Multiracial college students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions

Abstract

While research on monoracial college students’ experiences with racial microaggressions increases, minimal, if any, research focuses on multiracial college students’ experiences with racial microaggressions. This manuscript addresses the gap in the literature by focusing on multiracial college students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions, a type of racial microaggression. Utilizing qualitative data, this study explored 3 different multiracial microaggressions that 10 multiracial women experienced at a historically white institution including, Denial of a Multiracial Reality, Assumption of a Monoracial Identity, and Not (Monoracial)Enough to ‘Fit In.’

Keywords:

• Multiracial students
• racial microaggressions
• racism

Introduction

The manner in which racism occurs has changed over time from overt and extreme to covert and subtle (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Bonilla-Silva and Lewis 1999). This subtle racism often occurs through racial microaggressions. Racial microaggressions are subtle acts of racism that have deleterious impacts on people of color, but are so normalized that they are hard to address and redress (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000; Sue 2010; Yosso et al. 2009). While racial microaggressions were first conceptualized within psychology, in the 1990s, education scholars have begun to focus on monoracial college students of colors’ experiences with racial microaggressions (see Minikel-Lacocque 2013; Smith, Hung, and Franklin 2011; Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000; Sue and Constantine 2007; Yosso et al. 2009).

Research concerning monoracial college students’ experiences with microaggressions continues to grow, but little is known about multiracial students’ experiences with racial microaggressions.¹ This dearth in research is alarming as the multiracial student population continues to grow at a steady pace. From 2010 to 2012, the multiracial student population enrolled in degree-granting post-secondary institutions grew by 55% (NCES 2013), but little remains known about these students’ experiences with race and racism in college. The limited research that does exist suggests that multiracial students have unique racialized experiences that differ from their monoracial peers’ experiences (Basu 2007; Literte 2010; Museus, Lambe Sariñana, and Ryan 2015; Museus et al. 2016; Renn 2003, 2004; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008). Additionally, research outside of higher education (see Johnston and Nadal 2010; Nadal et al. 2011) confirms that multiracial Americans experience a unique form of racial microaggression, multiracial microaggressions, on the bases of being more than one race. Yet, researchers continue to lump multiracial students’ experiences in with monoracial students’ experiences, or negate multiracial students’ altogether (Jackson 2010). Subsequently, it remains unknown if and how racial microaggressions may manifest in different forms for multiracial students.

This study addresses a gap in the literature concerning multiracial students’ experiences with racial microaggressions in college by exploring 10 multiracial women undergraduate students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions at a historically white institution (HWI). To further convey the need for this research, the below review of literature explores racial microaggressions in US society, monoracial college students’ experiences with racial microaggressions, and the minimal amount of research that focuses on multiracial students’ experiences with race on the college campus.

Review of literature

Racial microaggressions

Racial microaggressions are the ‘brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative’ (Sue 2010, 3) messages toward racially minoritized groups in US society. Racial microaggressions are a form of everyday, systemic racism that upholds the status quo, specifically white supremacy (Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015). First introduced by Chester Pierce in the 1970s (Pierce 1970, 1974), scholars’ interests in racial microaggressions have increased over the last decade (see Sue 2010; Sue et al. 2008, 2009). Research concerning racial microaggressions exposes and supports the notion that racism in the US has become so normalized, and often subtle, that it has become difficult for people of color to address, let alone recognize (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Bonilla-Silva and Lewis 1999). While this racism may be normalized, the accumulation of racial microaggressions has a deleterious impact on people of colors’ psychological, mental, emotional, and physical health (Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015; Sue et al. 2009).

Racial microaggressions in higher education

The majority of the literature on microaggressions, racial and otherwise, exists in the field of psychology (see Pierce 1970, 1974; Sue 2010; Sue et al. 2008, 2009). However, scholarship concerning monoracial students of colors’ experiences with racial microaggressions on the college campus has increased since the late 1990s (see Lewis et al. 2012; Minikel-Lacocque 2013; Solórzano 1998; Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000; Yosso et al. 2009).² For instance, researchers have detailed how African-American college students experience racial microaggressions in both academic and social spaces (Smith, Hung, and Franklin 2011), which may contribute to feelings of self-doubt, isolation, and perceptions of a negative campus climate (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). Latina/o undergraduate students experience interpersonal microaggressions, racial jokes, and institutional microaggressions (Yosso et al. 2009). Specifically, Latina/o students encounter feelings of isolation and invisibility, stereotypes, and ignorance and insults from white peers (Minikel-Lacocque 2013). Concurrently, black and Latina/o students report feeling isolated on campus and that they are often the only ones (McCabe 2009). The subtle nature of these racial microaggressions makes it difficult for students of color to recognize, address, and report these racist acts (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000; Yosso et al. 2009). Even when students of color do report these subtle acts to campus administrators, their concerns are not often taken seriously or are dismissed (Harwood et al. 2012).

While experiences with racial microaggressions may be similar across differing populations of college students of color, scholars have explored how racial microaggressions are also nuanced between communities of color (Kohli and Solórzano 2012; Pérez Huber 2011; Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015; Solórzano 1998). Different types of microaggressions exist within and between different identity groups because microaggressions are ‘based on race and/or ethnicity, gender, class, language, sexuality, immigrations status, phenotype, accent, surname, and/or culture’ (Kohli and Solórzano 2012; Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015, 310). Racism and racial microaggressions occur at the intersections of multiple systems of domination and are often more complex than one narrow term or definition, i.e. racial microaggression.

