuccessful boundary spanners were identified, as were behaviors that contributed to the success of these individuals in leading community-e ngagement efforts. Successful boundary spanners exhibited (a) superb listening sk ills, (b) embodied a service ethic, (c) competently managed power, and (d) exemplified neut rality in their work (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).Community partners quickly recogniz ed boundary spanners who were invested in the partnership; “listening was a signa l of respect to partners” (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, p. 93). Successful partnerships between communities and uni versities were led by boundary spanners who exhibited an ethic of care in their work, and recognized the role power played in leading such efforts. Community par tners often believed power should

PAGE 178

164 be distributed equitably but still relied upon the university to provide knowledge and alternatives from which community partners could ch oose. Thus though power was seemingly distributed equitably, it was not distrib uted equally. Maintaining neutrality when considering the political nature of the issues that are often the focus of engagement efforts is yet another challenge recognized by univ ersities and community partners. As university students and faculty members often condu ct research to find solutions to community problems, neutrality can be hard to maint ain. In essence, true engagement efforts should be built upon “an interactive proces s in which stakeholders collectively solve problems” (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, p. 95). The views of community agencies and members should be considered even if research f indings suggest clear solutions. University-community engagement efforts should work to bridge gaps in theory and practice. University-community engagement efforts seem to wor k best when both partners reap benefits from the investment. Universities are likely to engage with their surrounding communities when such efforts “contribu te to their brand and [enhance] the physical surroundings of the campus” (Weerts & Sand mann, 2008, p. 95). On the flip side, engagement efforts positively impact communit ies and partner organizations that are often beneficiaries of the services provided by universities, students, and faculty members. However, Bruning, McGrew, and Cooper (2006 ) assessed the attitudes of community members toward a university located in a small, Kentucky town and found engagement efforts can be straightforward and simpl e and still make an impact. One strategy that can be easily enacted by universities to positively impact community members and their perceptions of the university is to invite members of the community to

PAGE 179

165 actively participate in campus activities and utili ze institutional resources (Bruning et al., 2006). As community members are encouraged to get i nvolved on campus, perceptions of town-gown relationships appear to benefit greatly ( Bruning et al., 2006). Campus Compact Beyond the specific strategies outlined by the Kell ogg Foundation (1999), Weerts and Sandmann (2008, 2010), and Bruning et al. (2006 ), national resources that highlight university-community engagement efforts are in exis tence and have been embraced by colleges and universities across the country. Prior research on university-community engagement efforts highlighted the role of Campus C ompact in helping colleges and universities successfully adopt and maintain engage ment efforts (Carnegie Foundation, 2006; Kellogg Commission, 1999; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, 2010). The Campus Compact Website is comprehensive in nature. Under t he “Initiatives” link, a description of the work associated with Campus Compact is descr ibed and shared: Campus Compact’s initiatives help campuses deepen t heir engaged work by providing replicable models, training, advocacy, and resources designed to increase the efficiency and effectivene ss of service, servicelearning, and civic engagement programs. Included h ere are successful engagement practices, awards to recognize exception al work, professional development and training, on-site consultation oppo rtunities, policy initiatives, and more. (Campus Compact, n.d.a) To achieve the goal of helping campuses deepen thei r commitment to implement community engagement efforts, Campus Compact collec ts and disseminates information to institutions of higher education, with the goal of expanding engagement efforts on college and university campuses and communities thr oughout the US. Currently, links to 15 initiatives are included on their extensive Webp age. The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN) is relevant to the disc ussion in this chapter and to UCB

PAGE 180

166 in particular, given its role as a research univers ity working to become engaged with its surrounding community. As discussed previously, pri or research acknowledges the challenges facing research universities to engage w ith their surrounding communities (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). As described on the Cam pus Compact Webpage, “TRUCEN works to advance civic engagement and engag ed scholarship among research universities and to create resources and models for use across higher education” (Campus Compact, n.d.d). Campus Compact was founded in 1985 by the president s of Brown, Georgetown, Stanford, and the Education Commission of the State s, in response to negative images of college students as materialistic and self-absorbed as promoted by media outlets. These university presidents knew students on their campus es were involved in community service activities and they believed with proper su pport and encouragement, other students would get involved, too. Today, with a nat ional office based in Boston, Massachusetts, almost 1,200 colleges and universiti es across the country are included in the Campus Compact Coalition. Colorado is one among 34 state affiliates included in the efforts to expand engagement projects led by colleg es and universities. Of the colleges and universities involved with Campus Compact, “98% of member campuses have one or more community partnerships, and more than 90% incl ude service or civic engagement in their mission statements” (Campus Compact, n.d.c). As a state affiliate, Colorado Campus Compact (CCC) has developed its own Website (www.cccompact.org) to help member colleges and universities make service learning work on their campuses. Beginning with fou r member institutions, 21 colleges and universities representing all facets of higher education in Colorado are members

PAGE 181

167 today, including the University of Colorado Boulder Focused solely on promoting engagement efforts, CCC “creates a forum for conversations among leadership of community college, private, and four-year public in stitutions focused on the public good of higher education ” (Campus Compact, n.d.b). Campus Compact conducts yearly member surveys to track student and faculty partici pation in service and service-learning opportunities. Results for individual states were c ompared to national statistics. Of the 21 member institutions in Colorado, 16 responded to th e survey questions for the 2010-2011 school year. The Campus Compact summary results for Colorado hig hlight many positive aspects of community engagement efforts across its member institutions (Colorado Campus Compact, 2011). In Colorado, 38% of college and university students were reportedly involved in community service, civic eng agement, and service-learning activities, which narrowly exceeds the national ave rage of 37%. Students across Colorado campuses reported participating in an average of 5. 39 service hours per week, surpassing the national average of 3.62. As estimated by the I ndependent Sector in 2010, the value of volunteer time was calculated at $21.36/hour (Co lorado Campus Compact, 2011). Based on these estimates, Colorado students contrib uted $313,335,940 to local community organizations (Colorado Campus Compact, 2 011). Colorado campuses reported the existence of 50 serv ice-learning courses at colleges and universities across the state. Service -learning in Colorado appears to be emerging, as the number of courses offered currentl y lags behind the national average of 69. Approximately 5% of faculty members on higher e ducation campuses across the state report teaching a service-learning course, on par w ith the national average of faculty

PAGE 182

168 participation of 6%. Colorado also exceeded the nat ional average of community partnerships per campus, reporting 172 existing par tnerships. The majority of these reported partnerships took place between the member institutions and K-12 schools, government agencies, and non-profit/community-based organizations. Similar to other Campus Compact members, Colorado colleges and unive rsities reported that mechanisms to systematically assess the perceptions of communi ty members concerning the institution’s engagement with the community, and to assess community impact, are not widely used. Engagement efforts across Colorado uni versities and communities seem successful as measured by Campus Compact, but effor ts taking place at member colleges and universities across Colorado are not specifical ly documented. Community Engagement at UCB The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Enga gement (ODECE) at UCB has taken on the role of fostering community engage ment efforts. A separate tab on the ODECE Website, “Community Engagement,” describes cu rrent university-community events that are geared toward bringing students and the surrounding community in Boulder together. At the current time, two communit y events are described on the Website: (a) Monthly Community Dinners and (b) MLK Celebration. Monthly community dinners are hosted at the Family Learning Center in Boulder, “in an effort to build bridges and develop relationships among CU-Bo ulder students, faculty and community members” (ODECE, n.d., Engagement). Dinne r and entertainment are provided to those who choose to participate, and tr ansportation to the dinners is available for students. The City of Boulder and the Universit y of Colorado Boulder join the rest of the state of Colorado in celebrating the Martin Lut her King, Jr. holiday, which includes

PAGE 183

169 an annual “Passing of the Torch” ceremony: “the tor ch is symbolic of being one people and connecting all Coloradoans with the vision of D r. Martin Luther King, Jr.” (ODECE, n.d., Engagement). Though not listed under the Community Engagement ta b on the ODECE Webpage, the University also hosts an annual Divers ity and Inclusion Summit. The 2012 summit took place on the campus from November 13th through November 15th, beginning at 8 a.m., in the University Memorial Cen ter. The summit is described in detail on the UCB Events Calendar Webpage as follows: The Diversity and Inclusion Summit brings the most current and up-to-date best practices around matters of diversity, inclusion, e quity and social justice. As a public forum, the summit provides content to inspi re new members of the campus community and to sustain veteran campus members tow ard a greater pluralistic campus, introduce everyday skills and practices for fostering an inclusive campus and work environment, and advance the skill set of long-term practitioners of diversity, inclusion and social justice. (ODECE, n. d, Events Calendar) Alphonse Keasley, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Dive rsity, is listed as the contact for the summit, and the summit is also supported by the Bou lder Faculty Assembly Diversity Committee. Currently, seventeen members serve on th e Diversity Committee. As described on the committee Webpage, these members ( a) record minutes from their meetings; (b) publish a Diversity Summit schedule; (c) recognize the Regents’ NonDiscrimination Policy and the CU Boulder Discrimin ation and Harassment Policy and Procedures; (d) operate under the administration of ODECE and the Committee on Women (CCW); (e) analyze data collected on the most recent Social Climate survey in fall 2010; and, (f) oversee the Dennis Small Cultur al Center located in the University Memorial Center (UMC). Links to many of these progr am specific Websites are provided directly from the ODECE Webpage (UCB Website, n.d., Committees).

PAGE 184

170 Following the link under “Community” from the Diver sity Committee Webpage takes one directly to the Webpage for the Dennis Sm all Cultural Center (DSCC), which exists “to serve underrepresented student groups on the CU-Boulder campus by providing programmatic support and a safe space for cultural expression and community gatherings” (UCB Website, n.d., UMC Dennis Small). Events advertised by the DSCC include film screenings, dance lessons, cooking cla sses, workshops, and community gatherings. Interested participants, described as s tudents, faculty, and community members, are invited to join the DSCC weekly email lists to receive announcements about these events. The Dennis Small Cultural Cente r also advertises their lending library, which consists of “a small collection of m ulticultural literature that is available for CU students, faculty, and staff to borrow” (UCB Website, n.d., UMC Dennis Small Programs). Flagship 2030 and Community Engagement Flagship 2030 focuses upon creating a new model of undergraduate education to better prepare UCB students to make contributions t o an ever changing world. In 2009, the Faculty Task Force made two recommendations wit h apparent links to community engagement. The first recommendation calls for, “en gaged scholarship” which “links theory with practice and research with action and i s an important faculty contribution to the world in which we live” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 1). The second recommendation emphasizes, “diverse educational env ironments and experiential learning [opportunities that] provide important con texts to integrate and improve research, creative work and education” to enhance u ndergraduate education and community engagement efforts (p. 1). The Chancellor ’s review of these

PAGE 185

171 recommendations outlines the University’s plan to h ire an additional 300 tenure-track faculty members over the next ten years. Accordingl y, UCB will focus upon hiring faculty members to “support core disciplines, inter disciplinary studies and areas of distinction, including research and scholarship in fields of national needs and opportunities” (p. 2). An emphasis will also be pla ced on improving diversity and increasing the quantity of graduate students and th e quality of graduate programs. The Undergraduate Education Task Force also made re commendations to propel UCB forward as an engaged university. Recognizing t he positive impact of facultystudent interactions on student success uncovered i n past research (see Chapter V), the Task Force discussed the need to rethink undergradu ate education in its entirety, including “instructional modes and many new earned degree pathways” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 3). Deans of each school and college were asked to develop a strategy within each of their units to ensure that “student research, student internships, and study abroad can be counted for degree requirem ents more broadly and more flexibly within the varied requirements of each school and c ollege” (p.3). In the Chancellor’s review of these recommendations, a plan to “make ex periential education a required component of the undergraduate curriculum” is ident ified (p. 3). Beyond requiring experiential learning opportunities for all student s, the Chancellor identified leadership development opportunities and creating a mechanism to ensure every student on campus is involved in at least one extracurricular activit y as priorities. Promoting excellence in research and creative work is another initiative outlined in the Flagship 2030 summary. The Chancellor acknow ledges the need to dedicate additional resources to promote excellence in resea rch and to overhaul the current

PAGE 186

172 administrative structure governing research endeavo rs. As outlined by Flagship 2030, research excellence can be achieved by (a) increasi ng the number and quality of graduate students and programs, (b) providing opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research endeavors, (c) increasing funds for resear ch, (d) obtaining sponsors to conduct research, and (e) developing solid partnerships acr oss the State of Colorado (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009). Enhancing graduate stud ent education, funding, and housing options are also related to enhancing the universit y’s research endeavors. The Graduate Education Task Force outlined several recommendatio ns to increase graduate enrollment by 5%, to a total enrollment of 20% by 2030 (Univer sity of Colorado Boulder, 2009). Building community partnerships surfaced in the Cha ncellor’s action plan under Core Initiative 7: Learning for a Diverse World inc luded in Flagship 2030. Recognizing the power of community engagement in transforming b oth living and learning environments, the Chancellor proposed several speci fic actions UCB can take to “promote the early development and scholastic achie vement [of students] from first generation and economically disadvantaged homes” (U niversity of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 14). As identified in research concerning university-community engagement efforts (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008, 2010), focusing u pon the needs of underrepresented members from surrounding communities, and providing them with educational access and opportunities are crucial to the university and world at large. Partnerships between UCB and several community-based and school agencies were identified to provide a platform from which efforts to include a more diver se community in University efforts could be launched and include: (a) Boulder County “ I Have a Dream” program, (b) Aurora Public Schools, (c) Serving Schools in Great er Colorado, (d) School of Education

PAGE 187

173 Bueno Center, (e) Equity Assistance Project, and (f ) the NSF Indigenous Alliance. Collaboration across offices and departments within the university itself were identified as an area of need to enhance and focus efforts to better address the needs of all constituents and to enhance the diversity of the st udent body. The Flagship 2030 Task Force further outlines recom mendations “to develop a coordinated, coherent, deliberate campus strategy f or outreach and engagement” under Core Initiative 8: Serving Colorado, the Community, and Our Graduates (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 15). This Task Force ack nowledged the role of faculty members in helping to create an engaged campus by r ecognizing a need to “develop evaluation, recognition, and reward systems for fac ulty outreach” (p. 16). The last specific action step outlined by this Task Force hi ghlighted the need to “bridge the development of programs between the University, alu mni, business and the community by having the Division of Continuing Education and Professional Studies” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 17). The Chancellor full y supports the specific actions outlined by the Task Force and agreed to “designate an office or administrative structure to better coordinate outreach and engagement activi ties” (p. 17). The Chancellor also recognized the need for budgetary support to succes sfully expand community partnerships. Communication was identified as an ar ea that needs to be improved to relay the mission of the university more clearly, improve the visibility of the campus, and promote an understanding of UCB’s role as the flags hip university across the state of Colorado (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009). As outlined in Flagship 2030, the steps to increase diversity of all kinds at UCB, and to b e recognized and known as an “engaged

PAGE 188

174 institution” appear to be clearly delineated. Succe ss toward achieving these goals needs to be quantified and measured over the next decade.

PAGE 189

175 CHAPTER VIII MAKING THE CASE FOR DIVERSITY AND IMPLEMENTING AN ACTION PLAN Issues surrounding race continue to be complex and intriguing in education today, more than fifty years after the Supreme Court order ed the desegregation of schools in Brown v. Board of Education (1954; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Parker, 1998). Several contemporary scholars (Ladson-Billings, Parker, DeC uir & Dixson, 2004) suggest that schools are being re-segregated with minority stude nts becoming more isolated from the majority White population. High school graduation r ates for minority groups, particularly African-American and Hispanic students, continue to lag behind the graduation rates of their White and Asian peers (Lee, 2002). Racial dif ferences can also be found in test scores, college application and acceptance rates, p ercentages of students taking remedial classes in college, and college graduation rates (P erna, 2000). The reality of the racial discrepancies that exist in the world of education has a tremendous effect on society as a whole, though the impact of racism in our society t oday is generally ignored. LadsonBillings (1998) suggests “racism is normal in Ameri can society” (p. 7) and because of its normality, it is relatively easy to overlook. As described in detail in Chapter II, in 2003 the S upreme Court of the United States decided two affirmative action cases filed a gainst the University of Michigan undergraduate program and the school of law. The la wsuits were filed on behalf of White plaintiffs as a result of what they claimed to be u nfair higher education admission decisions. The plaintiffs in the case argued that t he use of affirmative action was unconstitutional and served as a form of “reverse d iscrimination” (Gurin et al., 2004).

PAGE 190

176 The decision rendered by the court supported affirm ative action programs, suggesting they were acceptable because such programs aimed to increase the educational experiences of all students by promoting and embrac ing a diverse student body. The court stated, “Diversity is a compelling interest” (Gurin et al., 2004, p. 2). As discussions of the 2003 Supreme Court decision a bout the use of affirmative action have subsided, discussions about diversity p rogramming on college campuses has seemingly increased. Diversity programs on college campuses are created in order to embrace and enhance the experiences of minority and majority students, reducing the “natural” segregation of students different from on e another on college campuses (Muthuswamy, Levine, & Gazel, 2006). One reason for the shift in focus to diversity programs may be as a result of legislation passed i n individual states like California and Washington declaring affirmative action practices a s unlawful. As discussed previously, Proposition 209 in California ended the use of affi rmative action in all government agencies and higher education institutions, and sim ilar legislation has impacted institutions of higher education across the country Though affirmative action practices and diversity p rograms arguably cater to serve different interests, both embrace the value o f diverse education environments. Several studies have been conducted on college camp uses to examine the impact of diversity on campus climate, student achievement, a nd the development of good citizens. Gurin et al. (2004) investigated the role of divers ity on students’ experiences of college and highlighted the importance of maintaining and c reating diversity programs to increase the number of minority students in college s, and to foster the social and academic growth of all students. Muthuswamy et al. (2006) evaluated a diversity

PAGE 191

177 program, MRULE, on the campus of a Midwestern unive rsity. Their findings supported the importance of diversity programming, revealing that participants in the program developed more positive attitudes about racial diff erences, interacted more frequently with individuals of different races, and were more aware of racial issues affecting various minority groups. Among others, these studies provid e evidence supporting the importance of diversity initiatives and programs on the campuses of higher education institutions. Diversity programs on college campuses now play a v ital role in supporting decisions made by the courts in regard to the use o f affirmative action to create a more interesting and interactive campus atmosphere in in stitutions of higher education. As Gurin et al. (2004) suggest, “It is important to ex plain how higher education might expose students to racial and ethnic diversity, sin ce they may experience it in several ways” (p. 2). The ways in which students experience diversity includes the structural diversity to which students are exposed, informal i nteractional diversity, and classroom diversity. Gurin et al. (2004) believe that informa l interactional diversity and classroom diversity have the potential to greatly impact lear ning outcomes and campus climate. In and of itself, structural diversity, simply admitti ng minority groups in larger numbers, does not automatically enhance the college experien ce of majority students: “Simply attending an ethnically diverse college does not gu arantee that students will have meaningful intergroup relations” (Gurin et al., 200 4, p. 3). Accordingly, frequent and quality intergroup interaction is essential for stu dents to have meaningful diversity experiences during college.

