Material Information

Counterstories uncovering history within the stories of faculty of color
Yamauchi, Elyse M
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xiv, 248 leaves : ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Education and Human Development, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Educational Leadership and Innovation
Committee Chair:
Shannon, Sheila M.
Committee Co-Chair:
Muth, Rodney
Committee Members:
Garrison-Wade, Dorothy
Maeda, Daryl


Subjects / Keywords:
Minority college teachers -- West (U.S.) ( lcsh )
Racism in higher education -- West (U.S.) ( lcsh )
Minority college teachers ( fast )
Racism in higher education ( fast )
United States, West ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 227-248).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elyse M. Yamauchi.

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:
677855156 ( OCLC )
LD1193.E3 2010d Y35 ( lcc )

Full Text
Elyse M. Yamauchi
B.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1974
M A., University of Colorado, Denver, CO, 1996
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
May, 2010

2010 by Elyse M. Yamauchi
All rights reserved.

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Elyse M. Yamauchi
has been approved
>aryi Maeda

Yamauchi, Elyse, M. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Counterstories: Uncovering the History within the Stories of Faculty of Color
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Sheila M. Shannon
Through counterstorytelling (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002b), the methodological
approach that is informed by critical race theory (CRT), an elegant platform and
enlightening lens allows for the amplification of the narratives of faculty of color in
predominantly White institutions of higher education (PWIs). Eight faculty of
color, four women and four men, who identify as Chicano/a, Native American,
Asian, and African American, were interviewed. They represented two institutions
of higher education in a western state. Five of the counterstorytellers were tenured
full professors, and the other three were non-tenured or tenure-track assistant
professors. Their counterstories challenge the dominant master narrative that argues
that in a post-racial and post-civil rights nation, issues of discrimination, racism,
oppression, and White privilege have essentially been neutralized. However, their
counterstories revealed painful historical experiences, legal decisions, and laws that
have profoundly impacted their lives and scholarly pursuits. Their counterstories
spoke to the racism that they have experienced where racism may not have been
apparent to their White counterparts. From the powerful counterstories, the faculty
of color revealed their perspectives and lived experiences of existing in divergent
cultural worlds (Sadao, 2003), the cultures of their ethnic world and of the
university. Their counterstories further reveal that faculty of color not only live in
the borderlands between cultures, but often they face a separate reality in terms of
mentoring, tenure, white privilege, and institutional racism. Finally, master
narratives have an extensive and overarching historical and systemic impact upon
their experiences at multiple levels.
This abstract accurately represents the content i
recommend its publication.

(Sheila M. Shannon)

With deep reverence, I dedicate this dissertation to my family, especially:
To my mother, Ruth Honda Yamauchi, my inspiration;
To my Issei grandparents, Tomi and Yuzo Honda, the first generation
Americans in my family, and my first counterstorytellers;
To my late father, Hiroshi Yamauchi, for his desire to prove himself to a
country that did not believe in him, and to his parents, who I never knew;
To my son, Yuzo Nieto, who has been an endless source of love, and to his
wife and my new daughter, Simone Groene-Sackett.

My special thanks and appreciation to Sheila M. Shannon for persevering with me
as my advisor, mentor, and friend throughout the time it took me to complete the
research and write this dissertation. In her critical theory class and her doctoral lab
for diversity and equity, in particular, I learned how to be a critical race scholar.
The members of my dissertation committee, Dorothy Garrison-Wade, Rodney
Muth, and Daryl Maeda, have generously given their time, leadership, and
expertise to better my work. I thank them for their contribution and their support.
I am grateful to the eight counterstorytellers who openly and generously shared
their memories and experiences.
I acknowledge my friends in lab, my fellow doctoral students of color, and other
colleagues, students, administrators, and professors who assisted, advised, and
supported my research and writing efforts over the years. Finally, I wish to express
my sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to Khushnur Dadabhoy, Paula Gallegos,
Traci Shimmel, and Ya-Wen Chang, whose assistance, proof-reading, feedback,
support, guidance, information sharing, and friendship were invaluable, and most
importantly, they were there for me when 1 needed to have fun, commiserate, break
bread, and relax.

AND RATIONALE....................................................1
Introduction of the Topic.....................................4
Faculty of Color...............................................7
Establishment of Critical Race Theory as the Conceptual
Five Elements of CRT..........................................10
Storytelling, Counterstorytelling, and
Narrative Analysis............................................11
Perspectives of Faculty of Color........................... 12
Brief.Description of the PWIs in the Study....................15
Urban University.......................................... 16
Urban College........................................... 16
Brief Profiles of the Counterstorytellers.....................16
Anna...................................................... 17
Marcos.................................................. 19

The Politics of Racial Exclusion and Identity...:...........22
Significance of Ending the Silence..........................23
LENS OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY......................................28
Historical Underpinnings of CRT..............................29
Interest convergence.......................................31
Racial ideology............................................31
Critique of liberalism.....................................32
Five Tenets of CRT in Education.............................33
Interest Convergence and Education...........................33
The Master Narrative and Majoritarian Mindset.............. 35
The Foundations of Institutionalized Racism..................36
The Impact of Racist Legislation and Court Decisions.........38
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856).............................. 39
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)................................. 39
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Asian barred zone.......39
Indian Schooling and the Legacies of Removal and Relocation.....40
The Indian Removal Act (1830)..............................40

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934............,...41
Indian Boarding Schools....................................41
Discussion of School Desegregation............................43
Loopholes and reversals....................................44
Keyes Decision.............................................45
Affirmative Action............................................46
Historiography and Hi[gh]stories..............................51
3. LITERATURE REVIEW OF FACULTY OF COLOR............................54
Master Narrative and Counterstories...........................54
Institutionalized Racism, Disconnection, and Separate Realities in
PWIs........................................................ 58
Internalized Racism........................................ 61
Fitting In: Assimilation and Biculturalism.................. 62
Institutional Climate....................................... 65
Retention.................................................... 66
Tenure and Promotion....................................... 67
Research and Publication.................................. 68
Teaching and Service..........................................73
Mentoring................................................ 73
Limited Research about Faculty of Color in PWIs...............77

4. METHODOLOGY...................................................79
Critical Race Methodology...................................80
Counterstorytelling as Method...............................83
Counterstories Reveal History............................. 85
Design and Rationale of the Study..........................86
Selection, Recruitment and Size of Sample................. 87
Data Collection and Interviews..............................92
Data Analysis of Narratives and Emergence of Themes.........95
Data Management.............................................97
Role of the Researcher.................................... 98
Ethical, moral, and personal issues and concerns..........99
Posi tion of researcher..................................100
Achieving authenticity................................. 101
Limitations of Study.......................................103
Interpretation of data...................................104
Trust................................................. 104
Sampling concerns and issues.............................105
Overview of the Findings and Concluding Remarks............106
5. THE WOMEN TELL THEIR COUNTERSTORIES...........................108
Anns Counterstory.........................................110
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 110

Surviving and finding sanctuary in the professoriate.........112
Heartbreak and institutionalized racism......................112
Self-doubts as a woman of color...............................114
Creating a quilt............................................. 115
Describing the revolving door and ageism......................115
Mentoring, research, and teaching.............................116
Mid-level limbo...............................................117
Tenure and promotion demands..................................118
Annas Counterstory..............................................118
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 120
Self-doubts of a woman student of color.......................120
Student challenges and lack of administrative support.........122
Challenges from colleagues................................... 124
Mixed feelings for the future............................... 125
Institutionalized racism and White privilege..................126
A mixed bag of support....................................... 127
Creating ghettos............................................129
Maintaining the ethnic and feminist perspective...............130
Hillarys Counterstory.......................................... 130

Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 130
Choosing social sciences over interdisciplinary studies......132
Distinguishing the sharks from the fishes....................134
Positive and supportive institutional response...............136
Learning from the experiences of colleagues of color.........136
Maintaining and balancing ethnic and feminist perspectives...137
Shizues Counterstory............................................138
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 138
Discrimination and affirmative action.........................140
Experiences in PWIs and historically Black institutions......141
. Internalized racism ........................................ 141
Sexual harassment and discrimination..........................142
Tenure challenges.............................................143
Lessons to be learned.........................................146
6. THE MEN TELL THEIR COUNTERSTORIES....................................147
Marcos Counterstory.............................................148
Importance of family........................................ 148
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 149
Mixed bag of hypocrisy and love in the professoriate.........150
Love, hope and sustenance from students.......................151
Networks, allies, tenure, and institutional racism............152

The lifelong ethnographic study of White people..............156
Retaining faculty of color...................................156
Lack of institutional awareness and understanding.............157
Marcus Counterstory........................................ 159
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 159
. Isolation in PWIs.............................................161
Tenure and retention..........................................162
Cultural understanding and misunderstanding...................165
Assimilation and the potential to make a difference...........166
Diversity awareness, allies, and mentors......................166
Advice and lessons learned....................................168
Marks Counterstory........................................... 169
Graduate school and the inspiration to enter the professoriate... 170
Experiences in the professoriate............................ 172
Aftermath of 9-11, leadership, and survival...................173
Department chair..'...........................................173
Surviving and thriving in PWIs.............................. 174
Focus on students.............................................175

Balancing tenure while standing on principles..............175
Demystifying assumptions and getting ahead..................177
Reggies Counterstory....................................... 178
Graduate school: A mixed bag............................... 178
A tale of two institutions..................................179
Inadequate mentoring and the howling coyote.................182
Differential treatment......................................185
Advice and lessons learned..................................189
AND CONCLUSION.......................................................191
Faculty of Color in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher
Education................................................... 192
Topics Emanating from the Counterstories of Faculty of Color.... 192
Graduate School Experiences...................................194
The Master Narrative of Graduate School Experiences...........195
Climate Issues in PWIs........................................196
The Master Narrative of Climate Issues in PWIs................199
Hiring, Retention, and Promotion and Tenure Issues............200
Hiring and retention........................................201
The master narrative of hiring and retention................201
Promotion and tenure........................................ 202
The master narrative of promotion and tenure................ 203

The master narrative of mentoring......................208
Research and publication...............................209
The master narrative of research and publication.... 211
Teaching and service......................... ........212
The master narrative of teaching and service......213
Historical and Personal Accounts.........................214
The Master Narrative of Historical and Personal Accounts.215
Summary of Findings......................................216
Implications and Final Thoughts..........................220
A. E-MAIL SCRIPT............................................. 224
B. INFORMED CONSENT............................................225
C. Interview Script............................................226
REFERENCES ........................................................ 227

Chapter 1: Introduction to Topic, Conceptual Framework, and Rationale
All the hatred aimed at President Obama these days didn't make much sense
to a fourth-grader in New Orleans [on October 15, 2009], but it does to
Obama. Taking a question from a crowd-pleasing grade-schooler named
Terrence Scott, Obama told him it just comes with the job of being
President. I have to say, why people hate you and, and why, they supposed
to love you and God is love, the boy said to some laughter from the
crowd. Well, now, first of all, I did get elected President, so not everybody
hates me, Obama said, getting his own laughs. But Obama took him
seriously. (McAuliff, 2009)
Barack Obama was the first person of color to be elected President of the
United States. His significant and historical election to office was the culmination
of decades of civil rights activism, but it merely indicated the need to continue to
work toward greater racial and ethnic equality in this country. Following centuries
of struggle and oppression experienced by Black Americans, many whose ancestors
were brought to this country and forced into slavery, the significance of the election
of Barack Obama resonates for me as a person of color because of the struggles, the
racism, and the discrimination my Japanese American family faced when they
arrived in this country in the early 20th century, but especially in the 1940s when
they were forced into relocation camps during World War II.
While stunning, President Obamas election does not signify an end to
racism. He still faces hatred and opposition because of his color. However,
embedded within his and every persons story is a connection to the history

surrounding and influencing it. In President Obamas story there is the history of
the civil rights struggles, racism, and politics, but more significantly the election of
a biracial man to the highest office.
As a young girl, the idea of becoming the president or even a college
professor would not have entered my mind. I did not know any college professors
nor do I remember many roles on television or in movies that featured college
professors in the 1950s, especially Asian American professors. However, like many
of my peers, I thought about becoming an elementary school teacher or a movie
actress. I did know a paltry few school teachers of color, but most of the movie
actresses I aspired to emulate did not look like me. I remember seeing Asian
American actresses such as Nancy Kwan and Miyoshi Umeki in the Chinese
American flavored musical film, Flower Drum Song (Hunter & Koster, 1961), but I
was not able to identify with them because I identified more with White actresses,
like Sandra Dee and Debbie Reynolds, who were much more popular and well-
In the 1950s and 1960s, the exclusive club of the most highly desirable
American pop culture icons did not include actresses and other performers of color,
especially Asian American ones. Likewise, the role models who were teachers,
professors, and leaders in my world were predominantly White. However, because
I did not feel that I exemplified beauty, as defined by the 1950s American media,

teaching was a more realistic choice for a profession. As a result, aspiring to be
anything higher than a school teacher was not a viable option for me at the time. In
fact, Ann,1 one of the faculty of color I interviewed, initially planned to be a school
teacher. Not only was the goal of being a professor not on her radar screen, she
said, I never saw myself as being a great scholar, an important scholar.1 2 Many of
the other faculty of color who were interviewed did not initially start their careers
on the path to tenure.
In 2001,1 embarked on the doctoral path to earn the coveted PhD
specifically in order to enter the professoriate. After I worked in higher education in
the capacity of college administrator for over twenty years, I began to realize that I
wanted to move into the professoriate. Pursuant to obtaining my masters degree, I
taught my first sociology course on race, gender and ethnicity as an adjunct faculty
while maintaining my full-time administrative position. The following year, I was
asked to teach a course in Asian American studies. The light went on and the fire
was ignited for me. I knew that I wanted to teach about marginalized populations
with a particular focus on Asian Americans, and especially on Japanese Americans,
a group whose history has been given token acknowledgement in the educational
system at best. Through my experiences as an administrator and faculty member in
1 This name and all names other than those of public figures are pseudonyms.
2 As part of the data collection process, the quoted information from the personal interviews
occurred from August 15 September 2, 2008.