For instance, Solórzano (1998) explored how racism and sexism intersect to influence racial and gender microaggressions in the educational experiences of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Chicana scholars’ experiences with racial microaggressions were quantitatively and qualitatively different from their male counterparts, as well as from white men and women. Solórzano (1998) asserted that while some racialized experiences, including racial microaggressions, are similar between African-American and Chicana/o students, these experiences also diverge in many ways (Solórzano 1998). In 2011, Pérez Huber explored how racism and nativism intersect to influence Latina/o students’ experiences with racist nativist microaggressions. Racist nativist microaggressions extend ‘the conceptualization of racial microaggressions to include experiences with racism and nativism for Latina/o students, acknowledging the role of language in the subordination of this group’ (Pérez Huber 2011, 380). Racist nativism helps to expand on a narrow definition of racism and racial microaggressions to more adequately account for the unique racialized experiences of Latina/o students. While previous research suggests that differing types of racial microaggressions manifest in distinctive manners within educational environments (Kohli and Solórzano 2012; Pérez Huber 2011; Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015; Solórzano 1998), multiracial microaggressions are one type of racial microaggression that have yet to be explored within an educational context.

Multiracial microaggressions

Minimal to no research has focused on multiracial students’ experiences with racial microaggressions in college. However, within the field of psychology, Johnston and Nadal (2010) proposed ‘a taxonomy of multiracial microaggressions, or microaggressions based on multiracial status, which send hostile, derogatory, or negative messages toward multiracial persons’ (132). The taxonomy consisted of five themes, which were derived from existing scholarship that described multiracial Americans’ racialized experiences. The five themes included exclusion and isolation, exoticization and objectification, assumption of a monoracial identity, denial of a multiracial reality, and the pathologizing of multiracial identity and experiences. In 2011, using a mixed-methods approach, Nadal and colleagues empirically tested the theoretical taxonomy and found the presence of all five microaggressions, as well as the presence of a sixth microaggression: stereotypes.

While the field of psychology has begun to explore multiracial Americans’ experiences with racial microaggressions, higher education scholars have yet to explore this phenomenon for multiracial students. However, extant studies that focused on multiracial students’ identity development and multiracial students’ perceptions of campus climate suggest that these students, due to their mixed race identities, encounter unique racialized experiences when compared to their monoracial counterparts. For instance, campus climate research indicates that multiracial students ‘report significantly more discrimination and bias than White and Latina/o students’ (Hurtado, Ruiz Alvarado, and Guillermo-Wann 2015, 145) and perceive their campus environments to be less supportive when compared to monoracial peers (Nelson-Laird and Niskodé-Dossett 2010). Research concerning multiracial college students’ racial identity noted that multiracial students perceive racism from white peers and resistance from monoracial peers of color (Basu 2007; Renn 2004; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008). Additionally, college administrators and institutional organizations and departments often negate multiracial students multiple racial identities, forcing them to pick one racial identity over others (Literte 2010; Renn 2003, 2004). These are racialized experiences that are unique to students who identify with, or are perceived to be, more than one racial heritage.

In structuring this research, only one study was found that purposefully focused on multiracial students’ experiences with racial prejudice and discrimination in college. Museus, and colleagues (2016) found that 22 students from 7 HWIs experienced seven themes pertaining to racial prejudice and discrimination, including the invalidation of a multiracial identity, racial exclusion and marginalization, and pathologization. Several themes generated by Museus and colleagues (2016) align with Johnston and Nadal’s (2010) taxonomy of multiracial microaggressions, but the researchers did not label these experiences as (multi)racial microaggressions, let alone as racism. While Museus and colleagues’ research on racial prejudice and discrimination is foundational and necessary, it may also be concerning as scholars’ failure to critically examine and name racism when studying race upholds systems of domination, specifically white supremacy, on the college campus (see Harper 2012).

The educational research detailed above explores how multiracial students have unique experiences with race and racialization on campus, suggesting that multiracial students may also encounter unique types of racial microaggression, i.e. multiracial microaggressions. For example, the denial of a multiracial reality occurs when institutional structures and individuals deny multiracial peoples’ self-identification with two or more racial identities (Johnston and Nadal 2010); monoracial individuals rarely, if ever, encounter this type of microaggression as they fit into a monoracial-only paradigm of race that recognizes their one racial identity. Additionally, multiracial students often encounter racism and monoracism in the college environment (Johnston and Nadal 2010; Hamako 2014; J. Harris 2016). Monoracism is ‘a social system of psychological inequality where indiv0iduals who do not fit monoracial categories may be oppressed on systemic and interpersonal levels because of underlying assumptions and beliefs in singular, discrete racial categories’ (Johnston and Nadal 2010, 125). Monoracism, like racial microaggressions, is a form of racism (J. Harris 2016; Kohli and Solórzano 2012). Just as Latina/o students experience racist nativist microaggressions at the intersections of racism and nativism (Pérez Huber 2011), multiracial students may experience multiracial microaggressions at the intersections of racism and monoracism.

Yet, it remains unknown if, and how, multiracial students experience multiracial microaggressions on the college campus. This study addresses this gap by exploring multiracial women students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions at a HWI. Research findings explore how multiracial microaggressions are a type of racial microaggression that are unique to multiracial students on the college campus. Additionally, guided by critical race theory (CRT), this research places race and (mono)racism at the center of analysis, allowing for a critique of the endemic nature of (mono)racism in the college environment and its influence on multiracial students. Identifying and naming race and racism, however normalized, is necessary if racial equity is to be actualized in education (Harper 2012).