PAGE 192

178 Making Campus Diversity Initiatives Work In defense of affirmative action practices and poli cies, leaders at the University of Michigan found themselves on center stage, not only in defending diversity but working to expand their successful diversity efforts to col lege campuses across the country. WadeGolden and Matlock (2007) “have been involved in a comprehensive, longitudinal campus research and assessment project that examine s the impact of diversity on students” (p. 41). Prior research on campus climate suggests the importance of formal diversity programs working to bring students togeth er (Cress, 2008; Cureton, 2003; Cabrera et al., 1999). Because of the controversy s urrounding issues of race and affirmative action, Wade-Golden and Matlock (2007) recognize the obstacles facing leaders at colleges and universities across the Uni ted States. After 20 years of experience working toward achieving strong campus diversity in itiatives, they have compiled their observations and recommendations into a list to hel p campus leaders “understand the dynamics of campus diversity” (p. 41). Research concerning campus climate provides insight into the role of transformational leaders, leaders who are committed to the cause of diversity and willing to take action to make positive changes (Cartner, L ove, & Trammell, 2010). WadeGolden and Matlock (2007) also recognize the pivota l role campus leaders play in promoting campus diversity initiatives, even though many diversity efforts are likely taking place on campuses throughout the country wit hout the knowledge or guidance of a campus administrator. To be a truly successful lead er of diversity initiatives, “the campus community needs to know that diversity is the prior ity of the president or chancellor, the executive officers, and the governing board” (p. 42 ). Furthermore, campus leaders should

PAGE 193

179 focus upon increasing the number of students of col or, as well as increasing the number of faculty and staff of color. As campus climate re search highlights the mitigating effect of student-faculty relationships upon college persi stence (Cress, 2008), leaders should actively recruit and retain quality faculty and sta ff members to enhance the development of positive relationships with students with the lo ng-term goal of helping all students succeed, and ultimately transforming the campus cli mate. To be successful, “strategic diversity programs and implementation must touch the entire campus” (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007, p. 42). Campuses across the US seem to struggle with achieving desired levels of c ampus diversity and are more open to incorporating all levels of the college or universi ty in such efforts (p. 42). Beyond ensuring diversity plans include all levels of the campus and community, such plans need not be reinvented year after year. Instead, Wade-Go lden and Matlock (2007) reinforce the importance of implementing the action parts of thes e plans and determining the shortcomings and successes along the way. If diversity is a priority on a campus, “it is impo rtant that campus diversity efforts be viewed as essential to the institution’s overall mission” (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007, p. 44). Efforts made at The University of Mic higan have proven exemplary as campus leaders have worked to link the institutiona l mission focused upon diversity, as stated in its original diversity plan of 1988, to a ll other aspects of the university including research, instruction and service. Diversity at Mic higan is an institutional goal woven into every part of the university. To be certain, divers ity there has proven to be more than just a focus on increasing access and the presence of mi nority students on campus. WadeGolden and Matlock (2007) emphasize the importance of focusing upon the retention and

PAGE 194

180 graduation rates of students of color rather than j ust the number of underrepresented students enrolling each school year. Successful cam pus diversity plans should address issues concerning access, persistence, retention, g raduation rates, and satisfaction with the campus experience. Prior research highlights the complexity of interra cial student relationships on college campuses (Cabrera et al., 1999; Cress, 2008 ; Cureton, 2003; Love et al., 2010) leaders need to understand this complexity and crea te opportunities for students to work through diversity issues using a variety of means ( Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007). Over the past two decades diversity itself has become mo re difficult to narrowly define as the term in the present day encompasses and describes m any groups of individuals and is not limited to racial/ethnic differences (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007). Wade-Golden and Matlock highlight a need to remain focused upon “ad dressing the paramount diversity issues involving equity”, as “the racial aspects of this dilemma still remain unresolved and contentious” (p. 46). Beyond providing essentia l learning opportunities centered upon race and diversity, campus leaders must be pro active and respond immediately, when needed, to any negative racial incidents invol ving any members of the campus and surrounding community to promote and maintain a pos itive campus climate, and “this message must be clear and consistent” (p. 45). Successful campus diversity initiatives make a diff erence in the lives of all students and these positive results must be collect ed, quantitatively and qualitatively, and shared with all stakeholders participating in highe r education discussions (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007). Wade-Golden and Matlock recognize the importance of collecting data because this data proved vital to the Michigan case before the Supreme Court in

PAGE 195

181 2003. If data are collected, the success of diversi ty initiatives may justify the focus of such efforts and may pacify a skeptical public (p. 46). Quantitative data is important, but understanding “attitudes and behaviors. . permit a broader and more balanced analysis” (p. 46). Diversity plans, successes, and stereotype s should be addressed, as well. Communication with all stakeholders proves crucial, particularly when diversity efforts are viewed negatively (p. 47). To ensure their success, campus leaders must garner support for diversity initiatives from stakeholders (Williams, 2006; Wade -Golden & Matlock, 2007). The University of Michigan garnered support from hundre ds of corporations, the military, and unions who recognized the ever-important role diver sity plays in a growing global economy. These supporters of the university diversi ty initiatives readily recognized, “diversity is not only the key to a quality educati on, but also critical to the current and future economic vitality and security of our nation ” (p. 47). Making diversity work on college campuses is a precursor for the successful future of our nation and of our world. As discussed in Chapter VII, community engagement e fforts can work to enhance a university’s diversity efforts. Diversity Leaders at UCB The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Enga gement (ODECE) “leads CU-Boulder's diversity efforts. The office fosters our vision for a diverse campus climate and works with students, faculty, and staff to impl ement the campus diversity plan” (ODECE, n.d.). Created in March of 1998, Disability Services and Pre-College Outreach Programs fall under the division of ODECE, as well. The creation of the ODECE office spurred on the development of a Blueprint for Action UCB’s diversity plan first

PAGE 196

182 published in 1999. Diversity at UCB is defined as a “community [that] includes individuals from a range of ethnic, regional, cultu ral, economic, and religious backgrounds—as well as first-generation students, p ersons with disabilities, students who are parents, people of different sexual and gender orientations, people of different ages and political viewpoints, and many others” (ODECE, n.d.). The ODECE Website outlines areas upon which the office focuses including: camp us climate, community engagement, resources, student success, faculty and staff succe ss, and diversity events taking place on campus. Currently, ODECE operates under the leaders hip of Robert Boswell, serving as Vice Chancellor, and Alphonse Keasely, serving as A ssistant Vice Chancellor. The Director of Student Success is David Aragon, Chris Pacheco is Director of Pre-College programs, and Cindy Donahue serves as Director of D isability Services (ODECE, n.d.). Under the leadership of the aforementioned individu als, the vision of ODECE is clearly outlined on the Website: At CU-Boulder, diversity is defined broadly to ensu re the inclusion of a wide variety of human experiences and identities. The un iversity recognizes and celebrates a diverse campus community to include p eople from many backgrounds—ethnic, regional and national origins, cultural heritage, intellectual, economic, religious, international—as well as first -generation students, people with disabilities, students who are parents, people of different sexual and gender orientations, people of different ages, and many ot her diverse characteristics. The University of Colorado Boulder will develop, implem ent, and assess university strategies to improve the diversity of faculty, stu dents, and staff as well as to foster a supportive, more inclusive community for a ll. We envision a campus (1) that addresses the special needs of groups and indi viduals who historically have faced institutional barriers, (2) where the quality of education is enhanced and enriched by a diverse campus community, and (3) whe re the entire campus benefits from participation in a multicultural comm unity. By 2030 we aim to make CU-Boulder a model for the nation in applying best practices in support of diversity and inclusive excellence. (ODECE, n.d.) The vision of ODECE is supported by the mission sta tement, also found on their Website:

PAGE 197

183 The mission of ODECE is to enhance, expand, and ens ure inclusive excellence through the practice of diversity. ODECE works wit h faculty, staff, students, and alumni to initiate and enhance oppor tunities to achieve understanding and excellence through diversity, th ereby promoting faculty and student success, enhancing campus climate, and strengthening community engagement. (ODECE, n.d.) Proof of the work being done to promote diversity a t UCB is readily available to interested stakeholders directly on the ODECE Webpa ge, including diversity reports, reports to the regents, diversity statistics, statu s of women reports, and a disability services report. UCB Diversity Plans UCB’s diversity plan, A Blueprint for Action was first developed and adopted in 1999 under the leadership of Chancellor Richard Byy ny and the Boulder Campus Diversity Planning Committee (BCDPC). In 1998, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education mandated that all public universities thr oughout the state of Colorado create campus diversity plans, and in response to this man date the BCDPC was formed and included members nominated by Vice Chancellors, Dea ns, the University of Colorado Student Union’s Legislative Council, and students a t the university (University of Colorado Boulder, 1999). The Boulder Campus Diversi ty and Equity Plan was first presented and approved by the Board of Regents in 1 998, though an alternative plan developed by UCB students called “Bolder Boulder” w as also discussed at length. Ultimately, data and input from across the campus, including governance, student, faculty, and staff groups were considered and incor porated by the university into the adopted diversity plan, A Blueprint for Action (University of Colorado Boulder, 1999).

PAGE 198

184 The Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis (PBA) at UCB stores all of the diversity and associated reports on their Website, and links from the ODECE Website can be used to navigate to these reports. On the PBA Annual Pro gress Report on Campus Diversity Plan Website, the three primary goals identified in A Blueprint for Action from 1999 are re-stated: (a) To build and maintain an inclusive c ampus environment; (b) To recruit, support, retain, and graduate a diverse student pop ulation; and, (c) To maintain and enhance diversity in employment of staff, faculty, and administrators (University of Colorado Boulder PBA, n.d.). Appendix C outlines th e three goals and the key strategies identified by the University of Colorado Boulder th at the university chose to employ to work towards the realization of the goals as identi fied in A Blueprint for Action (University of Colorado Boulder, 1999). Because the focus of this study is the history of diverse student access to the University, the first two goals stated in A Blueprint for Action associated with campus environment and stude nt access seem the most relevant to provide insight and potential answers to the questi on regarding how UCB has worked to create an atmosphere to attract diverse students to the campus since 1999. The third goal identified in the Blueprint concerning diverse facu lty and staff, though vital to a larger discussion about creating an amicable and accepting campus climate, falls outside of the scope of this study. As outlined in A Blueprint for Action, the goal as sociated with student access and opportunity states, “We are committed to ensuring e qual access and opportunity for a quality education at the University of Colorado at Boulder among all Colorado students, including members of racial/ethnic groups tradition ally underrepresented in higher education” (University of Colorado Boulder, 1999, p 13). This overarching goal was

PAGE 199

185 accompanied by four sub-goals, which included: (a) Demonstrate continued improvement in the number of students of color entering the uni versity, and increasing the graduation rate of these students; (b) enhancing the retention rate of first-year students of color; (c) improving graduation rates of students of color whi le increasing the number of new students of color; and, (d) improve the number of B A degrees awarded to students of color (p. 13). Recognizing the relationship among t hese goals, several key strategies were developed to begin making progress, using data from 1998 as a baseline for improvement. A Blueprint for Action also addressed issues assoc iated with funding and resources supporting diversity goals, and identifie d clear objectives and performance expectations making a commitment “to [transform] th e pattern of resource management for diversity” (University of Colorado Boulder, 199 9, p. 24). Accordingly, “major diversity programs” already receiving significant f unds, and Blueprint dedicated funds to continue these major programs and allocated additio nal funding resources for diversity related programs. Accountability was deemed necessa ry as the campus worked to achieve the diversity goals as outlined in Blueprint. Thoug h everyone was expected to play a role in adopting and assuring the success of the diversi ty plan as outlined, campus leaders were deemed to be crucial in leading the way. The O ffice of Diversity and Equity, under the then interim leadership of Ofelia Miramontes, w as appointed to provide leadership, coordinate, evaluate and support diversity efforts on campus (University of Colorado Boulder, 1999, p. 29). Measurement tools to assess the university’s progr ess toward achieving diversity goals and welcoming a more diverse student body wer e identified in A Blueprint for

PAGE 200

186 Action. Plans to analyze both short-term data (annu al reviews) and longer-term data (five year reviews) were outlined, as well (UCB, 1999). A s A Blueprint for Action was developed, the university had plans to use both int ernal and external benchmarks to measure progress toward achieving the goals outline d in the diversity plan. As clarified in the Blueprint, one example of an external benchmark would be the success of the diversity program implemented at UCB in comparison to the diversity efforts and success of other public Research I universities serving as UCB’s peer group (UCB, 1999). After the introduction of the diversity plan, and in resp onse to the mandate put into place by the CCHE requiring universities to report and monitor d iversity data, UCB stated that they will “annually track and report student trends” in: (a) Applications and acceptances for admission; (b) Entering student enrollment; (c) Tot al enrollment; (d) Retention rates; (e) Graduation rates; and, (f) Degrees earned (UCB, 199 9, p. 32). In particular, “trends in numbers and percentages for specific groups-includi ng such groups as women students, students of color and students with disabilitiesw ill be monitored and reported on an annual basis” (UCB, 1999, pp. 32-33). After its cre ation in 1999, A Blueprint for Action served as the basis for future diversity plans and was revisited in 2005 as President Hank Brown established a commission on diversity. servic es report. The President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity (2006) In 2005, after assuming the Presidency of the University of Colorado, Hank Brown created the Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversi ty (2006) with the intention… to launch a process through which our di versity programs are thoroughly reviewed by an external group. The immed iate outcome of this analysis will be a set of recommendations for impro ving diversity, with a particular focus on student recruitment and the aca demic climate. The ultimate outcome will be important achievements in the recru itment and retention of students of color and other diverse students at CU, and in creating a welcoming

PAGE 201

187 and enriching academic environment. (Blue Ribbon Co mmission on Diversity, 2006) The Blue Ribbon Commission consisted of 60 members and included community members, students, and tri-executives. The commissi on made ten recommendations for improving diversity on the Boulder campus which are outlined in Appendix D. Upon reviewing the literature concerning the struggle st udents of color face when they are not well-represented and are clearly a minority, which has been and continues to be the case with African American and American Indian students at UCB in particular, one recommendation made by the Blue Ribbon Commission ( 2006) seemed both plausible and necessary: recruitment and enrollment goals sho uld be set and shared with communities of color. In 2006, a headline in the Denver Post speaks to t he struggle the university continued to face regarding diversity on campus: “C U given D for diversity.” According to the article, a study conducted by the Education Trust in 2006 characterized students at the nation’s flagship universities as “whiter and r icher, not coming close to representing the diversity in their states” (Brown, 2006). Earni ng a D average overall, UCB “got an F in the number of African American, Latino, and Nati ve American students it enrolls relative to the number of high school seniors in th e state”, as these students made up only 9.2% of Boulder freshmen during the 2006-2007 acade mic year. Earlier in the same academic year, Anas (2006) wrote an article for The Daily Camera about University of Colorado leaders rejecting a recommendation from th e President’s diversity panel to “make admission standards more flexible to boost mi nority enrollment.” The panel indicated that “it is unacceptable that 66 black freshmen enrolled on Boulder’s campus last fall. This fall there are 76 new black freshmen” (Anas, 2006).

PAGE 202

188 Though CCHE requires public institutions of higher education throughout the state to use predetermined index scores to offer admission to st udents, each university and college is allowed to admit students not meeting the index uti lizing an “admissions window” (Anas, 2006). In 2005-2006, the window was set at 16% and shrank to 10% in 2008-2009; however, “the Boulder campus got ahead of schedule and only admitted 9% of students through the window” (Anas, 2006). In response to th e criticism, Chancellor Bud Peterson said, “instead of adjusting the index score, he wan ts to increase the applicant pool of minority students” (Anas, 2006). Although UCB has made recent gains increasing the presence of underrepresented students on campus, th e number of African American and American Indian students continues to lag behind th e enrollment numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and White students. Recruiting Students of Color In light of the negative headlines that can be foun d in Daily Camera and Denver Post articles, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity d rew attention to more positive aspects of the university’s diversity gains in its update in December of 2006. According to the Blue Ribbon Commission Update (2006), UCB ha d great success in recruiting students of color to campus and welcoming the most diverse class in the university’s history in the fall of 2006, increasing diversity 2 0% from the fall of 2003. In an effort to continue this trend of recruiting and admitting mor e diverse students of color, the admissions office proactively initiated a variety o f programs and activities to recruit students of color. For example, in late summer of 2 006, UCB purchased names of qualified prospective students from ACT and College Board (SAT) in both in-state and out-of-state markets to broaden the pool of student s of color who may eventually apply.

PAGE 203

189 The Pre-Collegiate Development Program proved to b e a successful platform from which underrepresented students were provided with the tools needed to navigate all parts of the application process. Twenty-three PCD P participants were granted admission to UCB in late July of 2006. In the summer of 2006, UCB joined the other University of Colorado campuses to provide information to prospec tive students and their parents through exposure to a college fair, college plannin g workshops, and presentations from each of the schools. The CU Upward Bound program ta rgeted American Indian students, conducting a college fair and information sessions about scholarship programs at UCB. The Academic Excellence Program was also identified in the update, but a target audience and program goals were not identified in t he report. Beyond the programmatic efforts put into place to target, attract, recruit, admit, and welcome minority students to the campus, UCB al so made efforts to reach a more diverse prospective student body through the CESDA (Colorado Educational Services and Development Association) directory and through recruitment mailings and Webbased communications. High school visits, special c ampus visits, special college fairs, Chancellor/Admissions/African American Community Me etings, special recruitment efforts by the UCB Engineering department, football tailgates, home visits, open houses, and CU Diversity Samplers are examples of the addit ional efforts made by the university to attract and recruit a diverse student body to th e campus. The Diversity Recruitment Website was also develop ed to further aid campus efforts to recruit students of color. The site cont ains specific information for students of color on academic programs, student resources, stud ent life, visiting the campus, and financial aid. UCB also established and strengthene d relationships with Front Range

PAGE 204

190 Community College and Community College of Denver t o aid in the recruitment of transfer students of color. The university also pur sued new financial aid opportunities and resources to recruit and support students of color in their educational endeavors. Faculty and Staff Development Continuing into the fall of 2006, a variety of edu cational programs geared toward university faculty and staff, were conducted to sup port campus-wide diversity efforts. The Office of Diversity and Equity Website included a diversity training and education page and was continually updated with new education al programs. All faculty members were required to complete a mandatory workshop “to train faculty and raise their sensitivity to harassing and discriminatory behavio rs of all types” (Blue Ribbon Commission Update, p. 5). Diversity planning templa tes were completed by Student Affairs directors, and diversity training and servi ces for staff and students continued to increase in size and number. Diversity Education and Training Efforts to expand diversity training reached beyon d the training of faculty and staff members, and focused upon the education of st udents, as well. Pilot sections of CU 101, called “The Contemporary University and the St udent Citizen” were launched in the fall of 2006, with faculty teaching four sections i n two residence halls. These efforts were to be evaluated and if deemed successful, would be expanded to include more first year students. The College of Arts and Sciences focused upon revising, reviewing, and expanding their courses focused upon cultural and g ender diversity. A diversity training program for leaders of student organizations was pr oposed, and a variety of programs were offered by the Dialogue Network “to enhance in tercultural communication and

PAGE 205

191 understanding” (Blue Ribbon Commission Update, p. 7 ). In addition, a weekly listing of all diversity events and programs for students was sent out by the Office of Diversity and Equity. The broader Boulder community was also drawn into conversations to promote diversity on and around the UCB campus. Senior camp us leaders, the Boulder city manager and four staffers reviewed recommendations to enhance diversity and inclusion within the broader Boulder campus community. The re commendations the group explored putting into action included increasing cu ltural programming efforts, creating a City-Campus Diversity Council, increasing outreach efforts to low income Boulder residents, and reviewing the initiatives and servic es related to multicultural inclusion, engagement, and policy development throughout the c ity of Boulder. Assessment of Current Programs The LEAD Alliance Programs were being reviewed in a year-long process to determine its effectiveness and to compare its succ ess with other LEAD program efforts. The community outreach efforts designed to recruit students of color to UCB were evaluated by The Pre-College Outreach Task Force an d results were presented to Chancellor Peterson and senior level campus adminis trators. The Office of Equity and Diversity reviewed the programs and services offere d at peer institutions to develop points of comparison into the future. Discussions s urrounding the Office of Diversity and Equity took place regarding the budget, reporting s tructure, and level of leadership needed to ensure the success of the office. Assessment of Campus Climate To create a better campus climate for all individua ls at UCB, a review of cross-

PAGE 206

192 cultural interactions and the level of understandin g between different groups was to be assessed to establish a base-line. A spring 2006 Fa culty Campus Climate survey was conducted and results were distributed in the fall. The results of the Faculty Campus Climate survey were not discussed in this report. L astly, the report ended with discussion about the creation of a Campus Diversity Advisory B oard to convene in early spring. Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan As described in more detail in Chapter VII, the new Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan outlines eight core initiatives and ten Flagship in itiatives upon which an action plan has been constructed. Through the implementation of the se initiatives, the University of Colorado Boulder plans to redefine “learning and di scovery in a global context and [set] new standards in education, research, scholarship, and creative work that will benefit Colorado and the world” (Flagship 2030). As outline d in the Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan and discussed in Chapter VII, two of the eight init iatives are more specifically focused than the others upon achieving a diverse and positi ve campus climate at UCB. Core Initiative 7: Learning for a Diverse World, and Cor e Initiative 8: Serving Colorado, the Community, and Our Graduates focus most readily upo n the importance of diversity and providing access to underrepresented students into the future (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009). To recapture the strategies to be implemented thro ugh 2030 to recruit, admit, retain and graduate a diverse community of scholars at UCB, the Chancellor proposed several specific actions UCB can take to “promote t he early development and scholastic achievement [of students] from first generation and economically disadvantaged homes” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 14). As i dentified in research concerning