higher education, I became aware of the racial and ethnic disparities at all levels of
higher education, but especially in the professoriate.
One of the challenges for me in the doctoral courses I took was the limited
exposure I had to the research and writing of scholars of color. Throughout my
overall experience in higher education, I do not believe that the faculty and
administrators I have encountered are overtly racist. However, I believe an
underlying hegemonic core of often well meaning White privilege exists in higher
education that attempts to marginally include, but for the most part overlooks,
erases, ignores, or avoids the discourse on race and ethnicity. Perhaps it is out of
fear or disinterest or discomfort or lack of in-depth knowledge about these hot
issues, but I was compelled and called to explore this problem in more depth.
Introduction of the Topic
The path to the professoriate begins in the doctoral program, a path that is
often arduous and challenging. Arriving at the initial destination of a tenure track
faculty position is even more difficult to achieve and often more elusive than the
doctorate. Once on the tenure track, the path often becomes even more challenging
to navigate. Although doctoral students in general successfully complete their
programs and become PhDs, nearly half drop out completely or remain in the all
but dissertation (ABD) limbo. Findings from the Council of Graduate Schools
(CGS) show that the overall completion rate of all cohorts earning their doctorate

by the tenth year is about 57% (Sowell & Zhang, 2007). Even more notably, the
number of students of color who received doctoral degrees in 2004, for example,
was 20% (Hoffer et al., 2005).
The civil rights movement and affirmative action programs opened doors
for greater numbers of people of color to gain access to higher education at all
levels, but just a quarter of a century ago, the ivory towers were not accessible to
them. Yet in spite of significant gains, about 83% of faculty in the 21st century are
White (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008).
I assert that the successful retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty of
color could translate into greater benefits for individual faculty members and the
university community as a whole when the ivory tower truly becomes accessible
and open to alternative ways of knowing. Rather than perpetuating the same system
of White patriarchal power, the academy has an obligation to consider the
epistemic inequality (Gustafson, 2009) that has listens to but does not act upon the
knowledge of marginalized populations. The important contributions that scholars
of color can make to the academy as a generation with new and different
perspectives can potentially influence and improve policies and practices for the
greater good of society. Because faculty of color can add a unique and diverse
knowledge base, they can provide valuable input into policy considerations at the
university level, as well as in their communities. More importantly, their

contributions at the decision-making level will prove invaluable to the academic
community for generations to come.
Although I have encountered support for and understanding of issues
concerning race and ethnicity in the academy, I have also sensed resistance on the
part of some faculty and students to really roll up their sleeves, dig deeply, and
have honest and meaningful conversations and conduct research about topics such
as racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. After all, I have had to accept some
version of White male patriarchal supremacy (hooks, 1994) throughout my life, in
my social sphere, in my education, in my career, and in U.S. history. Often I
wonder why it is difficult for many Whites to move beyond merely scratching the
surface. I have learned to assimilate and acculturate into a variety of academic and
business cultures, but I am tired of giving up so much of who I am in order to be
successful. At this juncture, I strongly believe that the time has come for the
dominant culture to create new spaces for me, to look at me, and see me, and hear
me. Where else could that take place but in the halls of the academy?
The primary foci of this dissertation were two-fold. First, I sought to
uncover the ways by which faculty of color have figured out how to succeed in
predominantly White institutions of higher education (PWIs). Second and more
importantly, I widened my focus to include the ways in which these institutions
have responded to faculty of color. This second focus examined how effective these

institutions have been in including faculty of color into their organizational
structures. In other words, an understanding of how tenured and tenure-track
faculty members of color describe their experiences in terms of successfully
negotiating a predominantly White professoriate is important to elucidate. In
addition, I believe that clarification is needed to discover the extent to which
faculty of color have been retained by their institutions.
Faculty of Color
Included in the population I refer to as faculty who are classified as people
of color are Native Americans/American Indians and Native Alaskans; Asian
Americans; Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders; Chicanos/as/Hispanics/Latino/as;
and African Americans/Blacks. People of color collectively comprise
approximately 20% to 25% of the population in the United States (Stanley, 2006a).
Two urban public institutions of higher education in a western state provide the
focus of my research. According to 2000 census data for the state, people of
color3 4 make up approximately 26.4% of the state in this study. The breakdown of
the populations of color in the state consist of 4.4% Blacks; 1.9% American Indians
3 The states department of education has identified 13 public four-year institutions in the state and
one medical school. The two institutions that were chosen have each reported an in-state
undergraduate enrollment of over 10,000 students in 2006.
4 Although not included above, I recognize persons reporting two or more races (2.8% of the
population), are a growing and important group, as well as 8.6% who are foreign bom, such as
professors from foreign countries who recently immigrated, as part of the group of faculty of color.

and Native Alaskans; 2.8% Asians; 0.2% Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific
Islanders; and 17.1% Hispanics/Latinos (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
In the United States, dramatic population changes are occurring (Zhou,
2007). Sociologists, for example, have predicted that in the US, the Asian
population will change from 9 million in 1995 to 34 million in 2050, comprising
8% of the total population, while during the same years, the Hispanic population
will grow from 27 million to 95 million, or 25% of the total population (Smith &
Edmonston, 1997). As the population of color in the United States is currently
approaching 25% to 30% (Stanley, 2006a), it is expected to increase exponentially
by the year 2050. Yet, faculty of color remain an underrepresented population,
comprising 17% of the population in universities and colleges (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2008).
As an example of the disparities regarding the representative numbers of
faculty of color, Blacks comprise about 13% of the 2000 U.S. population (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000b), but they occupy only about 4.7% of full-time faculty
positions in PWIs (Wilson, 2002). While the research focusing on the
marginalization experienced by African American faculty and graduate students in
PWIs is the most extensive (Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005), an understanding of the
challenges that African Americans experience in higher education can be useful for
understanding issues affecting all faculty of color (Stanley, 2006b).

Clearly, further study and research is warranted in order to gain a better
understanding of how institutions of higher education can respond to create more
successful sites for the retention and recruitment of all faculty of color (Blackburn,
Wenzel, & Bieber, 1994; Stanley, 2006a). Therefore, I dared to propose that my
research will add to the existing but limited research on the broad spectrum of
people of color by providing a forum for their voices and perspectives.
Establishment of Critical Race Theory as the Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that informs this dissertation is built upon a
critical race perspective. Critical Race Theory (CRT) draws upon a vast scholastic
research and literature base that encompasses law, education, social sciences,
humanities, and ethnic and womens studies (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002a, p. 156),
providing the lens through which the impact of racism in higher education can be
critically, equitably, and thoroughly examined. As will be explicated in the next
chapter, the underpinnings of CRT emanate from legal scholars. Encompassing the
larger social and historical contexts of institutional racism, CRT in an educational
context provides a portal through which a deeper examination and understanding
into how faculty of color persist in, adapt to, resist, and are challenged by the
normative and dominant institutional culture of PWIs. The CRT methodology of
counterstorytelling (Delgado, 2000) provides the appropriate platform for people of
color to share their experiences.

Five Elements of CRT
In their conceptualization, Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, and Crenshaw
(1993) identified five elements developed from critical legal theory that align with
the primary principles of CRT:
Critical race theory recognizes that racism is endemic to American
life. Thus, the question for us is not so much whether or how racial
discrimination can be eliminated while maintaining the integrity of
other interests implicated in the status quo such as federalism,
privacy, traditional values, or established property interests. Instead
we ask how these traditional interests and values serve as vessels of
racial subordination.
Critical race theory expresses skepticism toward dominant legal
claims of neutrality, objectivity, color blindness, and meritocracy.
Critical race theory challenges insist on a contextual and historical
analysis of the law in order to better appreciate the law.
Critical race theory insists on recognition of the experiential
knowledge of people of color and our communities of origin in
analyzing law and society.
Critical race theory works toward the end of eliminating racial
oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of
oppression (p. 6)
Recognizing that racism is a normal aspect of daily life in U.S. society, CRT
provides an important lens through which to understand the counterstories of
faculty of color as they share their experiences in negotiating through PWIs.
Because the assumptions of White superiority are so entrenched in political, legal,
and educational structures, they are almost unrecognizable (Delgado, 1995).

Despite the pervasive impact of racism, standard textbooks in the social sciences
provide little or no attention to this form of oppression. Critical race theorists argue
that this omission is not accidental.
Storytelling, Counterstorytelling, and Narrative
Counterstories challenge the majoritarian stories. They shatter myths and
resist complacency. Thus the cure for the dominant group or majoritarian mindset
that maintains their positionality over people of color is counterstorytelling
(Delgado, 2000):
Stories, parables, chronicles, and narratives are powerful means for
destroying mindsetthe bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and
shared understandings against a background of which legal and political
discourse takes place. They are nearly invisible; we use them to scan and
interpret the world and only rarely examine them for themselves.
Ideologythe received wisdommakes current social arrangements fair
and natural. Those in power sleep well at nighttheir conduct does not
seem to them like oppression, (p. 61)
By working from the notion that culture has an enormous bearing and
influence on reality, CRT sets forth to destroy majoritarian mindsets by
constructing an alternate social reality through counterstories. Counterstories
provide an important method to analyze and challenge the oppressive myths and
presuppositions that are endemic to the culture of the status quo. Instead of
acquiescing in arrangements that are unfair and one-sided (Delgado, 2000, p.
xvii), critical race theorists fight for a platform to seek fairness through the
presentation of their counterstories.

CRT uses narrative or what it calls racial reality to bring the unique
experiences of people of color to light. Williams (1991) explains that CRT provides
the avenue for understanding the perspectives of people of color because it
recognizes that the simple matter of the color of ones skin so profoundly affects
the way one is treated, so radically shapes what one is allowed to think and feel
about this society, that the decision to generalize from this division is valid (p.
256). Building on the CRT method of storytelling with its roots in law, humanities,
and social sciences, Delgado (1989) employs the method of counterstorytelling to
relate the unheard and untold stories and experiences of marginalized populations,
and demonstrates how the same event can be retold differently, and that
oppositional storytelling can alter how we construct... reality (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2000, p. 41).
Perspectives of Faculty of Color
Stories told by people of color arise from a position that challenges the
dominant culture. Delgado (2000) clearly contends that their marginalized voices
urge the audience to hear their counterstories:
The story invites the reader to alienate himself or herself, from the events
described, to enter into the mental set of the teller, whose view is different
from the readers own. The oppositional nature of the story, the manner in
which it challenges and rebuffs the stock story, thus causes him or her to
oscillate between poles. It is insinuative: At times the reader is seduced by

the story and its logical coherenceit is a plausible counterview of what
happened; it has a degree of explanatory power, (p. 69)
Delgado argues that persons of color speak from an experience that is framed by
racism. He further asserts that the counterstories told by people of color have their
own reality that can cause others to feel defensive, uncertain, and doubtful about
the veracity of the stories. But, their stories must be heard.
Critical race theorists and scholars understand the essential strategies that
empower faculty of color who articulate their experiences in the academy (Bloom,
1998; Collins, 1990; Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005; hooks, 1994; Stanley, 2006a,
2006b). Through critical analysis, self-actualization and liberation, the necessary
means are provided by which educators can develop important strategies for
survival and resistance (hooks, 1994, p. 118) that can be shared among all
communities of color. Through the liberation supported by personal narrative and
storytelling, and the theoretical underpinnings of CRT, a framework of
empowerment is offered to faculty of color as they share their personal experiences,
perspectives, and perceptions of academic life (Stanley, 2006a). Because they are
the experts of their own experiences, I use the counterstorytelling methodology that
critical race theorists have been advocating to inject the voices of faculty of color
into the mainstream discourse on higher education:
Critical race theory dreams in Black and White. No rhapsody of color, only
charred history and pale hope. Yet the dreams stamp hard, inspiring a
jurisprudential movement of diverse scholars and earning an uneasy place
in the postwar scholarship of the American legal academy. Having waged

both theoretical and practical battles to gain that place, critical race theorists
are loath to surrender it, a tribute of remembrance to the barbaric century
of their shared racial oppression. Nor should they yield. Without the pain of
memory, there is no struggle. And without struggle, there is no progress.
(Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995, p. xxxii)
Collecting the voices and perspectives of faculty of color on the tenure track
was very personal for me, as I hope to enter the professoriate as a tenure track
faculty of color. The experiences of faculty of color on the tenure track generally
began in their doctoral programs. I was particularly interested in gaining their
perspectives concerning what contributed to their ability to earn tenure, if
applicable, including their doctoral and institutional preparation and support. More
importantly, I have sought to demonstrate a better understanding of the conditions
that contribute to their success.
By eliciting personal narratives through counterstories, I examined how the
faculty interviewees of color navigated the PWIs in which they work. CRT
demands that researchers who follow this methodology share the counterstories of
people of color. No longer silenced, misinterpreted, erased, or overlooked, the
articulated narratives of faculty of color can become relevant and understood for
their authenticity. After collecting the counterstories from the faculty of color, I
clearly understood that CRT is paramount to our understanding of individual,
institutional, and societal racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia (Stanley,
2006a, p. 708).