Theoretical frameworks

Critical race theory and critical multiracial theory

This study is framed by CRT, critical multiracial theory (MultiCrit), and by a racial microaggressions model rooted in a CRT perspective. CRT stemmed from civil rights lawyers’ growing awareness ‘that dominant conceptions of race, racism, and equality were increasingly incapable of providing any meaningful quantum of racial justice’ (Lawrence et al. 1993, 3) for people of color, specifically black Americans. Beginning in the mid-1970s, CRT was initially used to critique the US legal system’s role in upholding white supremacy (Delgado 1984). In the mid-1990s, CRT was applied to education in order to interrupt racist structures that are deeply ingrained in the US educational pipeline (Ladson-Billings 1998; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995). As educational scholars have begun to utilize CRT as a framework to critique institutionalized racism, core tenets of the theory have emerged including, (a) the centrality of race and racism and their intersectionality with other systems of domination (b) the challenge to dominant ideology, or traditional beliefs set in place by white society to maintain white privilege, power, and dominance (c) the commitment to racial equity and social justice, (d) the experiential knowledge of people of color must be centered in order to root out racist structures, challenge dominant narratives, and help foster a sense of psychic preservation within communities of color, and (e) the transdisciplinary perspective (see Kohli and Solórzano 2012; Pérez Huber 2011; Solórzano 1998; Solórzano and Yosso 2002).

While scholars continue to utilize tenets of CRT to disturb white supremacy within the academy, other scholars have problematized the frameworks’ inability to account for the racialized experiences of students who identify outside of a black–white binary (e.g. Brayboy 2005; Solórzano and Delgado Bernal 2001). Stemming from these critiques and concerns, theoretical additions of CRT, such as LatCrit and TribalCrit, were theorized to address systems of domination that uniquely influence specific populations racialized experiences. Mirroring these theoretical additions, MultiCrit is guided by several CRT tenets, but focuses on the complexities of multiraciality in higher education, including colorism, monoracism, the history of anti-miscegenation, and a monoracial-only paradigm of race (J. Harris 2016). Two such MultiCrit tenets are relevant to this research and are explored in detail below.

The social construction of a monoracial paradigm of race

CRT acknowledges that race is a socially constructed concept that changes with the needs of white society (Delgado and Stefancic 2012). MultiCrit expands on this CRT tenet and explores how race is socio-historically constructed in strict monoracial categories. Leong (2010) explained that US society ‘relies heavily on a familiar set of racial categories … Asian, Latina/o, White, Black, and Native American … the categories [that] constitute the paradigm through which we view race’ (470). This results in a dearth of vocabulary and knowledge, disallowing individuals the ability to talk about and understand race outside of a monoracial-only paradigm, i.e. multiracial. Even when the US Census and public institutions of higher education allow for multiracial individuals to ‘check all that apply,’ a monoracial paradigm of race remains embedded in US society and continues to influence social and educational outcomes for multiracial individuals who fall outside of this paradigm (J. Harris 2016).

Monoracism

MultiCrit accounts for multiracial peoples’ encounters with monoracism, which, like racism, is pervasive throughout the US educational system and influences the lived experiences of multiracial individuals (J. Harris 2016). Monoracism embeds and normalizes a monoracial-only paradigm of race in US society, resulting in structural inequities and oppression for multiracial individuals (Johnston and Nadal 2010). Monoracism is a product of and a tool used to maintain a monoracial-only paradigm of race, which ensures the invisibility and exclusion of multiraciality from society and education (Guillermo-Wann and Johnston 2012). Monoracism is embedded within anti-discrimination policies that contain language that only accounts for monoracial oppression (racism) and/or within communities of color who require certain arbitrary characteristics, such as cultural knowledge or blood quantum, to participate and belong within the community (DaCosta 2003; Johnston and Nadal 2010; Leong 2010). Finally, monoracism is a form of racism and may be horizontally perpetuated by communities of color, vertically perpetuated by white communities, and may also be internalized and maintained by multiracial individuals.

A racial microaggressions model

Drawing from Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) racial microaggressions model, this research explores the systems of domination that influence multiracial students’ experiences with racial microaggressions. Guided by a CRT perspective, the racial microaggressions model accounts for three interwoven components that contribute to racial microaggressions (see Figure 1). The first component, the individual racial microaggression, is at the center of the model and accounts for the lived experience of the person of color encountering the microaggression. Second, institutional racism surrounds and influences the individual racial microaggression as these racist structures construct and maintain peoples of colors’ everyday experiences with racism, including racial microaggressions. Finally, macroaggressions surround the other two components and ‘provides the ideological foundations for the reproduction and perpetuation of institutional and everyday racism - white supremacy’ (Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015, 302).

Figure 1. Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) racial microaggressions model.

While the racial microaggressions model is grounded in CRT, this research uses MultiCrit to explore how a monoracial-only paradigm of race and monoracism may influence and exist within each component of Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) racial microaggressions model and contribute to multiracial students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions. Specifically, the original model, in order to account for multiracial microaggressions, must use the two aforementioned tenets of MultiCrit to shift each of the three components of the racial microaggressions model first detailed by Pérez Huber and Solorzano (2015) (See Figure 2 for the modified [multi]racial microaggressions model). Within this modified model, the macroaggression accounts for white ideological constructions of a monoracial-only paradigm of race. Institutional racism is more appropriately named as institutional monoracism, as this is the system that embeds and actualizes a monoracial-only paradigm of race in society and education. Finally, macroaggressions and institutional monoracism influence the center of the model, the multiracial microaggression, and multiracial individuals’ racialized experiences.