PAGE 207

193 university-community engagement efforts (Weerts & S andmann, 2008, 2010), focusing upon the needs of underrepresented members from sur rounding communities, and providing them with educational access and opportun ities are crucial to the university and world at large. Partnerships between UCB and severa l community-based and school agencies were identified to provide a platform from which efforts to include a more diverse community in University efforts could be la unched. Collaboration across offices and departments within the university itself were i dentified as an area of need to enhance and focus efforts to better address the needs of al l constituents and to enhance the diversity of the student body. The Flagship 2030 Task Force further outlines reco mmendations “to develop a coordinated, coherent, deliberate campus strategy f or outreach and engagement” under Core Initiative 8: Serving Colorado, the Community, and Our Graduates (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 15). This Task Force ack nowledged the role of faculty members in helping to create an engaged campus by r ecognizing a need to “develop evaluation, recognition, and reward systems for fac ulty outreach” (p. 16). The last specific action step outlined by this Task Force hi ghlighted the need to “bridge the development of programs between the University, alu mni, business and the community by having the Division of Continuing Education and Professional Studies” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009, p. 17). Communication was further identified as an area th at needs to be improved to relay the mission of the university more clearly, i mprove the visibility of the campus, and promote an understanding of UCB’s role as the flags hip university across the state of Colorado (University of Colorado Boulder, 2009). As outlined in Flagship 2030, the steps

PAGE 208

194 to increase diversity of all kinds at UCB appear to be clearly delineated, yet the plan appears to lack commitment to accomplishing the goa l of achieving a diverse and positive campus climate in that few new strategies for improving diversity are included in the action plan. As highlighted in 1999, 2006, and again with Flagship 2030, some successful diversity initiatives and programs alrea dy exist at UCB, and as Wade-Golden and Matlock (2007) discussed, it is important to fo cus upon outcomes instead of just numbers of students when assessing the success of d iversity efforts. The language included in Flagship 2030 seems focused upon outcom es for students. Perhaps by working through the existing diversity initiatives and programs, the goal to foster a supportive and inclusive climate at UCB will indeed be “for all.” Of course, success in the area of diversity is relatively easy to track a nd undoubtedly, UCB administrators are accountable to do so well into the future. Diversity at UCB through the 2000s As mandated by the CCHE in 1998, each public colleg e and university in Colorado has been, and continues to be, responsible for reporting the progress of their established diversity goals each year as “Performan ce and progress towards the goals of the diversity plan are measured annually against th e plan’s stated performance metrics” (UCB, n.d.a). The diversity information for UCB was last updated on their Website on February 27, 2010; therefore, the most recent stati stical information available for comparison ranges from the years of 1999 to 2009. T able VIII.1 is copied from the university’s PBA Website to provide insight into th e data that has been gathered and analyzed to determine how much progress has been ma de in terms of achieving the stated diversity goals. Though other data are collected, f or the purpose of this dissertation,

PAGE 209

195 student measures are the only data that will be inc luded. The changes documented by UCB of the student measu res included Table VIII.1 are highlighted in the Annual Progress Report on Ca mpus Diversity Plan, last updated in March, 2010. The report describes “steady long-term increases” on one important student measure: six-year graduation rates of Colorado fres hmen students of color. Other steady increases have been outlined in other areas of the diversity plan. During the years between 1999-2009, data collected regarding Bachelo r’s degrees awarded to Colorado students of color, new Colorado undergraduates of c olor, and graduate-level degrees awarded to students of color indicated a pattern of “mixed results”. Gains on Bachelor’s degrees awarded to students of color were steady ov erall, but declined in 2008-09 for the first time since 1995. Colorado undergraduate stude nts of color were enrolling at steadily increasing rates through 2003, but enrollment rates throughout the 2000s were seen to level out. Graduate degrees awarded to students of color have followed an up-and-down pattern, demonstrating a small decline from 1995-20 02, and increasing since. As illustrated in Table VIII.1, minimal progress h as been realized to increase the percentage of Colorado high school graduates of col or enrolling as new freshmen during the past two decades. In fact, enrollment of studen ts of color from 1995-1998 declined, gained steadily through 2003, and declined to new l ows during the 2008-2009 school year. Actual numbers of students of color enrolling at UCB have remained steady since 2003, but since 2003 more students of color are gra duating from Colorado high schools, causing the percentage to decline on this measure. Further, one-year retention rates of freshmen students of color have not improved, thoug h they have held steady over the past ten years, ranging from 81-87%. The enrollment rate of graduate level students of color

PAGE 210

196 has also not improved (UCB, n.d.a). As Wade-Golden and Matlock (2007) suggested in the ir recommendations for establishing successful campus diversity programs, it is not necessary to re-create diversity plans each year but leaders should focus upon the shortcomings and successes of each diversity initiative and program. Seemingly UCB has focused upon identifying shortcomings and successes as administrators and le aders continue to work toward achieving the original goals outlined in the Blueprint for Action (UCB, 1999). Since 1999, work to revamp and revise the original divers ity plan has continued with the PresidentÂ’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity mee ting in 2006 and a new Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan adopted by UniversityÂ’s Board o f Regents in 2007. Additional information is provided about these initiatives and plans below.

PAGE 211

197 Table VIII.1 Diversity at UCB, 1999-2009 Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 008 2009 Student Measures 2A BachelorÂ’s degrees granted to residents in the f iscal year (summer, fall, spring), without second m ajors To residents of color 478 445 454 507 475 503 520 605 646 617 557 To White residents 2,422 2,675 2,483 2,563 2,783 2,753 2,920 3,023 2,9 78 3,015 2,870 Average entry year of degree recipients (for reference) '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 Res of color / res known race-ethnicity 16% 14% 15% 17% 15% 15% 15% 17% 18% 17% 16% 2A.1 New degree-seeking resident undergraduates (fr eshmen and transfers) in the calendar year (spring, summer, fall) New resident undergrads of color 649 694 722 796 875 851 797 864 867 836 847 New White resident undergrads 3,358 3,305 3,195 3,509 3,681 3,477 3,410 3,608 3,6 70 3,364 3,531 Res of color / res known race-ethnicity 16% 17% 18% 18% 19% 20% 19% 19% 19% 20% 19% 2A.1a CU-Boulder share of Colorado HS graduates of color -percentage of HS graduates of color enrolling at CU-Boulder Resident freshmen, of HS grads that year 5.8% 6.1% 6.3% 6.6% 6.1% 5.4% 5.2% 5.6% 5.2% 5.0% 4 .6% Resident transfers, of average of prior two years 3.2% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 3.8% 3.1% 2.5% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0% 2 .0% Total 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 8.9% 9.0% 7.9% 7.0% 7.4% 7.1% 6.5% 6 .2%

PAGE 212

198 Table VIII.1 Ctd. 2A.2 One-year retention of full-time fall freshmen (to r egular enrollment excluding continuing education) Entry year (for reference) '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 N resident freshmen of color entering 403 453 512 517 593 593 607 588 653 638 643 One-year retention rates Resident freshmen of color 83% 85% 84% 81% 87% 83% 84% 82% 85% 82% 83% White resident freshmen 86% 85% 86% 87% 87% 88% 86% 87% 85% 87% 87% 2A.3 Six-year graduation rates of full-time fall residen t freshmen (through summer of the sixth year) Entry year (for reference) '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 N resident freshmen of color entering 438 491 479 402 459 403 453 512 517 593 593 Six-year graduation rates of full-time fall freshme n Resident freshmen of color 53% 53% 54% 59% 62% 63% 65% 61% 62% 66% 62% White resident freshmen 68% 69% 71% 71% 73% 71% 71% 71% 74% 72% 73% 2B Graduate-level degrees (masters, doctorates, JDs) g ranted in the fiscal year (summer, fall, spring) To residents of color 1,021 1,007 941 988 968 974 1,020 1,023 981 1,000 9 97 To all students of color 1,021 1,007 941 988 968 974 1,020 1,023 981 1,000 9 97 To all Whites 1,021 1,007 941 988 968 974 1,020 1,0 23 981 1,000 997 N of color / N known race-ethnic, foreign excluded 12% 13% 14% 12% 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 16% 16%

PAGE 213

199 Table VIII.1 Ctd. 2B.1 New degree-seeking graduate level (masters, doctora l, law) students New resident grads of color 95 96 96 85 99 101 88 106 82 85 88 All new grads of color 168 151 151 145 174 171 154 171 165 159 188 All White new grads 1,008 930 942 1,015 1,044 985 928 948 916 942 1,023 N of color / N known race-ethnic, foreign excluded 14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 15% 14% 15% 15% 14% 16%

PAGE 214

200 Beyond Diversity Plans: Initiatives and Programs at UCB In the world of the Internet, college Web-pages ar e often a starting point for students researching universities they may be inter ested in attending as they graduate from high school. As a high school counselor workin g with students to pursue postsecondary options, I sit with students and look for information several times a day by going directly to individual college Websites. Thro ugh a Google Search with the search terms “University of Colorado Boulder Diversity,” I was directed to the diversity Webpage at www.colorado.edu/diversity. On this page a statement regarding diversity is made: CU-Boulder embraces the involvement of every studen t, staff, and faculty member, recognizing that a truly diverse community includes individuals from a range of ethnic, regional, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds-as well as first-generation students, persons with disabilitie s, students who are parents, people of different sexual and gender orientations, people of different ages and political viewpoints, and many others. The Office o f Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement leads CU-Boulder's diversity e fforts. The office fosters our vision for a diverse campus climate and works w ith students, faculty, and staff to implement the campus diversity plan (UCB, n.d.a) Below this statement, an extensive list of offices and programs supporting the diversity plan at UCB appear with direct links to i ndividual Webpages. The list includes (a) The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement, (b) Center for Multicultural Affairs, (c) CU-LEAD Alliance and Sch olarship Program, (d) Department of Equal Opportunity, (e) Disability Services, (f) Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) Resource Center, (g) Office of Discrimination and Harassment, (h) Precollegiate Development Program, (i) Diversit y Statistics, and (j) Women's Resource Center. Beyond the programs listed above, each college and/or school at UCB is also responsible for producing a diversity plan. Links to diversity resources at each

PAGE 215

201 college/school at UCB are accessible from this same Webpage and include (a) Leeds School of Business, (b) School of Education, (c) Co llege of Engineering and Applied Science, (d) School of Journalism and Mass Communic ation, (e) School of Law, (f) College of Architecture & Planning, (g) College of Arts & Sciences, (h) College of Music, and (i) University Libraries. Following the links to visit the individual Webpag es of each program and school/college provided from the main diversity pag e reveals a great deal of insight into how diversity is valued by UCB and every part of th e campus community. Each school/college within the UCB system appears to hav e dedicated resources and efforts into attracting, retaining, and graduating a divers e student body. Susani Harris was appointed to the position of Senior Director for Di versity and Inclusive Excellence for the School of Law in June of 2011. According to the Sch ool of Law Website, “Since July 2003 the enrollment of racially and ethnically di verse students has risen from 17% to 29% and these students are taught by faculty of c olor, who comprise 17% of the faculty, and women, who comprise 50% of the faculty at UCB. The School of Law further highlights its history as one of the first law scho ols to admit and graduate students of color. The first students of color entered law scho ol at UCB in 1898 and the first woman graduated in 1908. Successful graduates of color ar e also featured on the Webpage, as well as information concerning student life, curric ulum, and opportunities for career development particularly for minority students. The UCB School of Law represents an example of commitment to diversity that has seeming ly resulted in success as a result of focusing intently upon attracting and graduating mi nority students.

PAGE 216

202 CHAPTER IX OTHER FACTORS IMPACTING MINORITY SUCCESS As a professional school counselor with ten years o f experience working in the Colorado public high school system, I have remained focused on the issues related to the “achievement gap” that have followed me from school to school and district to district. As I began my career working in an inner city schoo l Denver Public Schools in 2002, all of my students were classified as underrepresented and all were learning English as a second language. As my students worked to graduate from high school and make plans for their futures, it was evident that many barrier s stood in their way of attaining a college degree, including (a) their status as residents of Colorado and the United States, (b) the seemingly exorbitant and ever rising cost of colleg e, (c) family demands and cultural expectations, (d) relatively low grade point averag es and test scores compared to other college-bound students, and (e) navet about the e ntire college-admission process (from exploring possible college options, to completing a pplications, to beginning and completing the financial aid process, when possible ). As I moved to my next school placement, also in Den ver Public Schools, I was exposed to a larger variety of minority and underre presented student groups. These students spoke more than 60 languages and came from parts of the world that I had not imagined in my early career. I met brilliant studen ts, again learning English as a second language, and worked tirelessly to help them find a ny and every opportunity available to them to continue into college upon graduating from high school. Throughout the first four years of my career, I became aware of the many barr iers that became huge obstacles for Colorado high school graduates motivated to pursue a post-secondary education without

PAGE 217

203 sacrificing nearly every shred of their families an d themselves to do so. These experiences motivate my research. Practitioner and Researcher As I began my Doctoral education, as a privileged W hite woman seeking a third degree, my former students from DPS often let me in and out of the parking lot on the Auraria Campus free of charge; they were studying t heir tails off and working countless hours to make ends meet in their work study and oth er jobs, all in hopes of achieving the “American Dream.” As I pulled in and out of these l ots several times a week over the past few years, not only did I recognize my own privileg e, but was constantly reminded how hard it would be for these dedicated and committed young people to attain a dream that even I continue to chase–for the third time. The re ality was (and still is) that many of these students were not college ready, not only in terms of academics but in terms of possessing the personal and social skills that they would need to navigate the monstrous system known as “College.” As I transitioned into another public school system moving from Denver to Littleton and then to the Cherry Creek Public Schoo ls, I was greeted with different student populations but encountered a similar reali ty about the college readiness of the students with whom I was working. Of course, I also recognized a difference between minority and majority student groups, as the achiev ement gap was more recognizable in schools where minority students were truly a minori ty in terms of the overall population of students instead of minority students populating nearly the entire school as was the case in Denver. Many of the majority students with whom I have worked over the past six years did not qualify as “college ready” becaus e of their low ACT scores. Further,

PAGE 218

204 more of the minority students with whom I worked we re in need of “remediation” than I would like to admit. Many of these minority student s had grown up in the Cherry Creek school system, attending school within the district —one of the wealthiest in the state— for their entire school careers, and they still wer e not college ready. Thus, it appeared to me that on the surface, resources and school qualit y were not necessarily directly linked to student achievement. But, clearly, something is wrong with our system and a mutable explanation must exist. Achievement Gap Black and Hispanic students continue to attain low grade point averages (GPAs) and standardized test scores when compared to their White and Asian peers (ACT, 2011). This reality makes college admission a difficult go al to attain for many minority students, particularly as colleges and universities across th e United States continue to raise admission standards (Hunter & Bartee, 2003). In Col orado, for example, admission to four-year-public colleges and universities is guara nteed to residents of the state who meet the set GPA and test-score standards as outlined by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE, 2011). As discussed in Chapter III, the admission standar ds vary for the public colleges and universities in Colorado which have been direct ed to use a specific GPA and test scores, calcuated into an admission index score, to admit students. Because Black and Hispanic students tend to have lower GPAs and test scores than other students, they are undoubtedly admitted to four-year colleges and univ ersities at lower rates than White and Asian students. This phenomenon contributes to what is known as the “minority student achievement gap.”

PAGE 219

205 Low college attainment rates plague the nation and in Colorado, the achievement gap continues to play a major role in what is calle d the “Colorado Paradox” (Corash, Baker, Nawrocki, 2008). The paradox is described b y the dilemma “that Colorado ranks among the top states in percentage of the populatio n with a college degree, [and] very low in educating its native population” (p. 6). The Colorado Paradox continues to be one of the local problems in Colorado’s educational sys tem that practitioners and policymakers are working to improve. In 2008, Color ado ranked 26th in the nation for its high school graduation rate: “71 out of every 100 n inth graders graduate from high school, 37 enter college, 26 are still enrolled the ir sophomore year, and 18 graduate from college within 150 percent of expected time” (Coras h et al., 2008, p. 6). In their report, Corash et al. (2008) highlight the racial achieveme nt gap as “nearly 42 percent of Colorado Hispanic adults have not earned a high sch ool diploma and only 15 percent have gained some postsecondary degree” (p. 12). The achievement gap also affects African Americans, 16% of whom lack a high school d iploma and only 29% of this group earned a postsecondary degree (Corash et al., 2008) High school preparation becomes an essential soluti on to the problem facing Coloradoans. Race/ethnicity is another factor which has proven to impact college admissions. Though measures to increase access to h igher education were implemented through the introduction of affirmative action poli cies in 1965, rates of minority students attending colleges and universities are still laggi ng nationally (Engoren, 2006), and Colorado mirrors the nation (Corash et al., 2008).

PAGE 220

206 High School Preparation In a thorough discussion about retention of minori ty students in colleges and universities across the United States, Swail, Redd, and Perna (2003) highlight four “critical junctures” that must be better understood by researchers in order to increase the college graduation rates of students of color. The first critical juncture identified by these authors is high school readiness : “Research shows that the level of academic prepar ation in high school is positively related to high school graduation rates, college entrance examination scores, predisposition toward college, college enrollment, representation at more selective colleges and universities, rates of transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution, progress toward earning a bachelor’s d egree by age 30, college persistence rates, and college completion rates” (p. 6). This j uncture in and of itself appears vital to the future success of students of color. High school readiness is an essential component in discussions related to postsecondary opportunities and especially related to p ursuing a post-secondary degree, and historically high schools nationally and in Colorad o have not done well (Swail et al., 2003; Corash et al., 2008). Swail et al. (2003) rec ognize this crucial piece to the puzzle noting that “Completing a rigorous curricular progr am during high school appears to be a more important predictor of college persistence tha n test scores, particularly for African American and Hispanic students” (p. 6). High school readiness, also referred to as “Academi c Preparedness” is related to retention of students entering college and continui ng their education until they earn a degree (Swail et al., 2003). Accordingly, “research shows that between 30 and 40 percent of all entering freshmen are unprepared for college -level reading and writing and

PAGE 221

207 approximately 44 percent of all college students wh o complete a two-or-four year degree had enrolled in at least one remedial or developmen tal course in math, writing, or reading” (Swail et al., 2003, p. 8). Measuring College Readiness Standardized test scores, such as SAT (Scholastic A ssessment Test) and ACT (American College Test), have become inherently imp ortant as high school students apply for admission to our nation’s schools and col leges. The factors associated with earning ACT scores which warrant college admission are undoubtedly complex, but the research suggests that a combination of clearly def ined variables predict standardized test scores (Hunter & Bartee, 2003). These variables inc lude (a) high school grade point average (GPA), (b) college readiness/high school pr eparation, and (c) race. These factors are often analyzed by researchers interested in ans wering questions about disparities in standardized test scores, college readiness, grade point average, and college admissions across racial and ethnic groups. Standardized Testing Given the climate of our schools and the pressure p laced on educators to leave no child behind, standardized testing has become a yea rly mandate (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). In Colorado, students begin taking st andardized tests in third grade. As a strategy to prepare more students for college and c ombat the Colorado paradox discussed previously, the ACT has been administered to all Co lorado juniors in lieu of other statebased standardized assessments beginning in Spring, 2002 (ACT). The ACT is one of two standardized tests used for college admissions, with the other being the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) that is taken by students in ma ny states across the country. ACT

PAGE 222

208 tests students on content learned in English, Scien ce, and Mathematics courses through the junior year of high school. The ACT organizatio n has conducted extensive research and has discovered students who have taken demandin g coursework across subject areas throughout their high school careers attain academi c success as they enter a postsecondary institution (ACT, n.d.). In the state of Colorado, public schools use the A CT as a measure to determine the college readiness of their students across the four tested subject areas: English, Reading, Math, and Science. The most recent 2011 AC T report suggests that “Sixty-six percent of all ACT tested high school graduates met the English College Readiness Benchmark in 2011. Just 1 in 4 (25%) met all four C ollege Readiness Benchmarks” (ACT, 2011, p. 2). And, data collected and distribu ted by ACT shows that, “Fully 28% of all high school graduates did not meet any of the C ollege Readiness Benchmarks” (p. 4). Ethnicity and race continue to surface as factors o f college readiness as the data revealed that “African American graduates were least likely to meet the Benchmarks-4% met all four” (p. 5). For me, as an educator working in Col orado schools for 10 years, this statistic is startling. As a counselor who is accou ntable for ensuring that every high school graduate in my charge has a four-year plan i n place that includes a career and college goal, it seems ridiculous that so few of my minority students will even have a shot at being accepted to a four-year college or un iversity in Colorado or across the United States. As measured by the ACT, many high school graduates do not leave high school with the college-readiness skills they need, and da ta collected by the testing agency suggest that the majority of students taking the AC T do plan to attend college. In fact,

PAGE 223

209 “About 89% of all 2011 ACT–tested high school gradu ates aspired to attain at least a 2year postsecondary degree, regardless of race/ethni city” (ACT, 2011, p. 9). Given the demands and competitive nature of the present-day w orkforce, a college education appears to be ever more important. ACT data suggest that, “The five fastest-growing career fields based on 2008-2018 annual projected j ob openings account for 56% of the jobs calling for at least a 2-year degree” (p. 10). High school graduates recognize that their diploma does not make them the most desirable employee; they also recognize the importance of continuing their education. Though the achievement gap is encountered across sc hool districts in Colorado and the country, research shows that high school pr eparation does make a difference for the college-bound student. ACT discovered positive correlations between ACT scores and core curriculum preparation in English, Reading Math and Science. Trends in the data from 2007 through 2011 reveal that “ACT Compos ite and subject scores were higher for students who took a core curriculum or more in high school than for students who did not” (ACT, 2011, p. 17). Recognizing the importance of the core curriculum and ACT test scores, interestingly 69% of African American and 72% of Hispanic students, compared to 74% of the entire ACT test taking popul ation, reported taking a minimum core high school curriculum to prepare for college (p. 15). Between 2007 and 2011, ACT Composite scores of White and Asian high school gra duates increased, while those of African American and Hispanic students remained abo ut the same (p. 18). In an effort to address college readiness, the most recent ACT report (2011) recommends six policies and practices to increase t he percentage of students ready for college level work.