Because CRT demands that the narratives of people of color are proactively
presented in order to provide a crucial framework for empowerment, their voices
are no longer silenced (Crenshaw, et al., 1995; Delgado, 1995). By challenging the
experiences of Whites as the normative standard and grounding] its conceptual
framework in the distinctive experiences of people of color (Taylor, 1998, p.122),
CRT provides an avenue for bringing authentic meaning to the experiences of
people of color through narrative.
From their powerful counterstories, the divergent experiences of faculty of
color reveal diverse perspectives regarding their experiences in existing as
bicultural faculty (Sadao, 2003) in two cultural worlds, the cultures of their ethnic
world and of the university. Their counterstories further reveal that faculty of color
not only live and work in this borderland (Anzaldua, 1987) between cultures, but
often they face a separate reality in terms of scholarship, tenure, rank, and
department assignments.
In the next section, after I describe their institutions, I will briefly introduce
the faculty of color. Their intriguing counterstories will be told in greater detail in
Chapters Five and Six.
Brief Description of the PWIs in the Study
All of the counterstorytellers have taught courses in ethnic, racial,
interdisciplinary, or diversity issues or studies, often representing their respective
racial and ethnic groups in addition to courses in their disciplines. While they have

some similarities, they are very different from each other and represent a wide
range of experiences. The eight faculty of color equally represented two PWIs
located in a western state which I call Urban University and Urban College,
respectively, to protect their identities.
Urban University. Urban University is a research institution offering both
graduate and undergraduate degrees. In 2008, 29% of undergraduate students and
13% graduate students were classified as people of color (Student Enrollment
Report: Headcount by Tuition Classification, 2008), while 12% of tenured and
tenure track faculty members were classified as people of color (Faculty Diversity
Profile All Schools and Colleges, Fall 2008, 2008).
Urban College. Urban College is four-year undergraduate institution
offering baccalaureate degrees. In the 2008-2009 Academic Year, 32% of the
students were students of color, while 22% of tenured and tenure track faculty
members were classified as people of color (State of Diversity 2009).
Brief Profiles of the Counterstorytellers
The faculty of color I interviewed chose their own pseudonyms: Ann,
Anna, Hillary, Shizue, Marcos, Marcus, Mark, and Reggie.5 I divided the
counterstories of the women and men into two chapters, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6,
respectively. This was done for several reasons. First, while three of the four
3 In the spirit of CRT, my decision was to refrain from asking the interviewees who selected similar
pseudonyms to change their chosen names because I felt it would be contradictory.

women are unmarried, all of the men are married. Second, the women presented
issues relative to their gender, such as raising children as a single parent, sexual
harassment, sexual abuse, and gender discrimination.
Ann. Ann identifies as American Indian. Poised and dignified, Ann is a full
professor with tenure. Ann exudes a quiet strength. She has served as the chair of
her department, and came to Urban University five years ago as a full professor, a
rank that she achieved from her previous institution several years earlier. In total,
Ann has been a full professor for ten years.
Initially, Ann planned to be a school teacher, but her exposure as an
undergraduate to graduate students inspired her to go further. Because she had
always been a good student, she figured she could get her PhD, even when she
became a single parent with two young sons. Besides, her ex-husband had his
masters degree and she figured that if he could do it, so could she. Ann is the only
female counterstoryteller who mentioned having children. As a graduate student in
the 1980s, Ann sensed a bias in favor of more traditional students. Through
perseverance and persistence, she quickly knew she had to establish herself in her
first year of grad school, and was one of the best students in her class.
Anna. Anna identifies as Navajo. Tenured since 1998 at Urban College, she
became a full professor in 2005. Widowed after only a few months of marriage
when she was an undergraduate, she was inspired to teach at the college level

because her husband was a professor. Although she did not have children, she was
a non-traditional student. Working as an artist, she managed art galleries and health
clubs before she pursued her PhD.
Of all the participants, Annas story, particularly her childhood, was the
most compelling, intriguing, and heartbreaking. Anna, outspoken and assertive, is a
fighter. She has had to battle and fend for herself from childhood and at Urban
College. Because of the political nature of her classes that focus on Native
Americans, she has had students who have challenged and disrupted her
classrooms. On several occasions, Anna has had to fight the college administration
when she felt that they were not supporting her.
Hillary. Hillary identifies as a Chicana. She is in her 19th year as a tenured
professor at Urban College. On the fast track, Hillary achieved early tenure at the
beginning of her fourth year, when most of her contemporaries were getting tenure
in five years. Currently, it takes six years. She became a full professor about eight
years ago. Hillarys road to the professoriate was also non-traditional in that she
worked for her mothers business and for the federal government after she
completed both her PhD and a two-year post-doctorate while working for the
federal government at a west coast university. Hillary is the only female
counterstoryteller who is currently married.

Shizue. Shizue, the only faculty of mixed race ethnicity, identifies as either
Asian-African or African-Asian American. Beginning in the late 1970s, she has
been in the professoriate off and on for over twenty years, doing a seven-year stint
for the federal government in between teaching positions. She has been on the
tenure track at Urban College for over two years. Recently she moved from the art
department to an interdisciplinary studies department. For Shizue, classes about
ethnic and racial groups appeal to her because they are more inclusive. Similar to
the other counterstorytellers, Shizue did not initially plan a faculty career, but came
into a career in higher education by default, as she had wanted to be an artist. Much
like the other counterstorytellers, she was encouraged to enter a doctoral program
when she was completing her masters degree.
While the faculty members in her graduate program were very supportive,
Shizue has encountered both racism and sexism during her academic career. When
she was brought into a southern university as a faculty of color to counter
discrimination, she was labeled as an affirmative action baby, which she likens to a
tar baby. Shizue is not currently married nor did she indicate that she children.
Marcos. Marcos identifies as a Chicano. Telling me that he feels he is on
the outside of the tenure track, Marcos shares that he is a junior faculty on the
tenure track at Urban University. What inspired him to be a professor was his
experience in the high school classroom. Even though he was a high school dropout

on the vocational education track, an advanced placement teacher in high school
demonstrated a command of words and ideas that planted the seeds for him to
pursue his education.
Marcos, a father, is very close to his wife and child. He spoke briefly about
his own tough childhood. Desegregation occurred during elementary school when
the Keyes case (Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1, 1973) was decided. Marcos
shares that children gravitate toward him. He said, When I was on the playground
with my little girl when she was younger they would gravitate toward me to push
them [on the swings]. It was cool. Im seen more in the ways I want to be seen with
children. As a professor, Marcos has established a good rapport with his students.
His focus on supporting and establishing positive, equitable relationships with his
students is very important to him. Often he receives positive feedback from his
students through their gestures and written comments.
Marcus. Marcus identifies as Asian. He was bom overseas. Although very
different ethnically and culturally, Marcus and Marcos share some common
experiences and perspectives. Like Marcos, he is also a junior faculty on the tenure
track. They both arrived at Urban University around the same time and although
highly qualified, they consider themselves to be part of the push by the university
when they were hired to increase faculty diversity. As will be discussed later, some
of the other counterstorytellers have also shared experiences with regard to pushes

to increase diversity in higher education. Marcus, like Marcos, said that he enjoyed
making the transition from graduate school to the tenure track. Both men not only
have a strong connection to their students, but are very committed to their families.
However, Marcus does not have children at this time.
Mark. Tenured for over ten years at Urban University, Mark identifies as
African American. He is among the more seasoned counterstorytellers. Like Ann,
Mark has also served as department chair, but the chair position was not the initial
goal for either of them. Mark is versatile and like some of the other
counterstorytellers, Mark has taught in several academic disciplines. In addition to
African American studies courses, he has taught classes in the areas of
communications, performing arts, and design and planning. Marks previous
administrative experiences involving running a college within a larger institution
made him an excellent candidate for department chair at his current university:
I didnt come here to end up as chair. One of the things the former chair
understood [was] that he was hiring a man who not only had a research and
creative agenda, but also could manage things if needed. This was not on
my radar. It opened up in that kind of way. It has given me opportunities.
As in the case of the other faculty interviewees who have been in higher education
for some time, Mark did not initially plan to go into a doctoral program, but while
working on his masters degree, he was encouraged by his professors to consider a
doctorate. After weighing the possibilities, he realized that he would be interested

in becoming a professor. As a result, Mark began a doctoral program, where he
taught African American studies classes.
Reggie. Reggie identifies as Black. Also a seasoned counterstoryteller, he
has been teaching since the late 1970s. During this period, he was on the tenure
track, but he dropped out and then returned in 1989. In 2000, he was granted tenure
at Urban College and became a full professor in 2002. After he earned his PhD, he
planned to become a psychologist, but through a circuitous route, he ended up
teaching in the business school. Like Anna, Reggie has experienced much adversity
in PWIs, but his challenges have occurred for him both as a student and as a faculty
member. Reggie has been an activist and fought with the administration around
race and equity issues. Of all the counterstorytellers, Reggie shared the most
numerous overt incidents of institutional racism. Reggie is currently married and is
a father.
The Politics of Racial Exclusion and Identity
Critical race theorists and scholars focus on racial identity and the socially
constructed meaning of race through organic, empirical, and lived evidence of
exclusion and erasure. They discuss the marginalization, silencing, and language of
exclusion throughout law, culture, education, and society. For example, Shannon
and Escamilla (1999) point to the issue of symbolic violence perpetrated on
Mexican immigrants regarding the education of their children and erasure of their

language and culture. They argue that immigrants, particularly Mexicans in the
southwest, continue to be viewed as inferior and threatening. Moreover, immigrant
children have not been allowed to maintain their language and cultural rights in
schools. The reality of the immigration experience in the United States runs
contrary to the folk wisdom that the United States has historically welcomed
immigrants (p. 350).
Delgado (2002) considers the psychological and sociological harm of racial
exclusion and insult. He argues, The racial insult remains one of the most
pervasive channels through which discriminatory attitudes are imparted (p. 131).
He also contends that the dominant systems of legal classification silences people
of color, especially in the political arena, and allows racially motivated myths to
flourish. As some of the faculty of color shared in their counterstories, racial insults
were harmful. In explaining the impact of racism in his institution Reggie simply
stated, Black people have been dwindling here.
Significance of Ending the Silence
A significant initial step for this study is to continue to open the forum and
the work toward ending the silence for faculty of color in PWIs. Referring to a
growing conspiracy of silence around the experiences of faculty of color teaching
in PWIs, Stanley (2006a) explains that their silenced state is a burdensome cycle
that is rarely broken (p. 701). From their stories and experiences, I believe that if
institutions of higher education paid heed, they could develop recruitment and

retention strategies that will be effective in creating greater diversity. In Chapters 5
and 6, their counterstories speak of the need for more effective mentoring and
cultural sensitivity, for example, to help faculty of color thrive. As hooks (1989)
says, Moving from silence into speech is for the oppressed, the colonized, the
exploited ... a gesture of defiance that heals, that makes new life and new growth
possible (p. 9).
When White allies remain silent, they are afraid to speak truth to power or
stand up for faculty of color when they observe behaviors that are racist, sexist,
xenophobic, or homophobic (Stanley, 2006a, p. 702). One explanation for this
silence is that there is a cost for speaking up in their defense (Feagin, 2004). But
when Whites do break the silence, social justice can occur. On the other hand,
when the faculty of color share their stories, they may do so at potential peril:
It has tremendous impact because the dynamics of power, positionality, and
authority are attributes that can only serve to deepen dialogues and
influence policy and decision making on diversity and social justice in our
colleges and universities. Conversely, when members of the targeted group
speak up, the cost for us is enormous because these same dynamics are not
yet equitable. We become at risk for a number of reasons, but a reason that
often undergirds the silence is the lack of a critical mass of faculty of color
in higher education. (Stanley, 2006a, p. 702)
As the studies about faculty of color gain momentum, this study can
contribute to the existing body of research by providing a forum for additional
voices of faculty of color representing diversity in terms of ethnic and racial
groups, age, gender, marital and family status, geographic location, institution, and

tenure status. A limited but growing number of publications have emerged during
the last two decades that examine the experiences of faculty of color in PWIs
regarding issues of academic culture, climate, inclusion, recruitment, research,
retention, persistence, and tenure, for example (Aguirre, 2000; Alfred, 2001;
Banks, 1984; Bowie, 1995; Essien, 2003; Fenelon, 2003; Harvey, 1994;
Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009; Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Stanley, Porter,
Simpson, & Ouellett, 2003; Stanley, 2006a, 2006b; Stein, 1996; Thomas &
Hollenshead, 2001; Turner, 2003).
While the growing interest in research on faculty of color is encouraging, it
is but the tip of the iceberg. Clarifying the need for continuing research in this area
nearly two decades ago Blackburn, et al. (1994) noted, higher education
institutions, as well as national research centers, need to focus on the experiences of
faculty of color if we hope to understand the work environments needed to support
creative talents (p. 280). Furthermore, the percentage of faculty of color in PWIs
has slowly increased from approximately 14% in 1997 to approximately 17% in
2007 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000; 2008). Issues and problems
associated with climate, tenure, promotion, discrimination, racism, mentoring, and
respect were identified as concerns of faculty of color in PWIs (Sadao, 2003;
Stanley, 2006a, 2006b). Further exploration of these issues is warranted, but I will
remain cognizant of the reality for the potential for backlash if PWIs are not

prepared for increasing numbers of administrators, students, and faculty of color.
Delgado (2009) points out:
This early generation of undergraduates of color, who would have entered
the nation's newly desegregated grade schools beginning in the mid and late
1950s, their ranks now swollen by affirmative action, seemed poised to
become the nation's first large generation of Black and brown
schoolteachers, social workers, mayors, college professors, lawyers,
executives, and doctors, (p. 1507)
Through the liberating methodology of counterstorytelling, faculty of color,
if given a platform where their voices will be heard, can feel empowered to speak
authentically and truthfully about their experiences of racism, oppression, and
marginalization. Their stories and frames of references are very different from
those of their White counterparts. Delgado (2000) explains that by its very nature,
the counterstory rejects, challenges, and stands in opposition to the dominant story,
creating their own counter-reality (p. 69), or what I refer to as a separate reality.
Because of the oppositional nature of their counterstories, the authenticity of the
narratives of faculty of color is often called into question by their White
counterparts. As a consequence, their scholarly research interests and foci on race
issues become challenged. This is often the experience of people of color as
graduate students and faculty in PWIs about the methodologies and theories they
Through the voices and perspectives of the faculty of color who I
interviewed, historical events that impacted their lives were uncovered. While the

need to add to the body of research on faculty of color is cogent, this study offers a
new twist. While the voices of the interviewees were unfettered, the historical
experiences of several of the faculty of color, as will be revealed in Chapters 5 and
6, were interwoven into their counterstories to set this study apart from other
research on faculty of color that concentrated primarily on their experiences in the
academy (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005;
Jayakumar, et. al. 2009; Johnsrud & Sadao,1998; Myers, 2002; Sadao, 2003;
Shrake, 2006; Smith & Witt, 1996; Stanley, 2006,2007; Thomas & Hollenshead,
2001; Tillman, 2001; Turner & Myers, 2000), but did not present findings on their
personal lived stories against a backdrop of real historical events.
Upon completion of my dissertation, I hope to continue to teach at the
university level. Although I am closer to having reached my childhood wish to
become an elementary school teacher, there is little likelihood that I will be a movie
star or the president. Unfortunately, in the 21st century President Obama has to
confront the racism directed toward him on a daily basis, as do most faculty of
color in PWIs. My goal in this dissertation was to provide the counterstorytellers a
forum to tell their stories. The late veteran producer and creator of televisions 60
Minutes, Don Hewitt, understood the importance of the storyteller. In an interview
in 2008 with a reporter from Washington State University, he said, The story teller
is just as important as the story.... Find people who can tell their own story better
than you can (Sudermann, 2008).