Figure 2. Multiracial microaggressions model adapted from Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) racial microaggressions model.

Methods

I used critical race methodology (CRM) to explore the main research question, ‘What are ten multiracial women students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions at a HWI?’ The five CRT tenets detailed in the above section provides the theoretical foundation for CRM (Solórzano and Yosso 2002). CRM was used throughout the research process to focus on multiracial women students, encourage liberatory and transformative research and practice, and highlight the voices and experiential knowledge of the participants. CRM challenges the traditional and dominant ways in which racism and race are approached in educational research (Solórzano and Yosso 2002), leading me to focus on the qualitative narratives of multiracial women, explore their experiences with multiracial microaggressions, and name race and racism throughout the research process in an attempt to counter dominant ideologies that are often embedded in educational scholarship and practice. Finally, CRM ‘foregrounds race and racism in all aspects of the research process’ (Solórzano and Yosso 2002, 24) but also acknowledges that other systems of domination intersect with race and racism. Throughout this study, I foregrounded the role that race and racism (and monoracism) play in the experiences of multiracial woman, but remained sensitive to other structures and systems of domination that may influence participants’ racialized experiences.

Research site

Data were collected at Midwestern University (MU) (pseudonym), a public four-year institution located in a small town in the Midwest region of the United States. MU is a Research University that is highly residential. In spring 2013, undergraduate enrollment was recorded at approximately 41,000 students. White students made up approximately 74% of the undergraduate student population, while 18% of the student body identified as racial minorities. Approximately 3% identified as more than one racial identity, half of which identified as women.

Participants

Participants were recruited through campus identity and social justice-based listservs that were relevant to this research. For example, listservs for the Latina/o Cultural Center, Women’s Center, and Minority Scholarship programs were utilized. Criterion for participation included being enrolled as an undergraduate student at MU for one or more academic semesters, identifying as a woman, and identifying with, at some point in their tenure at MU, two or more racial groups and/or as multiracial. Ten self-identified multiracial women participated in this research (see Table 1 for participant demographics).

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Pseudonym	Race	Year	Major	Religion	Phenotype	Age	Sexual Orientation
Jenna Ali	Half black, ‘multicultural’	First Year	Neuroscience	Non-practicing muslim (dad) and catholic (mom)	Olive, (mocha), waardenburgs’ syndrome (or plebaldism) with white forelock and white spots	19	Straight, Heterosexual
Gabrielle Johnson	Mixed-Race	Senior	Criminal Justice & Sociology	Episcopalian	Caramel	22	Straight
Elizabeth Ramos	Mexican, German, Austrian	Sophomore	Entrepreneurship & Corporate Innovation, International Business, and Marketing	Non-denominational christian	Light olive	19	Heterosexual
Sarah Richardson	Mixed/ Caribbean	First Year	Human Resource Management	Thelemite	Olive	18	Straight
Monica Cruz	Biracial	Junior	Social Work	None, raise muslim	Light Skin	21	Straight
Vanessa Ortiz	Mexican/black American	Junior	Journalism	Not religious	Hazelnut	21	Straight
Georgia Wolfe	Asian and Native American	First Year	Human Development and Family Studies	Agnostic	The perfect tan, in the summer soft caramel	18	Straight
Vivian Rock	Japanese and English	Junior	Marketing	Agnostic	Cream	21	Heterosexual
Jane Lau	African, Arawak Indian, German, White, and a bit Chinese	Third Year/Senior	Journalism and Sociology	Christian, non-denominational	Light tan, olive in summer	21	Straight
Marlaya Raza	White/Pakistani	Senior	Computer Science & Communications	Atheist	Olive	20	Straight

Data collection

Data were collected over three different individual interviews with each participant. The first and final interviews were traditional sit down interviews. The second interview utilized the walking interview method. Kusenbach (2003) explained that walking interviews allow researchers ‘to observe their informants’ spatial practices in situ while accessing their experiences and interpretations at the same time’ (463). The research question led me to inquire about participants’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions within the historically white environment. Rarely used in higher education research (J. C. Harris 2016), the walking interview method provided a unique way to observe the campus environment, as well as take note of how multiracial women students, perceived, navigated, and interacted in situ with their environment (Carpiano 2009). The walking interview is well aligned with the aims of CRM, CRT, and MutliCrit, as the interview method centers on participants’ biographies, environmental interactions, and lived experiences (Kusenbach 2003). Interviews ranged from 65–120 min. All three interview protocols were open-ended and semi-structured and were audio-recorded and transcribed within 24 hours of being conducted.

Data analysis

During and following the collection of the narratives of multiracial women students at MU, a thematic analysis guided by CRM and the aforementioned theoretical framework was conducted (Solórzano and Yosso 2002). The five phases of analysis included: 1. Hearing the stories; 2. Transcription; 3. Memo writing; 4. Interpretation of the transcriptions; and 5. Examining commonalities and differences between participants (Fraser 2004). Three themes were developed from a thematic analysis of the data that were sensitized by CRM and the theoretical framework, including 1. Denial of a Multiracial Reality, 2. Assumption of a Monoracial Identity, and 3. Not (Monoracial) Enough to ‘Fit In.’