PAGE 224

210 1. Adopting common core state standards is essential t o prepare all students for the demands of college and work. 2. Exposing all high school students to a rigorous cor e curriculum, regardless of post-secondary plans and goals, which consist of fo ur years of English, and three years of math, science, and social studies. 3. Establishing clear performance standards is another essential piece of attaining college readiness: “ACT defines college readiness a s students having a 50% chance of earning a grade of B or higher or about a 75% chance of earning a grade of C or higher” in first-year core academic c ourses across subject areas in college (ACT, 2011, p. 21). 4. Preparing students for the demands of college level academic work through exposure to rigorous core coursework. Increasing ri gor has consistently proven to be more effective in preparing students for college rather than simply meeting a set number of courses across subject areas, as prev iously outlined. 5. Intervening early, progress monitoring and career, college, and coursework planning are important for all students to better p repare for college and careers (ACT, 2011, p. 21). 6. Utilizing longitudinal data systems and tracking s tudents throughout their educational careers seem to be useful and efficient tools that can be used across the P-16 system (ACT, 2011, p. 22). ACT ‘s College Readiness Benchmarks As described previously, college-readiness benchmar ks reflect the scores on the ACT subject area tests that represent the level of achievement required for students to

PAGE 225

211 have a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or abo ut a 75% chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year c ollege courses. These college courses include English Composition, College Algebra, Biolo gy, and an introductory social science course. Based on a nationally representativ e sample, the Benchmarks are median course placement values for these institutions and as such represent a typical set of expectations. The ACT College Readiness Benchmarks are: (a) English 18, (b) Reading 21, (c) Math 22, and (d) Science 24 (ACT, 2011, p. 24). Predicting College Success: More than a Test-Score Noble (2003) investigated the effects of using ACT composite score and high school average on college admission decisions for r acial and ethnic groups to further investigate the role of test scores and GPA on pred icting college success rates. Her sample included African-American, Hispanic, and Cau casian students from 25 postsecondary institutions across the United States. He r research revealed that high school grade-point average and standardized test-scores we re relatively accurate predictors of first-year outcomes for Black students but not as a ccurate for White and Hispanic students. Given her findings, Noble stresses the im portance of using both grade-point average and standardized-test scores to make colleg e admissions decisions. She believes that combining grade-point average and ACT scores p rovides a more accurate understanding of student background and a studentÂ’s potential for success in the college environment. In examining school level ACT data, it is evident h igh school grade-point averages and standardized test-scores vary consider ably across racial/ethnic groups. Linn (2001) recognized the disparities inherent in our c urrent system of education, and fears

PAGE 226

212 that the elimination of affirmative-action programs poses a major threat for minority students applying for admission to colleges and uni versities. Utilizing ACT state level score report data recorded for 2011 high school gra duates, the difference in average scores across racial/ethnic groups is apparent. For the 2011 test, the average composite ACT score in Colorado for Black students was 17, fo r White students 22.4, for Hispanic students 18.7, and for Asian students 23.6 (ACT, 20 11). The state average composite ACT score for 2011 was 20.7, compared to the nation al average of 21.1. High school preparation and college readiness measu res continue to surface as important factors for increasing ACT scores (Noble & Schnelker, 2007). ACT state level data reveals Black students who take the recommende d core courses or more than the recommended courses earn composite scores two point s higher (M = 18.3) than Black students who have not taken the recommended core co urses (M = 16.3). The trend is similar for students across racial/ethnic groups, w ith Hispanic students earning composite scores, on average gaining two and a half points, w hen taking the recommended core (M = 18.7) than Hispanic students who have not taken t he recommended core (M = 16.1). Noble and Schnelker (2007) recognized the importanc e of high-school preparation and the relationship between college re adiness and ACT scores. Using a diverse, national data set to conduct their study, their findings revealed that students who took higher-level math and sciences courses through out high school, not surprisingly earned higher scores on both the mathematics and sc ience sections of the ACT test. However, Noble and Schnelker also found school-leve l characteristics, particularly the accrediting region of the school, had a profound im pact upon course taking patterns and ACT scores of students. Given the complexity of the model used in the study, further

PAGE 227

213 exploration of their results and findings is necess ary prior to drawing additional conclusions or broad generalizations. Through resea rch conducted by ACT, it is evident that course work patterns influence ACT scores acro ss subject areas, and thus also influence ACT composite scores. Students who take o r exceed the recommended core courses typically earn higher ACT scores than stude nts who do not. However, characteristics of individual schools should be con sidered, because access to coursework and resources vary across regions and states in the United States. The Funding Equation In December 2012, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education published the Tuition and Fees Report for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. According to CCHE, undergraduate resident tuition rate increases ranged from 7.1% at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, to 16.8% for students enrolling in 15 cred it hours per term at Mesa State College. The majority of institutions raised tuitio n rates 9% in 2010-2011 for resident undergraduate students. The University of Colorado Boulder noted a 7.3% increase in resident tuition and fees from 2009-2010 to 2010-20 11. In a recent article Marcus (2012) suggests that “th e cause of the college enrollment drop-off is largely skyrocketing tuition and concern about debt” (p. 1). The same article reports that “at least 375 colleges re port space still available for the fall, up from 279 last year, and the highest number this cen tury. Seventy percent (of these schools with openings) are private” (p. 1). However, privat e schools aren’t the only institutions at risk, as “even community colleges-drowning in doubl e-digit growth for the past few years-experienced enrollment dips this year” (Marcu s, 2012, p. 1).

PAGE 228

214 Undoubtedly, costs of pursuing a higher education f actor greatly into the decisions facing families across the United States. Cuts in per student spending have been made in states across the US in recent years, nearl y 11 percent since 2010, to the lowest levels since the 1980s (Marcus, 2012). Costs to att end community college have continued to rise, an average of 9% this year, and more stude nts than before are left to rely on federal financial aid (Marcus, 2012). Across the co mmunity college system in the state of Colorado, students felt the increase of tuition rat es for the 2010-2011 school year from the previous school year by 9%. In 2009-2010, 28.6% of students enrolled in Colorado colleges and universities were recipients of a Pell Grant (CCHE, 2012). In challenging economic times students and parents most certainly begin to weigh the costs and benefits of a college education, tryi ng to determine if education really is worth the price. Kadlec (2012) weighs the propositi on of employability with the value of college, and his research suggests, “In the U.S., 6 2% of jobs require a degree beyond high school; that share will rise to 75% by 2020. In 201 0, 90% of college grades from 20082010 were employed while only 64% of peers not atte nding college had jobs” (p. 1). While the value of a college degree still seems to be debatable, these types of statistics serve as an impetus for high school graduates to fi nd a way to continue their education at the college level. Of course, in order to do so, co nsideration of personal finances and funding options appear critical. The complicated funding equation is beyond the scop e of this chapter and dissertation, but it is necessary to include some b ackground about college funding to better understand the many factors impacting colleg e enrollment and graduation rates, particularly those factors impacting underrepresent ed students on college and university

PAGE 229

215 campuses across the US. The College Board, a famili ar organization to students considering college today, conducts research on col lege success and opportunity, including trends in college pricing. Their most rec ent report, published in 2011, discusses vital information in terms of college pricing and h ighlights various aspects of the complicated funding equation. As mentioned, the College Board published their rep ort, “Trends in College Pricing 2011,” to highlight the most recent trends facing students enrolling or enrolled in institutions of higher education. An increase in co llege prices for the 2011-2012 academic year are evident and accordingly appear to “reflect the influence of a weak economy and state funding that has not kept up with the growth in college enrollments” (p. 3). However, College Board further notes, “subs tantial variation across states in pricing patterns makes national averages particular ly difficult to interpret this year” (p. 3). Some consistencies in the data reported by Coll ege Board describe the state of the uncertain state of the US economy. For example, “In 2010, average income was lower at all levels of the income distribution than it had b een a decade earlier”(p. 4). At the same time that average income levels were seen to declin e, “State appropriations per full-time equivalent student declined by 9% in constant dolla rs in 2008-09, by another 6% in 200910, and by 4% in 2010-11” (p. 4) for a total of 19% in three years. Among the many data points shared in the College Bo ard report discussed here, state appropriations is one area of particular inte rest because Colorado stands out in this area.

PAGE 230

216 In 2010-11, when average state appropriations per $ 1000 of personal income were $6.33, New Hampshire provided $2.44 and Colorado pr ovided $3.57 per $1000 of personal income for higher education operations. At the other end of the spectrum, appropriations per $1000 of personal inco me were $12.73 in New Mexico and $14.38 in Wyoming. (College Board, 2011, p. 19) As shares of revenue coming from state and local ap propriations have decreased over the past decade, the share of revenues coming from net tuition has increased (p. 20). Thus, because of the minimal allocations from personal in come tax devoted to the funding of higher education in Colorado, tuition rates of publ ic post-secondary institutions have increased considerably in the last decade. According to the most recent College Board (2011) r eport on trends in college pricing, “the median full-time public four-year col lege student, including both in-state and out-of-state students, is enrolled at an instit ution with published tuition and fees of $8,274” (p. 11). The College Board also highlights data suggesting that “Both federal grant aid and federal education tax credits have in creased significantly since 2007-08” (p. 16). In terms of family income levels, it is necess ary to note, “In 2010, the median income for Black and Hispanic families was less tha n 6% of the median income for White families” (p. 24). Federal Level Between the years of 2007 and 2012, funding for hig her education in 49 reporting states decreased by 3% (Zumeta, 2012). According to Zumeta (2012), “funding reductions over the five-year period ranged as high as 33 percent . to five to nine percent” (p. 31). Institutions of higher education experienced the worst year yet in fiscal year 2012 “because federal ARRA funds had largely r un out” (Zumeta, 2012, p. 31). Reduction of federal assistance dollars had a direc t impact on students at state colleges

PAGE 231

217 and universities. For example, in Colorado, “alloca tions to its state universities [were decreased] by 11.5 percent between FY 2011 and FY 2 012” (Zumeta, 2012, p. 33). Not surprisingly, as federal and state support for publ ic higher education has fallen, tuition rates continue to rise, growing “the most at public four year institutions since 2000”, increasing 8.3% on average (Zumeta, p. 34). As high lighted below, there are some bright spots in this bleak outlook as “a remarkable shift in federal funds from loans to Pell and veterans’ grants increased student grant aid from $ 25.4 billion to $49.1 billion between 2008-09 and 2010-11” (Zumeta, p. 35). College Cost Reduction and Access Act. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act was approved by the Senate and signed in to law by President George W. Bush in September of 2007. Many of the provisions i ncluded in the bill went into effect beginning October 1, 2007. The legislation associat ed with the CCRAA made important changes to provide opportunities for a diverse arra y of students to afford a college education. Some of these important changes, aimed a t improving the plight of underserved and underrepresented students included (a) mandatory increases in Pell Grant awards, (b) several changes to borrower benef its in the long term, (c) issues associated with need analysis and packaging, (d) fu nds for the Upward Bound Program, and (e) new programs to benefit borrowers, includin g grants for becoming a public servant (teachers, etc.). Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. This bill was introduced in July 2009 and passed by the House in September of 2 009 but was never passed by the Senate. The purpose of this bill was to amend the H igher Education Act of 1965 to authorize and appropriate such sums as may be neces sary to fully fund maximum Pell

PAGE 232

218 Grant amounts (Lederman, 2009). The main components of the bill were aimed at increasing college access and completion rates, as well as increasing funding for grants to historically Black colleges and universities and ot her minority-serving institutions through FY 2019. State Level In 2012, “federal grant aid accounted for 40 percen t of all grant aid in Colorado; Pell grants alone accounted for 36 percent of total grant aid” (Colorado Department of Higher Education, 2012, p. 3). Federal funds are th e largest source of financial aid for students, but institutional aid has been seen to gr ow considerably and “comprises approximately 43 percent of all grant aid” (Colorad o Department of Higher Education, 2012, p. 3). With the goal of increasing access to institutions of higher education, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Colorado D epartment of Higher Education, and the Governor face many challenges as the number of students eligible for aid has increased during the recent economic downturn (Colo rado Department of Higher Education, 2012). From 2007 through 2012, student n eed “has increased at a rate greater than that of state aid” (Colorado Department of Hig her Education, 2012, p. 9). Various forms of state aid are available to students and in clude (a) State-funded grants, (b) Workbased aid, and (c) State-funded categorical and ent itlement programs (Colorado Department of Education, 2012). Discussions about f unding higher education in Colorado are not complete without discussing TABOR and the C ollege Opportunity Fund. TABOR. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as TABOR, w as a constitutional amendment adopted in Colorado in 199 2, that limited “the growth of state and local revenues to a highly restrictive formula: inflation plus the annual change in

PAGE 233

219 population” (Lav & Williams, 2010). As a result, a significant decline in the state’s public services has had serious negative implicatio ns for residents in Colorado and across the US. Among other public services, higher educati on in Colorado suffered tremendously under TABOR, as funding per resident s tudent dropped by 31 percent and college and university funding as a share of person al income declined from 35th in the nation in 1998 to 48th in 2004. In 2008, Colorado still ranked 48th out of 50 in terms of college funding as a share of personal income. As a result, tuition rates at colleges and universities across the state have continued to ris e considerably. Between 2002-2005, tuition climbed 21 percent and has increased 31 per cent since 2005. College Opportunity Fund. Beginning in the fall of 2005, the funding method of public colleges changed with the introduction of the College Opportunity Fund (COF). The COF was created by the Colorado Legislature and implemented to provide a stipend to eligible undergraduate students pursuing a highe r education at a public college or university, or at a participating private college o r university, in Colorado. Historically, public colleges received funding directly from the state of Colorado in the form of a general fund subsidy. The stipend for eligible unde rgraduate students now goes to the college on behalf of the student and the amount pai d to the college is based upon the number of credit hours a student registers for each semester. The stipend pays a portion of total in-state tuitio n rates at Colorado public institutions of higher education, and at participat ing private institutions of higher education. Each year, the Colorado General Assembly specifies the amount of the stipend per credit hour and this rate remains the same rega rdless of the public state school a student chooses to attend. The current amount of $6 2 per semester per credit hour at

PAGE 234

220 public universities and colleges, and $31 per semes ter per credit hour at participating private schools, has been established through the s ummer of 2013. The law creating COF caps student stipends at 145 total credit hours. Sc hools report total stipend hours per student, per semester, to the COF. COF matches stud ent information with established student accounts and disburses the stipend amount d irectly to the institution of postsecondary education on behalf of each eligible unde rgraduate student. Eligibility is granted to those students classified as in-state st udents for tuition purposes. (COF, n.d.). School Level In the 2011-2012 Colorado Department of Higher Educ ation Financial Aid Report, the increasing role of institutional aid is highlighted: “Institutional aid plays a significant role in financial aid packaging” (p. 12 ). From 2007 through 2012, institutional aid has increased nearly 88% and has been dispersed to more students; 64% of this aid is awarded for merit. Four-year public and non-profit private colleges and universities award the greatest amount of institutional aid to e ligible students. Of the four-year public institutions in Colorado, 48.7% of aid issued to st udents at the University of Colorado Boulder come from institutional grants, exceeding t he state average of 31.18% and exceeding the percentage of institutional grants of fered by any of the other four-year public colleges and universities in Colorado. The University of Colorado Boulder openly discussed their concerns with the current educational funding model throughout the st ate of Colorado in their Flagship 2030 Report (2009). In the introduction of the repo rt, the financial challenges facing the university are highlighted as nationally, UCB exhib its “the lowest percentage of state funding among major public research universities…. State financial support…now

PAGE 235

221 reflects less than 8 percent of the total universit y budget” (p. 16). Colorado’s lack of funding for K-12 and higher education institutions has been newsworthy, particularly during the past few years as educational funding ha s plummeted to new lows (Anas, 2011). In 1960, state taxes composed 30% of UCB’s o perating budget, while private donations made up just one percent of the campus’s budget (Anas, 2011). Today, 5.4% of UCB’s budget is generated from state funds, while p rivate donations make up 4 percent of the campus budget (Anas, 2011). The school has b ecome dependent upon tuition and fees, grants and contracts, and federal stimulus fu nds to round out operating costs (Anas, 2011).

PAGE 236

222 CHAPTER X RACE AND DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER AND HIGHER EDUCATION NATIONALLY On November 10, 2012, Anas published an article in Boulder’s Daily Camera newspaper with the headline: “CU-Boulder Freshman C lass Most Diverse in Campus History.” Statistics and other data presented throu ghout this dissertation highlight the many challenges that UCB has faced throughout its h istory to increase diversity on campus and to provide educational opportunities to historically underrepresented students in Colorado, across the nation, and the world. Thes e types of news headlines are promising, but because “race matters” it is importa nt to dig deeper to determine if, why, and how diversity has increased on the Boulder camp us, especially during the 2000s and into 2012. The fall 2012 Edition of ODECE News furt her highlights the diversity gains made on UCB’s campus: “Over the past five years, CU -Boulder has increased diversity from almost 20% to more than 26% of our resident fr eshman class” (p. 8). Table X.1 provides an overview of resident and non-resident s tudents, separated into race/ethnic categories, who have enrolled at UCB from 2003 thro ugh fall 2012. The data reveal an overall 1% increase of total Col orado residents choosing to enroll at UCB during the years 2003 to 2012. The in crease of Colorado resident students was characterized by a significant increase of resi dent Hispanic students (45%) and a slight increase of resident Asian students (6%) enr olling since 2003. The diversity and enrollment of non-resident students has increased 1 2% during the 2003-2012 timeframe. Similar to the pattern demonstrated with resident s tudents, data tracking the enrollment of non-resident Hispanic students (146%) reveals drama tic increases at UCB throughout the

PAGE 237

223 past decade. The enrollment of non-resident foreign students (47%) and non-resident African American students (30%) has also contribute d to the increased diversity at UCB this fall, 2012. Interestingly, the raw numbers of resident African American students actually declined 4% at UCB from 2003 to 2012. What becomes clear from an examination of the longitudinal data highlighting the race and ethnici ty of students enrolling at UCB is that though diversity has increased, the university cont inues to struggle to attract a diverse array of students to campus, particularly Coloradoresident African American students whose numbers have proven to be persistently low th roughout the history of the university into the present day. As presented throu ghout this dissertation, it is necessary to consider the variety of factors that contribute to this struggle.

