Assessing the climate for diversity becomes key for institutions that wish to create comfortable, diverse learning environments. This chapter highlights key diversity issues for consideration in a climate study, including those that affect women; racial and ethnic minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students; and disabled students.
The Climate for Diversity: Key Issues for Institutional Self-Study Sylvia Hurtado, Deborah Faye Carter, Diana Kardia Recently, many campuses have engaged in self-study in order to understand the climate as experienced by an increasingly diverse student body. Increases in diverse groups of students have led to both conflict and new campus opportunities for students to learn how to live and work in a complex, diverse society. Assessing the climate for diversity becomes key for institutions that wish to create comfortable, diverse learning environments. It is best accomplished when the campus is engaged in proactive activity that is part of the regular planning and evaluation process (Hurtado and Dey, 1997). Our goal for this chapter is to highlight key diversity issues for consideration in a climate study, including those that affect women; racial and ethnic minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students; and disabled students. These climate issues are also pertinent to majority students in diverse environments and are quickly becoming a regular part of comprehensive climate studies on college campuses.
The Climate for Women in Higher Education Currently, female students constitute half or more of the postsecondary population and have high educational aspirations and levels of academic performance. These successes for women have prompted researchers to call for higher education to respond specifically to the goals and needs of female students (Astin, 1990; Martin, 1997). For instance, faculty may need to change their pedagogy and their assumptions about students to ensure that more women enter and remain in math and science majors and earn degrees in these fields. Astin (1990) also asserts that female students are not a monolithic NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 98, Summer 1998 Š Jossey-Bass Publishers
53
54
CAMPUS CLIMATE
group—women’s experiences differ by socioeconomic class, marital status, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Martin (1997) compared the experiences of women in higher education with those of European immigrants in the early part of the twentieth century. Female students who have entered male-dominated spaces (like science laboratories) must learn how to negotiate those spaces because they are pioneers in many ways. There are “no informal rules in place governing [their] behavior and no established customs to follow” (Martin, p. 5). Thus, despite our assumptions about what is best for all students, some attention needs to be devoted to a campus climate that is most conducive for women’s development in college. Outcomes from Coed versus Single-Sex Institutions. First, it is important to note that women have many more educational and life choices today than in the past. They may choose a women’s college, a coeducational institution, or an institution that may allow them to experience more of their daily lives with other women through single-sex living arrangements on coeducational campuses. These arrangements suggest very different experiences and, consequently, perceptions of the environment. Research on single-sex environments indicate many positive outcomes, as well as positive assessments on measures concerning the academic programs and their contact with faculty and administrators (Smith, 1989). In a comparison study of female students at single-sex and coed institutions, Miller-Bernal (1993) found that women in singlesex institutions have “more women faculty as role models, [participate] more in classes, [hold] more leadership positions in campus activities, [and perceive] college personnel to be more concerned with their needs” (p. 48). Miller-Bernal concluded that the advantage of attending a single-sex institution is that such institutions may enable students “to be less preoccupied by the ‘culture of romance’ and hence better able to involve themselves in the types of academic and extracurricular activities that bode well for future success” (p. 49). Some coeducational campuses are now providing living-learning environments that allow for adaptation of the lessons learned from the success of women’s colleges. Therefore, it is important to understand multiple dimensions of the living and learning environment in order to gain greater insight into the variability in women’s perceptions of the climate. The Chilly Climate. It is important to note that the campus climate for female students has been of particular concern to researchers since the publication of the research report “The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?” (Hall and Sandler, 1982). The report asserts that female undergraduate students experience overt and subtle behaviors by faculty, staff, and students that decrease their self-confidence about their academic performance and the degree to which their undergraduate institutions prepare them for graduate study or work. In particular, Hall and Sandler purported that differential treatment of women on college campuses is widespread and that women may be “seriously discouraged and disadvantaged in their college and university careers” (p. 446, Heller, Puff, and Mills, 1985).