Trustworthiness

Several strategies were utilized to increase trustworthiness. First, member checking, which is one of ‘the most crucial techniques for establishing credibility’ (Lincoln and Guba 1985, 314), was employed. Peer debriefing was also utilized to establish trustworthiness throughout the research process. This strategy allowed peers, both close to and removed from the research, to offer comments, thoughts, and suggestions on the research findings (Merriam 2009). Finally, reflexivity was employed throughout the research process, in a journal, to ensure this study’s trustworthiness. The researcher kept a journal throughout the research process that detailed their thoughts, feelings, and observations.

Findings

All ten multiracial women students relayed experiences with at least one of three multiracial microaggressions during their tenure at MU. The microaggresions include, Denial of a Multiracial Reality, Assumption of a Monoracial Identity, and Not (Monoracial) Enough to ‘Fit In.’ It is important to note that multiracial women spoke about encountering racial stereotypes within the campus environment. However, I do not categorize stereotypes as microaggressions, but the mechanism through which these microaggressions are often filtered (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). Additionally, multiracial women experienced racial microaggressions, such as exoticization and racial joking, but these microaggressions were not specific to participants’ multiracial identity. While multiracial women students’ experiences with both racial microaggressions and multiracial microaggressions are a finding in itself, the below section focuses on and explores the three multiracial microaggressions in more depth.

Denial of a multiracial reality

Denial of a multiracial reality occurred when monoracial individuals were aware of multiracial women students’ multiple racial identities but refused to acknowledge them. In essence, multiracial women at MU were denied the opportunity to identify with more than one race. Perpetrators of this multiracial microaggression ranged from individuals, to groups, to institutionalized practices. On an individual level, peers denied multiracial women’s racial identities. Sarah relayed a story of a white man who came into her residence hall room her first year. The man asked the objectifying question, ‘What are you?’ Sarah explained how she answered the question and the man’s reaction:

I’m like, “Oh, I have Latin American in me, I have Dutch, I have African, and yeah.” And he was like, “Oh, you’re Spanish.” And I said, “If I just told you I have this, this, and this in me, does that mean, I’m like …?” It just irritated me …

Sarah took the time to explain her multiple racial identities, but her peer immediately reduced her to one race/ethnicity. Moreover, the race Sarah was assigned by the white man had nothing to do with her racial or ethnic heritage, which frustrated her.

Sarah’s encounter was with an acquaintance, but other women experienced denial from close friends. While accompanying her friend to an event at the Black Cultural Center on campus, Georgia experienced a denial of her multiracial reality. She relayed:

My friend was like, “You will just be known as that Asian girl, like everyone knows you’re the Asian girl like in there.” Like, I don’t know why she calls me Asian. I think it’s just easier for her, well, like instead of saying Asian-Native American.

Georgia spoke of another time, when her boyfriend, someone she was intimate with, denied her multiracial reality:

He [my boyfriend] was just like, “Obviously, my type is Asian.” I think he identifies me … I never thought about this until now, but, like my boyfriend identifies me more as Asian, not even Native American ….

Multiracial women’s close friends and loved ones knew their multiple racial identities, but often refused to acknowledge this fact. Instead, they placed multiracial students into monoracial categories that denied their multiracial realities. Georgia posited that this denial most likely took place because it was easier for others to understand her identity within a monoracial paradigm.

Multiracial women also described how MU, as an institution, denied their multiracial realities. In 2011, the institution implemented a ‘check all that apply’ option on their admissions form. This was the same year that they reported back using a ‘more than one race’ category. Therefore, MU was aware that ‘more than one race’ was an identity and a reality for several students on campus. Unfortunately, multiracial women did not feel that the institution supported them in this identity choice. Instead, they relayed that the institution did not acknowledge their racial identity. Monica explained:

Like it’s [biracial] not a thing … When you take a survey, any well done survey is going to have “select any that apply” … There’s not very many well-done surveys, especially here on campus … So if I am doing a survey, and it doesn’t let you select multiple, I quit the survey because I’m not doing it. Like it’s [biracial] not a real thing. People don’t realize you could be multiple things. We have this need to box people into one. So when I need to be boxed into one, I’m black. Does that piss me off? Yes. I understand that I’m not just that. I’m these multiple things. So it’s not a real thing. Biracial is not a real thing.

Monica’s inability to declare her multiracial reality on campus surveys relayed to her that MU did not see her multiracial identity, and therefore, did not see her experiences as ‘real.’ Whether identifying as multiracial, or with two or more races, participants often felt that their non-monoracial and therefore, non-normalized identities were denied.

Assumption of a monoracial identity

The majority of participants in this research relayed that their racial identity was often assumed to be monoracial. The assumption of a monoracial identity is different than the denial of a multiracial reality in that those who assumed women to be monoracial were not often aware that they identified as multiracial (Johnston and Nadal 2010). In other words, perpetrators of this microaggression did not knowingly deny mixed-race women’s racial identities.

The women often used the word ‘assume’ when describing this subtle slight. Jenna relayed, ‘People assume [my race] and like you have no idea. So it definitely annoys me, but like some people have asked if I’m Indian. I don’t look Indian at all!’ Jenna, who has no Indian heritage, encountered assumptions of her identity, an interaction that annoyed her. Gabrielle also invoked the term ‘assume’ when describing this multiracial microaggression:

… when people assume things about me, but like their assumptions are usually wrong. So even if you try to assume things about me you’re probably wrong, you’re probably incorrect. So you could try to put me in this box … and the box it’s closed.