PAGE 238

Table X.1 Fall Census Headcounts by year, residency, and race /ethnicity. Degree and licensure-seeking students o nly. Ethnicity categories of ‘Pacific Islander’ and ‘Two or more’ were added in 2010. Student Characteristics 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent change (03-12) Resident Asian 1,180 1,290 1,368 1,428 1,425 1,426 1,380 1,3 69 1,339 1,247 6% African American 326 341 350 351 327 334 358 363 34 6 313 -4% Hispanic/Latino 1,256 1,354 1,404 1,419 1,493 1,427 1,448 1,579 1,760 1,816 45% Native American 148 156 170 170 179 170 166 147 124 106 -28% Pacific Islander 2 3 8 White 14,492 15,062 15,314 15,206 15,197 15,170 15, 133 15,056 14,667 14,084 -3% Two or more 137 309 437 Foreign 91 68 71 75 73 64 62 60 56 56 -38% Unknown 1,032 1,176 1,207 1,188 1,162 1,119 1,087 9 21 723 649 -37% Total 18,525 19,447 19,884 19,837 19,856 19,710 19, 634 19,634 19,327 18,716 1% NonResident Asian 289 276 304 291 297 301 343 304 261 220 -24% African American 90 107 98 98 103 98 114 124 116 11 7 30% Hispanic/Latino 259 282 283 250 282 333 354 463 552 637 146% Native American 61 64 66 52 71 69 70 64 50 52 -15% Pacific Islander 1 8 8 White 7,173 7,456 7,172 6,777 6,960 6,970 7,519 7,5 28 7,560 7,349 2% Two or more 97 180 271 Foreign 1,074 1,013 895 837 930 1,054 1,153 1,303 1 ,425 1,577 47% Unknown 483 506 556 482 443 453 522 436 405 331 -31% Total 9,429 9,704 9,374 8,787 9,086 9,278 10,075 10 ,320 10,557 10,562 12% Grand Total 27,954 29,151 29,258 28,624 28,942 28,988 29,709 29,954 29,884 29,278 5% Source: University of Colorado Boulder Planning, Bu dget, and Analysis (2012). 224

PAGE 239

225 Racial Inequities in Education The historical struggle of access for diverse stude nts at UCB begins with the unveiling of the historical roots of racial inequit ies that characterize the US educational system, historically and currently, as outlined in Chapter II. Initially, the US educational system was characterized by a long period of segreg ation, followed by a period of court mandated desegregation beginning in 1954 with effor ts spanning several decades, and leading to the present day where re-segregation has once again become commonplace in schools throughout the country (Anyon, 2005; Harvey Harvey, & King, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Historically, much of the discussion concerning the role of race in education centered upon providing e qual access to opportunities in the K12 education system; research has shown that K-12 o pportunities readily impact the system of higher education across the country (ACT, 2011; Hunter & Bartee, 2003; Linn, 2001; Noble, 2003; Noble & Schnelker, 2007; Swail e t al., 2003). As witnessed in several landmark cases concerning r ace-conscious educational policy ( Brown, 1954; Brown II, 1955, Green, 1968; Swann, 1971; Keyes, 1973; Baake, 1978; Hopwood 1996; LeSage 1997; Gratz 2003; Grutter 2003; Fisher, n.d.) the courts have been historically involved with protecting the rights of individuals to access equal and equitable higher-education opportunities, as we ll. Specifically, the use of raceconscious educational polices, namely affirmative a ction, used by colleges and universities to embrace and enhance diverse student populations on campus has been questioned. Ultimately, the courts have been put in to the position of making decisions regarding the fairness and effectiveness of such po licies, while influenced by personal and social political beliefs.

PAGE 240

226 Implications of Fisher v. Texas Today as the entire educational system, now descri bed as P-16 (preschool through college graduation) or P-20 (preschool thro ugh graduate education), continues to focus on educational disparities related to race, p olicies such as affirmative action continue to be openly debated. As described in Chap ter II, the Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Fisher v. Texas (n.d.), and colleges and universities throughout the nation await the pending decision expected to c ome June 2013 (Sherman, 2012). Regardless of the Court decision in Fisher, the outcome of the decision will impact colleges and universities across the country that c urrently consider race as a factor in offering admission to historically underrepresented applicants in an effort to achieve and maintain diversity on campus. From the late 1990s through 2008, state legislation and ballot measures introduced and adopted to end the use of policies s uch as affirmative action became more widespread. These efforts were defeated in most sta tes in which they were introduced, including Colorado, in 2008 and did not resurface i n the past election of 2012 (Adversity.net, 2007; www.civilrights.org, 2012; Th e Kirwan Institute, 2008; Walker, 1999). With the election of the first African-Ameri can President in the US in 2008, and Barack ObamaÂ’s recent reelection in 2012, scholars debate whether or not the United States has entered a Post-Racial Era where race rea lly no longer matters (Ford, 2008; Leiter & Leiter, 2011). However, the findings prese nted in this dissertation suggest that conversations about race and the lasting impact of racism continue to have a place in our society today. Colleges and universities across the country, including the University of Colorado Boulder, play an important role in maintai ning race-conscious programs and

PAGE 241

227 policies to ensure that all students have equal acc ess and equal opportunity to succeed through the college years and beyond. Interestingly, UCB does not seem to want to take an active role in the debate concerning race-conscious programs and policies as revealed by a Boulder Daily Camera headline in October of 2012 (Anas). While other uni versities filed amicus briefs in support of the undergraduate admissions policy at t he University of Texas, as of October “CU has not taken a formal position on the case, ac cording to university officials” (Anas, 2012). According to the article, when asked by the American Council on Education whether or not the university wanted to be a part o f the brief, “CU never provided a statement of interest because officials didn’t have enough time to gather input from the Board of Regents”, as is required in these types of instances (Anas, 2012). At this time, UCB’s Board of Regents is Republican-controlled and it’s possible that they would not have voted in favor of supporting the admission pol icy in Texas. CU, like many other colleges, does consider race in a holistic admissio ns process but given the threat of Amendment 46, the anti-affirmative action legislati on that surfaced on the ballot in Colorado 2008, “CU is ahead of the curve should a l egal change occur.... they would place an emphasis on socio-economic status…. to mak e sure they still have diversity” (Anas, 2012). It is likely that many institutions of higher educa tion have devised means to attract diverse students to campus in lieu of using race to do so, but it is undeniable that race continues to play a vital role in the conversa tion regarding education throughout our country, whether discussing K-12 or higher educatio n systems. Given the permanence of racism and racial disparities exhibited in our coun try’s educational system, the survival of

PAGE 242

228 affirmative action policies that hold public instit utions accountable for educating all of the students in our country seem necessary. UCB’s r ecent stance in Fisher causes reason for pause as Coloradoans consider what the flagship university’s silence really means. Garcia (1997), among other scholars, made the plea for institutions of higher education years ago to “take a more active role in shaping pu blic policy” and suggested, “inattention to our opponents, negligence in commun icating our position to the public, and a failure to document and convey our results ha s contributed to the current state of affairs in which our commitment to inclusion and ed ucation for all is being forcefully challenged” (p. 252). As the state’s flagship unive rsity, UCB’s silence in matters that pertain directly to diversity, an issue with which the university has historically struggled to address, speaks volumes to those on both sides o f the ongoing debate. Permanence of Racism in Colorado: Impact on Educati onal Opportunity Recognizing the permanent effects of racism on our social, educational, and economic systems throughout the US is central to co ntinuing the historically rooted conversation presented throughout this dissertation Because a study of this nature has not yet been conducted, focusing solely on the access o f diverse students to the University of Colorado Boulder, the research compiled here is a f irst attempt at “calling attention to the reality of the continued existence of discriminatio n in our country” (Garcia, M., p. 251). In this study, I have attempted to call attention t o the continued existence of discrimination in Colorado and specifically at the University of Colorado Boulder. Thus, in Chapter III, Colorado’s history with race and di versity is presented in part to strengthen and support the debate associated with t he need for race-conscious educational

PAGE 243

229 policy at institutions of higher education across t he state and to highlight the lasting negative impact of racism, even in Colorado. As an example of the lasting negative impact of rac ism, Colorado continues to struggle to close the recognizable achievement gap between White and Asian students and Hispanic and African American students across t he P-16/P-20 system. Even though Colorado sends an abysmally low number of high scho ol graduates to local colleges and universities, of particular concern are the lower h igh school graduation rates, college enrollment, and college success rates of Hispanic a nd Black students compared to those of White and Asian students across the state. In te rms of high school graduation rates, Hispanic (60.1%) and Black (64.6%) students are les s likely to graduate than their White (81.1%) and Asian (81.7%) peers (CDE, 2011). This p roblematic high school graduation trend persists throughout higher education, as well The most recent data for the 2004 college-going cohort in Colorado highlights differe nces across racial/ethnic groups in four-year, five-year, and six-year college graduati on rates (Colorado Department of Higher Education, 2011). At 61.2%, Asian students b oast the highest college graduation rates within six years of enrolling, followed by Wh ite students at 60.2%, students with an unknown ethnicity at 54.5%, Non-resident aliens at 48.2%, Hispanic students at 47.6%, Native Americans at 34%, and African Americans at 3 3.2% (Colorado Department of Higher Education, 2011, p. 4). The most recent legislative report on the postsecon dary progress and success of Colorado high school graduates, submitted in 2012, includes data compiled from the 2008-2009 graduating high school classes (Garcia, J .). The report describes college enrollment trends and student progress one year aft er high school graduation. These data

PAGE 244

230 reveal that of 50,174 2008-2009 graduates, 66.8% en rolled in college or university, including students who enrolled at either in-state or out-of-state institutions, in the fall of 2009 (Garcia, J., 2012, p. 3). Of the 66.8% of stud ents who enrolled in an institution of higher education, the majority were White (75%), fo llowed by Hispanic students (14.4%), African American students (5%), Asian (4.1 %), and Native American (.7%) (p. 3). White and Asian students boasted the highest co llege attendance rates, 72.8% and 78.2%, respectively, followed by African American s tudents at 65.8%, Hispanic students at 48.7%, and Native American students at 48.2% (p. 3). African American students had the highest out of state college enrollment rate at 25.8%, followed by White students at 23.6% (p. 3). Expanding the discussion to include t he importance of adequate high school preparation and a need to refocus K-12 educational efforts upon preparing students for post-secondary education and other future endeavors data included in the legislative report suggest historically underrepresented studen ts are outperformed by White and Asian students throughout college (Garcia, J., 2012 ). During the 2009-2010 academic year, Asian students earned the highest cumulative college grade point average, 2.72, while African American students earned the lowest c ollege grade point average, 2.29, across all race/ethnic groups (Garcia, J., p. 2). A cross the state of Colorado, educational stakeholders have much work to do to close the achi evement gaps highlighted by these data. Permanence of Racism: Impact on the University of C olorado Boulder Through historical analysis, which included examini ng a variety of archival sources, newspaper articles, and information mainta ined on Websites as described in Chapter I, my study highlights the permanence of ra cism present within the system of

PAGE 245

231 education across the US, in Colorado, and at UCB in particular. The main purpose of this dissertation was to shed light on the history of di verse student access at the University of Colorado Boulder in an effort to contribute to the expanding field of research on race, diversity, and educational policy as efforts are co ntinually made to ensure and improve educational equality and equitable access to colleg es and universities for students across racial groups. The history of race and diverse stud ent access to UCB has not been examined extensively in previous research, and as a first-step study, this dissertation reveals that diverse student access to the universi ty is an issue yet to be resolved. Data undeniably shows that the room for improvement at t he University of Colorado Boulder in terms of diverse student access to the universit y is extensive and impacts all underrepresented groups and Blacks in particular. I n order to resolve issues surrounding diverse student access at UCB and similar universit ies into the future, it is vital that institutions of higher education examine their own histories, policies, and practices—or lack of proactive, positive practices—that may cont ribute to the persistence of racial disparities and inequities that are exhibited in va rying admission, retention, and graduation rates between historically underrepresen ted student groups as compared to White and Asian students. The persistence of racial disparities in education continue to limit avenues that lead to social and economic succ ess across all groups of individuals residing in our country and in the state of Colorad o. As Colorado’s flagship university, since opening it s doors to the first students in the fall of 1877, the University of Colorado Boulde r has served millions of students with the goal of preparing them for successful futures i n a wide variety of career fields. Although founded upon an egalitarian tradition, the majority of students served by the

PAGE 246

232 university since its opening have been White. Found ed in a racially segregated society, UCB has had to adapt to the changing societal norms and expectations that have gained strength and taken hold throughout the country, to emerge through the period of desegregation during the late 1930s through the civ il rights movement of the 1960s and beyond, and work to establish itself as an all-incl usive institution of higher education through the period of integration beginning in the 1970s and continuing today. As detailed in Chapter IV, leaders of the universit y have faced various challenges throughout the years as theyÂ’ve worked to propel UC B forward. Efforts to embrace diversity and provide diverse groups of students wi th equal opportunity and equitable access to the university system are an obstacle fac ed by university leaders and discussed throughout the dissertation. Some of the challenges posed by welcoming a racially diverse student body to campus from 1877 to 2012 ha ve been documented and maintained in the university archives, newspaper ar ticles, books, and on Websites; historical analysis of these documents provides ins ight into the struggles and pressures faced by leaders of UCB, as well as leaders of our country and other individuals and groups that have an expressed interest in creating institutions where all people are respected and treated as equals. The obstacles encountered by leaders of UCB through the 1980s, including the diversity issue, have been documented and detailed in three histories about the university that are available to the public in book form (Davi s, 1965; Allen et al., 1976; James,1979). Information about the struggles encoun tered by the universityÂ’s more recent leaders are yet to be documented in book form, but some insight into the many challenges theyÂ’ve encountered can be garnered from perusing t he UCB archives, Colorado

PAGE 247

233 newspapers, and Websites associated with education and the university in particular. In the 1990s, diversity seemingly emerged as the new b uzzword in higher education and in response to this trend and CCHEÂ’s focus on diversit y efforts at all of the public universities and colleges across the state of Color ado, leaders at the University of Colorado Boulder ramped up their efforts to increas e the presence of diverse students on campus. Documents pertaining to the advantages asso ciated with diverse college campuses for all students were collected by univers ity leaders and maintained in the PresidentÂ’s papers in the archives during the 1990s This focus on diversity is also apparent when perusing the UniversityÂ’s Webpage, as well as the Websites associated with the Colorado Department of Education and Highe r Education, and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Through the 1990s and into the present, every publi c college and university across the state of Colorado has been, and continues to be required to produce and share diversity reports annually with the CCHE and these reports are available for public perusal. UCBÂ’s yearly diversity reports are availab le on the Website, www.colorado.edu/pba.div. CCHE uses the diversity r eports to hold institutions of higher education accountable for their efforts to increase diversity, as well as to measure the success rates of all students. As documented in the se diversity reports, the growing commitment toward creating a campus where diversity is embraced and championed by students, staff, faculty, and community members at UCB is written about extensively. Gains have been made in recent years to attract and serve Hispanic students and because Colorado expects to see an increase in the Hispanic population residing in our state, this trend is likely to continue. However, recent data a lso reveal that the commitment to

PAGE 248

234 diversity, whether through policies or special prog rams, must continue into the future as UCB in particular continues to struggle to attract and successfully serve African American students. As verified in Table X.1, the nu mber of African American students choosing to enroll at UCB throughout the 2000s has remained consistently low. The university is yet to find a way to successfully rec ruit, admit, retain, and graduate more Black students; in order to do so, it seems the uni versity must focus its efforts, within limits defined by the law, specifically upon doing so. Focusing on effective student success initiatives, improving campus climate, and community engagement efforts to facilitate diverse student access to the university may prove fruitful into the future. Promoting Student Success Initiatives The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Enga gement leads the diversity efforts on the UCB campus (ODECE, n.d.a). Though th eir Website doesnÂ’t necessarily highlight the entirety of practices put into place to promote diversity on the campus, ODECE has chosen to publicize those efforts associa ted with student success, campus climate, and community engagement. Chapter V discus ses some of the student success initiatives that have proven to make a positive imp act on college campuses across the country, as well as those initiatives that have bee n and are being successfully implemented on the University of Colorado Boulder c ampus. Because the US system of education has not been readily accessible nor provi ded all students with the opportunity to increase their earning potential throughout its history, in recent years research has focused upon evaluating the success of underreprese nted students on college and university campuses across the country. Today, the success of students enrolled in postsecondary endeavors is measured by retention, trans fer, and graduation rates (Moore &

PAGE 249

235 Shulock, 2009). Successful diversity programs focus on the outcomes of underrepresented students because graduation from i nstitutions of higher education is associated with economic, institutional, and person al benefits. Fostering College Student Success College readiness and academic preparedness of stud ents graduating from high school have been found to greatly impact the colleg e retention and graduation rates of all students and underrepresented students in particula r (D’Amico et al., 2011). In response to the research linking college success to academic preparedness, Colorado has joined the Core to College multi-state grant initiative which is “designed to promote strong collaboration between higher education and the K-12 sectors in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and aligned assessments ” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012, p. 4). As summarized in the study, the purpose of the Common Core State Standards is to provide all students with a high qu ality education, to establish clear expectations about what students need to learn to h ave the opportunity to succeed in college and in a career, and to clarify the standar ds of success in every school. Beyond simply exposing students to a specified curriculum, effective classrooms and teachers have been found to contribute to the success of stu dents across all levels of the education system. Positive classroom experiences and the role of enga ging professors have proven pivotal in contributing to the success of students in college, above all students of color. Characteristics associated with these classroom exp eriences have been identified and implemented on college campuses and include (a) set ting expectations for students, (b) providing students with support, (c) utilizing new assessment techniques to provide

PAGE 250

236 students with feedback regarding their progress, an d (d) providing students with opportunities to get involved in all aspects of cam pus life (Astin, 1999; Tinto, 2008, 2011). Beyond classroom experiences, research has a lso shown that underrepresented students who make social and academic connections o n college campuses tend to persist and find success in their respective institutions o f higher education (Astin, 1999; Swail et al., 2003; Tinto, 2011). Learning and living commun ities have emerged as a positive means for students to connect both inside and outsi de of the classroom and engage with all aspects of campus life, including academic and personal/social realms. Learning communities promote relationships with other studen ts and faculty members, as well. Relationships with faculty members have been found to positively impact the success rates of African American students in particular (A stin, 1999; Swail et al., 2003; Tinto 2011). Efforts to incorporate the positive attributes asso ciated with the success of students on college and university campuses as high lighted through research have been made at UCB through the creation of several program s targeting first-generation and students of color. A variety of these programs are discussed in detail in Chapter V. Though UCB certainly has room to expand access to, and maintenance of, diverse students on campus, BoulderÂ’s retention rates are h igher than those of the other University of Colorado schools (Colorado Springs an d Denver), and the six-year graduation rate of these students at UCB is also hi gher than those reported by UCCS and UCD. Of course, much room still exists for improvem ent and UCB hopes to reach their goal of increasing the six-year graduation rate of all first-year, full-time students to 71% from 66.8% by 2015. Beyond the classroom environmen t and getting involved on

PAGE 251

237 campus, student success rates have been found to be greatly impacted by campus climate, particularly for students of color. The Impact of Campus Climate The role of campus climate is described in Chapter VI. Research focused upon climate issues has revealed that one of the explana tions for differences in the college success rates of minority and White students is rel ated to differences in their perceptions of a discriminatory campus climate (Cabrera et al., 1999). Research on perceptions of discrimination on campus climate revealed that all students, White and minority, perceive racial discrimination on college campuses and are g reatly impacted by their perceptions (Cabrera et al., 1999). However, stressors associat ed with discriminatory campus climates have been found to be present only among minority s tudents, and these stressors have proven to have a negative impact on academic perfor mance (Cabrera et al., 1999; Cureton, 2003). Additional research analyzing the c onnection between student perceptions of campus climate and the impact of suc h perceptions on student success is needed to promote greater understanding of the role of campus climate and student success. Campus specific research studies focused o n assessing the perceptions and attitudes of students in regard to campus climate m ay prove fruitful as efforts to promote student success continue into the future. Future ca mpus climate surveys at UCB should focus on assessing the attitudes of all students in regard to the presence of minorities in general and on BoulderÂ’s campus. In particular, the se surveys should assess attitudes regarding minority access and retention. And, furth er examination of employment and retention of faculty of color may reveal something about the success of diversity efforts on campus.