THE CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY
55
The extent to which a campus climate is “chilly” has been difficult to measure. Many researchers have not used consistent measurements of aspects of the environment for women, especially with regard to sexual harassment and more subtle areas of students’ campus experiences (Heller, Puff, and Mills, 1985). Heller, Puff, and Mills and Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray (1988) studied the ways in which female students may be affected by the behavior of faculty and male students in the classroom. Neither study provided much support for Hall and Sandler’s assertion of the existence of a negative campus climate for women. However, subsequent work revealed specific gender differences in classroom participation, with women feeling more confident about their participation in classroom climates when characterized as cooperative among peers (Fassinger, 1995). Further, there is evidence that classroom dynamics can differ by the gender of the students and faculty member. Bauer (1997) found that male students participate more than females in classroom discussions, but all students engage in more frequent classroom discussions with female instructors. Tisdell (1993) studied the role of gender in the power relationships of faculty and students in education classes. Female faculty members tended to conduct the class in less authoritarian ways, encouraged more discussion, and seemed to have less of a need to exert control in the classroom. Tisdell also noted that students who most benefited from systems of structural privilege tended to have more influence in the class amongst their peers. Members of racial and ethnic minorities and students from lower socioeconomic-status (SES) backgrounds tended to have their contributions to class discussions recognized less often, for example. Sexual Harassment. Perhaps the most volatile instance of power imbalance in faculty-student relationships is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a concept that is familiar to most higher education researchers, faculty, and students, but there has been a lack of a widely agreed-on definition of sexual harassment. Fitzgerald (1993) noted that until 1976 there was not a name for the subtle and overt sexist experiences of women in the workplace and in educational environments. Furthermore, except for Fitzgerald’s five levels of sexual harassment, researchers have not established a uniform definition of harassment that can be used in assessing campus problems or in comparing institutional studies. Each study on sexual harassment has “tended to develop its own methodology, a practice yielding conflicting estimates of incidence rates and behaviors. . . [and has had the] unfortunate ‘real world’ effect of diminishing the credibility of such reports” (Fitzgerald, p. 25). Problems of sexual harassment are not unique to higher educational institutions. A recent national study of sexual harassment in junior high and high schools concluded that “a large majority reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment during their school lives” (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1993). Most of the harassment students experienced came from peers, and many of the students who experienced
56
CAMPUS CLIMATE
sexual harassment did not want to attend school or class or participate in classroom discussions. Harassment resulted in students feeling less confident, more afraid, and wondering if they would ever have a happy romantic relationship (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1993). Campus officials’ response to sexual harassment complaints and their design of educational programs to help students acknowledge inappropriate behaviors can contribute to positive views of the campus climate. In a study of the effect of establishing a sexual harassment policy and grievance procedure on student outcomes, establishing such procedures “helped to decrease reported levels of faculty/staff sexual harassment of female undergraduate students” (Williams, Lam, and Shively, 1992, p. 63). In addition, there is an indication that the various educational efforts and programming accompanying the policy tended to increase the students’ “awareness of sexual harassment issues” (p. 63). An important conclusion of the study is that campus policies specifically need to deal with peer harassment issues and not just assume that harassment is a faculty-student or staff-student problem.