Chapter 2: Establishing the Historical Context through the Lens of Critical
Race Theory
Chroniclers list dates and supposed factual events. Historians, on the other
hand, tell stories and explain their meanings ... History is not primarily about
what happened. It is fundamentally about who we are or hope to be or fear
we might be. History is always our story. It has drama and meaning because
it comes from deep within us. (Smith, 1996, pp. 3-4)
Through the lens, perspective, and theoretical framework of CRT, this
chapter examines a number of conceptually grounded issues that encompass the
larger social and historical contexts of institutional racism. The CRT framework
has enabled me to construct a foundation that led to a deeper examination of and
insight into how faculty of color have persisted in, adapted to, resisted, and were
often challenged by the normative and dominant culture within and outside of
In this chapter, I will map out an extensive explication of the historical
underpinnings of CRT to establish the lens through which race and racism can be
more closely examined within an historical context. After analyzing the
counterstories of the faculty of color, historical issues emerged from the
information shared by several of their interviewees. Their compelling stories led
me to conduct an exploration into the context and background of the historical
issues when they were revealed. The importance of understanding the historical
events that have informed the experiences of people of color is invaluable because
it provides a backdrop and a deeper insight into the significant issues affecting

progress for faculty and students of color in the 21st century as they continue to
negotiate PWIs. Therefore, a discussion of the foundations of institutional racism,
Indian schooling, segregation, and affirmative action will be followed by an
introduction to historiography.
Historical Underpinnings of CRT
The underpinnings of CRT were established with the civil rights
movement, and the work of critical legal scholars, such as Bell (1992); Crenshaw,
et al. (1995); Delgado (2000); Lawrence (1992); Matusda et al. (1993), were and
continue to be highly influential. These scholars argue that racist assumptions
become encoded and embedded in our political, cultural, and social environment, as
well as in our legal system. CRT brazenly critiques and elucidates issues of White
hegemony and acts of racism. Because of the work of these early pathfinders, CRT
is able to challenge the dominant mindset of societythe shared stereotypes,
beliefs, and understandings [through stories that] can not only challenge the status
quo, but they can help build consensus and create a shared, common
understanding (Taylor, 1998, p. 122).
During the 1980s, critical race theorists advanced the work of critical legal
scholars to advocate for significant reformations and improvements in the laws and
policies impacting racial disparities (Matsuda, et al. 1993). However, the fresh and
oppositional concepts in CRT developed out of frustration with the slow pace of
racial and legal reforms and civil rights legislation:

New approaches were needed to come to grips with the more subtle, but just
as deeply entrenched, varieties of racism that characterize our times. Old
approachesfiling amicus briefs, marching, coining new litigation
strategies, writing articles in legal and popular journals exhorting our fellow
citizens to exercise moral leadership in the search for racial justicewere
yielding smaller and smaller returns. (Delgado, 2000, p. xvi)
In 1959, Derrick Bell, as a promising young civil rights lawyer for the
Department of Justice, was asked to relinquish his membership in the National
Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). A principled
person, instead of giving up his NAACP membership, he chose to resign from his
position at the Justice Department. Bell soon became an assistant legal counsel for
the NAACP Legal Defense Education Fund, and under the supervision and
mentorship of Thurgood Marshall,1 Bell worked arduously to change
discriminatory practices and laws in his capacity as legal counsel for the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund (Pyatt, 1998). As the first African American law professor at
Harvard University, Bells early legal writings and scholarship were strongly
influenced by his experiences as a civil rights litigator. Bell (1992) suggested that
the purpose of his work was to critically examine racial issues from a legal
perspective and within their political, economic, and social contexts.
Delgado and Stefancic (2000) were inspired by Bell (1976; 1980; 1992) and
developed several diverse premises and themes upon which CRT is based. Their
groundbreaking assemblage of articles, contributed by leading critical race and
1 Thurgood Marshall successfully litigated Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and became the first
Black Supreme Court Justice in 1967.

legal thinkers, includes a diverse and broad range of topics such as critical race,
feminist, and White pedagogy, theory, and methodology, as well as seminal works
addressing race, sex, class, and gay and lesbian issues. In addition to interest
convergence, racial ideology, counterstorytelling, narrative theory, and critiques of
liberal ideologies are among the key themes and principles that have emerged in
Interest convergence. Delgado (2009) posed the question, What might
interest convergence tell us about the origins of critical race theory? (p. 1508).
Significantly, Bells (1980) theory of interest convergence boldly asserts that the
interests of people of color in gaining racial equality have mostly been
accommodated when their interests converge with those of the dominant and
powerful White majority elite. From a Marxist perspective, the ruling class will
allow and even push for progress for the working class as long as these advances
will result in greater benefit to the ruling class (Marx & Engels, 1848/1978).
Building on Marxist theory, the concept of interest convergence suggests that
advances for people of color will concomitantly occur when the interests of the
dominant majority become beneficial for them as well (Delgado & Stefancic,
Racial ideology. CRT posits that racism is permanent. However, periods of
apparent progress are followed by periods of resistance and backlash when societal
forces reestablish majority dominance. The backlash and resistance by many

Whites to President Obama and the policies he attempts to advance are prime
examples of this concept. As in the past, civil rights gains will slide into
irrelevance (Bell, 1992, p. 305), and without constant vigilance, people of color
will remain in a subordinate position:
Perhaps those of us who can admit we are imprisoned by the history of
racial subordination in America can acceptas slaves had no choice but to
acceptour fate. Not that we can legitimate the racism of the oppressor. On
the contrary, we can only delegitimate it if we can accurately pinpoint it.
And racism lies at the center, not the periphery; in the permanent, not in the
fleeting; in the real lives of black and white people, (p. 198)
Critique of liberalism. Dissatisfied and disappointed by liberalisms failure
to directly and honestly confront race and racism, CRT looks to dismantle the
interconnected issues of race, class, and gender. Much of the discontentment occurs
when civil rights laws provide greater benefit to those in power, as articulated by
the notion of interest convergence. Disillusioned by the legal system, including the
civil rights movement and its concomitant activism and litigation, CRT continues
to challenge mainstream civil rights thinkers to articulate a new and improved
strategy founded on the lives of minorities (Delgado, 2000). In response to the
negative impact of liberalism, Delgado (2009) explains that liberal McCarthyism
occurred because America's guardians foresaw the arrival of growing numbers of
black and Latino applicants knocking at the doors of Americas leading colleges
and universities (p. 1507).

Five Tenets of CRT in Education
The five elements of CRT (Matsuda, et al. 1993) were introduced in the first
chapter. Modified from five elements to five tenets within a CRT framework in
education, Solorzano and Yosso (2002a) believe that collectively the tenets
challenge current methods of conducting research in education with a keener focus
on topics such as racism, inequality, and race in contrast to other educational
frameworks. They argue that CRT, as applied to education:
(1) critiques separate discourse on race, gender, and class and therefore
focuses on the intercentricity of racism with other forms of
subordination; (2) challenges dominant ideology that supports the
deficit theorizing prevalent in educational and social science discourse;
(3) focuses on the experiences of students and communities of color to
learn from their racialized experiences with oppression; (4) works
toward social justice in education as part of a larger goal to promote a
liberatory or transformative solution to racial, gender, and class
subordination; and (5) utilizes the interdisciplinary knowledge base of
ethnic studies, womens studies, sociology, history, and the law to better
understand the experiences of students of color, (p. 156)
Interest Convergence and Education
Derrick Bell (1976; 1980) laid an important foundation for the concept of
interest convergence in education. He posited that the image of the United States in
the view of the international community was instrumental in shaping
groundbreaking policy and legal decisions (Delgado, 2009). The Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) decision was prompted more by the competition between the
United States and the Soviet Union to win the hearts and minds of people of color

in developing Asian, African, and Latin American countries, Bell (1980) argued,
than because of a desire to do the right thing.
For example, the Communists pointed out U.S. hypocrisy when news
stories of acts of racism and photographs of the strange fruit2 of African
Americans hanging from Southern trees was seen in periodicals around the world.
The Brown decision was more a defensive response and reaction to this criticism.
Thus, racial equality and remedies of injustice will be achieved, when they
converge with the interests, needs, expectations, and ideologies of Whites (Milner,
2005, p. 333).
In another example, Black veterans, returning from service in World War II
and Korea, were demanding better jobs beyond work in the janitorial and labor
markets. Eventually, Blacks started to gain better employment, housing, and
educational opportunities. For the first time in years, domestic unrest loomed. A
breakthrough demonstrating that America had blacks' best interests at heart would
go far to quell any incipient uprising (Delgado, 2009, p. 1508). Repeatedly, the
interest convergence hypothesis was supported and confirmed in government
documents and was established as a powerful tool of critical analysis (p. 1508).
I would add that the Japanese American Nisei soldiers were recruited from
the internment camps during WWII to serve in Europe because President Roosevelt
2 This reference is to a song first recorded in 1939 by Billie Holliday (Holliday, B., 1999). The lyrics
of the first stanza are: Southern trees bear strange fruit/Blood on the leaves and blood at the
root/Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze/Black bodies swinging from the poplar trees.

and his administration were concerned about neutralizing propaganda from Japan
accusing the U.S. of being engaged in a racial war (Takaki, 1989; Harvey, 2004).
Executive Order 9066 was issued by the president on February 19,1942,
mandating the removal of Japanese Americans from the west coast. A year later, in
a correspondence to Secretary of War Stimson dated February 1, 1943, Roosevelt
demonstrated the height of hypocrisy:
No loyal citizen of the United States should be denied the democratic right
to exercise the responsibilities of his citizenship, regardless of his ancestry
.... Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry. Every
loyal American citizen should be given the opportunity to serve this country
... in the ranks of our armed forces (tenBroek, Barnhart, & Matson, 1997,
p. 189,191).
Examples such as these not only demand that such stories are told, but they
must be heard. The secrets must be revealed. The Pandoras Box must be opened
and the truth must ultimately lead to healing. I feel a responsibility to provide a
platform for these eight brave counterstorytellers to be heard, honored, and
The Master Narrative and Majoritarian Mindset
The master narrative encompasses, the traditional claims that educational
institutions make toward objectivity, meritocracy, colorblindness, race neutrality,
and equal opportunity (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002b, p. 26). The dynamics of
hegemony involve an ideology to justify oppression, or a rationale for the stock
story (Delgado, 2000, p. 69) that emanates from the majoritarian mindset.

Institutionalized racism cannot remain undercover, and its profoundly
hurtful and debasing impact on people of color must be deconstructed. The
powerful methodology of telling the previously untold stories and revealing the
heretofore hidden experiences of the marginalized and oppressed becomes an
invaluable tool for analyzing and challenging the stories of those in power and
whose story is a natural part of the dominant discoursethe majoritarian story
(Solorzano & Yosso, 2002a, p. 156). The master narrative is revealed, and the light
is shed on its hidden agenda.
The Foundations of Institutionalized Racism
From the earliest entry of European colonizers to the Americas, racism was
established in practices and policies toward Africans and the indigenous peoples,
and later toward Asian laborers starting in the 19th Century. In order to better
understand how institutionalized racism became deeply embedded into the
American psyche from the birth of the nation, I am compelled to revisit the British
colonization and the subsequent legislation that established of this nation. More
than one hundred years before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were even
conceived or discussed at the first Continental Congress in 1774, racism was
institutionalized. Turner (1995) asserts, Some of the first racist laws were enacted
in Virginia in the 1660s, clearly demonstrating that racism constitutes a
fundamental contradiction in the American body politic (p. 123).