PAGE 252

238 As discussed in Chapter VI, campus climate surveys are one tool that has been utilized to conduct this type of research and UCB h as conducted several of these surveys throughout its history. Results of a survey in 1969 highlighted student concerns with institutional racism, while results of the most rec ent climate survey conducted in 2010 on the UCB campus reflected a relatively positive view of the campus climate. However, consistent with the findings of targeted research i n regard to campus climate (Cress, 2008), African-American students, and students with psychological and physical disabilities, rated the campus climate lower than o ther student groups at UCB. Generally, students valued diversity on the campus and believe d that diversity efforts should continue to be a high priority on the Boulder campu s. Compared to 2001 and 2006, students in 2010 reported the Boulder community, ca mpus administrators and staff valued diversity at higher levels, while course ins tructors, other students, and student government appeared to value diversity at lower lev els than in previous years. While drawing attention to perceived shortcomings of camp us climate by minority groups, overall the results of the climate surveys conducte d on Boulder’s campus throughout the 2000s have shown positive trends. Though campus climate survey results throughout the 2000s have been relatively positive across student groups at UCB, news headlin es in Boulder’s Daily Camera provide further insight into the struggle of minori ty students on campus. In March of 2012, “a group of more than 100 protestors… rallied outside of Chancellor Phil DiStefano’s office in an attempt to draw attention to diversity issues and the university’s ‘lack of action’” (Bryen). The “Declaration of Huma n Rights”, a list of 18 demands presented to CU administrators during the protest, “included mandatory ‘anti-oppression

PAGE 253

239 training for students, faculty and staff, adding st udents to the Board of Regents and the Boulder Campus Planning Commission, and agreeing no t to raise tuition” (Bryen, 2012). Campus administrators did respond to the student de mands via email and “asked the protestors to appoint a group of 10 or so represent atives to begin working more directly with the university” (Bryen, 2012). The group of pr otestors included leaders of various groups who had worked closely with administrators i n the past “on diversity and campus issues” (Bryen, 2012). Campus spokesperson, Bronson Hilliard, indicated the university was already “evaluating and improving diversity pro grams” (Bryen, 2012). As UCB conducts similar surveys into the future and analyzes areas of need, investing in campus-wide and community efforts to p ositively impact the campus climate, while paying attention to the specific con cerns of historically underrepresented students on campus, seem necessary. Embracing Community Engagement Efforts Community engagement efforts led by college student s, faculty, and staff have emerged as one way to positively impact campus clim ate. At UCB, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement has tak en on the role of creating and promoting community engagement efforts (see Chapter VII). As advertised on the ODECE Webpage, community engagement events already taking place at UCB include monthly community dinners and a yearly MLK celebrat ion. The University also hosts an annual Diversity and Inclusion Summit that takes pl ace each fall. Similar to other research universities, community engagement efforts at UCB continue to lag behind those implemented at other types of institutions of highe r education. Supported by Chancellor DiStefano and promoted by the Faculty Task Force, F lagship 2030 focuses upon

PAGE 254

240 propelling UCB forward, creating a new model of und ergraduate education to better prepare students to make contributions to an ever c hanging world. This plan includes the promotion of campus-community engagement efforts an d emphasizes diverse, experiential learning opportunities, linking practi ce and research with action-focused scholarship, and increasing the quality and quantit y of graduate programs. If the recommendations outlined in Flagship 2030 are reali zed, in 18 years Boulder should reflect the diversity of the Colorado state populat ion. Through community engagement and research efforts specified in Flagship 2030, th e University aims to make positive contributions to the world at large; in 2030, the s uccess of Flagship 2030 may be measured by the impact UCB has made. Regular resear ch measuring the success of the Flagship 2030 plan, the diversity of the University campus, the success of undergraduate and graduate students, and the impact of community engagement efforts will be needed for years to come as the changes outlined in the Fl agship plan are put into action. In 18 years, what will UCB look like and what impact will UCB make in the state of Colorado, across the US, and across the world? Creating a Diverse Campus Diversity programs on college campuses are created in order to embrace and enhance the experiences of minority and majority st udents, reducing the “natural” segregation of students different from one another (Muthuswamy et al., 2006). As Supreme Court decisions and state legislation have moved away from supporting the use of race-conscious education policies, colleges and universities have promoted and emphasized the vital role diversity plays in the sh rinking world today. In essence, diversity has been utilized to continue difficult d iscussions about the permanence of

PAGE 255

241 racism throughout communities and states in the US. In 2003, the Supreme Court stated “Diversity is a compelling interest” (Gurin et al., 2004, p. 2). Campuses across the US seem to struggle with achieving desired levels of c ampus diversity and are more open to incorporating all levels of the college or universi ty in such efforts (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007, p. 42). Data presented in this disse rtation provide evidence of the struggle the University of Colorado Boulder has faced to att ract, retain, and graduate a diverse student body throughout its history. Since 1998, with the opening of the Office of Diver sity, Equity, and Community Engagement, UCB has seemingly become more focused t han in prior years upon building and fostering a diverse campus community. In 1999, A Blueprint for Action UCB’s first diversity plan was published and disseminated. This plan and yearly diversity reports since 2000, reports to the regents, diversity stati stics, status of women reports, and a disability services report are available for public perusal on the ODECE Website. Research has shown it is not necessary to re-create diversity plans each year but leaders should focus instead upon the shortcomings and succ esses of each diversity initiative and program (Wade-Golden & Matlock, 2007). As documente d in yearly diversity reports, UCB has worked to focus upon the shortcomings and s uccesses of the diversity initiatives and programs already in place on campus, and admini strators and leaders continue to work toward achieving the original diversity goals outlined in A Blueprint for Action (1999). Since 1999, work to revamp and revise the o riginal diversity plan continued with the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity meeting in 2006, and with the more recent adoption of the Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan by the University’s Board of Regents in 2007.

PAGE 256

242 Though creating a diverse campus was certainly the goal highlighted in A Blueprint for Action reconfirmed in 2006 by the PresidentÂ’s Blue Ribbo n Commission, and again in Flagship 2030 in 2007, the rhetoric contained within each of the se documents has not readily impacted the number of mi nority students on UCBÂ’s campus. Reflecting upon this reality, the lack of connectio n witnessed between words and action in regard to increasing diverse student access to t he university after the adoption of A Blueprint for Action in 1999 and the PresidentÂ’s Commission in 2006, it seems apparent that leaders at UCB need to transform their rhetori c into measurable action. Unfortunately, the university has seemingly not lea rned from the past as witnessed by the newest plan, Flagship 2030 which appears to include few new strategies to im prove diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder. As presented in Chapter VIII, some potentially succ essful diversity initiatives and programs already exist on the campus, but leaders n eed to focus upon the outcomes of these diversity efforts to measure their success (W ade-Golden & Matlock, 2007). Flagship 2030 does seem focused upon student outcomes but the su ccess of the established diversity initiatives and programs on c ampus need to be evaluated continuously over time; undoubtedly, UCB administra tors are accountable to do so. As UCB strives to become a diverse Research I institut ion, campus leaders need to be deliberate about ensuring that the rhetoric include d in Flagship 2030 is turned into feasible action plans and take appropriate steps to ensure its implementation. Through deliberate and purposeful action, which includes es tablishing measurable diversity goals and developing the means through which the diversit y goals can be attained, it may be possible for UCB leaders to work through the existi ng diversity initiatives and programs

PAGE 257

243 on campus to foster a supportive and inclusive clim ate intended for all. The first step to fostering this supportive and inclusive climate is to encourage qualified underrepresented students to apply and enroll at UCB. It is not enou gh to enroll more and more international students to achieve diversity on camp us; instead, UCB should focus upon recruiting, enrolling, retaining and graduating Bla ck students who have been most underrepresented on campus, both historically and p resently. Expanding Educational Opportunity in Colorado for U nderrepresented and LowIncome Students Chapter IX of this dissertation discusses other fac tors impacting the college success rates of students of color. Though beyond t he scope of the research presented in this study, the funding equation is a major part of any discussion related to the likelihood of students choosing to pursue a college degree. In Colorado, legislative approval to change the tuition structure of public colleges and universities to allow undocumented students who have earned a high school diploma in t he state to pay a rate of tuition that is less than the out-of-state rate has surfaced seven times in the past decade, presented again in 2012 as Senate Bill 12-015 and known as the “ASS ET” bill (Suthers, 2012). In the spring of 2012, the ASSET bill garnered the support of institutions of higher education across the state and from the Lieutenant Governor b ut failed to pass in the General Assembly (Suthers, 2012). During the Fall of 2012, in light of the failure fo r the ASSET bill to gain ground and garner legislative support the past six times i t was introduced, Metropolitan State University introduced its own tuition rate for ille gal-immigrant students, sparking a great deal of controversy. Fully supported by the univers ity’s board of trustees and pushed forward by Metro President Steve Jordan, the propos ed tuition rate for students who

PAGE 258

244 qualify is $3,358.30 which is 150% of the rate in-s tate students pay and includes a 10% fee for capital contributions (Cotton, 2012). Spark ing the controversy associated with this bold move by an institution of higher education, Co lorado’s Attorney General John Suthers classified this discounted tuition rate as a public benefit, and as such he stated, “a single institution, such as Metro State, cannot uni laterally create a new tuition classification system. . without legislative appr oval” (Suthers, 2012, p. 8). In July 2012, the Congressional Research Service (C RS) offered a counteropinion to that issued by Colorado’s Attorney Gener al, upholding the legality of Metro’s discounted tuition rate. Basing their opinion upon the definition of a public benefit, the CRS (2012) found that because enrollment at a publi c college or university is not in itself a public benefit, “under this reasoning, states may allow unauthorized aliens to enroll in state institutions of higher education, while payin g out-of-state tuition, without enacting legislation to expressly authorize this” (p. 5). In light of recent developments with ASSET Bill 13-033, other colleges and universities throughout the state of Colorado are unlikely to face the same scrutiny in the future. O n January 24, 2013, the Colorado State Senate Education committee passed Colorado ASSET Se nate Bill 13-033 on a bi-partisan vote (Higher Education Action Alliance, n.d.). With Democrats back in charge of both houses in the legislature, the legislation has pass ed both houses and awaits the Governor’s signature (Hoover, 2013). Colorado ASSET will allow all qualified high school graduates to attend a Colorado college or un iversity at the in-state tuition rate (Colorado Asset, 2013). Such legislation is expecte d to lead to increased diversity on college and university campuses across the state an d positively impact Colorado’s economic recovery well into the future (Colorado As set, 2013).

PAGE 259

245 UCB saw a large increase of Hispanic students in 20 12’s freshman class and it will be interesting to track this enrollment trend into the future as Colorado ASSET will provide a means for historically underrepresented s tudents to access higher education across Colorado. As the ASSET policy is implemented research surrounding its success in providing opportunities for higher education to a more diverse group of students, including those students who choose to enroll at th e University of Colorado Boulder, will be needed and efforts to measure the impact of the ASSET bill should be led by policymakers, colleges, and universities across the state. Metropolitan State University (Metro, MSU) in 2012 was willing to take a risk to provide an opportunity for underrepresented student s regardless of legislative support. CRS (2012) supported this decision and determined t hat Metro had not violated any law by implementing the new tuition structure. MSU’s le adership serves as a model to other colleges and universities that wish to expand educa tional opportunity to historically underrepresented groups of students. In light of UC B’s relatively unsuccessful history in promoting diversity on campus, it will be interesti ng to see how President Benson and Chancellor DiStefano, and their eventual successors lead the university into the future. What risks are they willing to take to promote oppo rtunities for underrepresented students to access and succeed at UCB? Will UCB lead diversi ty efforts on college and university campuses across Colorado or stand by and follow the lead of others, or wait for state legislation to pave the path? Undoubtedly, there wi ll be ample opportunity for UCB to act bravely and take risks into the future as higher ed ucation itself seems unsustainable if the system continues to operate “as is”, particularly i n terms of issues with funding public systems of education at all levels.

PAGE 260

246 Race Does Matter In the introduction of this dissertation, I observe d that “perhaps what I have always known and recognized as I worked with thousa nds of students is that race does matter.” Ultimately, through this dissertation what I hoped to convey to interested stakeholders is how race matters both historically and presently in shaping discussions about education, particularly in the realm of highe r education, within the state of Colorado, and specifically at the University of Col orado Boulder. Because much of my professional experience has revolved around working with minority students, I have come to understand that factors associated with rac e must be analyzed on a deeper level. I have also learned that it is not possible to explor e issues associated with racism in educational settings such as unfair discipline poli cies, the marginalization of students of color, and the low high school and college success rates of minority students without considering our country’s historical relationship w ith race. The permanence of racism suggests a need to uncover this historical relation ship to provide educational stakeholders with a better perspective of how we can move forwar d and provide all students with the opportunity to succeed. History Leads to Insight Utilizing historical methods to guide this research my goal for this dissertation was to examine the history of diverse student acces s to the University of Colorado Boulder to gain a deeper understanding of the histo rical and present-day issues surrounding minority student access to the Universi ty. As a result, my intention was to provide interested parties and educational stakehol ders with a better understanding and appreciation for the development and evolution of t he university in light of the complex

PAGE 261

247 issues surrounding discussions about the persistenc e of racial inequities that still pose challenges to colleges and universities across the country. My hope for this study was to contribute to the expanding field of research on ra ce, diversity, and the role of educational policy in higher education as education al stakeholders make efforts to improve and ensure equal and equitable access to po st-secondary institutions across the country for all racial minority group members. The Problem Continues Data presented throughout this dissertation indicat e that students of color continue to be underrepresented at colleges and universities across the country, including at the University of Colorado Boulder. Though UCB has made gains since opening its doors to the first class of students in the fall of 1877, th e abundance of rhetoric surrounding diversity accompanied by the very slow pace of chan ge in the access of diverse students to the campus should attract the attention of campu s leaders, staff, faculty, students, and the surrounding community. If underrepresentation o f students of color is continually identified as a problem in higher education, and in this instance at UCB, ignoring the race/ethnicity of students applying for admission i s unlikely to combat the problem, if only because of inertia. Recognition of race and th e many barriers that have surrounded race throughout our nation’s—and Colorado’s—history is necessary for the problem to be rectified in the future. Hopes for Progress In 1984, Regent Noel stated, “ I hope in 1994 a report like this will not ever hav e to be written” (p. 511). Ironically, since A Blueprint for Action was adopted as the university’s first diversity plan in 1999, yearly d iversity reports written by universities

PAGE 262

248 across the state, as well as statewide reports abou t The Colorado Paradox continue to draw attention to the high school to college gradua tion gap, the success rates of minority students in college continue to lag behind those of White and Asian students, and UCB continues to struggle to attract, retain, and gradu ate students of color. My hope is that in 2030, the Flagship 2030 plan detailed by UCB will have proven successful i n rectifying the historical and contemporary situation, but acti ons need to be taken to ensure this outcome. Conscious, Concerted Efforts Essential Race-conscious policies are better than race-neutra l policies in isolating and rectifying discriminatory practices that can be rea dily identified throughout the history of the United States (Chang, 1999). Seemingly, in orde r to rectify a problem, one must pinpoint exactly what the problem is in order to id entify potential solutions. Chang (1999) identifies the traditional purpose of instit utions of higher education: “to preserve, transmit, and discover knowledge” (p. 5). As such, diversity is unimportant if knowledge is viewed as static and absolute, but diversity bec omes ever more important if the goal of colleges, universities, and workplaces is to discov er new knowledge (p. 5). Clearly, UCB’s goal as a Research I institution is to discov er new knowledge and positively impact our world. Thus the academy, whether the Un iversity of Colorado Boulder or the University of California Berkeley, needs to take a more active role in discussions surrounding race in higher education, and transform these discussions into action plans that result in the successful recruitment, retentio n, and graduation of diverse students (Chang, 1999). Unfortunately, “the academy has been surprisingly silent in the court battles and national dialogs regarding affirmative action that are taking place around the

PAGE 263

249 country” (Chang, 1999, p. 6). In order to make a di fference, it is necessary for colleges and universities to make a stand and get involved a s the underrepresentation of students of color persists into the twenty-first century; ig noring the reality of the relevance of race in higher education discussions will not lead to th e disappearance of racial barriers that have been constructed throughout our country’s hist ory. Leading to the Future Colleges and universities can serve as leaders to m ake the case as “proxies for race continue to fail to address current disparitie s that were historically created by race and racial practices” (Chang, 1999, p. 4). With the Supreme Court decision looming in the case of Fisher v. Texas (n.d.), post-secondary institutions continue to gr apple with the role race has played and continues to play in educa tion. The decision in this case may or may not transform the use of race-conscious educati onal policies into the future. Next Steps and Future Research As a first-step study, this dissertation provides a platform from which colleges and universities in Colorado and perhaps throughout the US can work to address the questions I asked here: (a) What is the history of access of minority students to the University of _______ (Insert name here)? and (b) H ow have questions about race, diversity, and the development of relevant educatio nal policies affected diverse student access at __________ since the beginning of court-o rdered desegregation of schools issued in Brown in 1954 through the present day? The answers to the se questions may begin to lead those invested in the education of al l of our young people in the direction to find new solutions to old problems. Undoubtedly, se veral solutions, beyond affirmative

PAGE 264

250 action, exist and it is in our best interest as a c ommunity, a state, a nation, and a world to discover them as quickly as possible. New solutions to address this particular issue need to be examined well into the future. Among students from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, how will UCB attract a critical mass of African American students, among o ther diverse student groups, and work to ensure their success in the future? In the current study, my examination of historical sources was unable to provide a complete perspective because the voices of the underrepresented were not documented or included, p articularly in the documents maintained in the universityÂ’s archives. As a nextstep for the University of Colorado Boulder, energies must be expended to ensure that Flagship 2030 succeeds so that the university and its many diverse students succeed as well.

PAGE 265

251 APPENDIX A CCHE Admissions Index, Effective Fall 2008 (CCHE, 2008)

PAGE 266

252 APPENDIX B The Educational Pipeline in this Country (Astin, 19 82)

PAGE 267

253 APPENDIX C Blueprint for Action Key Points ( A Blueprint for Action, 1999, pp. 9-23) GOAL 1: Climate for Living, Learning and Working We are committed to fostering a campus environment of inclusion, knowledge and understanding in which faculty, staff and stude nts learn to value diversity and to respect the individual differences that enri ch the University community. Goal 1.A.: Campus Environment — Continue to build a nd maintain a campus environment that is inclusive, safe and respectful for all people. Key Strategies: 1.A.1 • Establish or enhance systems for generating feedb ack from students, faculty and staff about the status of campus climate; utilize survey information in formulating future strategies. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Le aders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Directors, Director of Institutional Analysis and o ther designees) 1.A.2 • Identify practices or policies that may have nega tive impacts or create barriers for particular populations; develop coordinated strateg ies for addressing any issues identified. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Le aders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Directors and other designees) 1.A.3 • Enhance participation in the campus’s Campaign fo r Building Community, training programs, and other strategies such as diversity fo rums, information exchange, arts programs and community partnerships that enhance th e campus climate for all students. Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and other designees) 1.A.4 • Engage all students, faculty and staff in buildin g a positive and supportive academic community. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Lea ders: Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs and other des ignees) 1.A.5 • Develop and implement policies and procedures tha t address general harassment and discrimination issues, including strategies for res ponding to bias-motivated acts. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Chanc ellor, Chancellor’s Executive Committee, Bias-Motivated Incidents Response Group and other designees) 1.A.6 • Continue to enhance core services for students wi th disabilities, including assistive 11 technology, interpreting services and learning need s assistance. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Chancellor, Vice Chancello rs, Director of Disability Services and other designees)

PAGE 268

254 1.A.7 • Increase awareness by faculty and staff regarding the needs of students with disabilities; set specific responsibilities and exp ectations for the enhancement of campus services and programs, including classroom e xperiences. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Disability Ser vices, Vice Chancellors and other designees) 1.A.8 • Broaden the concept of diversity to include servi ces for nontraditional students and immediate families of students in order to develop a more inclusive climate on campus. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leader s: Vice Chancellors, Director of Housing and other designees) 1.A.9 • Review and broaden the orientation for new facult y, staff and students to include cultural norms, climate, services, resources and ot her diversity-oriented topics. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Director of Human Resources and other designees) 1.A.10 • Review and enhance diversity training programs de signed for faculty and staff; increase participation in training programs as educ ational tools for improving campus climate. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leade rs: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs, Director of Human Resources and other designees) 1.A.11 • Enhance residence hall diversity programs to incr ease participation by students. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Direc tor of Housing and other designees) 1.A.12 • Improve services provided by campus centers to he lp meet the special needs of students from underrepresented groups. Progress rep ort: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Cente r Directors and other designees) 1.A.13 • Promote broader participation in Community SpeakOuts and other open forums for students and the campus community to discuss divers ity issues. Progress report: 12 December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor f or Student Affairs and other designees) Goal 1.B.: Learning Experiences for Diversity — Pro vide increased opportunities for enhanced awareness of multicultural issues and fost er an appreciation of the full range of human experience among students, faculty and staff. Key Strategies: 1.B.1 • Expand student participation in programs that pro vide strong academic support and sense of community (e.g. Pre-Collegiate Development Student Academic Services Center, Academic Access Institute, Minority Arts an d Sciences Program [MASP], Multicultural Business Students Association, Succes s in Engineering through Excellence and Diversity [SEED], Women in Engineeri ng, and Upward Bound). Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department

PAGE 269

255 Chairs, Directors and other designees) 1.B.2 • Increase support for improved teaching about dive rsity and for teaching an increasingly diverse student body through such prog rams as the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program (FTEP). Progress report: May 200 0. (Strategy Leaders: Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs, Depa rtment Chairs, Director of FTEP and other designees) 1.B.3 • Increase opportunities for gaining knowledge and understanding of the unique history and perspectives of underrepresented groups, includ ing curricular enhancements and extracurricular programming, to improve the overall education experience. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancello rs, Deans, Department Chairs and other designees) 1.B.4 • Encourage broader participation in diversity-rela ted academic courses at CU-Boulder to help improve multicultural understanding. Progre ss report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dean s, Department Chairs and other designees) 1.B.5 • Promote and increase opportunities for Study Abro ad experiences by students, including economically disadvantaged students and m embers of underrepresented 13 groups. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leader s: Director of Study Abroad, Director of Financial Aid and other designees) 1.B.6 • Encourage governance organizations for faculty, s taff and undergraduate and graduate students to develop specific strategies for support ing diversity initiatives. Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Chancello r's Executive Committee and other designees) Goal 2: Student Access and Opportunity We are committed to ensuring equal access and oppor tunity for a quality education at the University of Colorado at Boulder among all Colorado students, including members of racial/ethnic groups traditionally under represented in higher education. Goal 2.A.: Undergraduate Degrees Awarded -Demonst rate continuing improvement in the number of bachelor’s degrees earned by Colorado students of color. Success in achieving this goal will depend particularly on ach ieving both Goals 2.A.1 and 2.A.3. (The total number of degrees for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 434.) Contributing Goals: Goal 2.A.1: New Students -Demonstrate continuing improvement in the number of Colorado students of color who enter CU-Boulder as freshmen or transfers, while increasing the graduation rate as in Goal 2.A.3. (T he total for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 596.) Goal 2.A.2: Retention Rates -Continue to enhance the first-year retention rate for resident freshmen of color. (The rate for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 79%.) Goal 2.A.3: Graduation Rates -Demonstrate continu ing improvement in the graduation

