My view of the sabbatical that I took Winter term 2005 is a fluid process that didn't begin and end within the confines of that term. I have been a doctoral student at Oregon State University for three years. I completed my course work Spring term 2004 and at that time was deeply immersed in the writing of my doctoral proposal. Knowing that I would be applying for a sabbatical, certain events had to take place in preparation. Fall term 2005, I met with my five-member committee to do two things: complete a comprehensive oral exam to discuss two years of course work, and defend a 75-page research proposal. That day I passed both tasks and was advanced to candidacy. This was three-weeks prior to the start of my sabbatical.

The actual sabbatical dealt with three parts:

1. Negotiations - I had numerous conversations with my Major Professor, the chair of my dissertation committee. While a specific number of research participants had been established in my proposal, who the people are, and where they work, needed to be addressed. My dissertation focuses on workload issues experienced by faculty of color. The purpose of my research study is to document narratives of faculty of color in community colleges. Specifically, this study seeks to establish how diversity-related work role expectations and experiences personally and professionally impact faculty of color in predominantly white institutions. The task of determing who to interview and where to focus my efforts was completed.

2. Human Subjects Protocol - This task took a considerable amount of time and effort to complete. The protocol was straight-forward, but my research topic caused concern for the Human Subjects Board, which meant a couple of re-writes to gain approval. This task was completed.

3. Writing an article - I had been invited to write an article for the Community College Moment. I decided to write an article that focused on the literature that supports the research that I am engaged in. Although my focus (community college faculty) is original, the actual concept (Cultural Taxation) is one that I am building on. This task was completed.

As I mentioned, I see the sabbatical experience as fluid. Although my sabbatical was completed, my research continues. I am currently interviewing individuals and gathering data. Next month, I will share some of my findings at a conference. I continue to work closely with my committee, and continue to view this academic year as my target year for completion

 

Biographical statement [word count: 99]

 

Michael Sámano self-identifies as bi-racial Chicano. After four-years of military service, he started his academic career at Lane Community College. At the University of Oregon he studied Sociology and Ethnic Studies. He holds Master of Arts degrees from Humboldt State University, and the University of California, Davis, and is currently working toward a Ph.D. in Education at Oregon State University. Professionally, Sámano has journeyed full-circle, as the program coordinator for Ethnic Studies at Lane Community College. Personally, he enjoys dividing his time between the loves of his life: his partner, a young child, and a restored 60s muscle car.

 

 

Title: CULTURAL TAXATION: WORKLOAD ISSUES FOR FACULTY OF COLOR

 

IN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE INSTITUTIONS

 

 

Introduction

 

College and university faculty are hired with relatively clear work role and workload expectations in the form of job announcements, job descriptions, or some sort of negotiated contract. Within the scholarly literature that focuses on faculty workload issues, one may find an area that looks specifically at diversity-related work role and workload experiences of faculty of color at predominantly white colleges and universities. The purpose of this paper is to explore aspects of this literature, identified broadly here as “Cultural Taxation,” to gain a deeper understanding of how diversity-related work role and workload demands may negatively impact the personal and professional lives of faculty of color.

At predominantly white institutions, faculty of color consists of a numerically small population. Because of this, there may be work role and workload expectations and experiences unique to this group that are not shared by majority white faculty. Ibarra (2003) refers to these expectations and experiences as “minority burden” to describe an “over-commitment to minority activities/teaching.”[1] Cooper and Stevens (2002) write, “When minority faculty are hired, they may face disproportionate advising and service loads because they are often the only faculty of color in a department.”[2] Aguirre (2000) observes,

“Because they are often the only one in their academic department or college, women and minority faculty find themselves performing more service activities than White men faculty, such as advising or serving on committees that focus on women and/or minority students.”[3]

            Up to this point, this paper has used terms such as “faculty of color,” “diversity-related work,” and “predominantly white” colleges and universities. Prior to a discussion of the concept of Cultural Taxation, what follows is a discussion in order to define certain foundational concepts of this paper.