As early as 1619, the European settlers to Jamestown, Virginia brought
twenty Africans to be servants (Frazier, 1957; Franklin & Moss, 1988), but similar
to their White counterparts, they were initially brought over not as slaves, but as
indentured or bonded servants (McLemore & Romo, 2005). Eventually, the English
colonists began to use Blacks almost exclusively as a cheap labor force, especially
for the tobacco and cotton industries. A profound shift occurred where slavery
became the accepted practice, and the status of Africans as servants was changed to
slaves, and they were no longer allowed to earn their freedom.
In 1787, the founders established the U.S. Constitution based on the
inalienable rights of its citizens, but they conspicuously failed to recognize the
same rights to Native Americans and Africans that were afforded to White
Europeans, who were eventually able to gain freedom once they fulfilled their
contractual obligations under indentured servitude (Kromkowski, 2010). At that
time there was no interest convergence or motivation do the right thing because the
economic gains and profitability of forced enslavement that benefited the plantation
owners outweighed any sense of liberty and justice for all.
It is important to understand that the Europeans granted themselves the
opportunity to become settlers, but the people of color were not for the most part.
Native Americans, who were well established in the Americas, were ignored,
discounted, and overlooked, and Africans were not even considered. The color line
for recognition as full citizens was established and continued into the 19th and 20th

Centuries. Takaki (1989) notes that Asian laborers were brought over to work on
the Hawaiian plantations and the farms on the west coast in the late 19th and early
20th Centuries. They were generally considered not to be settlers, but rather
sojourners, birds of passage that were expected to return to the homelands.
Historically, Mexican and other Latino laborers continue today to be given few
opportunities to earn their way to citizenship and were also thought of as seasonal,
migratory, and on a contract basis (Gomez-Quinones, 1974, p. 89).
The Impact of Racist Legislation and Court Decisions
An overview of several Supreme Court cases that determined the
constitutional foundations of slavery, segregation, and discrimination provides an
understanding of the rationalization that supports the majoritarian master narrative
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002a; Parker & Stovall, 2004)
that established foundation of White supremacy, White privilege, and
institutionalized racism. In other words, the revelations of the lived experiences of
people of color point to a system of privilege that advances and justifies the master
narratives as the gospel (Bell, 1992; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995;
Delgado, 1995,2000; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000; Lawrence, 1992; Matsuda,
Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993). When it is discovered that people of color
have been subject to institutionalized racism, these revelations are open to criticism
from the majoritarian perspective that argues that their stories lack validity because
such accounts that arise out of other social histories, such as African American

social history or Cherokee social history, are not typically considered legitimate
within the mainstream community (Scheurich & Young, 1997, p. 9), or else they
are labeled as unusual and in opposition to the revered master narrative.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856). When Mr. Scott moved from a slave state to
a state that prohibited slavery, he argued that he should be granted citizenship. The
Court ruled that regardless of the fact that he was free, he could not become a
citizen under the Constitution because it was not intended for Africans. This
decision was one of the tipping points that contributed to the American Civil War.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The segregation laws known as Jim Crow laws
were upheld by the Court because they reasoned that segregated public facilities
were separate but equal, and were not in violation of the Court, because such laws
did not consider people of color to be inferior. Instead, the justices argued that
people of color construct their own sense of inferiority.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Asiatic barred zone. By their very
names, these are obviously racist laws. The Exclusion Act suspended the
immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years, but was made even harsher in 1884
when the law was expanded to include all Chinese persons and then implemented
indefinitely (Haney Lopez, 2010, p. 31). The Asiatic barred zone, enacted in 1917,
was expanded to exclude persons not only from China, but from the entire
continent of Asia. Ironically, interest convergence influenced the governments

decision to end the Exclusion Act in 1943, because China was now an ally and
friend of the U.S. because it was also at war with Japan.
Indian Schooling and the Legacies of Removal and Reorganization
Annas counterstory cannot be told without her discussion of the history of
Indian Boarding Schools:
I have to give an historical context. At one point, I said to the students, as
you know, if you understand the institutionalization of Indians, it started
with the rule of taking children out of and putting them into military sites
and they became what is known as boarding schools, etc. And this one kid
said, What are you talking about? I thought, Doesnt everyone know
about the boarding schools? It went from boarding schools, to adoption, to
foster care (Anna, personal interview, August 25,2008).
The history of Indian Boarding Schools can be traced back to the systematic
removal, destruction, and genocide of native peoples, their land, and their culture.
Well before Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe surrendered to the U.S. Army in
1877, the Secretary of War had been overseeing the administration of US-Indian
activities as far back as 1789 (Kvisto & Ng, 2005). In 1824, Secretary of War John
Calhoun established the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was authorized
through the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 (Jackson & Galli, 1977). Under the
leadership of the commissioner, the BIA began to exert their control over the lives
and property of the Indian people (Deloria, 1972, p. 52), such that they became
increasingly dependent on the BIA, for all of their services, including education.
The Indian Removal Act (1830). President Andrew Jackson pushed forward
legislation that resulted in the Indian Removal Act. Beginning in late fall of 1831,

the removal of five tribes from the south and into areas west of the Mississippi
River began with the Choctaw (McLemore & Romo, 2005; Stewart, 2007). By
1838, the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes were
forcibly removed from their lands to make room for European Americans,
generally under cold and wintry conditions, with meager clothing and limited
supplies, but not without resistance and warfare. An estimated 4,000 Cherokee died
of disease, exposure, and exhaustion along the Trail of Tears (Stewart, 2007;
Thornton, 1984).
The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. Also known as the
Wheeler-Howard Act and Indian New Deal, proponents hailed the IRA as a way
to preserve tribal organizations and identities and to stop the loss of Indian lands
(Kvisto & Ng, 2004, p. 225), but the motive behind the legislation was questionable
(Prucha, 1985; Cornell, 1988). Under the IRA, the right for the Indian tribes to
achieve self-governance came with a cost because they were required to agree to
adopt an American style of government (McLemore & Romo, 2005). What also
resulted was greater involvement and intrusion by the federal government into
Indian sovereignty by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Eventually, Indian children
were placed in government schools where they were forced to cut their hair, wear
American clothing, give up their native customs, and speak English.
Indian boarding schools. The operation of schools on the reservations
became a vital responsibility of the BIA, which established schools on or near

homes of Indians on the reservation, as well as boarding schools that were designed
to teach them English and expose them White American culture (McLemore &
Romo, 2005). The boarding school system involved the removal of the Indian
children far away from their families to institutions such as the Carlisle School in
Pennsylvania. Founded in 1879 by U.S. Army Officer Richard Pratt, the Carlisle
School was designed to transform and assimilate the Indian students into American
citizens (Hoxie, 1984). Captain Pratts spin on the sentiment of the time, A good
Indian is a dead one, was that through education the Carlisle School can kill the
Indian, but save the man (Official Report, 1892, p. 263).
Calvin Isaac, Chief of the Choctaw tribe in Mississippi, testified before
Congress in 1978 regarding the adjustment difficulties experienced by American
Indians who were raised outside of their native culture and families in cases such as
Annas. The children often felt a sense of alienation from their Indian society as
well as from non-Indian societies, and they experienced profound ethnic confusion,
abandonment and loss (Mindell, R., Vidal de Hayntes, M., & Francisco, D., 2003).
Chief Isaac told the Congressional representatives:
One of the most serious failings of the present system is that Indian children
are removed from the custody of their natural parents by non-tribal
governmental authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the
cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and child rearing.
Many of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at best
ignorant of our cultural values and at worst contemptful of the Indian way
and convinced that removal to a non-Indian household or institution can
only benefit an Indian child. (Indian Child Welfare Act, 1977, Hearings,
pp. 191-192)

As a result of the Congressional hearings, the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA) was established. It required minimum federal standards for child custody
proceedings involving American Indian children and specifically addressed how
out-of-home placements or the termination of parental rights were to be handled by
the courts (Mindell, R., et al., 2003). Furthermore, ICWA did not bring about a
revolution in culturally competent practice in Native child welfare cases, however,
and most systems are still struggling with basic compliance with the law on a case-
by-case basis (p. 203).
In spite of the deplorable issues that were brought to light with the
establishment of the ICWA, culturally competent practices have not occurred in a
satisfactory manner in the schools, and it is doubtful whether significant
improvements have been demonstrated for Indian children. Menchaca (2001)
addresses the histories of exclusion and racialization of indigenous peoples of the
southwest and explains that while legislation protecting women was advanced, the
public was not consistently committed to legislation enacted to protect Indians and
other racial minorities.
Discussion of School Desegregation
In the mid-20,h Century, the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) case
was significant. This landmark case declared unconstitutional the separate but equal
doctrine that was established at the turn of the 19th Century in the Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896) decision that had allowed school segregation. The Brown decision

inspired the Civil rights Act of 1964, an act that the led to bans on discrimination
and segregation, as well as giving impetus to the important work of critical legal
and critical race activists and theorists. However, in spite of significant laws and
court decisions, President Eisenhower was compelled to send National Guard
troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 because of the
attempt by Governor Orval Faubus to defy the law (Kvisto & Ng, 2005).
Thus, when Bell (1980) introduced the notion of interest convergence, the
groundbreaking decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) occurred,
not because of a belated spasm of conscience on the part of the Supreme Court,
but because of a fortuitous combination of material and sociopolitical
circumstances (Delgado, 2009, p. 1508). Before the Brown decision, the NAACP
was litigating school desegregation cases for decades throughout the south and
gained only a few narrow victories. However, in their unanimous 1954 decision,
the Supreme Court ruled very favorably and positively because the U.S. wished to
make a favorable impression on the rest of the world in order to counter criticism
from their Soviet counterparts.
Loopholes and reversals. Previously, the Supreme Court had ruled to not
only support, but to strengthen and guarantee public school segregation in the
south. Later, in several cases in the next decade, Green v. New Kent Co. (1968),
Alexander v. Holmes (1969) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg (1971), the
loopholes that were created to get around desegregation mandates were closed. But

a reversal occurred in 2007, when the highest court in the land struck down two
voluntary plans designed to prevent resegregation in two cases, Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) and Meredith v.
Jefferson County Board of Education (2007). The local plans were intended to stop
the resegregation of two public school systems in Seattle, Washington and
Louisville, Kentucky, respectively, that used race to enroll some students in schools
to ameliorate the most aberrant cases of racial imbalance (Barkan, 2008).
Keyes decision. Surprisingly, in the northern cities there was an even higher
incidence of residential segregation than in many southern cities. Through
mandatory busing, school segregation was eliminated in the Keyes v. Denver
School District No. 1 (1973). In his counterstory, Marcos (Personal
Communication, August 15,2008), who identified as Chicano, revealed that he was
part of this historical desegregation case in Denver, Colorado. He said, I was in
elementary at the time of desegregation, the Keyes case and so forth. Being bused
was significant for him and has influenced his passion for fighting against
oppressive acts.
In the Keyes case, the petitioners, Stewart Keyes and other Latino and Black
plaintiffs, argued that for nearly ten years during the 1960s, the Denver, Colorado,
school system implemented an unconstitutional policy of racial discrimination by
operating a segregated school system. Because it represented one of the first
instances in which the Supreme Court identified segregation in northern schools,

this case is significant. The argument by the defense stated that although part of the
school system in Denver was found guilty of segregation, it did not follow that the
entire system was segregated. However, the Supreme Court later modified and
remanded the lower court decision and held that a prima facie case of unlawful
segregation (Keyes, 1973) and therefore systematic design was apparent when part
of a school system was found to be segregated (The Oyez Project, 2009).
Furthermore in a brief submitted by the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, the lawyers argued the need for establishing Chicanos as an
identifiable group for equal protection purposes and that they must be included in
Black-White segregation plans (Casas, 2006). The attorneys argued that Chicanos
and African Americans both suffered discrimination:
The Chicano is the forgotten minority. He is the largest minority group in the
Southwestern United States. He is the field hand. He is the janitor. Much as
the Negro was forceably [sic] made part of this nation as a slave and still
bears the badges of this servitude, Jones v. Albert Mayer & Col, 392 U.S. 409
(1968), so too were Chicanos forceably [sic] made part of this nation ... Their
vanquishment [sic] has made them exiles in their own land--the dominant
Anglo society has treated them as second class citizens. (Kurland & Casper,
1971, p. 485)
Affirmative Action
Several of the counterstorytellers explained that they were hired to fulfill
some sort of affirmative action quota to ensure diversity in the PWIs that hired
them. In the early years of the civil rights struggles which led to affirmative action
policies, Martin Luther King Jr. (1984, 1963) said, Nothing in this world is more

dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity (p. 65). The
continual debate swirling around the system of affirmative action becomes more
apparent after a comprehensive reflection of how far the system has progressed and
regressed since it was established. The history of affirmative action is relatively
new and remains problematic (Kvisto & Ng, 2005), and the controversial legal
cases since its inception make Dr. Kings words hauntingly relevant today.
More than thirty years after civil rights and affirmative action legislation,
institutions of higher education have fallen short of their goals for marked
improvement in greater representation of faculty of color, particularly with respect
to their recruitment and retention (Banks, 1984). While the 1999 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty (U.S. Department of Education, 1999) found that 85.1% of
full-time faculty were White, only 14.9% were faculty of color. Furthermore, in the
western state in which the counterstorytellers in this project are employed, the
higher education department expresses a commitment to diversity and affirmative
The primary purpose of affirmative action policies was to redress past
inequities. In his commencement speech at Howard University in 1965, President
Lyndon Johnson eloquently addressed affirmative action when he told the
graduates, You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains,
and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line, and then say, You are free to

compete with all the others (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Vol. II, entry 301, p. 636).
The goal of affirmative action policies is to improve the socioeconomic status
of women and people of color (Kvisto & Ng, 2005). In response to historical
practices that have inequitably privileged White males over women and people of
color, the rationale behind affirmative action policies is to directly confront and
remedy this historical legacy (p. 196). As a result, a shift in focus to a more level
playing field and a genuine concern for equal opportunity is created (Ezorsky,
1991). In the late 1960s, PWIs began to establish affirmative-action policies to
enable bright and talented young people of color better opportunities for
recruitment and retention on their campuses.
Opponents of affirmative action policies continue to argue that these
policies have placed an adverse impact upon individuals who are not guilty of
discrimination (Glazer, 1975; Pinkey, 1984; Sowell, 1989). Furthermore, they
believe that less qualified minorities and women, protected classes, are given
access to the opportunities that are denied to their more qualified White male
counterparts. Lopez (2003) and Delgado and Stefancic (2001) warn that racism
took another turn and a different twist when allegations of reverse racism and
demands for equal protection continue to be made by Whites to prove that they are
targets of discrimination or racial harm.