PAGE 270

256 rates of resident freshmen of color, while increasi ng the number of new students as in Goal 2.A.1. (The rate for the 1998 baseline reporti ng year was 46%.) Key Strategies: 2.A.1 • By racial/ethnic group, analyze numerical and per centage trends in degrees awarded, graduation and retention rates, applications, admis sion and yield rates, and number of 14 new students. Revise specific strategies as needed to reach campus goals. Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chan cellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Students Affairs, Deans, Director of Institutional Analysis and other designees) 2.A.2 • Engage student body to assist with recruitment of students of color and to contribute to retention through community and academic support Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Studen t Affairs, UCSU leadership and other designees) 2.A.3 • Develop and/or enhance highly focused recruitment strategies aimed at Colorado high school students of color, including such initiatives as: Expanding participation in and services offered b y the CU Pre-Collegiate Program Expanding use of the campus' Denver Office of Adm issions to serve students in Denver metro area Building productive partnerships with key Colorad o high schools that have high concentrations of students of color Coordinating outreach programs targeting communit ies of color Expanding participation in summer programs on cam pus, targeting students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds Increasing participation in the Admissions Office ’s program for linking CU Boulder minority students as mentors to minority students i n the Denver Public Schools *Progress Report: May 2000 (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Executive Director of Enrollment Ma nagement, Director of Admissions and other designees) 2.A.4 • Build partnerships with community colleges aimed at attracting transfer students of color to CU-Boulder, as well as easing the transiti on between colleges. Progress Report: May 2000 (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, 15 Executive Director of Enrollment Management, Direct or of Admissions, Deans and other designees) 2.A.5 • Increase financial aid to make a CU-Boulder educa tion more attainable for more students; improve understanding among minority comm unities about availability of financial aid programs and the need for early finan cial planning. Streamline financial aid procedures for all students. Progress Report: M ay 2000 (Strategy Leaders: Vice

PAGE 271

257 Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Executive Director of Enrollment Management, Director of Financial Aid, Chancellor’s Executive C ommittee and other designees) 2.A.6 • Expand participation in and enhance success rates of the SEED and Women in Engineering programs in engineering, the Undergradu ate Research Opportunities Program (UROP), the MASP program in Arts and Scienc es, and the Multicultural Business Students Association. Examine potential fo r replicating these successful programs in other areas of the campus. Progress rep ort: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Associ ate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity, Program Directors, and other designees) 2.A.7 • Expand academic support services provided by the Academic Access Institute to extend services beyond the freshman year. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 2.A.8 • Establish and coordinate K-12 outreach efforts fr om throughout the campus, with special focus on earlier levels of education, to en hance partnerships with the schools. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity, Executive Director of Institutional Relations and o ther designees) 2.A.9 • Increase small-class experiences for all students including members of underrepresented groups, to help build a sense of c ommunity and to enhance learning. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs and other designees) 2.A.10 • Establish specific strategies by each school and college for increasing the number of degrees earned by Colorado students of color; monit or and report progress annually. 16 Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs, Associate Vice C hancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 2.A.11 • Extend current networks of staff, faculty and adm inistrators who can support and advise students of color toward achievement of acad emic success. Progress report: December 1999. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor f or Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Department Chairs, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 2.A.12 • Establish or enhance a set of core services by ea ch school/college and division aimed at increasing success rates of students from underrepr esented groups. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Dean s, Department Chairs, Program Directors and other designees) 2.A.13 • Extend and enhance "Parents as Partners" programs for parents of students of color to

PAGE 272

258 establish closer ties among parents, students and t he University; involve alumni of color in outreach efforts. Progress report: May 200 0. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor fo r Student Affairs and other designees) 2.A.14 • Enhance outreach efforts by Norlin Scholars Progr am to attract more students of color to CU-Boulder. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Director of Norlin Scholars and o ther designees) Goal 2.B: Graduate Degrees Awarded -Demonstrate c ontinuing improvement in the number of graduate degrees (including master’s, law and doctoral degrees) earned by all students of color. (The total for the 1997-98 basel ine reporting year was 171.) Contributing Goal: Goal 2.B.1: New Graduate Students -Demonstrate co ntinuing improvement in the number of new graduate-level (including master’s, l aw and doctoral) students of color. (The total for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 174.) Key Strategies: 17 2.B.1 • By racial/ethnic group, analyze trends in the num bers and percentages of graduate degrees awarded, applications, admission and yield rates, and number of new graduate students. Implement specific strategies as needed t o reach campus goals. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancello r for Academic Affairs, Graduate Dean, other Deans, Director of Institutional Analys is and other designees) 2.B.2 • Enhance recruitment strategies aimed at prospecti ve graduate students of color, including establishing positive relationships with other Colorado institutions, utilizing alumni groups in recruitment, and enhancing faculty contact with prospective graduate students of color. Progress report: May 2000. (Stra tegy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Graduate Dean, other Deans, Depar tment Chairs and other designees) 2.B.3 • Seek enhanced funding for graduate student fellow ships. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff airs, Graduate Dean and other designees) 2.B.4 • Expand participation in diversity programs, such as the campus’s SMART (Summer Multicultural Access to Research Training) and McNa ir programs, to encourage students of color and women to consider graduate st udy, emphasizing opportunities at CU-Boulder. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Graduate Dean, Associate Vice Cha ncellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 2.B.5 • Establish effective mentoring programs for advisi ng and supporting graduate students of color, aimed at increasing success rates. Progre ss report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs, Directors and other desig nees)

PAGE 273

259 2.B.6 • Develop partnerships with United Government of Gr aduate Students (UGGS) for enhancing recruitment and retention of graduate stu dents. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Graduate Dean, UGGS Leadership a nd other designees) 2.B.7 • Enhance career placement services for all graduat e students, including those from underrepresented groups, to help improve recruitmen t and retention. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Ac ademic Affairs, Graduate Dean 18 and other designees) Goal 3: Diverse Faculty and Staff We are committed to building and maintaining a dive rse community of faculty and staff that reflects a broad range of racial/ethnic groups, cultures, perspectives, and gender. Goal 3.A : Faculty of Color -Demonstrate continui ng improvement in the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty of color. (The tot al for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 123.) Key Strategies: 3.A.1 • Establish strategies and implementation plans by schools and colleges for increasing the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty of c olor; monitor and report progress annually. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Lead ers: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs and othe r designees) 3.A.2 • Engage faculty of color in successful recruitment and professional development efforts to aid in attracting and retaining diverse faculty. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Asso ciate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 3.A.3 • Enhance support for the Special Opportunities Pro gram in the Division of Academic Affairs to help broaden faculty diversity. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Academic A ffairs, Deans, Chairs and other designees) 3.A.4 • Integrate diversity expectations into the Program Review Process for primary units. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Chanc ellor, Vice Chancellors and other designees) 3.A.5 • Encourage enhanced professional development oppor tunities for all faculty, including faculty of color. Progress report: May 2000. (Strat egy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Associate Vice Chancellors, Deans Department Chairs and other designees) 19 3.A.6 • Improve communication and understanding about rec ent changes in tenure procedures that offer broader criteria in research, teaching a nd service to enhance opportunities

PAGE 274

260 for all faculty. Progress report: May 2000. (Strate gy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Associate Vice Chancellors, Deans Department Chairs and other designees) 3.A.7 • Enhance mentoring programs for tenure-track facul ty. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff airs, Deans, Department Chairs and other designees) 3.A.8 • Continue and enhance first-, third-, and sixth-ye ar preparation workshops on tenure processes and expectations. Progress report: May 20 00. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Deans, Department Chairs and other designees) 3.A.9 • Continue to develop an exit interview process to identify opportunities for improvement in retention of faculty of color, in ad dition to identifying other issues. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Assoc iate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs and other designees) 3.A.10 • Collect data on faculty of color from public Rese arch I institutions (CU-Boulder’s peer group) for use in establishing benchmarks. Pro gress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Institutional Analysis and oth er designees) 3.A.11 • Increase IMPART research grant funding to expand research opportunities for diverse faculty. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leade rs: Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs and other designees) 3.A.12 • Explore potential for new "grow-your-own" program s aimed at attracting prospective faculty of color to the Boulder campus. Progress re port: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs Directors and other designees) Goal 3.B: Women Faculty -Demonstrate continuing i mprovement in the number of 20 female tenured and tenure-track faculty, especially in disciplines where women currently are underrepresented. (The total for the 1998 basel ine reporting year was 271.) Key Strategies: 3.B.1 • Establish strategies and implementation plans at the departmental and school/college levels for increasing the number of women faculty; monitor by faculty level. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Deans, Departm ent Chairs and other designees) 3.B.2 • Engage women faculty in successful recruitment an d professional development efforts to aid in attracting and retaining diverse faculty. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Asso ciate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 3.B.3 • Enhance support for the Special Opportunities Pro gram in the Division of Academic Affairs to help broaden faculty diversity. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Academic A ffairs, Deans, Chairs and other

PAGE 275

261 designees) 3.B.4 • Review starting salaries for new faculty to ident ify any gaps related to gender; develop strategies for addressing any gender-relate d variances. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academ ic Affairs, Associate Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs and other des ignees) 3.B.5 • Develop exit interview process to identify opport unities for improved retention of women faculty, in addition to identifying other iss ues. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Deans, Department Chairs and oth er designees) 3.B.6 • Collect data on women faculty from public Researc h I institutions (CU-Boulder's peer group) for use in establishing benchmarks. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dire ctor of Institutional Analysis, Deans, Department Chairs and other designees) 3.B.7 • Explore potential for new "grow-your-own" program s aimed at attracting prospective women faculty to the Boulder campus. Progress repor t: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs, Directo rs and other designees) 21 Goal 3.C : Administrators of Color -Demonstrate continuing i mprovement in the number of officers of color and professional exempt staff of color. (The total for the baseline reporting year was 72.) Key Strategies: 3.C.1 • Develop specific strategies by schools, colleges and divisions for increasing administrative staff diversity; monitor progress ac cording to employee group. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs, Directors and other designees) 3.C.2 • Engage administrators of color and women administ rators in successful recruitment and professional development efforts to aid in attr acting and retaining diverse administrative leaders. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversit y and Equity, Deans, Department Chairs, Directors and other designees) 3.C.3 • Examine recruiting practices for officers and pro fessional exempt staff to determine opportunities for enhancing diversity. Progress rep ort: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Human Resources and other designees) 3.C.4 • Increase professional development opportunities a nd succession strategies for all staff; provide release time for staff to participat e in campus classes, committee work and campus events. Progress report: May 2000. (Stra tegy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs, Directors and other desig nees) 3.C.5 • Review the hiring methods for administrators and professional exempt staff for

PAGE 276

262 relevance and equity. Progress report: May 2000. (S trategy Leaders: Director of Human Resources and other designees) 3.C.6 • Collect comparison data from the Equal Employment Opportunity annual utilization analysis and other external sources for use in esta blishing benchmarks. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 22 3.C.7 • Develop exit interview process to identify opport unities for improved retention of administrators of color, in addition to identifying other issues. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Human Resource s and other designees) Goal 3.D: Staff Members of Color -Demonstrate con tinuing improvement in the number of classified staff members of color in job titles where people of color are currently underrepresented. (The total for the 1998 baseline reporting year was 304.) Key Strategies: 3.D.1 • Implement high-priority recommendations by the St aff Recruitment Outreach Task Force to attract potential employees from underrepr esented communities. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancello rs, Director of Human Resources and other designees) 3.D.2 • Engage staff members of color in successful recru itment and professional development activities to aid in attracting and retaining a div erse staff. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Human Resources, Ass ociate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 3.D.3 • Establish specific strategies by schools, college s and divisions for increasing staff diversity; monitor and report progress according to employee group and paygrade level. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders : Vice Chancellors, Deans, Department Chairs, Directors and other designees) 3.D.4 • Examine state employment processes to determine o pportunities for enhancing diversity; recommend needed changes Progress repo rt: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellor for Administration, Direct or of Human Resources and other designees) 3.D.5 • Enhance staff development opportunities and succe ssion strategies to improve upward mobility across the campus; provide release time for staff to participate in campus classes, committee work and campus events. P rogress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Directo r of Human Resources, Directors and other designees) 23 3.D.6 • Extend staff recruitment efforts by building comm unity partnerships and enhancing communication with nontraditional networks. Progres s report: May 2000. (Strategy

PAGE 277

263 Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Deans, Director of Human Resources, Directors and other designees) 3.D.7 • Review classified staff testing practices for rel evance and equity; develop appropriate recommendations for change. Progress report: May 20 00. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Human Resources and other designees) 3.D.8 • Develop exit interview process to identify opport unities for improved retention of staff of color, in addition to identifying other is sues. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Human Resources and other designees) 3.D.9 • Collect comparison data from the Equal Employment Opportunity annual utilization analysis and other external sources for use in esta blishing benchmarks. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Equity and other designees) 3.D.10 • Evaluate retention of staff of color by departmen t; establish strategies and implementation plans at both the department and div ision levels to improve retention where problems are identified. Progress report: May 2000 (Strategy Leaders: Vice Chancellors, Director of Human Resources, Deans, De partment Chairs and other designees) 3.D.11 • Coordinate efforts to improve the Work Study expe rience for students; encourage mentoring of Work Study employees. Progress report: May 2000. (Strategy Leaders: Director of Financial Aid, Director of Human Resour ces and other designees)

PAGE 278

264 APPENDIX D 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission Committee Recommendatio ns ( http://www.colorado.edu/odece/about/reports/BlueRib bonReport.html Retrieved online 8/2/11 Recommendation 1: Diversity programs appear to contribute to the suc cess rates of the students they serve (retention and graduation rates). These programs should be continued with and receive additional financial support. Recommendation 2 : The University leadership “must express highly pu blic and unequivocal support for diversity and inclusion at the Universi ty of Colorado.” Recommendation 3: “The University of Colorado at Boulder should devi se strategies that utilize the “window” for expanding the 103 index [which app ears to serve as a barrier for admitting more students of color]. It is unacceptable that th ere are only 66 African American students out of approximately 5000 new freshmen.” Recommendation 4 : Diversity training for administration, faculty, a nd staff should be mandatory. Recommendation 5 : Students should also receive mandatory diversity training as they begin at CU and throughout their academic careers. Recommendation 6 : The University of Colorado at Boulder should enga ge and partner with the surrounding Boulder community to “build bridges to enhance diversity and inclusion”. Recommendation 7 : The Blue Ribbon Commission should stay apprised o f progress, or lack thereof, of the Boulder campus as “the recommendati ons, goals, and accountability measures need to be re-evaluated on a continual basis.” Recommendation 8 : Accountability of administration, faculty, staff and students is necessary as “are better metrics of around evaluation… with resp ect to funding and finances of the $1.7 billion dollar system.” Recommendation 9 : The educational pipeline is a K-16 issue. Cultura l diversity and tolerance should be infused in K-16 and funding from the legi slature should support this effort. Recommendation 10 : The University of Colorado should “benchmark with other institutions and with industry that already have a history of succes s and lessons learned in areas of diversity”.

PAGE 279

265 APPENDIX E Flagship 2030 Summary

PAGE 280

266

PAGE 281

267 REFERENCES ACT. (2011). The Condition of College and Career Re adiness 2011. Retrieved from www.act.org/readiness/2011 ACT. (n.d.). ACT Homepage Retrieved from http://www.act.org Adams Group, Inc. (2007). The impact of public higher education on the state of Colorado. Denver, CO: The Piton Foundation. Alger, J. (1999). Affirmative action in higher education: A current l egal overview American Association of University Professors. Retr ieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov /contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED446535 Allen, F. S., Andrade, E. Jr., Foster, M. S., Mitte rling, P. I., & Scamehorn, H.L. (1976). The University of Colorado 1876-1976. New York, NY, and London, England: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Allen, W. R., Teranishi, R., Dinwiddie, G., & Gonza lez, G. (2000). Introduction and overview: Knocking at freedomÂ’s door: Race, equity, and affir mative action in US higher education. The Journal of Negro Education 69 (1/2), 3-11. Anas, B. (2006, September 29). CU rejects diversity panelÂ’s proposal. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved from http://dailycamera.com Anas, B. (2008, July 24). CU: Scholarships at risk under affirmative-action ban. Boulder Daily Camera Retrieved from http://dailycamera.com Anas, B. (2011, August 13). CU less dependent on st ate funds, more on donations. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved from http://dailycamera.com Anas, B. (2012, October 4). CU-Boulder mistakenly l isted as a supporter in Supreme Court affirmative action case. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved from http://dailycamera.com

PAGE 282

268 Anas, B. (2012, November 10). CU-Boulder freshmen most diverse in campus history. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved from http://dailycamera.com Anderson, J. D. (2002). Race in American higher edu cation: Historical perspectives on current conditions. In W. A. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lo motey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century (Rev. ed., pp. 322). New York, NY: State University of New York. Anderson, T. H. (2004). The pursuit of fairness: A history of affirmative a ction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Astin, A.W. (1982). Minorities in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A develop mental theory for higher education Journal of College Student Development 518-529. Bartels, L., & Lee, K. (2012, November 9). Blacks, gays make big gains in Colorado legislature. The Denver Post Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/politics /ci_21961329/ blacks-gays-make-big-gains-colorado-legislature Bell, Jr., D.A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93 (3), 518-533. Benson, B. (n.d.). Diversity statement Retrieved from https://www.cu.edu/cudiversity Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity. (2006). Update of the University of Colorado at BoulderÂ’s action plan for the presidentÂ’s blue ribb on commission Retrieved from https://www.cusys.edu/diversity/brc/

PAGE 283

269 Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissio ns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (2002). The meaning of “mer it”. In S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The affirmative action debate, (pp. 176-182). New York, NY: Routledge. Breivik, P. (1985). Memorandum EVP Office (Box 71, Folder 3, Affirmative Action (Title IX), 1984-1985). Archives University of Colorado at Boul der Libraries. Boulder, CO. Brooke, J. (1995, September 17). Court says Denver can end Forced Busing. The New York Times Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/17/ us/court-says-denver-canend-forced-busing.html Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brown v. Board of Education (II), 349 U.S. 294 (195 5). Brown, J. (2006, November 22). CU given D for diver sity. Boulder Daily Camera. Retrieved from http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_4702226?IADID=Se arch-www.dailycamera.comwww.dailycamera.com Brown, S. K., & Hirschman, C. (2006). The end of af firmative action in Washington state and its impact on the transition from high school to colleg e Sociology of Education, 79 106130. Brown, C. M., II, & Donahoo, S. (2003). Affirmative action compliance in higher education. Encyclopedia of Education Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION-COMPLIANCE -HIGHEREDUCATION/dp/B001S58OS6/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8& qid=1366860346&sr=1 -1&keywords=affirmative+action+compliance+in+higher +education

PAGE 284

270 Bruning, S. D., McGrew, S., & Cooper, M. (2006). To wn-gown relationships: Exploring university-community engagement from the perspectiv e of community members. Public Relations Review, 32, 125-130. Buescher, B. (2008). Official publication of the abstract of votes cast for the 2008 Primary, 2008 General. Retrieved from http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/ele ctions/ Results/2008/2008_Abstract.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ Burton, J. F., Farrell, M. M., Lord, F. B., & Lord, R. W. (1999). Confinement and ethnicity: An overview of World War II Japanese American relocati on sites. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Pub lications in Anthropology 74. Busenberg, B. E., & Smith, D. G. (1997). Affirmativ e action and beyond: The womanÂ’s perspective. In Garcia, M. (Ed.), In Affirmative actionÂ’s testament of hope: Strategies for a new era in higher education (pp. 149-180). New York: State University of New York. Byrd-Chichester, J. (2000). The federal courts and claims of racial discrimination in higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 69 (1/2), 12-26. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascare lla, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to co llege: A comparison between White students and African-American students The Journal of Higher Education, 70 (2), 134160. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26 49125 Campus Compact Website. (2012). Campus Compact Homepage Retrieved from http://www.compact.org Campus Compact. (n.d.a). Campus Compact Initiatives Retrieved from www.compact.org/ initiatives

PAGE 285

271 Campus Compact. (n.d.b). Campus Compact Benefits and Impact Retrieved from http://www.cccompact.org/about/benefits-and-impact Campus Compact. (n.d.c). Campus Compact History. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/ about/history-mission-vision/ Campus Compact. (n.d.d). Campus Compact TRUCEN Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/initiatives/civic-engagement -at-research-universities/ Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2005). Would the elimin ation of affirmative action affect highly qualified minority applicants? Evidence from Califo rnia and Texas. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58 (3) 416-434. Carnegie Foundation. (2012). Carnegie and NERCHE announce partnership Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/fil es/bryk-gomez_building-nicseducation.pdf Center for Individual Rights. (n.d.). Center for Individual Rights, History Retrieved from http://www.cir-usa.org/history.html Chafe, W. H. (2011). The unfinished journey. New York, NY and Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Chang, M. J. (2000). The big picture of campus dive rsity About Campus 30-32 Chang, M. J., Witt-Sandis, D., & Hakuta, K. (1999). The dynamics of race in higher education: An examination of the evidence. Equity and Excellence in Education, 32 (2), 12-16. Chapman, T. (2005). Peddling backwards: reflections of Plessy and Brown in the Rockford public schools de jure desegregation efforts. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 (1), 29-44.