Assumptions almost always reduced participants to a monoracial category, which, as Gabrielle mentioned, was ‘wrong.’

In another interview, Gabrielle explained further why others on campus assumed and assigned her one racial identity:

People don’t really know what I am. So they assume what I am, and they tell me what I am, what I actually am. They say, “You’re this, because you don’t look that way” … Depending on how [my hair] is, it tells people, it decides. If I have my hair straight, people think that I’m Latina. If I have my hair curly, people think I’m Latina or Indian … just like depending on the way I have my hair, that’s like a signifier of what people assume I am.

Hair, a cultural signifier, was a large reason why Gabrielle and other multiracial women were assumed to be a certain race. While hair was a clue to the ‘what are you?’ identity puzzle, participants’ last names were also integral to the assumption of identity. Sarah spoke about the monoracial assumptions she encountered and how her last name acted as a cultural signifier that led to incorrect racial assignments:

I get an automatic assumption that I am Spanish … Yeah, I usually get automatic Spanish. My last name doesn’t help, because its Venezuelan or Aruban … they just start speaking Spanish to me. Like, “Yeah, you’re Latino right?” I’m just like, “No, I don’t know what you’re saying to me. I’m sorry. No.”

Sarah’s story exposes how monoracial identity is assumed, but so are the stereotypical assumptions that align with that assigned race. In Sarah’s case, it was assumed she was ‘Latino’ and therefore, must be able to speak Spanish.

Elizabeth, who is Mexican and white, also spoke about the confusion that occurred when last names and physical features did not align with others’ assumptions of her monoracial identity. Prior to meeting, Elizabeth’s first-year roommate assumed that she was only Mexican. Elizabeth described, ‘She [my roommate] told me when she met me she was confused because my name was Elizabeth Ramos, but when she looked me up on Facebook I looked white. So she wasn’t sure if it was the same person.’ Elizabeth’s roommate first assumed her to be Mexican because of her last name. However, after looking at her physical features on Facebook, she concluded that Elizabeth was white. Both of these conjectures placed Elizabeth into monoracial categories, neither of which she fully identified with. Elizabeth later expressed that the juxtaposition between her last name, physical features, and her identification with a multiracial identity often garnered confusion from others on campus. She called this misalignment a ‘juicy contradiction.’

Not (monoracial) enough to ‘fit in’

Due to their multiple racial identities, participants felt they were ‘not enough’ within an environment that subscribed to a monoracial view of race. During the walking interview, Vanessa, who identifies as Mexican and black, expressed how her inability to speak Spanish marked her as not enough for her monoracial Mexican classmates. She explained, ‘I’m not a Spanish speaker … Sometimes in those aspects I don’t feel like I’m enough … Like I can’t speak Spanish.’ Further complicating this ‘not enough’ feeling, in another interview Vanessa expressed how ‘some people’ also said she was not black enough. She explained, ‘Some people say I dress like a white girl … I’m not black enough. I can’t sing, or I can’t step, and I can’t dance, and I don’t do spoken word.’ Vanessa perceived that she was not (monoracial) enough for the black community or the Mexican community at MU because she was unable to fully perform to others’ cultural expectations of what it meant to be monoracial, such as speaking Spanish or singing and stepping. These cultural expectations, which led Vanessa to not feel enough, are filtered through stereotypical expectations of what it means to be black and Mexican.

Continuing on the walking interview, Vanessa explained how feeling not enough led her to question where, or how she fit in on campus. While she felt comfortable in her friend group, which was multi-racial, she explained some of her hesitations when it came to race-based events on campus. For instance, she questioned whether or not she could attend both Latino Graduation and Black Graduation. She mused, ‘Can I go to both or should I just go to the overall like big commencement?’ While the lack of a multiracial commencement denied Vanessa’s identity, this denial was compounded by another multiracial microaggression that may have influenced Vanessa’s awareness that she is not ‘enough’ to participate in either graduation ceremonies.

Within an organizational context, Monica also spoke about not feeling monoracial enough at MU, which led to a lack of fit on campus. She described her experiences with the Multicultural Recruitment Office (MRO), an institutional department:

I love MRO, but I do feel even there sometimes, I feel like I don’t fit in … because I am mixed and not full. And the majority of people in MRO are either 100% Latino or African-American. They’re really accepting of me … [but] sometimes it doesn’t feel like I know what’s going on … because I’m half and half.

At times, Monica felt accepted and included within MRO, but there existed other times in which she felt like she did not fit in because she is ‘half and half,’ or not wholly monoracial.

Georgia also spoke about being ‘half,’ not enough, for her Asian peers and how this led to a lack of acceptance within the Asian community at MU. She explained, ‘Because I’m like half Asian, [my monoracial Asian peers] don’t immediately accept me compared to like other Asians who will just look Asian.’ Also within the peer environment, Gabrielle mentioned that she ‘really tried to connect with the black culture and black MU, but I wasn’t fully accepted.’ Throughout the three interviews, she continued to relay instances in which she felt left out of the black community at MU, leading her to question if these feelings and experiences were because ‘I wasn’t black enough.’ Whether on an individual or institutional level, participants’ encountered multiracial microaggressions that conveyed they were not (monoracial) enough, leading them to question where or if they fit in on campus.

Discussion

This study explores how multiracial college students experience a unique type of racial microaggression, multiracial microaggressions, based on their multiple racial heritages. Using this study’s theoretical framework, the below section discusses how participants’ everyday experiences with multiracial microaggressions are products of larger systems of domination that feed institutional monoracism and result in microaggressions. First, in order to understand multiracial women’s everyday experiences with multiracial microaggressions, macroaggressions, or the set of white ideologies that justify and maintain white dominance, must be explored (Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015).