Turner (1995) points out that the subject of affirmative action continues to
be very controversial on college campuses. Students and faculty of color are
viewed as beneficiaries of lowered standards. Political conservatives aggressively
protest against financial aid, recruitment, and admission policies as privileging
students of color over Whites. Administrators are often accused by opponents of
affirmative action of supporting programs that the opponents consider to be race-
specific, while the motives of the naysayers may be suspect when they want to
deny or substantially reduce opportunities and access for students of color.
In the affirmative action cases of Hopwood v. Texas (1998) and Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke (1978), White students brought lawsuits
against their respective institutions, by employing the same legal statutes that were
designed to protect African Americans and other protected classes (Parker, 2003;
Taylor, 1999). Ironically, Whites are able to reclaim their position of privilege and
power. Ironically, through the legal system, instead of defending people of color,
the use of case law institutionalizes the disparate power relationships between
Whites and people of color, and simultaneously the property interests of Whites are
protected (Harris, 1995; Lopez, 2003).
In response to White backlash toward Blacks and others of color, the
reaction by college and university administrators is often mixed. When it comes to
affirmative action policies, many university leaders seem to demonstrate interest
convergence. Turner (1995) offers his analysis of the controversy:

Their response to racial problems is most likely defensive, a short-term
public relations campaign aimed at controlling damage to the image of the
institution. Individual incidents are isolated from the broader racist milieu
and characterized as aberrant. Occasional suspension of an offending
student is considered a resolution to systemic racist problems. Superficial
measures such as inviting prominent African-American intellectuals to
lecture for a day, or campus dialogues on racism sponsored by the Dean of
Students office are proposed as therapy against racism. A few colleges have
proposed that students take one or two courses in non-Western cultures.
Such a step is necessary but not sufficient to deconstruct the patterns of
White supremacy in the curriculum and institution as a whole, (p. 126)
Turner (1995) suggests that institutions of higher education could be more
successful in combating racism through several straightforward methods that are
still relevant today. These include establishing, strengthening, and supporting
ethnic studies departments, and actively recruiting faculty of color. Additionally,
hiring more upper level administrators of color who have the power to make
decisions, and empowering students of color through asserting the value of
diversity to quality education (p. 126) are important improvements.
Affirmative action continues to be at risk in the 21st Century. The 2007
Supreme Court decision to reverse voluntary anti-resegregation plans in two local
school districts will eventually impact higher education. Barkan (2008) argues that
this decision could drastically reduce the number of students of color who can
qualify for college admissions because inequality in public schools will increase,
and fewer students of color will have access to better schools. In these incidents, I
would argue that interest convergence comes into play when public pressure pushes
the courts and legislators to reverse progressive reforms.

Historiography and Hi[gh]stories
Smith (1996) coined the term hi[gh]stories (p. 3) in honor of the late
Walter P. Webb (1888 1963), renowned western historiographer of adventure in
the high plains. Historiography distinguishes between the chroniclers who provide
lists of dates and events from historians, who tell stories and explain their
meanings (p. 3). From this perspective, history does not merely rehash what
occurred, it provides much more.
Historiography then, lends itself quite well to the conceptual and theoretical
framework of CRT, particularly the methodology of counterstorytelling. The
history that has been interwoven throughout the stories of the faculty of color had
to be told, but in their voices, from their perspectives, and through their eyes. Their
experiences called me to research more deeply into the historical issues, laws,
policies, and politics that shaped them. Many of the counterstorytellers are teaching
about the history of their people because, like me, they were also called to make
sure that the overlooked stories are told, that the issues are not forgotten, and that
the meanings of their stories are honored.
By bringing in the historical information, I have interwoven the dry chronicle
with historiographys passionate narrative (Smith, 1995, p. 4). Historiography,
like counterstorytelling, opens the Pandoras Box to challenge the White
supremacist capitalist patriarchal (hooks, 1984) master narrative that silences,
erases, and overlooks the narratives of people of color, of women, and the highly

evolved and deeply proud civilizations from which many Native, African, Asian,
Latino, Caribbean, and Pacific Islanders emanated prior to their absorption into
U.S. American culture.
Counterstorytelling is a counter-response and challenge to the Eurocentric
version of U.S. history that was designed to segregate, make different, remove, and
marginalize ethnic and racial minority groups and to show the superiority of the
dominant group over all others (Banks, 1993). The truth for the counterstorytellers
depends on what they have seen, experienced, perceived, and heard through their
own lenses and senses.
Even scientific historians argue for the importance of the meaning that
human beings apply to their own reality (Smith, 1996). According to Zukav (1980):
Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we
believe. What we believe is based on our perceptions. What we perceive
depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think.
What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive depends on
what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What
we take to be true is our reality, (p. 310)
I agree with Zukav (1980) and Smith (1996). I would further argue that the separate
realities experienced by the faculty of color I interviewed were just as true and real
and valid for them as what might have been archived and recorded in the master
narratives in the history books. I can restrict this study to an examination that dryly
chronicles the dates and the events, but I feel a deep obligation to honor the

[high]stories and passionate narratives that accompany the chronicles in order to
provide deeper meaning and value within the contextual framework of CRT.

Chapter 3: Literature Review of Faculty of Color
Racial conflict in higher education mirrors the racism in American society.
(Turner, 1995, p. 123)
Researchers have identified numerous obstacles in PWIs that impact the
successful recruitment, promotion, tenure, and retention of faculty of color
(Antonio, 2002; Blackburn, et al. 1994; Fenelon, 2003; Ruffins, 1997; Stanley,
2006a). In addition to institutionalized racism (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson,
& Allen, 1999; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009), some of these challenges
include cultural bias (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1988; Sadao, 2003),
discrimination (Stanley, 2006a, 2006b; Turner, Myers, & Creswell, 1999),
tokenism (Boice, 1993; Bourguignon et al., 1987; Turner & Myers, 2000); and
inadequate mentoring (Stanley & Lincoln, 2005; Tillman, 2001). The overarching
concept that frames the understanding of the experiences of faculty of color in
PWIs is the concept of the master narrative that is informed by CRT and the
methodological tradition of counterstorytelling (Delgado, 1989, 1995; Delgado &
Stefancic, 2000; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002a, 2002b).
Master Narratives and Counterstories
The notion of the master or grand narrative has been attributed to Jean-
Francois Lyotard (1984). French philosopher Giroux (1993) referred to these
powerful narratives as the enlightenment and Western philosophical tradition (p.
463). The grand narratives become universalized and create divisive binary

dialogues in contrast to categories that buttress the preservation of the dominant
group (Stanley, 2007), and through these master narratives, the game plan or
blueprint is laid out for the performance and function of certain social processes.
Neither solitary nor isolated, the master narrative is complex, consisting of
multiple, interrelated, codependent, and interconnected narratives.
According to a number of CRT methodologists and scholars (Barnes, 1990;
Bell, 1994, 1995; Crenshaw, et al. 1995; Delgado, 1989, 1995; Delgado &
Stefancic, 2000; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lawrence, 1991; Matsuda et al.
1993), the experiences of faculty of color in higher education have been deeply
impacted by an interlocking system that privileges and favors the hegemony of the
master narrative. In the academic world, the master narrative controls, specifies and
limits what and who is valued in terms of promotion, retention, tenure, and
scholarship, for example. The narrative of the White male power elite in the
academic arena generally dominates, oversees, approves, and writes the majority of
the research and publications. Because of the oppositional and critical nature of the
counterstories, they challenge the master narrative. The counter narratives that
emerge from marginalized experiences do not align with the majoritarian mindset.
Instead, they act to deconstruct the master narrative because they submit alternative
approaches and responses to the dominant model (Stanley, 2007).
By providing multiple, diverse, and oppositional models for comprehending
social, racial, ethnic, gender, and cultural identities, they conflict with and

challenge the predominantly White male academic power structure and culture that
is considered to be the normative and authoritative standard. The counterstories of
faculty of color are positioned in sharp contrast to those of majority White faculty
members to reveal the separate, distinct, and exigent differences that occur for them
in their experiences in the academy (Erler & Kowaleski, 2003). The counterstories
about their experiences of oppression and discrimination at many levels profoundly
impact and influence the behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions of faculty of color
(Fine, Ayala, & Perkins, 2000; Romero & Stewart, 1999). Through their eyes and
from their voices, alternative analyses and interpretations emerge that interrogate
and criticize the master narratives.
In order to explain and clarify the master narrative, Stanley (2007) provides
an example of how the master narrative is applicable to the education of children
(pp. 14-15). To illustrate this point, the at risk label that is usually affixed to young
people of color signifies a deficit concept that is supposed to forecast the academic
and social success of students, who are deemed economically, socially, or
intellectually disadvantaged. The counter narrative methodology used by some
faculty and researchers of color would argue instead that at risk students are
exceptional, and they are blessed with rich cultural skill sets. The vital and
important cultural heritages and backgrounds of these at risk students of color have
been overlooked, ignored, and even erased in their educational experience, but

theirs are just as important to the national history and establishment as other
cultural legacies (Valenzuela, 2004).
Another example of the power of the master narrative is that faculty of color
who conduct educational research using qualitative methods may have discovered
that until recently, quantitative research in higher education has been incredibly and
inordinately privileged over qualitative research. Therefore, the methodologies of
quantitative research provide the foundation of the master narrative that shapes
much of the policy in academe (Shavelson & Towne, 2002), because quantitative
data have historically been accepted as more valid and reliable. Since the data are
reputed to answer the desired research hypotheses, they can offer solutions that are
easier for decision-making bodies to consume (Stanley, 2007, p. 15).
The master narrative defines the status quo and the standard, making it
acceptable and creating a presumed sense of privilege, power, control, and
Master narratives are often mental models of how voices of the dominant
culture have justified systems and rules in educational research, in such a
way that makes these models the standard. In addition, some of us
actively or passively reinforce in this system and legitimize the process by
associating it with terms such as fairness, neutrality, and colorblindness.
However, this system functions to hide and perpetuate institutional,
systemic, and other forms of racism. The master narrative is not a single
narrative but rather multiple, interlocking, mutually supporting narratives
(Stanley, 2007, p. 15).
With the establishment of such a dominant master narrative, its ability to shape,
drive, and influence other arenas in higher education, such as retention, tenure, and

promotion policies, journal review boards, and epistemological and research
paradigms is salient (Scheurich & Young, 1997; Pellegrino & Goldman, 2002).
Institutionalized Racism, Disconnection, and Separate Realities in PWIs
The underlying dilemma for PWIs is that by their very nature they are
dominated by and saturated with White norms and values. On one hand, most
White faculty would sincerely consider themselves as either non-racist or anti-
racist, while on the other hand, many faculty of color, as well as some White
faculty, believe that racism exists in the academy (Scheurich, 1993). In spite of this
disconnect, the existence of institutional racism is a reality because discriminatory
and racist policies and practices persist in education (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon,
Institutionalized racism continues to exist in the 21st century because of the
disconnection and difference in how Whites and people of color perceive racial
progress. Since the civil rights movement, people of color in the academy are
concerned that their White counterparts who believe they are not racist are
perpetuating White privilege in the academy (Stanley, 2006a). In fact, White
faculty benefit from institutional racism irrespective of whether they are
consciously aware of or actively support racist attitudes/practices/policies
(Jayakumar et al., 2009, p. 555). Similarly, ignorance is not an excuse, as Bonilla-
Silva (2003) and Chesler and Crowfoot (2000) demonstrate because unintended

racial inequality and color-blind racism continue to thrive and persist in the
Critical race theorists point to one of the tenets of an educational CRT
framework that focuses on the centrality of racism along with other forms of
subordination (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002a, p. 156). In their study, Johnsrud and
Sadao (1998) interviewed faculty of color navigating the bicultural world of the
academy who characterized the culture of their institutions as having White Anglo-
Saxon values dominated by White males. In some cases, faculty of color have to
endure racist comments, as revealed by de la Luz Reyes and Hal con (1997), who
found that overtly racist comments were made about Chicano faculty candidates
who subsequently were not hired. Furthermore, the faculty informants described
the dilemma of conducting research on issues that focus on their own ethnic and
racial groups. In instances like this, the divide occurs when White faculty who
conduct research on other Whites are rarely, if ever, questioned about the biased,
subjective, and nonscientific nature of their own research (Brayboy, 2003, p. 86).
Nonetheless, racism is not limited to overt expressions and acts of racism.
Scheurich (1993) points out that in contrast to people of color, Whites believe that
individuals who do not display overt racism are not racist. According to Kluegel
and Smith (1986), even highly educated Whites reported that they view racism as
applicable to the individual rather than to racial groups. This separate reality is a
confusing, painful, and disturbing one for people of color, and is similar to DuBois

(1903/1989) concept of double consciousness that is experienced by African
Americans, as a survival mechanism that all people of color have developed to
view themselves through the White lens:
The Negro is a sort of seventh son, bom with a veil, and gifted with
second-sight in this American world,a world which yields him no true
self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of
the other world [of Whites]. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-
consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes
of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in
amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness,an American, a
Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring
ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being
tom asunder, (p. 3)
Whites are much more invested in individualism than people of color
because of racism's grouping effect and the double consciousness it produces
(Sheurich, 1993, p. 7). In other words, people of color are aware that they are
perceived as being part of a racialized group, not as unique individuals. Because
White culture dominates all others and becomes universal, the styles of thinking,
acting, speaking, and behaving of the dominant group have become the socially
correct or privileged ways of thinking, acting, speaking, and behaving (p. 7).
Merit, recruitment, and standards of behavior, then, are determined by the
dominant group and membership in this special club, and the inequitable
distribution of resources and power thus disappear under the guise of
individualism (p. 7).