PAGE 286

272 The Chronicle of Higher Education. (n.d.). What you need to know about Fisher v. Texas. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/What-Yo u-Need-to-Know-About/134912/ Civilrights.org. (2012). Ward ConnerlyÂ’s anti-equal opportunity efforts. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/conner ly/ College Opportunity Fund. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved from http://cof.college-assist.org Colorado Campus Compact. (2011). 2011 service statistics: Campus compact annual membership survey summary results for Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.cccompact.org/resource/2011-annual-membe rship-survey-results Colorado Commission on Higher Education [CCHE]. (19 98). Policy on affirmative action Retrieved from www.highered.colorado.gov Colorado Commission on Higher Education [CCHE]. (20 11). Admissions standard policy. Retrieved from www.highered.colorado.gov Colorado Commission on Higher Education [CCHE]. (20 12). 2012 Legislative report on the postsecondary progress and success of high school g raduates Retrieved from www.highered.colorado.gov Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (n.d.a). Homepage. Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (n.d.b). CCHE advisory Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov/CCHE/Advisory.asp Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (2010). Colorado higher education at a glance Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (2011). Graduation Rates, 2004 Cohort. Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov.

PAGE 287

273 Colorado Department of Higher Education [CDE]. (201 2). Financial Aid Report, 2011-2012 Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov/Publica tions/Reports/FinancialAid/ FY2012/201112_FAReport_rel120612.pdf Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (2012a). CCHE History Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov/cche/history.html Colorado Department of Education [CDE]. (2012b). CCHE Commissioners Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov/ CCHE/Commissioners.ht ml Colorado State Archives. (2006). WWII Japanese Internment Camp Retrieved from http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/wwcod/gra nada.htm Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). Implementing the common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ Community Relations Service Student Unrest Survey. (1969). Central Administration EVP Office (Box 37, Folder 6, Exec VP Survey-Student Un rest Survey 1969). Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulde r, CO. Congressional Research Service. (2012). Whether Fee-Based Programs and Services Constitute “State and Local Public Benefits Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Retrieved from http://www.crs.gov Corash, K., Baker, E.D., & Nawrocki, K. (2008). Colorado Community College System: The Colorado remedial challenge Retrieved from http://www.cccs.edu/Docs/Research/ TheColoradoRemedialChallenge.pdf Cotton, A. (2012, June 5). Metro State proposes spe cial tuition rate for illegal immigrants. The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com

PAGE 288

274 Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common core state standards: Implementation tools and resources Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/ 2012/Common_Core_Resources.pdf Cress, C. M. (2008). Creating inclusive learning co mmunities: the role of student-faculty relationships in mitigating negative campus climate Learning Inquiry, 2( 2), 95-11. CU Heritage Center. (n.d. a). President Arnold R. Weber Retrieved from http://cuheritage.org/exhibits/presidents/president -arnold-r-Weber/ CU Heritage Center, (n.d. b). President Frederick P. Thieme Retrieved from http://cuheritage.org/exhibits/presidents/president -frederick-p-thieme/ CU Heritage Center. (2011). President George Norlin Retrieved from http://cuheritage.org/exhibits/presidents/president -george-norlin/ Cunningham, S., & Chisholm, M. (1992). PresidentÂ’s Office, Box 624, Folder 9 S.I, State Agencies-CCHE-Affirmative Action. Archives Universi ty of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Cureton, S. R. (2003). Race-specific college studen t experiences on a predominantly white campus. Journal of Black Studies, 33 (3). doi:10.1177/0021934702238633. DÂ’Amico, M. M., Morgan, G. B., & Robertson, T. C. ( 2011). Student achievement in identified workforce clusters: Understanding factors that infl uence student success Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35 (10), 773-790. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/10668920902813444 Davis, W. E. (1965). Glory Colorado! A history of the University of Colo rado 1858-1963. Boulder, CO: Pruett Press, Inc.

PAGE 289

275 DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of ana lysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher 26-31. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1999). Home-grown racism: Colorado’s historic embrace and denial of equal opportunity in higher education. University of Colorado Law Review, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 703. Disability Services Brochure. (2007). Retrieved fro m www.colorado.edu/disablityservices, July 3, 2012. Dodge, J. (1999, January 21). UCB Groups to scrutin ize alternative diversity plans. Silver and Gold Record. Retrieved from https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/3351.html Dodge, J. (2005, December 15). President’s office t o move to Denver. Silver and Gold Record. Retrieved from https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/4734. html Donnor, J. (2005). Towards an interest-convergence in the education of African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 (1), 4567. Duncan, G. (2002). Beyond love: A critical race eth nography of the schooling of adolescent black males. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35 (2), 131-143. Elliott, E. W., & Ewoh, A. I. E. (2005). Beyond Gra tz and Grutter: Prospects for affirmative action in the aftermath of the supreme court’s Mich igan decisions. Review of Policy Research, 22 (4), 541-553. Engoren, M. (2006). Education Law Chapter: Affirmat ive Action in Higher Education and Secondary Schools Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, 7 (883). Evans, R. J. 1999. In Defense of History New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

PAGE 290

276 Fisher v Texas 556 F. Supp. 2d 603, W.D. Tex. (2008). Ford, R. T. (2008). The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race R elations Worse. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Franklin, L. S., (1988). Letter to Mr. E. Gordon Ge e, President. PresidentÂ’s Office. Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulde r, CO. Freire, P. (1970, 1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company. Garcia, J. (2012). 2012 legislative report on the p ostsecondary progress and success of high school graduates. Colorado Commission on Higher Education Retrieved online http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/L egislative/PostSecondary/ 2012_Postsecondary_Progress_rel20120405.pdf Garcia, M., ed. (1997). Affirmative actionÂ’s testament of hope: Strategies for a new era in higher education. New York, NY: State University of New York. Gee, E. G. (1988). Letter to Mr. Franklin from President E. Gordon Gee PresidentÂ’s Office. Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Librarie s. Boulder, CO. Gee, E. G. (n.d.). Letter to colleagues PresidentÂ’s Office. Archives University of Colora do at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Gurin, P., Matlock, J., Wade-Golden, K., & Gurin, G (2004). Racial Climate on Campus: What do student perceptions mean? The Climate for Diversity on Campus, 12(1 ), 5-11.

PAGE 291

277 Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (200 2). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3). Hannon, M. (1969). Educational opportunities programs, summary of prog rams PresidentÂ’s Office (Box 290, Folder 3 S.I, Civil Rights, 1957-( 1968-1970)). Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Harper, S. R. (2006). Black male students at public flagship universities in the U.S.: Status, trends, and implications for policy and practice Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute Retrieved from www.jointcenter.org Harvey, W.B., Harvey, A.M., & King, M. (2004). The impact of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on the postsecondary participati on rates of African Americans. The Journal of Negro Education 73 (3), 328-340. Hatchell, H. (2004). Privilege of whiteness: Adoles cent male studentsÂ’ resistance to racism in an Australian classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 7 (2). Hays, D.M. (n.d.). Race, ethnicity, and gender at the University of Co lorado, 1876-2002: An introductory overview. Unpublished. Archives: University of Colorado at B oulder. Boulder, CO. Heck, R. H. (2004). Studying Educational and Social Policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. London/New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. History.com. (n.d.). Civil Rights Movement. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/civilrights-movement Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F3d. 932 5th Circuit (1996). Hrabowski, F.A., III. (1999). Creating a climate fo r success. The Presidency. American Council on Education DC. Highbeam Research. Retrieved online http://www.highbeam.com

PAGE 292

278 Higher Education Action Alliance. (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved from www.coloradoasset.com Holloway, J. P. (1967). Memorandum to Dean R. C. Rautenstraus EVP Office (Box 11, Folder 1, Exec. VP D., 1969-1972). Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Hoover, J. L. (1968). Migrant action program, educational opportunities programs, summary of programs President’s Office (Box 290, Folder 3 S.I, Civil Rights, 1957-(1968-1970), (pp. 14-20). Archives University of Colorado at Bou lder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Hoover, J. L. (1969). Summer tutorial programs, educational opportunities programs, summary of programs. President’s Office (Box 290, Folder 3 S.I, Civil Ri ghts, 1957-(1968-1970). (pp. 6-13). Archives University of Colorado at Boul der Libraries. Boulder, CO. Hoover, T. (2013, January 15). Supporters of in-sta te tuition for illegal immigrants hope 7th time is the charm. Denver Post Retrieved from http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespo t/2013/01/ 15/supporters-instate-tuition-illegal-immigrants-h ope-7th-time-charm/88798/ Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. Iggers, G. G. (1997). Historiography in the twentieth century Middletown, NJ: Wesleyan University Press. James, R. A. (1979). Our own generation: The tumultuous years University of Colorado 19631976. Boulder, CO: Regents of the University of Colorado. Jim Crow law. (2013). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/303897/Jim-Crow-law Kadlec, D. (2010, April 17). Here We Go Again: Is C ollege Worth it?” Time. Retrieved from www.time.com

PAGE 293

279 Kahlenberg, R. (2010). ColoradoÂ’s affirmative-acti on experiment The Chronicle of Higher Education Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and LandGrant Universities. [Kellogg Commission].(1999). Returning to our roots: The Engaged Institution, 3rd Report, 1-59. Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO 895 F. 2 d 659 (1971). Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, CO 413 U.S. 189 (1973). Keyes v. School District No. 1. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law 18 November 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org.c ases/19701979/1972/1972_71_507. Killenbeck, M. R. (2004). Affirmative action and diversity: The beginning of the end? Or the end of the beginning? Policy Information Perspective. Education Testing S ervice. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/pic. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies [2nd Ed.]. New York, NY: Longman. Kirwan Institute. (2008). Homepage. Retrieved online http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/ Kowalski, K.M. (2007). Open for debate: Affirmative action. New York, NY: Marshall Cavendish. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of aparthe id schooling in America. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. Kraemer, S. F., & Noel, R. B. (1984). Report of Regent Co-Chairs Kraemer and Noel Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulde r, CO. Ladson-Billings, G.J. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and whatÂ’s it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 7-24.

PAGE 294

280 Ladson-Billings, G.J., & Tate, W.F. (1995). Towards a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97 (1), 47-68. Lane, N. (1985). Letter to Ted Volsky regarding Task Force on Kraeme r/Noel Report Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulde r, CO. Lederman, D. (2009, September 18). House Passes Stu dent Aid Bill. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/18/aid Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap t rends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31 (1), 3-12. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Fisher v. The University of Texas Austin (11-345). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-345 Leiter, W. M, & Leiter, S. (2011). Affirmative Action in Antidiscrimination Law and Po licy: An overview and synthesis. 2nd Edition. NY: State University of New York. Love, B. (2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling : A critical race theory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement gap” story. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37 227-246. Love, D., Trammell, A., & Cartner, J. (2010). Trans formational leadership, campus climate, and its impact on student retention Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication, and Conflict, 14 (2). Marcus, J. (2012, May 31). Why is college enrollmen t dropping? Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2116 059,00.html Marx, S. (2004). Regarding Whiteness: Exploring and intervening in the effects of White racism in education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 31-43.

PAGE 295

281 Massengale, M.O. (2009, February 10). Cheyenne Arap aho Residence Hall renaming marks 20 years. The CU-Boulder Faculty/Staff E-Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/insidecu/editions/2009/2-10 /story3.html McNall, M., Reed, C. S., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (20 08). Brokering community-university engagement. Innov. High Educ, 33, 317-331. doi:10.1007/s10755-008-9086-8. Merriam-Webster. (2013). White flight. Retrieved online from http://www.merriamWebster.com/concise/white%20flight Minority Student Analysis. (1983). EVP Office (Box 71, Folder 2, Affirmative Action 19811983). Archives University of Colorado at Boulder L ibraries. Boulder, CO. Mitchell, N. (2011, August 18). DPS goes back to class Ednewscolorado.org Retrieved online from http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2011/08/18/23168 -video-dps-goes-back-to-class Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2009). Student progress t oward degree completion: Lessons from the research literature. Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Poli cy Report, 1-20. Moses, M.S., Yun, J. T., & Marin, P. (2009). Affirm ative actionÂ’s fate: Are 20 more years enough? Education Policy Analysis Archives 17 (17), 1-34. Muthuswamy, N., Levine, T. R., & Gazel, J. (2006). Interaction-based diversity initiative outcomes: An evaluation of an initiative aimed at b ridging the racial divide on a college campus. Communication Education, 55 (1), 105-121. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Mini-digest of education statistics, 2008 Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009021. pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The condition of education 2012. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf

PAGE 296

282 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Educat ion [NCPPHE]. (2006). Measuring up: The state report card on higher education. Retrieved fr om http://www.highereducation.org/ reports/mup_06/MUP-06.pdf No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Retrieved online from www2.ed.gov/policy/ elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Noble, J. P., & Schnelker, D. (2007). Using hierarchical modeling to examine course work and ACT score relationships across high schools. Retrieved from http://74.200.198.244/research/researchers/reports/ pdf/ACT_RR2007-2.pdf. Office of Academic Affairs. (2012). University of Colorado pre-collegiate development program 2011-2012 annual report Retrieved from https://www.cu.edu/system_info/ docs/PCDP%20Rpt%202011-12.pdf Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.e) CU Upward Bound programs Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/cuub /index.html Office of Diversity Equity and Community Engagement [ODECE]. (n.d.d) Disability services Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/disabilityse rvices/studentinfo.html Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.). Engagement Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/engage ment/index.html Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.). Events Calendar Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/events cal.html Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (2004). CU Lead Alliance fact sheet Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/down loads/leadfactsheet.pdf

PAGE 297

283 Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (2012). News Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/newsletters/ ODE CE%20Oct% 202012%20Newsletter.pdf Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.c) Precollegiate development program Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/pcdp /index.html Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.b) Student success. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/studen t_success/index.html Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engageme nt [ODECE]. (n.d.a). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/odece/ Office of the Chancellor. (n.d.). Biography Retrieved from http://chancellor.colorado.edu/ biography Parker, L. (1998). “Race is . race ain’t”: An e xploration of the utility of critical race theory i n qualitative research in education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 43-55. Pena, F. (1981). Letter to Dr. Arnold Weber, President. Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Perna, L. (2000). Differences in the decision to at tend college among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (2), 117-141. Pinhel, R. (2008). Texas top 10% law. OLR research report. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0116.htm Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 539 (1896). Plessy v. Ferguson (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent Colleg e of Law. Retrieved from. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1895/1895 _210

PAGE 298

284 Pursley, G. B. (2003). Thinking diversity, rethinking race: Toward a trans formative concept of diversity in higher education. Texas Law Review, 82. Regents of the University of California v. Baake, 4 38 U. S. 265 (1978). Rossell, C. H. (1995). The convergence of Black and White attitudes on sch ool desegregation issues during the four decade evolution of the plan s. William and Mary Law Review, 36( 2), 613-661. Rubio, P. F. (2001). A history of affirmative action: 1619-2000. MS: University Press of Mississippi. Saenz, L. (2008). The status of minorities and women in ColoradoÂ’s Hi gher Education Institutions. Denver, CO: The Piton Foundation. Sedlacek, W. E. (1995). Improving racial and ethnic diversity and campus cl imate at four-year independent Midwest colleges. An evaluation report of the Lilly Endowment Grant. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/record Detail?accno=ED403321 Shull, H. (1982). Memorandum affirmative action report Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulder, CO. Smith. W. A., Philip G. Altbach, & Lomotey, K. (Eds .). (2002). The racial crisis in American education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-fir st century, Revised ed. New York, NY: State University of New York. SORCE. (n.d.). SORCE history Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/SORCE/hist ory.html Sterrett, W.M. (2005). Current issues involving aff irmative action and higher education. NACAC Journal, 22-28. Student Unit Record Data System (2009). Enrollment fall term 2007-2009. Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov

PAGE 299

285 Suthers, J. W. (2012, June 19). Formal opinion No. 12-04. State of Colorado Department of Law. Retrieved from http://www.coloradoattorneygene ral.gov/sites/ default/files/ag_opinions/2012/opinion_no_12_04.pdf Swail, W. S., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework for success. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1970). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, (No. 281) 431 F. 2d 138 (1971). Tarlton Guides. (n.d.). Hopwood v. Texas. Retrieved from http:tartltonguides.law.utexas.edu/ Hopwood_v_Texas Texas v. LeSage 528 U.S. 18 (1999). Texas v. LeSage (n.d.). The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_11 11 Tierney, W.G. (1996). Affirmative action in Califor nia: Looking back, looking forward in public academe. The Journal of Negro Education, 65 (2), 122-132. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1964). Tinto, V. (2003). Learning better together: The imp act of learning communities on student success Higher Education Monograph Series 2003-1, Higher Education Program, School of Education, Syracuse University. Tinto, V. (2011). Taking student success seriously in the college cla ssroom. Retrieved from http://www.league.org/publication/whitepapers/files /20110225.pdf Tompkins, V., Ed. (2000). Busing to achieve desegre gation. American Decade 8. Enotes.com. Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/1970-education -american-decades/

PAGE 300

286 Tosh, J. with Lang, S. (2006). The pursuit of history, 4th ed. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited. University of Colorado Boulder. (n.d.). Diversity Retrieved from www.colorado.edu/diversity University of Colorado Boulder. (n.d.). Faculty committees Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/FacultyGovernance/committee s/diversity.html University of Colorado Boulder. (n.d.). UMC Dennis Small Retrieved from http://umc.colorado.edu/studentlife/dennissmall University of Colorado Boulder. (2009). Summary of the recommendations of the 2030 task forces Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/flagship/ downloads/ summaryReport.pdf University of Colorado Boulder, Planning, Budget, a nd Analysis. (2006). 2006 climate survey Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/pba/ surveys /climate/06/ University of Colorado Boulder, Planning, Budget, a nd Analysis. (2010). 2010 climate survey Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/ climate/10/ University of Colorado Boulder Planning, Budget, an d Analysis (2012). Fall census headcounts by year, residency, and race/ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ pba/records/index.htm University of Colorado Boulder. (n.d.). PBA diversity plan progress Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/pba/ div/ divplanprogress.h tm United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Resident population and apportionment of the U.S. H ouse of Representatives Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resa pport/ states/colorado.pdf

PAGE 301

287 United States Census Bureau. (2013). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html Valverde, L. (2004). Equal education opportunity s ince Brown: Four major developments. Education and Urban Society, 36 (3), 368-378 Wade-Golden, K., & Matlock, J. (2007). Ten core ing redients for fostering campus diversity success The Diversity Factor 15 (1), 41-48. WestÂ’s Encyclopedia of American Law. (2005). The Ga le Group, Inc. Retrieved online from http://www.encyclopeia.com/topic/School_integration .aspx, November 25, 2012. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities The Review of Higher Education, 32 (1), 73-106. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0027 Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community Engagement and Boundary-Spanning Roles at Research Universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (6), 702-727. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2010.0011. Wilkinson, III. J. H. (1979). From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and school i ntegration: 1954-1978. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Williams, D. A. (2006). Beyond Diversity: Implement ing a dynamic and evolving diversity change project. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23 (14). Yetter, R. (1969). Educational opportunities programs, summary of prog rams PresidentÂ’s Office (Box 290, Folder 3 S.I, Civil Rights, 1957-( 1968-1970), p. 48). Archives University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Boulde r, CO. Zumeta, W. (2012). States and higher education: On their own in a stagnant economy. The NEA 2012 Almanac of Higher Education 27-37.

PAGE 302

288