Within this research, the white ideological foundation for multiracial microaggressions centers on the ‘underlying assumptions and beliefs in singular, discrete racial categories’ (Johnston and Nadal 2010, 125) or a monoracial-only paradigm of race. White ideological assumptions create and maintain strict monoracial categories that white society easily rank orders (Leong 2010), (re)creating a system of white over communities of color ascendency (Delgado and Stefancic 2012). While monoracial communities of color are subordinated by this white supremacist racial hierarchy, a monoracial-only paradigm of race further influences mixed race individuals because they are either rendered invisible by this paradigm or forced to fit into one monoracial category.

The white ideology of a monoracial-only paradigm of race is actualized by institutional monoracism and influences everyday monoracism, i.e. multiracial microaggressions. Participants spoke about the denial of their multiracial identity by best friends and partners, strangers’ assumptions of their monoracial identity based off of arbitrary characteristics, such as hair color and last name, and the perception of not being enough because they did not conform with stereotypical behaviors of their assigned/assumed monoracial identities. While multiracial microaggressions occurred within individual interactions, they are products of a larger system of structural monoracism and white ideologies that socially and arbitrarily construct race around monoracial-only categories.

For instance, multiracial women’s phenotypic and other characteristics, e.g. skin tone, last name, hair texture, were used to assign them a monoracial identity and/or judge if they were ‘enough’ black or ‘enough’ Mexican. These individual microaggressions are deleterious because they externally categorize multiracial women, forcing them to either claim and adequately perform a monoracial identity or risk exclusion and isolation. Moreover, this subtle racism occurs because perpetrators of these microaggressions are unable, and possibly unwilling, to view race outside of a monoracial-only paradigm. When others ‘encounter someone who we cannot conveniently racially categorize- someone who is, for example, racially “mixed” … such an encounter becomes a source of discomfort and momentarily a crisis of racial meaning’ (Omi and Winant 2015, 126). Georgia hinted at how it was easier, more comfortable, for her best friend to view her as monoracial than multiracial. Because white ideologies of racial purity are embedded in society, through monoracist structures, it is difficult for individuals to conceptualize race outside of arbitrarily constructed monoracial categories, often resulting in multiracial microaggressions. In sum, tacit understandings of race, and what it means to be and act monoracial, stem from white ideology, are filtered through and maintain monoracist structures, and result in individual multiracial microaggressions that permeate and are endemic to US society and higher education.

On its own, white ideology does not function directly as a source of inequity and domination. ‘It is the structural forms of racism [and monoracism] that (re)produce the actual or perceived social arrangements that legitimate the inequitable positions of whites and non-whites in US society’ (Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015, 303). Said another way, institutional monoracism is the vein that carries and embeds a monoracial-only paradigm of race (the disease) throughout education, a combination that manifests in multiracial microaggressions, a symptom of the disease. For example, monoracial-only ideology (the macroaggression) influenced several of the constraining and monoracist institutional structures that multiracial women mentioned throughout the interview process. Monica was not able to declare her multiple races on an institutional survey, which denied her multiracial identity. Vanessa questioned if she was ‘enough’ to partake in two separate graduation ceremonies, one for black students and one for Latinx/Mexican students. These ceremonies are not only a form of institutional monoracism, resulting in the denial of a multiracial identity, but may have perpetuated Vanessa’s individual feelings of not being ‘enough.’ Furthermore, throughout women’s narratives, participants mentioned the existence of monoracially oriented student services, such as the Black Culture Center, Latina/o graduation, and MRO, but also expressed that no services existed on campus that specifically supported mixed-race students. The lack of institutional support is a result of a monoracial-only understanding of race that is embedded in US society and the college environment. This white ideology manifests as institutional monoracism, which gave rise to all three multiracial microaggressions detailed in this research. Institutional monoracism not only influences individual multiracial microaggressions, but also upholds and reproduces white ideologies, in this case, a monoracial-only paradigm of race (see Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015).

This study adds to previous research concerning racial microaggressions and supports literature outside of higher education that explores the reality of multiracial microaggressions (Johnston and Nadal 2010; Kohli and Solórzano 2012; Pérez Huber 2011; Pérez Huber and Solorzano 2015; Solórzano 1998). While multiracial women experienced racial microaggressions that are similar to their monoracial peers of color, this study focused on three unique microaggressions multiracial women students encountered on the bases of being more than one racial identity. Acts of subtle monoracism were unique to mixed-race students because white ideological constructions of a monoracial-only paradigm of race and systemic monoracism influenced participants’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions. Research findings support the assertion that different communities of color may experience different types of racial microaggressions and explore how monoracism is a white ideological tool that is used to subordinate multiracial individuals.

This study builds a foundation to further explore monoracism and the perpetuation of a monoracial-only paradigm of race, through which monoracist structures and multiracial microaggresions occur. Focusing on monoracism and multiracial microaggressions as forms of racism may help to address and redress the unique forms of prejudice and discrimination multiracial individuals experience. Leong (2010) explained that due to a monoracial paradigm of race and racism, the legal system and other institutions ‘consistently fails to recognize racism directed at those seen as racially mixed’ (470). A focus on other forms of racism and racial microaggressions may expand vocabulary and understandings in which to recognize and validate the (mono)racism that multiracial individuals encounter.