Internalized Racism
OBrien (2007) provides a cogent example to help elucidate and understand
the concept of internalized racism through the counterstory of Joseph Holley, an
African American man who established Black schools in the Jim Crow South.1
When Holley incorporated the ideology of White supremacy, he was complicit in
perpetuating an image of blacks as inferior and incapable (p. 825). Holley went
so far as to consider that slavery helped produce better laborers, and he argued that
training in the trades was more suitable for southern Blacks while an academic
education was more suitable for Whites. He also supported segregation because he
erroneously believed that offering Blacks the same school experiences as whites
was misguided and would lead to social equality and possibly even racial
integration (p. 830).
In order to advance, faculty of color are compelled to learn, live by, and
internalize the dominant, majoritarian ways of the PWIs, but they often encounter
roadblocks and obstacles along the way. People of color who have learned to live
according to the dominant standards in order to persist often find the incorporation
of majoritarian rules and values as a path to success to be a myth rather than a
Members of nondominant groups and their children have a chance to
succeed if they learn the ways of the dominant groups and if they are
1 In the south, laws were established in the late 1800s that legalized the segregation of Whites from
people of color in public facilities, including schools.

socially or economically closer to the top of the hierarchy. But, contrary to
the popular idea that anyone can succeed, there are limits no matter how
well one learns the ways of the dominant group. (Sheurich, 1993, p. 7)
The price for many faculty of color occurs when they incorporate negative
perceptions (Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001), by believing that their work is inferior,
or that they were responsible when they were not tenured, promoted, or retained.
When faculty of color blame themselves for their inability to advance, they become
discouraged and afraid to speak up for themselves. By forming support systems
with other faculty of color, they can begin to resist internalized oppression, through
sharing their stories.
Finally, when faculty and administrators of color adopt the dominant
narrative, they become socialized to a certain degree to accept, adhere to, adopt,
and advance the master narratives. On some level, they have internalized the
majoritarian dialogue and mindset:
Until we recognize that there is a master narrative in place and that we have
all been participants in the structuring and application of that master
narrative can we call it into question, examine it, and ask ourselves whether
or not we want to change it.... Even those who are oppressed by the
master narrative are complicit in its survival and effectiveness. (Lawless,
2003, p. 61)
Fitting In: Assimilation and Biculturalism
Most faculty enter the doors to the ivory tower with their own sets of
values, which for people of color and women are often situated in a position that is
counter to and in opposition with the prevailing dominant norms and standards of

the academy. The research interests of marginalized people often stem from their
experiences and awareness of racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination. The
majority of faculty of color have been socialized in a racist and ethnocentric world,
and they come to the table with an alternative, critical analysis of both the causes
and implications of discrimination (Stanley, 2007, p. 16). Their perspectives are
often very different from Whites regarding the role and implications of faculty
status, and they feel driven and compelled to substantiate and verify the established
and predominant theories about their communities. They feel extremely obligated
to their communities in terms of returning to give back to their people and perhaps
make a difference. Antonio (2002) established that faculty of color are 75% more
likely than White faculty to pursue a position in the academy because they draw a
connection between the professoriate and the ability to effect change in society (p.
Ana M. Martinez Aleman (as cited in Padilla & Chavez, 1995) is a Latina
faculty who exemplifies DuBois (1989) concept of double consciousness and
Sadaos (2003) concept of biculturalism. She told of being caught between two
I am struck by my lived contradiction: To be a professor is to be an anglo\
to be a latina is not to be an anglo. So how can I be both a Latina and a
professor? To be a Latina professor, I conclude, means to be unlike and like
me. Que locura! What madness!... As Latina professors, we are newcomers
to a world defined and controlled by discourses that do not address our
realities, that do not affirm our intellectual contributions, that do not

seriously examine our worlds. Can I be both Latina and professor without
compromise?" (pp. 74-75)
Among the faculty of color that she interviewed, Sadao (2003) found that
they practiced a bicultural coping mechanism, which led her to develop a
framework which she refers to as the bicultural skills theory. These faculty
developed skills to enable them to move adeptly and successfully fit into
mainstream culture, which they usually acquired at an early age. Through this
technique they could culturally code-switch, a concept she uses to describe how
faculty of color become adroit in applying parts of their separate value systems to
different situations (p. 410), while satisfactorily maintaining their ethnic cultures
within mainstream American culture. In contrast to Ana M. Martinez Aleman,
whose words demonstrate that bicultural code-switching can lead to a
compromising situation that borders on insanity, the faculty who Sadao interviewed
were successful by:
balancing their traditional beliefs and values with the university subculture
to achieve success in the field. Biculturalism in the form of cross-cultural
awareness and sensitivity to the subtleties of discrimination and racism
found in the majority subculture of post-secondary education allowed them
to address and confront these challenges, (p. 415)
2 Code-switching is associated with bilingual speakers who switch back and forth between two
languages, often a common skill acquired by second and third generation immigrants (Sadao, 2003).

Institutional Climate
The degree of adjustment to the academic environment by faculty of color
on college campuses has been examined in the literature (Aguirre, 2000; Alfred,
2001; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001; Turner, 2003). Faculty of color often describe
feelings of marginalization, invisibility, alienation, and isolation in PWIs (Stanley,
2006a). In a national study of full-time faculty (Jayakumar, et al. 2009), the results
indicated that unintended consequences may occur in a toxic racial environment:
Not only does a negative racial climate impede job satisfaction for faculty
of color, but conversely, a negative racial climate is also associated with
greater retention for White faculty. Together, these finding highlight the
notion that racial hierarchy and advantage can be perpetuated without
malicious intent, (p. 555)
Faculty of color have reported that they perceived the climate on their
campuses as racist, and that they had little faith that the administration was either
committed to diversity or to their success (Iverson, 2007). Most universities make
some effort to address diversity, problems of discrimination, hateful rhetoric and
behavior, and climate issues in their diversity plans. Nonetheless, the findings
indicate that about one-third of graduate students had witnessed overt racism in
the form of ethnophaulisms or bigoted literature. Even when addressing the
problem of climate, the standards established by the White male majority is
contingent and contextual (p. 607) and does not necessarily follow
disinterested and objective criteria, but must instead seek to make visible the

normative power of the practices and processes to which others must conform
(p. 607).
While the recruitment of faculty of color in PWIs is important, their
retention is paramount and essential because retention is vital to the future of higher
education (Rudenstine, 1996). The gap between retention rates for faculty of color
and White faculty is attributable to the privilege of the White male establishment
master narrative to define what is valued and how excellence is measured
(Jayakumar et al. 2009, p. 556). The majoritarian standards define and judge White
faculty as autonomous individuals, while faculty of color are often evaluated in
terms of their race and ethnicity (Turner et al., 1999). Mentoring remains one of the
key attributes for the continued recruitment and retention of faculty of color at
PWIs. The consideration of non-traditional methods such a community building
techniques in mentoring programs (Chesler & Chester, 2002), can contribute
significantly to improved retention (Chesler, Single, & Mikic, 2003) for women
and faculty of color.
Following decades of affirmative action and equal opportunity court cases
and legislation, progress in diversifying the academy and improving the recruitment
and retention rates for faculty of color continues to be a challenging and
problematic dilemma for higher education (Turner, 2003). Referring to the tenure
and promotion process as bittersweet one for faculty of color (Stanley, 2006a,

2006b), the process can be traumatic when White faculty feel that faculty of color
are not qualified to be at their institutions. From the perspective of faculty of color
who are learning to negotiate and navigate the White academic culture with their
own ethnic culture, the ways of providing support through mentoring may not be
effective (Sadao, 2003). Brayboy (2003) points to a hidden agenda affecting faculty
of color in PWIs that profoundly impacts their ability to fulfill the visible
requirements necessary for retention, promotion, and tenure (p. 77).
Tenure and Promotion
When faculty of color are hired in PWIs, they have access to institutional
power and legitimization, but too often it does not accord them with an equal
opportunity to succeed in advancing through the ranks of academia" (Assensoh &
Alex-Assensoh 2001, p. 2). The rates at which faculty of color and women are
tenured are significantly lower than for White men. Generally, women and people
of color disproportionately occupy faculty positions in community colleges and in
untenured and junior ranks at PWIs. The majority of African Americans who
achieve tenure are concentrated in historically Black institutions of higher
education (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004).
When they achieve tenure, women disproportionately fill the ranks of
associate professor (Christman, 2003), while women of color experience the
double impact of sexism and racism (Zellers, Howard, & Barcic., 2008, p. 559).
Although the number of women in general who earn their doctoral degrees is

rapidly growing (West & Curtis, 2006), their representation as tenured faculty
members remains very low, especially at most PWIs and prestigious research
Research and Publication
One of the most significant influences on the retention of faculty of color
hinges on their research and publication record (Creamer, 1998; Schiele, 1991).
Faculty counterstorytellers have a very small voice when it comes to defining and
influencing the master narrative, such that research and publications about race,
gender, and ethnicity that focus on counter narratives is often compared to and
judged against White standards and norms (Fine, Weis, Powell, & Wong, 1997).
One faculty of color who was interviewed (Sadao, 2003) spoke of the tenure review
process and told of the privileging of publication over community service and
And we give lip service to teaching, and we give lip service to community
service. And everything else is concentrated on publications... .But I think
theres this artificial, almost fantasy kind of thing of: no publication/no
consideration of tenure and promotion. And all Im asking is some sense of
balance in the approach, thats all. And I feel Ive been doing all three of the
things that should be the hallmark of a faculty member, (p. 410)
The literature regarding faculty of color points out that often their research
preferences focus on race, gender, inequity, and social justice issues, while their
White counterparts, who have historically dominated the power brokers of higher
education institutions, are more likely to fit into and perpetuate previously defined

research agendas and values (Jayakumar et al., p. 555). PWIs favor and privilege
certain publication journals when considering retention, promotion, and tenure, but
studies have found that faculty of color often find themselves on a separate tenure
track because their research agendas and foci, and the journals that publish their
work, do not fit the dominant majoritarian standards required for tenure.
The presumption that faculty scholars are expected to publish their research
in prestigious journals is often awkward and challenging because these journals
tend to favor epistemological perspectives that align and are in concert with the
master narrative. While not exclusively, many faculty of color tend to write on
issues related to race and ethnicity, which are generally difficult to publish in
mainstream journals (Schiele, 1991, as quoted in Creamer, 1998, p. 17). As a
result, scholars who conduct qualitative research that emphasize ethnicity and race
are often the target of criticism from the master narrators who seek objectivity and
factual data.
However, when faculty of color agree to play by the dominant game rules in
order to get ahead, there is often a cost involved in selling out or assimilating.
Bernstein (1993) urges the academy and publishers to take care to listen and
understand what is being expressed in alien traditions (p. 65) and not simply
dismiss valid scholarship with an ethnic, gender, or racial focus during the review
process. Thus, in order to achieve tenure, promotion, and retention, faculty of color

are obligated to fit into the dominant group requirements in order to persist. The
balancing act is not easy between different cultural worlds (Sadao, 2003).
The White research agenda and the research agendas of faculty of color
might as well be on different planets. When rejections of articles that are submitted
by faculty of color to mainstream publications occur because the authors are
thought to deviate from what are considered to be more traditional forms of
scholarly work (Donmoyer, 1996), a double consciousness emerges (DuBois,
1989/1903) that becomes challenging, discouraging, and difficult. Institutions of
higher education would do well to counter the master narrative and recognize that
academics from minority groups bring perspectives to higher education that
expand and enrich scholarship (Turner, 2003, p. 117).
Research studies that arise out of other social histories, such as African
American social history or Cherokee social history, are not typically considered
legitimate within the mainstream community (Scheurich & Young, 1997, p. 9).
Their work is often considered to be illegitimate, too personal, and not sufficiently
erudite (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Schiele, 1991); or strange, foreign
and exotic (Kolodny, 2000), making their contributions inadequate and unworthy,
according to the master narrative. Mainstream research and methodologies are
cumulatively privileged because they align with and adhere to the dominant
paradigms of the decision makers.

Because the methodology, research topics, and previous publications of the
most successful mainstream scholars are considered to be congruent with the
publication guidelines exacted by the most prestigious journals (Ward & Grant,
1996), they experience continued success and proliferation of their publications.
For the most part, the senior White faculty academic superstars have well
entrenched and established publication records over a substantial part of their
careers, and they are the most likely to serve on the most prestigious editorial
review boards. They are often a small group of people who have a sustained
presence in the literature and who have played a major role in shaping the dominant
paradigms and formal discourse in an academic field (Creamer, 1998, p. 63). They
have the power to either continue to perpetuate the master narrative in educational
research or reexamine scholarship in the editorial-review process, in light of new
and emerging critical counter narratives (Stanley, 2007, p. 16). On the counter
side, very few scholars of color occupy these powerful positions, and they are less
likely to influence and approve the articles submitted for publication.
Not surprisingly, because research for many faculty of color in the social
sciences and education focuses on issues of race, gender, and ethnicity, they are
more prone to experience stress from trying to advance and develop new and
inclusive standards that support and coalesce with their research agendas and foci
(Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980; Milem, 2000; Smith & Witt,
1996; Tillman, 2002). In her study, Stanley (2007) found that African American

faculty members wanted to provide their own perspectives regarding prevailing
negative assumptions about their experiences in as well as outside the classroom
(p.16). This type of commitment to a specific research agenda is not only a
theoretical one, but it is also beneficial for the academy at the classroom level as
well as the institutional level.
Cautioning academe to be aware that epistemological arguments are
sometimes used to support unconscious racist assumptions, Stanley (2007, p. 22)
concludes that the publications and research of many faculty of color reside
outside the dominant paradigm (p.22). With respect to race based comparative
research, she found that the counterstories of people of color are often compared
and contrasted against a White background. While the comparisons are legitimate,
the perceived deficiency of these studies extends the idea of the master narrative
that the White perspective is the standard and the norm. Concerning peer review
scrutiny, the makeup of the peer groups needs to be considered, as the population
of people and faculty of color will continue to increase:
However, for faculty members of color and women, especially, many of us
are still being advised to refrain from doing nonmainstream research, either
because it is controversial or because we will risk not achieving tenure and
promotion. This work, though, is often what we may be most passionate
about in our scholarly pursuits, even though within the mental models of
some colleagues and administrators, this type of research is considered
without substance and lacking in rigor and relevance, (p. 22)