 

Faculty of Color

 

The use of the term faculty of color in this paper is for descriptive purposes only and not an assumption of homogeneity. Aguirre (2000) points out that use of the term faculty of color should be seen as a

“…descriptive category for examining the academic workplace experiences of non-White faculty. By no means does the term indicate a perspective that non-White faculty are a homogenous population, especially one with no internal variation…Thus, the term…is a descriptor, much like a fisherman’s net, for capturing how the minority faculty is described in the research literature.”[4]

Using a term like faculty of color not only attempts to label and distinguish one person from another, but also implies that, to some degree, the person in question agrees with one’s use of the label to describe them. In other words, to achieve any degree of accuracy, identifying someone as a person of color, even if the person experiences light skin privilege, takes some understanding of theories that address social identity development, and the historical social construction of whiteness.

Much of social identity development theories describe social identity in terms of levels, stages, or degrees. Various theories present a spectrum from having little, no, or negative self-image on one end, to having considerable or positive self-image on the other end, usually with some degree of overlap in one’s attitude about one’s self (Morey & Kitano, 1997).[5] Hardiman and Jackson (1997) point out, “in reality most people experience several stages simultaneously, holding complex perspectives on a range of issues and living a mixture of social identities.”[6]

In addition to the degree to which one feels about their self-image, are discussions that focus on how a person maintains their identity, and how individuals look toward the identities of their ancestors when creating a sense of ethnic or racialized self. Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994)[7] discussed the notion of racial formation. The idea that race should be observed from a larger structural perspective, where it is developed within a sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhibited, transformed, and destroyed. Schaefer (2004) writes, “Many writers [historically] have shown almost a fervent hope that ethnicity would vanish…Ethnicity was expected to disappear not only because of assimilation but also because aspirations to higher social class and status demanded that it vanish”[8] (p. 143). Marcus Hansen (1952)[9] developed the Principle of Third-Generation Interest. He argued that in the third generation – the grandchildren of the original immigrants – ethnic interest and awareness would actually increase, because by the third generation, individuals would be secure enough in their position as a citizen, they could feel safe in exploring the history of their ancestors. Mary Waters (1990)[10] interviewed White suburban White ethnics and found grandchildren wanting to learn more about their ancestor’s cultures, histories, countries of origin, and spoken languages. 

 

Diversity-related work

 

Diversity-related work refers to diversity work that is action-oriented, and critical of institutional paradigms that have created tiered levels of oppression for various student and employee populations. In practice, this type of diversity-related work maintains a focus on social justice reform. What Rhoads (1995)[11] would refer to as “Critical Multiculturalism.” Rhoads describes the difference between mainstream and critical multiculturalism this way: Mainstream multiculturalism has limited impact because it fails to transform monocultural institutions into multicultural democratic communities because it does not fundamentally challenge Eurocentrically-conceived institutions. In contrast to mainstream multiculturalism, critical multiculturalism combines the conditions of cultural diversity with the emancipatory vision of a critical educational practice drawing from feminism, postmodernism, and critical theory. Critical multiculturalism seeks to transform educational institutions from monolithic centers of power to democratic constellations in which organizational structures reflect diverse cultures and perspectives (pp. 10-11).

Diversity-related work represents a wide range of experiences. Depending on what U.S. census box one checks, “diversity-related work” can impact different types of populations. For example, LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning) colleagues have requests made of them that are directly related to issues of sexual orientation such as: Serving on a committee as a representative of a group or perspective; expected or feel the need to advocate for a student or club; pressure to coordinate certain events on or off campus; or advocate for students who are drawn to them because of who they are (represent). Female faculty on university and college campuses, have requests made of them that are directly related to issues of gender, and so on. One can imagine that if someone occupies more than one “box” the requests made of them can increase or decrease.

For faculty of color, this type of work could include the following regardless of one’s professional training, or spoken (job-related) workload expectations: curriculum development or assisting other faculty with diversity-related curriculum matters, research, teaching diversity-related subjects, student and/or club advising, mentoring (students or junior faculty of color), assisting with or conducting training/workshops related to diversity, conflict resolution related to race and ethnic relations, department/division/campus committees related to diversity, guest-speaking on self-identity issues (versus professional training or knowledge), campus festivals or holidays, translating or interpreting, and community volunteering and advocating.