Because multiracial microaggressions are a type of racial microaggression, this current research did not categorize exclusion and isolation or exoticization as multiracial microaggressions, though they are racial microaggressions that were present in the larger study. Additionally, stereotypes were present in this research, but the unsubstantiated beliefs informed multiracial microaggressions. This finding corroborates previous research that claims stereotypes are the mechanism through which microaggressions are filtered, created, and maintained (Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000).

While research outside of higher education has found that multiracial individuals encounter the multiracial microaggression of pathologization (Johnston and Nadal 2010), or the perspective that multiracial individuals are tragic and confused, the 10 women in this research never spoke about pathologization. The absence of this multiracial microaggression may be attributable to the shifting nature of multiraciality in society. Once seen as illegal and tainted (Pascoe 2009), multiracial Americans are now touted ‘as the antidote to racism’ (Osei-Kofi 2013, 33). In the twenty-first century, multiracial people are seen as cutting edge, new, and sexy (Osei-Kofi 2012; Senna 1998). The understanding that multiracial Americans are confused and tragic may be replaced by the understanding that multiracial Americans are cutting edge. To be sure, this is simply one dominant ideology (the danger of race mixing) exchanged for another (post-racial society), both of which uphold white supremacy and the continuation of racial inequity in education and society.

Implications for future practice and research

Multiracial participants were consciously and unconsciously aware that a monoracial-only paradigm of race permeated the MU campus. This monoracial paradigm often informed individual, organizational, and institutional approaches to race on campus and contributed to multiracial microaggressions. Education that destabilizes this monoracial paradigm of race must be offered to all students, campus leaders, staff, faculty, and administrators, regardless of identity. This education should highlight the social construction of (mono)race and the ways in which individual actions and institutional structures uphold these constructions. It is only when campus constituents know and reflect on how they maintain oppressive systems and perpetuate white ideology that they may actively work to abolish these systems and ideologies. Institutions can partner with national multiracial organizations, such as The MAVIN Foundation, and social justice initiatives, like the Social Justice Training Institute, to facilitate this campus education.

Multiracial students must be given a space to congregate. There should also be an effort to create spaces and events that foster interactions across race and other identities on campus. Since additional space on campus comes with a cost, other resources should be allocated to multiracial students. For instance, the institution may set up a multiracial student organization and/or support group that would meet regularly. The group would provide a place to talk about multiraciality and encounters with racism and monoracism. The organization and/or space could be utilized to assess, both formally and informally, how multiracial students experience the campus environment, what still needs work, and any other factors that may need to be addressed. These more tangible resources are also a way to validate multiracial students’ identity, rather than deny their multiraciality or assume they will fit into monoracial communities.

Several colleges, including MU, have begun to collect demographic data on their multiracial student populations (Padilla and Kelley 2005). However, as several participants in this study insinuated, nothing much is done with these data beyond collection. Procedures for identifying and honoring the multiple races that students marked on forms, surveys, and other documents are important to eliminating multiracial microaggressions on campus. This could be as simple as using data to create a listserv that caters to multiracial students or as extensive as setting up a faculty–student mentoring programs for these students. In the end, it is critical that institutions not only offer students the option to check more than one race, but also utilize such data to support students who fall outside of a monoracial-only paradigm and to destabilize this same paradigm.

In regards to future research, this study sheds light on how gender may influence multiracial microaggressions. For instance, women’s hair played a large part in the assumptions of identity. It is critical that future research explore the intersectional influence of race, gender, and other social identities in multiracial students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions. Future research should also expand on the sample population and research sites. This will account for alternate and intersectional identities as well as the influence of geographical location, structural diversity, and institutional type. The location of MU (the Midwest) and the environment of a HWI may have impacted participants’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions. However, it remains unknown if these microaggressions would be similar or different in the narratives of multiracial students at minority serving institutions, liberal arts colleges, or in a geographical region with a larger multiracial population.

Theorizing around alternate types of racial microaggressions for differing student populations is also important. Literature suggests that sexism, racist nativisim, and now, monoracism contribute to different forms of racial microaggressions (Pérez Huber 2011; Solórzano 1998). Future research must account for other white ideologies and their influence on different student populations who hold multiple and intersecting identities. Additionally, I suggest that Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) racial microaggressions analytic framework, which explores racial microaggressions even further, be used to explore the contexts, effects, and students’ responses to racial microaggressions of all types. Echoing Pérez Huber and Solorzano’s (2015) previous implications, future research must explore what it means that people of color perpetrate racial microaggressions against one another, a phenomenon that occurred throughout this current study.

Finally, all those working in higher education must center, explore, and name differing forms of racism, including monoracism, racial microaggressions, and multiracial microaggressions. Identifying and naming racism within higher education research is critical as ‘ongoing attempts to study race without racism are unlikely to lead to racial equity and more complete understandings of minoritized populations in postsecondary context’ (Harper 2012, 15). It is paramount that differing forms of racism, and the ways in which they are embedded into the structures of higher education, are highlighted in research and practice in an attempt to actualize equity in education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding

This work was supported by the NASPA MultiRacial Knowledge Community’s 2014 Mini Grant.

Notes

1. For the purposes of this study, multiracial is defined as any individual who identifies with two or more racial heritages.

2. While multiracial students may be included in research concerning racial microaggressions, they may be re-categorized as monoracial or taken out of the data-set altogether. In other words, research often focuses on and/or reports back data in monoracial-only categories.