Capitalizing on Change: The Discursive Framing of Diversity in U.S. Land-Grant Universities

Abstract

Using policy discourse analysis, the author analyzed 21 diversity action plans issued at 20 U.S. land-grant universities over a five-year period to identify images of diversity and the problems and solutions represented in diversity action plans. Discourses of marketplace, excellence, managerialism, and democracy emerged and served to construct images of the diverse individual as a commodity, entrepreneur, and change agent. These findings suggest that the dominance of the marketplace discourse may situate the diverse individual as a resource to be exploited and inspire entrepreneurial endeavors rather than change-making activism. Diversity action plans in their current form may unintentionally undermine the achievement of their equity goals.

Susan V. Iverson is assistant professor of Higher Education Administration and Student Personnel at Kent State University. Her research interests include diversity and equity policy, women and advancement, and service-learning.

Notes

¹ The participation of minorities in higher education remains low relative to their population or their high school graduation rates. For instance, African Americans and Hispanics continue to lag behind Whites in the percentage of college-age, high school graduates enrolled in college (Harvey, 2003). In 2000, the proportion of white students (ages 18–24) attending college was 43.2%, but African American and Hispanic students' participation rates fall behind, at 39.4% and 36.5%, respectively (College Enrollment by Racial and Ethnic Group, 2003). For all groups, including Whites, women account for more than half the total college population, and for black student enrollment in particular, black women enrolled in higher education are disproportionately represented compared with black men (63% women; 37% men) (College Enrollment by Racial and Ethnic Group, 2003). Additionally, the majority of historically underrepresented racial groups are enrolled in 2-year public institutions, fewer in 4-year public institutions, and the fewest in private 2-year institutions (College Enrollment by Racial and Ethnic Group, 2003).

² These documents are referred to by various names, depending on the institution (e.g., Diversity Action Plan, Report on Diversity and Globalization, Diversity and Human Rights Comprehensive Plan for Action and Accountability); however, I collectively referred to these reports as diversity action plans.

³ By institutional culture I mean the “shared values, assumptions, beliefs, and ideologies” that guide and shape campus norms and rules, contribute to faculty, staff, and students' perceptions of self and others, and “provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988/2000, p. 162; see also Tierney, 1993).

⁴ The designation “1862 land-grant” derives from legislation passed in 1862—Morrill Land Grant Act—that awarded land grants to states and were extended to more institutions as present state boundaries were defined. Typically, references to land-grant universities do not include this designator (1862); however, it is important to acknowledge and differentiate from the Morrill 1890 (Agricultural College Act of 1890) land-grants and the 1994 land-grants (Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994).

⁵ While committees and reports have various titles, I was seeking plans that addressed diversity in the broadest sense. This parameter excluded reports generated by other committees charged by senior administrators (e.g., commissions on the status of racial minorities, women, and persons with disabilities).

⁶ The diversity action plans refer to individuals using a variety of terms, e.g., members of historically disadvantaged groups, targeted groups, under-represented persons, those who have been historically marginalized and previously excluded, and diverse persons. For the purpose of this study, I collectively refer to individuals as diverse persons. While not ideal, this collective reference allows for a consistent signifier throughout the text.

⁷ Evident throughout the analysis of the diversity action plans was the almost interchangeable use of terms describing the “diverse individual” and the collective label “diversity”—the subject often was portrayed as an object. Thus, as I draw upon the language of the reports to write this, some stretches of text may be awkward in their reference to a thing (diversity) to describe a person (diverse individual).

⁸ Benchmarking is an illustration of how a discourse does not stand alone and that multiple discourses are circulating in diversity action plans. Benchmarking is evident in the discourse of excellence; yet, is also made visible by a discourse of managerialism that is also described in this article.