Teaching and Service
Thomas and Hollenshead (2001) interviewed women of color faculty
members who often felt conflicted when they were constrained to limit their
interactions with students, and their service work, particularly if they were not yet
tenured. This tension becomes especially magnified for them when they feel
compelled to assist, advise, and advocate for students of color, or that their voice
and representation is necessary on significant committees, or when important or
controversial faculty or university issues arise.
Faculty of color sometimes experience self-doubt about their ability to teach
(Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005). When they teach and work with students, they
regularly think that they need to be in control rather than being open and accessible
(hooks, 1994; Palmer, 1998). Ineffective thinking such as this can impact and even
hamper the process of teaching and learning. According to Palmer (1998),
teaching is a daily exercise in vulnerability [and] to reduce our vulnerability, we
disconnect from students, from subjects, and even from ourselves (p. 17).
Although mentoring remains one of the key attributes for the continued
recruitment and retention of faculty of color (Stanley, 2006a, p. 715) at PWIs, the
dominant model of mentoring originally conceived by and for White males may not
sufficiently meet the needs of faculty of color. Historically, within the hierarchy of
power within an organization (Touchton 2003), access to informal, but important

gateways can be made through mentoring, casual connections, and various
networks (Kanter, 1977). Typically, people of color and women do not share the
keys to the portals that lead to valuable informal mentoring opportunities available
to their White male colleagues that would otherwise enable them to advance or rise
above the glass ceiling (Carr, Bickel, & Inui 2003; Lima & Cullen, 1995; Luecke,
2004; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; National Academy of Sciences, 1997; U.S.
Department of Labor, 1991).
In their extensive review and analysis of the evolution of mentoring
programs in business and academe, Zellers et al. (2008) found a paucity of research
studies of faculty mentoring programs, and they concluded that most of the current
research in this area consisted of qualitative studies, small studies, or studies that
consisted of relatively small samples. They did find that most researchers maintain
that access to informal mentoring relationships is not equitable, and that it might be
necessary for institutions to consider more formalized mentoring programs.
Nonetheless, due to their lack of access to the exclusive White male mentoring
club, few people of color and women have learned the code to help them reach the
highest levels because there are not sufficient numbers of "women and minorities
with enough organizational influence to advance" (p. 558).
Mentors tend to choose and become more accessible to mentees like
themselves and with whom they can better identify (Kanter, 1977; Luecke, 2004;
McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). Additionally, the White male model of mentoring

may be problematic for women and members of some racial and ethnic groups
because they are more likely to prefer and have greater success with a
collaborative, rather than competitive mentoring approach (Chesler & Chesler,
2002). Generally, there are not sufficient numbers of women and people of color in
leadership, senior faculty, or administrative positions to fulfill the need for mentors
of the same gender or ethnicity. In fact, because people of color encounter
challenges in finding mentors and establishing satisfactory mentoring relationships
(Tillman, 2001), they often find themselves lumped together in one category as
women and minorities.
Because of the tremendous underrepresentation of African Americans in
academe and the historical legacy of de jure discrimination against them, mentoring
for Blacks is especially problematic (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004).
Therefore, most of the studies on the mentoring experiences of faculty of color
have primarily focused on African Americans, because they are the largest racial
One positive mentoring counterstory is that of Bridget Kelly (Fries-Britt &
Kelly, 2005), an African American woman. Due to her own initiative, hard work,
and serendipity, Kelly describes how her publication career began slowly in
graduate school even though she successfully presented at national conferences.
Initially she was discouraged because she was unable to find a mentor to help her
publish her work, until she was mentored by her first African American professor,

with whom she shared similar research pursuits. Eventually the supportive
professor became her advisor, and Kelly went on to accept a tenure-track position.
The articles they wrote together were published in the top-tier journals in her field
enabling her to embark on her own research agenda. Because of this positive
experience, she felt a responsibility to give back by passing her expertise and
know-how about writing and research to her students, especially her students of
Kellys faculty advisor and others like her helped shape and launch her
academic career. She mused, Now that I am a faculty member, I am determined to
give voice to my marginalized existence as a woman of color and I invite others
who are marginalized in the academy to utilize their own powerful voice (Fries-
Britt & Kelly, 2005, p. 26). While not all the counterstories are discouraging,
successful stories like Kellys are less frequent than would be desirable.
By the year 2050, the total population of people of color will outpace the
population of Whites, creating a majority minority phenomenon (Girves, Zepeda, &
Gwathmey, 2005). Therefore, the importance of exploring and developing
meaningful mentoring programs for people of color in the academy becomes even
more prominent and salient (Zellers et al., 2008). Ragins (1999) argues that
mentoring programs need to be even more inclusive by considering other
underrepresented populations, such as people with disabilities and religious

minorities. When racial and ethnic minorities belong to other marginalized groups,
their lowered status becomes even more pronounced and prominent.
Limited Research about Faculty of Color in PWIs
In conclusion, research about faculty of color in PWIs is rather sparse
because their numbers are small relative to their White counterparts (Stanley,
2006a). Thus, faculty of color might choose not to participate in such studies
because they can be identified more readily. Until recently, faculty of color were
not viewed as an important focus of research (P. 703). The master narrative would
conclude that when faculty of color perform such research, they cannot be as
objective when they study their own communities, and that if their research is
qualitative, it is not considered to be rigorous enough. Even more troubling is a
belief that this research can be validated only with a comparison group of White
faculty (703). and that the normal standard is based on a comparison to a White
perspective. The literature presented in this chapter is critical to developing a
broader and deeper understanding of the experiences of faculty of color in PWIs by
elucidating the factors that contribute to their ultimate success in terms of effective
recruitment and retention, and creation of more diverse institutions of higher
Of the twelve research studies presented in this chapter that focus
specifically on faculty of color in PWIs (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002;
Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005; Jayakumar, et. al. 2009; Johnsrud & Sadao,1998; Myers,

2002; Sadao, 2003; Shrake, 2006; Smith & Witt, 1996; Stanley, 2006, 2007;
Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001; Tillman, 2001; Turner & Myers, 2000), three were
quantitative and nine were qualitative. Of the qualitative studies, only three focused
on CRT (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Stanley, 2006,2007), while only
two interrogate the master narrative through the CRT lens. What distinguishes this
dissertation is that it uncovers how historiography is vital to the social construction
of the master narrative.

Chapter 4: Methodology
CRT narratives and storytelling provide readers with a challenging account
ofpreconceived notions of race, and the stories are sometimes integral to
developing cases that consist of legal narratives of racial discrimination.
The thick descriptions and interviews, characteristic of case study research,
not only serve illuminative purposes but also can be used to document
institutional as well as overt racism. The interviewing process can be pulled
together to create narratives that can be used to build a case against
racially biased officials or discriminatory practices. (Parker & Lynn, 2002,
P- 11)
Critical race methodology is the qualitative methodology employed by this
dissertation because it is the most suitable for establishing a critical, in-depth
understanding of the unique social process that occurred for a diverse group of
faculty of color (Solorzano and Yosso, 2002b, Stanley, 2006a,; 2006b). Eight
faculty of color, representing a wide array of educational and institutional
experiences from two public, predominantly White, degree granting institutions of
higher education in a western state, were interviewed and provided their
counterstories for this dissertation. Through their voices and from their
perspectives, I developed the narratives from their interviews to highlight situations
of discrimination and racial, gender, or ethnic bias that occurred for them. In some
cases, they experienced overt instances of racial or sexual discrimination, and in
others, they experienced institutional racism.
Because qualitative research methods that are informed by CRT are
appropriate and conducive to examining human behavior in different social
settings, I have chosen to employ critical race methodology to illuminate the

counterstories of the faculty of color I interviewed. While I realize that multiple
interpretations can occur, the data were collected to capture their diverse and
complex human experiences (Gonzalez, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;).
Furthermore, the personal stories collected from the counterstorytellers helped to
elicit the unique and extraordinary cultural issues and experiences that often occur
in educational settings (Attinasi, 1992).
The employment of in-depth semi-structured and open-ended interviews
(Creswell, 1997; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mishler, 1986) provided the qualitative
means to enable me to respectfully and honorably portray the lived experiences of
the faculty of color who were interviewed. By employing empirical illustrations
based on the qualitative analysis of narrative interviews with both tenured and
junior, tenure track faculty of color in two PWIs, critical race methodology
provided the most appropriate means for uncovering their experiences.
Critical Race Methodology
Realizing a void, researchers who rely on CRT were inspired and compelled
to develop new and much needed methods and theories to help explain the unique
challenges and issues faced by people of color and other marginalized populations.
In their argument for a critical race methodology to respond to what they thought
were inadequate methodologies, Solorzano and Yosso (2002b) assert, Research
and theory that explicitly address issues of race and racism have the potential to fill

this void (p. 23). Accordingly, a critical race methodology in educational research
is justified theoretically because it:
(a) foregrounds race and racism in all aspects of the research process.
However, it also challenges the separate discourses on race, gender, and
class by showing how these three elements intersect to affect the
experiences of [people] of color; (b) challenges the traditional research
paradigms, texts, and theories used to explain the experiences of [people] of
color; (c) offers a liberatory or transformative solution to racial, gender, and
class subordination; and (d) focuses on the racialized, gendered, and classed
experiences of [people] of color. Furthermore, it views these experiences as
sources of strength and (e) uses the interdisciplinary knowledge base of
ethnic studies, womens studies, sociology, history, humanities, and the law
to better understand the experiences of students of color (p. 24) *.
According to Mills (1997), Racism is a global White supremacy and is
itself a political system, a particular power structure of formal and informal rule,
privilege, socioeconomic advantages, and wealth and power opportunities (p. 3).
Scholars therefore argue that traditional research methodologies like statistics and
formal databases, while important, are inadequate and insufficient to identify,
name, and explain racial oppression, because they support the majoritarian stories
that focus on deficit models (Parker & Stovall, 2004).
Solorzano and Yosso (2002a) assert, Critical race methodology provides a
tool to counter deficit storytelling offers a space to conduct and present research
grounded in the experiences and knowledge of people of color (p. 23). Many
Whites live in a world they may not fully understand (Mills, 1997). Newer forms of 1
1 Although the authors were referring to students of color, I would argue that this discussion also
applies to faculty of color..

scholarship and methodologies are needed to open their eyes to the racial realities
experienced by people of color. This exposure to such perspectives and viewpoints
can trigger emotional and visceral responses:
Narrative is one method to make this background, this backdrop as familiar
as breathing oxygen, visible to them in ways that could form the foundation
of a co-racial coalition to end global White domination. The purpose of
narrative is to redirect the dominant gaze, to make it see from a new point
of view what has been there all along. (Parker & Stovall, 2004, p. 170)
Because the explicit goal of this dissertation was to interview faculty of
color regarding their graduate and tenure track experiences in PWIs, critical race
methodology offers a way to understand the experiences of people of color along
the educational pipeline (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002b, p. 36), and therefore makes
sense. Moreover, this dissertation aligns well with the five reasons listed below that
explain why this methodology is theoretically grounded.
First, by the very nature of this dissertation, race and racism were front and
center. The interviews elicited compelling counterstories about race and racism,
including the intersection of race, class, and gender. Second, the use of CRT as the
conceptual and methodological framework for this dissertation is one that
interrogates and resists the traditional research and theoretical paradigms that have
blatantly overlooked and failed to address the concerns of populations that have
been historically marginalized (Parker & Lynn, 2002). Third, through the often
moving, deeply raw and often racist historical issues that were illuminated by the
faculty of color interviewees, I hope that faculty of color and university

administrations are empowered to continue to transform institutions of higher
education to be more inclusive and responsive to these issues. Fourth, employing
this methodology helped to bring the focus on the experiences of faculty of color of
both genders. Finally, the intersections of historical, sociological, ethnic, legal and
feminist disciplines were elucidated in the powerful counterstories.
Counterstorytelling as Method
CRT recognizes the existence of the interactive and organic relationship
between the researcher with the participants, while honoring the important
relationship between the participants and their stories (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
From this perspective, the counterstories that elucidate lived experiences provide
important empirical evidence. The epistemology of critical race methodology
distills the knowledge from the authentic stories of people who have been
marginalized and whose voices have been silenced. Therefore, this approach
resists criticisms that narratives from marginalized and disenfranchised populations
are biased and subjective (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
Because CRT interrogates and resists traditional methodologies, it demands
and seeks theories of social transformation wherein knowledge is generated
specifically for the purpose of addressing and ameliorating conditions of
oppression, poverty, or deprivation (Lincoln, 1993, p. 33). Through the process of
collecting counterstories, critical race researchers learn about the real experiences
of people of color and thereby contribute to and broaden the knowledge base.

Critical race theorists argue that the counterstories and experiential knowledge
(Pizarro, 1998, p. 62) of people who have been victimized by racial inequities help
clarify our understanding of the socially ingrained and systemic forces at work in
their oppression (p. 62). The counterstory challenges the master narrative that
erroneously represents a group because it is bound to provide a very narrow
depiction of what it means to be Mexican-American, African-American, White, and
so on (Montecinos, 1995, p. 293). For critical race theorists, the way of knowing
reality is by seeking it through counterstories.
In using counterstorytelling as a method of inquiry, I desired to elicit real
experiences from the faculty of color interviewees, and thereby encourage deeper
levels of reflection and analysis without limiting or restricting their focus. Both
critical race scholars and critical feminist scholars have questioned the use of
traditional methodologies when conducting research about people of color. Harris
(1990) asserts that the source of gender and racial essentialism is the second voice,
the voice that claims to speak for all (p. 263). The critical race methodology of
counterstorytelling allowed for the faculty of color interviewees to feel comfortable
enough to share their stories freely and openly because their perspectives and
voices were honored. Throughout the interview process, I felt confident that this
methodological approach was conducive to open and honest interviews because the
faculty of color were relaxed and spoke readily during our conversations.

Counterstories Reveal History
The concepts relevant to CRT help historians better understand the twists
and turns (Delgado, 2009, 1508) of the plight of people of color as related in their
counterstories. Likewise, in the process of sharing their counterstories with me,
historical issues emerged from the information provided by the faculty of color
during their interviews. I had no idea what historical information would be brought
to light. As a result, their compelling stories inspired me to dig further into the
historical context and background for the issues that were revealed during the
interviews. For example, the issues of Indian Boarding Schools, school
desegregation in the North, and affirmative action were important topics that
surfaced, requiring further examination and exploration. In spite of being affected
by these issues, the counterstorytellers who shared their experiences persisted by
attaining doctorate degrees and becoming faculty in PWIs. The importance of
understanding the historical events that have informed the experiences of people of
color is invaluable because it provides a backdrop and a deeper insight into the
significant issues affecting progress for faculty and students of color in the 21st
century as they continue to negotiate PWIs.
In the ensuing sections, I have included a discussion of the study design and
rationale that is followed by the criteria I established for selecting the participants
for the sample. Next, I have provided a description of the data collection methods I