The Climate for Racial and Ethnic Diversity Some of the general findings of climate studies indicate that each racial and ethnic sub-group often has differing views on what diversity means to them and what kind of diversity would aid their comfort and satisfaction with campus life. For instance, the Institute for the Study of Social Change (1991) found that “while both African-American and White freshman students want more interracial experiences and contacts, they want them on different terms. AfricanAmericans want more classes and programs and institutional commitments and responses. Whites want more individual, personal contacts developed at their own time and leisure” (emphasis in original, Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991, p. 14). The differences in racial and ethnic group perceptions of diversity also seem to hold true for the University of Michigan. African American students describe diversity in the university’s “commitment to inclusion—in curricular matters, in interactions between teachers and students of color, and most of all, in being taken seriously as students” (Adelman, 1997, p. 37). White students at the University seem to think of diversity in terms of proportions of students, whereas Asian American and Latino students perceive diversity in terms of cross-race social interactions (Adelman, 1997). These different definitions of diversity immediately suggest that questions dealing with racial and ethnic diversity must not only address diversity in terms of proportions or representation of various groups but also must refer to the multiple dimensions that constitute the climate. Specifically, the racial climate, or how one perceives the environment, can be influenced by such things as perceptions of racial and ethnic exclusion from an institution’s historical traditions or culture, interactions across race and ethnicity or the dynamics of intergroup relations, and representation in the curriculum of various racial and ethnic groups as well as
THE CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY
57
the structural diversity or physical representation of various groups (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1998). Attention to Minority Status-Stress and Alienation. Minority students report experiencing greater levels of stress that are associated specifically with their racial and ethnic group status in predominantly white institutions (Feagin and Sikes, 1995; Solberg and Villareal, 1997; Smedley, Myers, and Harrell, 1993). This is particularly true in highly selective institutions. The students attending such institutions “reported being alienated and miserable, yet because an Ivy League degree would give them a boost in the outside White world, they were resigned to the indignities of that milieu” (Feagin and Sikes, 1995, p. 91). The sheer fact that there are few people of color who are like them or understand their cultural backgrounds, coupled with institutional lack of attention to the racial environment and campus programs that do not take into account their needs, may add stress to their lives. Several studies confirm that perceptions of the racial climate have a significant effect on students’ sense of belonging in college, satisfaction with college, and social integration or involvement on campus. For example, five measures of college adjustment were negatively affected by perceptions of racial tension on campus among high-achieving Latino students (Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler, 1996). African American and Native American students reported higher alienation and lower sense of belonging when they reportedly encountered resentment, stereotyping, or perceptions of discrimination from campus administrators (Gilliard, 1996; Huffman, 1991). Further, white students’ sense of belonging was negatively affected by perceptions of a poor racial climate on campuses that have diversified (Gilliard, 1996). Although Eimers and Pike (1997) found few substantive differences between minority and nonminority students, they did report that academic integration was more important than entering ability in predicting first-year achievement. These findings suggest that institutional neglect of the climate for diversity can significantly diminish students’ opportunities for feeling a part of campus life and creating a satisfying undergraduate experience. Positions on Policies and Student Receptivity to Racial and Ethnic Diversity. The recent legal challenges of affirmative action policies in Texas and California have led to broad changes in the ways in which selective institutions in those states admit students and award aid. These challenges may have also stirred up feelings that affect the climate for racial and ethnic diversity. Several studies reveal that affirmative action has been consistently misunderstood and misinterpreted, especially by the individuals most affected by the policies—college students. In the University of California at Berkeley study, some white and Asian American students viewed the Latino, Native American, and African American students as “undeserving” in comparison to those who are “entitled”—qualified students who should be attending the institution (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991, p. 18). The students labeled as “undeserving” by their peers because of their race or ethnicity expressed feelings of “not belonging”
58
CAMPUS CLIMATE
at the university. One student said, “There’s no way to convince Whites we belong here,” and another said, “We do back flips and they still wouldn’t accept us” (p. 19). Furthermore, “when these students do well in class, they report their classmates and teachers frequently express surprise” (p. 19). African American, Latino, and Native American students feel that they must “justify their presence at the university” (p. 31). Such racial attitudes may persist on campuses and continue to create stress for students regardless of whether affirmative action programs are eliminated. One recent study revealed that despite the elimination of affirmative action on campus, many students believed that it was still an institutional policy (Hurtado and others, 1998). Mixed Race and Multi-Ethnic Students. The presence of an increasing number of students who are the products of intermarriage across racial or ethnic groups and have developed unique identities poses new challenges to the researchers. Although we do not know the exact numbers of these students because our methods of data collection have not been flexible enough to monitor the growth in the number of these students, we know that they are developing student organizations and becoming increasingly active on some campuses. At least two issues arise in the conduct of climate studies. First, we need to better identify these students or provide opportunities for students to identify with multiple racial and ethnic groups in our studies if we wish to learn more about them. These students may have unique perspectives and experiences that can shed insight into the extent to which our campus environments are comfortable and multicultural in design. A second issue is that these students are likely to experience exclusion from both majority and minority groups at times because they do not fall easily into a particular social group. These students have dealt with their “in-betweenness” in aspects of their lives prior to college, but our analyses of data should attempt to better understand the specific difficulties they face on campus.