 

Predominantly White Institutions

 

Earlier, there was a discussion of the social construction of identity in relation to one’s sense of self. The discussion continues here with a clarification of the use of the term white. Embedded in the title of this research project is the phrase, Predominantly White Institutions. According to the National Education Association (2004)[12], less than 15 percent of full-time faculty in public colleges and universities are defined as ethnic or racial minorities. Predominantly White Institutions or PWIs is a phrase that has been used to describe those institutions of higher education that contain a significantly higher percentage of white faculty than the number of white individuals in the U.S.

In addition to a predominantly white faculty, PWIs also describe those institutions that serve a predominantly white student body. Similarly, there is also a term to describe those institutions that hold a statistically significant minority faculty and student body. “Minority-serving institutions make up a category of educational establishments including historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities” (Electronic dictionary 2004)[13].

There are certain things implied in this research project by using the socially constructed racial label “white” as a descriptor. Usage in this paper has to do with an acknowledgement of the historical differential treatment between those who have used, or benefited from, power to position and maintain themselves as part of a dominant group, and those who have been excluded as members of subordinated groups. Haney López (1996) writes, “White as a category of human identity and difference is an enormously complex phenomenon. Races are not biologically differentiated groupings but rather social constructions.”[14]  Schaefer (2004) explains, “the designation of a racial group emphasizes physical differences as opposed to cultural distinctions…The issues of race and racial differences has been an important one, not only in the United States but throughout the entire sphere of European influence.”[15]

Haney López (1996) argues that race exists alongside a multitude of social identities that shape and are themselves shaped by the way in which race is given meaning. We live race through class, religion, nationality, gender, sexual identity, and so on.[16] Haney López believes that like other social categories, race is highly contingent, specific to times, places, and situations. He says,

“Whiteness, or the state of being white, thus turns on where one is, Watts or Westchester, Stanford University or San Jose State; on when one is there, two in the afternoon or three in the morning, 1878 or 1995; on the immediate context, applying to rent an apartment, seeking entrance into an exclusive club, or talking with a police officer.”[17]

In addition to the historical context above, Schaefer (2004) explains that part of the social construction of whiteness in terms of skin privilege and a societal position of advantage when he writes,

“Whiteness carries with it a sense of identity of being White as opposed to being, for example, Asian or African. For many people it may not be easy to establish a social identity of Whiteness…However, one can argue that the social identity of Whiteness exists if one enjoys the privilege of being White…Being White or being successful in establishing a White identity carries with it distinct advantages.”[18]

The rationale for focusing on faculty of color at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) is because faculty of color experience different diversity-workload issues at minority serving institutions than they do at PWIs. Diversity-related workload issues in minority serving institutions may be just as heavy, but will be validated, honored, and appreciated, as compared to the tendency for that type of work to negatively influence the careers of faculty of color in PWIs.

 

Cultural Taxation

 

            Some scholars have labeled unspoken workload expectations experienced by faculty of color as “cultural taxation.” Cultural taxation is a concept adopted by Amado Padilla in 1994 to describe additional workload issues experienced by minority faculty. (Although this paper focuses on “faculty of color,” the literature points to various minority populations that experience this phenomenon). Padilla points out that not only does cultural taxation carry a burden of increased workload, but much of the diversity-related work that is asked of minority faculty is not valued. He refers to this as a “double-blind” or no-win situation.[19] Throughout the socialization of people of color, first as students then as professionals in the academe, they are told that:

“…although diversity may be important, it is not a substitute for intellectual excellence and that we must develop more than ethnic competencies in our training. In fact, our competencies must be in a substantive content area, plus research methodology, and, of course, we must publish. However, at the first sign of trouble with an ethnic student or client, the administration relinquishes responsibility and calls upon a resident ethnic faculty member or graduate student(s) to deal with diversity experiences that the administration is unable to manage on its own. Unfortunately, the eventual ‘payback’ for such service is, in the case of the student, the warning that too much time being spent on ethnic matters and too little on one’s graduate program or, in the case of the junior professional, threat of loss of job security and advancement within the organization.”[20]

Hobson-Horton (2004) points out that because of lack of representation in the faculty ranks, minority faculty tend to have heavier advising loads than White faculty members, causing minority faculty to spend more time with students. The time demands of such advising include “providing social support for students, writing letters of recommendation, and helping them with such post-undergraduate activities as job seeking, and selecting graduate/professional schools.”[21] For many people of color, these spoken and unspoken expectations and requests because of a lack of a core group of employees of color begins in graduate school. As Gay (2004) observes,

“Graduate students of color also experience a form of marginalization that, on the surface, appears not to be marginalization at all, and seems to counter the isolation [that some students experience]. Their status of being the ‘only one,’ or ‘one of the very few’ in their programs of study causes them to be in popular demand for many service functions. They are sought after to ‘represent’ diversity on committees, programs and promotionals, as well as being frequently called upon to make guest appearances in classes…This ‘popularity’ has some troublesome features. First, it is indiscriminate in that these students are asked to participate in affairs without giving due consideration to whether they have the competencies the tasks require. The invitations come from people in status positions who have power and authority that can be used to the benefit or the detriment of the students…The second problem with this ‘popularity’ is that it is precarious. Graduate students of color are popular and in high demand with faculty, administrators, peers and staff as long as they do not differ with or significantly challenge the wishes, ideologies and authority of the powers that be. If, or when, this happens there is no forgiveness.”[22]

Kersey-Matusiak (2004) sees individual identity attached to the roles that we are asked or implied to perform, especially in situations of isolation, such as “professor, researcher, scientist, philosopher.” She writes,

“For most of us, being the only representative of any group, or one of few, forces us to seriously consider who we really are in these settings. For a novice in the academy, particularly when one is isolated from networks of support, it becomes critical to acknowledge a self-identity that goes beyond the designated role of teacher, researcher, or scholar.”[23]

 

Personal Impact of Cultural Taxation

 

Regardless of how the phenomenon of differential workload is defined, some scholars have started hypothesizing how the lives of faculty of color may be impacted. What Ibarra (2003) calls the “minority burden,” Padilla (1994) identified as “cultural taxation,” Gay (2004) refers to as “problematic popularity,” Smith (2004) likens it to a sort of “battle fatigue” found in military veterans. He observes,

“Racial battle fatigue develops in African Americans and other people of color much like combat fatigue in military personnel, even when they are not under direct (racial) attack. Unlike typical occupational stress, racial battle fatigue is a response to the distressing mental/emotional conditions that result from facing racism daily (e.g., racial slights, recurrent indignities and irritations, unfair treatments, including contentious classrooms, and potential threats or dangers under tough to violent and even life-threatening conditions).”[24]

Smith (2004) believes that this phenomenon of “battle fatigue,” can bring on various psychological and physical symptoms. Smith argued that race-related stressors are “those events that can “throw a body out of balance” and can bring on the following symptoms:

“tension headaches and backaches, trembling and jumpiness, chronic pain in healed injuries, a pounding heart beat, rapid breathing in anticipation of conflict, an upset stomach, frequent diarrhea or urination, extreme fatigue, constant anxiety and worrying, increased swearing and complaining, inability to sleep, sleep broken by haunting conflict-specific dreams, loss of confidence in oneself and one’s colleagues/department/college/ university/community, difficulty in thinking coherently or being able to speak articulately under stressful conditions, rapid mood swings, elevated blood pressure, and emotional/social withdrawal.”[25]

 

Professional Impact of Cultural Taxation

 

Ibarra (2003) observes that there are concentrated efforts by voters, state legislators, and court rulings to dismantle decades of affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation. At the same time, women and ethnic populations on campus continue to argue, experience, and expose the barriers that they have always faced in academia remain unchanged. He believes that this is a crucial point in the debate about educational reform. Despite steady increases by underrepresented populations on university and college campuses, real equity and diversity continues to remain elusive.[26]