The Campus Climate Regarding Sexual Orientation In the past decade, a number of campuses have conducted climate studies regarding the experiences of lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual and transgendered people (LGBT) on their campus. Institutions vary widely in the extent to which they document specific incidence of violence, harassment, and discrimination on campus. However, for most campuses, these experiences are only the most blatant manifestation of widespread underlying problems. The daily experience of a negative or hostile climate with respect to sexual orientation is similar across a wide variety of institutions with the majority of students reporting the following problems: fears for their physical safety; frequent occurrences of disparaging remarks or jokes regarding sexual orientation; antigay graffiti; a high degree of inaccurate information and stereotypes reflected in student attitudes; lack of visibility of gay role models or access to supportive services; conflicts in classes regarding the topic of sexual orientation or responses to a student who comes out in class; students’ feeling as if they need
THE CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY
59
to censor themselves in classroom environments or academic activities for fear of negative repercussions; lack of integration of sexual orientation into the curriculum; and a lack of institutional policies addressing these climate issues coupled with a lack of awareness of such policies when they do exist (DeVries and LaSalle, 1993). At the same time, what is less understood are the ways in which campus climates may be less hostile or provide more opportunities for addressing ignorance and conflict on this issue than the environments students experience before college. Although lesbians and gay men are increasingly found to be visible in pop culture, the majority of public school systems still consider this topic taboo. Postsecondary institutions have tended toward a greater level of inclusion and there is evidence to suggest that the experience of college promotes greater acceptance and tolerance among heterosexual students regarding this aspect of diversity (Kardia, 1996). It is important, then, that climate studies addressing sexual orientation explore both the areas of concern and the ways in which the campus climate provides an avenue for change in this area. The obvious targets of a homophobic or heterosexist climate are lesbians and gays. However, bisexuality, gender, race and ethnicity, and other aspects of student identities are also important considerations when assessing the climate regarding sexual orientation. The experiences of bisexual students are different from those of lesbian or gay students in a number of ways (Michigan State University, 1992). For example, it is not unusual for bisexual students to experience difficulties in the climate stemming from both heterosexual and gay students. Similarly, gays and lesbians often experience different kinds of stereotypes, harassment, and other concerns. Thus, their experiences should be investigated separately in order to not lose information through inappropriate aggregation. An example of effective disaggregation is found on a question asked at the University of California at Los Angeles that assessed the degree of satisfaction students felt with their own sense of unity with other students. Whereas bisexual and gay men responded similarly to heterosexual men (32 percent, 26 percent, and 31 percent were satisfied, respectively), bisexual and lesbian women were much less likely to be satisfied than heterosexual women (22 percent, 19 percent, and 36 percent, respectively). Recent efforts to recognize the full diversity among people with respect to sexuality have also brought increasing attention to the issues confronting transgendered and transexual people. This population also needs specific attention in order to fully understand the nature of their experience on campus. The experiences of students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or transexual are also greatly impacted by the subcultures where they are most likely to form relationships and to the ways in which other aspects of their identity are responded to on campus. Athletic programs, the Greek system (particularly fraternities—see Sanday, 1990), some professional schools (University of Michigan, 1991), and student religious groups (Kardia, 1996) are each sites on campus that may generate specific concerns for this population. Students who also face racism, classism, sexism, or ableism are
60
CAMPUS CLIMATE
also likely to have different experiences on campus than students whose sexual orientation is the only factor that differentiates them from what is considered to be a campus “norm.”
The Climate for Students with Disabilities Students with disabilities on college campuses often face a problematic environment that affects their perceptions and experiences, including such things as the physical plant, classroom policies, and a lack of necessary equipment that may deter their full participation. However, the attitudinal environment may present a problem of equal magnitude. Ignorance among faculty, staff, and students about how to be supportive of their participation may further contribute to feelings of exclusion. Stereotypes, fear, and disdain can further alienate such students, compromising their ability to pursue their education while also adding significant emotional distress to their experience. However, although the population of students with disabilities may be even greater than the population of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students on a campus, institutional studies of the climate for students with disabilities are not as common. Although the exact number of people with disabilities is difficult to assess and varies depending on one’s definition of disability, it is clear that disability issues affect a large portion of the population and a significant number of students who attend postsecondary education. Responses to a federal survey indicate that one in seven Americans (approximately 35 million) experiences a disability that limits their daily activity. Other estimates place the number as high as 120 million when including chronic illness, learning disabilities, and a variety of mental illnesses. Less than 15 percent of these individuals have congenital disabilities (Shapiro, 1994). Despite the size of this group and the fact that individuals may experience a disability at some point in their lives, civil rights efforts on this issue have been significantly smaller and less active than those regarding other groups that make up our diverse campuses. Of particular relevance to institutions seeking to conduct climate studies on this issue are the social and cultural norms surrounding disability. For example, individuals sometimes view disability and illness as shameful and most people operate on the assumption that they will always be free of disability. Because of this social distancing and denial, many individuals who experience a disability seek ways to minimize the visibility and the effect of their disability on their lives and may be very difficult to identify. “Many even deny that they are disabled, to avoid the taint accompanying that label” (Shapiro, 1994, p. 7). Thus, although some students readily identify themselves as disabled in standard questionnaires, others who can be better served by campus programs and accommodations may be difficult to identify.
THE CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY
61
Planning Next Steps: Collecting Diversity Data Developing a campus climate study that collects information from diverse groups is the first step toward developing a more inclusive campus community. However, this does not automatically occur as a result of a study; campus officials must take steps to enact a diverse learning environment. Once a decision is made to conduct a climate study of diversity on campus, the most important step is developing a plan of action that will follow the climate assessment. To be sure, raising important questions and taking in various perspectives can initiate discussion and initiatives on campus, but many institutions do not even widely disseminate the results of their climate studies. Despite the numerous diversity studies that have been conducted on campuses, how institutions enact or implement change after a self-assessment process is the leastdocumented aspect of such a project. In conducting a campuswide study, it is important to recognize that expectations are raised that something will be done about many of the issues that surface. If groups who have never been heard or who feel the most alienated are asked to participate, they will feel further alienation if nothing follows the climate study. Developing a dissemination plan early in the study creates an opportunity for campuswide discussion and direction. A plan of action to follow the study should involve top-level administrators or units that will be charged with both disseminating the results of the study and making recommendations for change. Involving campus leaders who are interested in the results of the study makes it possible for wide distribution and discussion of results. This may come in the form of a community report or diversity convocation to share results and incorporate a discussion of long- and short-range plans for institutional improvement. Numerous climate studies have begun to document the costs of institutional inaction or neglect of diversity issues for specific students (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1998), and in terms of training graduates to handle complex problems in an increasingly multicultural society. As learning organizations, postsecondary institutions are best suited for meeting their educational goals when they have information about how the goals can best be achieved within a diverse environment. The self-study process should not simply be symbolic of institutional commitment to diversity; the process should be designed to define further the institutional investment in changes to meet the challenges that American pluralism presents. References Adelman, C. “Diversity: Walk the Walk, and Drop the Talk.” Change, 1997, 29 (4), 34–45. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on Sexual Harassment in America’s Schools. Washington, D.C., 1993.