Fogg (2003)[27] notes that institutions are disingenuous when they hire minorities, because the institutions will trumpet the hires as their proof of a commitment toward diversity, while not supporting the unspoken diversity-related work expectations placed on these same minority faculty members. In addition to teaching and service, there is the issue of research and publication. Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, Bonous-Hammarth, and Stassen (2002) reported that:

“Women faculty and faculty of color often encounter obstacles that constrain their ability to move up the academic hierarchy. Two obstacles of particular concern are (1) the tendency of women faculty and faculty of color to be overburdened with teaching and service responsibilities, and (2) the inflexible expectations of universities and colleges about research and publications.”[28]

When identifying institutional barriers for faculty of color, one usually thinks of overt racist acts and practices. The reality is that in the 21^st century, discrimination has become more covert in nature. Minority faculty may encounter what Hobson-Horton (2004) describes as “micro-aggressions.”[29] The researcher describes micro-aggressions as, “indirect racially motivated comments that are delivered verbally, nonverbally, and/or visually.” Micro-aggressions can manifest themselves as derogatory comments, the use of stereotypes, the posting of offensive materials on a departmental bulletin board, or the subtle differences in how minority and nonminority faculty are given opportunities for networking, socializing, and mentoring.

Cooper and Stevens (2002)[30] believe that the key issues currently facing minority faculty in the academe is their absence, and undervaluing (p. 6). Cooper and Stevens argue that minority faculty often feel “unwelcome, unappreciated, and unwanted” as they face continual pressure “to prove that they deserve their positions” (p. 6). Cooper and Stevens argue that there are both structural and personal barriers to academic success, usually measured through tenure and promotion. They highlight the following (p. 6-8):

1.      Minority faculty continue to be underrepresented in the academe, holding a higher percentage of part-time and non-tenure track positions.

2.      Minority faculty remain disproportionately located in less prestigious community colleges and four-year schools.

3.      In the face of discrimination, minority faculty tend to leave the academy before they obtain tenure in significantly larger numbers.

4.      Research on minority-related topics is attacked as nonacademic or inappropriate because of a focus on social change and minority issues.

5.      Minority faculty hold more split or joint appointments which can serve as a barrier during the tenure review process.

Minority faculty often feel isolation, lack mentors, experience higher rates of occupational stress, and have to deal with institutional sexism and racism.

7.      Teaching is undervalued if it involves minority-related subjects or courses.

8.      When minorities are hired, they may face disproportionate advising and service loads because they are often the only minorities in a department.

Minority faculty tend to spend more time on teaching and service, leaving them vulnerable to attack at the point of tenure and promotion.

 

Cooper and Stevens conclude, “in sum, minority faculty continue to be perceived as ‘other’ and suffer from institutionalized racist attitudes that reflect their differences as inferior to dominant White Western values and norms” (p. 7).

 

Conclusion

 

Understanding how to identify micro-aggressions, individual prejudice, and institutional discrimination, is a key strategy to those who not only want to acknowledge the existence of a hostile work environment, but want to work toward eradicating systems that negatively impact the success of faculty of color. Ultimately, knowledge of how micro-aggressions and cultural taxation impact minority faculty, can help to inform higher education leaders who are interested in working toward the creation of more equitable and safe working environments for all employees.

For those institutions working on diversity as a strategic area of focus, this area of scholarly research helps to draw attention beneath the surface of how individuals can be personally impacted by unspoken expectations that we sometimes knowingly and unknowingly place on each other. In a broader sense, research is important on this topic because it has the potential to impact strategic planning areas such as: (a) contractual work –load, – expectations, and –roles, (b) compensation for degree of cultural competency, (c) campus diversity initiatives, (d) recruitment, hiring, mentorship, retention, and tenure/promotion of faculty of color, and (e) quality of work environment.

 

 

Endnotes