62
CAMPUS CLIMATE
Astin, H. S. “Educating Women: A Promise and a Vision for the Future.” American Journal of Education, 1990, 98 (4), 479–493. Bauer, K. W. “Gender Differences in Classroom Participation.” Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Higher Education, May 1997. Constantinople, A., Cornelius, R., and Gray, J. “The Chilly Climate: Fact or Artifact?” Journal of Higher Education, 1988, 59 (5), 527–550. DeVries, D. B., and LaSalle, L. “Research Informing Praxis: Addressing the Campus Climate for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual People.” Seminar presentation at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta, 1993. Eimers, M. T., and Pike, G. R. “Minority and Nonminority Adjustment to College: Differences or Similarities?” Research in Higher Education, 1997, 38 (1), 77–97. Fassinger, P. A. “Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students” and Professors’ Contributions to Students’ Silence.” Journal of Higher Education, 1995, 66 (1), 82–96. Feagin, J. R., and Sikes, M. P. “How Black Students Cope with Racism on White Campuses.” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1995, 8, 91–97. Fitzgerald, L. F. “Sexual Harassment: The Definition and Measurement of a Construct.” In M. Paludi (ed.) Sexual Harassment on College Campuses: Abusing the Ivory Power. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993. Gilliard, M. D. “Racial Climate and Institutional Support Factors Affecting Success in Predominantly White Institutions: An Examination of African American and White Student Experiences.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, 1996. Hall, R. M., and Sandler, B. R. The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1982. Heller, J. F., Puff, C. R., and Mills, C. .J. “Assessment of the Chilly College Climate for Women.” Journal of Higher Education, 1985, 56 (4), 446–461. Huffman, T. E. “The Experiences, Perceptions, and Consequences of Racism among Northern Plains Indians.” Journal of American Indian Education, 1991, 30 (2), 25–34. Hurtado, S., and others. “The Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity at Texas A&M University.” Unpublished manuscript. Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan, 1998. Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., and Spuler, A. “Latino Student Transition to College: Assessing Difficulties and Factors in Successful College Adjustment.” Research in Higher Education 1996, 37 (2), 135–257. Hurtado, S., and Dey, E. L. “Achieving the Goals of Multiculturalism and Diversity.” In M. W. Peterson and others (eds.). Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A., and Allen, W. A. “Enhancing Campus Climates for Racial/Ethnic Diversity: Educational Policy and Practice.” Review of Higher Education, 1998, 21 (3), 279–302. Institute for the Study of Social Change. The Diversity Project: Final Report. Berkeley: University of California, 1991. Kardia, D. B. “Diversity’s Closet: College Student Attitudes toward Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexual People on a Multicultural Campus.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1996. Martin, J. R. “Bound for the Promised Land: The Gendered Character of Higher Education.” Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 1997, 4 (1), 3–26. Michigan State University. “Moving Forward: Lesbians and Gay Men at Michigan State University.” East Lansing: University Publications, 1992. Miller-Bernal, L. “Single-Sex versus Coeducational Environments: A Comparison of Women Students’ Experiences at Four Colleges.” American Journal of Education, 1993, 102 (11), 23–54. Sanday, P. R. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 1990.
THE CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY
63
Shapiro, J. P. No Pity: People with Disabilities: Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. Times Books: New York, 1994. Smedley, B. D., Myers, H. F., and Harrell, S. P. “Minority-Status Stresses and the College Adjustment of Ethnic Minority Freshmen.” Journal of Higher Education, 1993, 64, 434–452. Smith, D. G. “The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienation in the Academy?” Report no. 5. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, 1989. Solberg, V. S., and Villareal, P. “Examination of Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and Stress as Predictors of Psychological and Physical Distress among Hispanic College Students.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1997, 19 (2), 182–201. Tisdell, E. J. “Interlocking Systems of Power, Privilege, and Oppression in Adult Higher Education Classes.” Adult Education Quarterly, 1993, 43 (4), 203–226. University of Michigan. “From Invisibility to Inclusion: A Report on the Status of Gay Men and Lesbians at the University of Michigan.” Unpublished report. University of Michigan, 1991. Williams, E. A., Lam, J. A., and Shively, M. “ The Impact of a University Policy on the Sexual Harassment of Female Students.” Journal of Higher Education, 1992, 63 (1), 50–64.
SYLVIA HURTADO is an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. DEBORAH FAYE CARTER is an assistant professor at Indiana University in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. DIANA KARDIA is an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.