Rethinking Cultural Competence in Higher Education E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B ASHE-ERIC Report Series (AEHE)
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 274

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

Take a holistic look at an intentional educational ecosystem that builds cultural competence, a critical skill college graduates need for careers and citizenship in a diverse global society. This monograph unpacks the multilayered meanings of cultural competence and offers a term, "diversity competence," that is more consistent with the broad spectrum of diversity learning outcomes that occur on campus. Drawing on the findings of a survey of recent college graduates now working as professionals, the monograph offers: * leading-edge, integrative models that bring together the multidimensional components of the learning environment including curricular, co-curricular, and service learning, * research-based factors contributing to a campus environment that encourages cultural competence, * in-depth assessment and analysis of best practices, and * concrete recommendations that offer a transformative pathway to the attainment of diversity competence in the undergraduate experience. This is the fourth issue of the 42nd volume of the Jossey-Bass series ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based on thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscript before publication.

Leseprobe

ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 42, Number 4

Kelly Ward, Lisa E. Wolf‐Wendel, Series Editors

Rethinking Cultural Competence in Higher Education: An Ecological Framework for Student Development

Edna Chun, Alvin Evans

Rethinking Cultural Competence in Higher Education: An Ecological Framework for Student Development Edna Chun, Alvin Evans ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 42, Number 4 Kelly Ward, Lisa E. Wolf‐Wendel, Series Editors

Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 748‐8789, fax (201) 748‐6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Cover image by © iStock.com/rusm

ISSN 1551‐6970 electronic ISSN 1554‐6306 ISBN 978‐1‐119‐24465‐3

The ASHE Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey‐Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey‐Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, California 94104‐4594.

Individual subscription rate (in USD): $174 per year US/Can/Mex, $210 rest of world; institutional subscription rate: $352 US, $412 Can/Mex, $463 rest of world. Single copy rate: $29. Electronic only–all regions: $174 individual, $352 institutional; Print & Electronic–US: $192 individual, $423 institutional; Print & Electronic–Canada/Mexico: $192 individual, $483 institutional; Print & Electronic–Rest of World: $228 individual, $534 institutional.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Kelly Ward ([email protected]) or Lisa E. Wolf‐Wendel ([email protected]).

Visit the Jossey‐Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com.

Printed in the United States of America on acid‐free recycled paper.

The ASHE Higher Education Report is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Education Index/Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University), IBR & IBZ: International Bibliographies of Periodical Literature (K.G. Saur), and Resources in Education (ERIC).

Advisory Board

The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which provides an editorial advisory board of ASHE members.

Amy Bergerson

University of Utah

Bryan Brayboy

Arizona State University

Ryan Gildersleeve

University of Denver

Michael Harris

Southern Methodist University

Elizabeth Jones

Holy Family University

Adrianna Kezar

University of Southern California

Kevin Kinser

SUNY – Albany

Peter Magolda

Miami University of Ohio

Dina C. Maramba

SUNY – Binghamton

Susan Marine

Merrimack College

Christopher Morphew

University of Iowa

Robert Palmer

SUNY – Binghamton

Michael Paulsen

University of Iowa

Todd Ream

Taylor University

Barbara Tobolowsky

University of Texas at Arlington

Carolyn Thompson

University of Missouri, Kansas City

Diane Wright

Florida Atlantic University

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Foreword

Acknowledgments

The Politics of Cultural Competence in Higher Education

A Demographic Call to Action

The Veil of Color-Blindness

Inclusive Excellence and the Pathway to Cultural Competence

Purpose and Organization of the Monograph

Note

Deconstructing Cultural Competence

Intercultural Competence

Multicultural Competence

Rethinking Culture

Unbundling Competence

An Alternative Term: Diversity Competence

Mission-Driven Statements of Diversity/Cultural Competence

Concluding Observations

An Ecological Framework for Developing Diversity Competence

Attributes of Campus Diversity Experiences

Application of the Ecological Model to Campus Environments

The Clash Between the Macro and Micro/Meso Levels

Holistic Environmental Models for Diversity Learning Outcomes

Campus Culture and Climate

The Campus Physical Environment

Diversity Leadership

Organizational Learning as a Catalyst for Change

Concluding Observations

The Educational Benefits of Diversity and the Link to Democracy Outcomes

The Relation of Liberal Education to Diversity Competence

Common Ground: Democracy Learning Outcomes and Diversity Competence

Cross-Cutting Educational Approaches to Democracy Outcomes

Concluding Observations

Mapping the Educational Terrain for Diversity Competence

A Visual Methodology

Campus Curricular Inventory for Diversity

Features of Curricular Best Practices

Service Learning as a Bridge to Diversity Competence

Campus Cocurricular Inventory for Diversity

Linking Diversity Competence to Accreditation Criteria

Concluding Observations

The Role of Identity Development and Intergroup Contact in Diversity Competence

The Formative College Years and the Social Construction of Identity

Racial and Ethnic Identity Formation

Sexual and Gender Identity Formation

Holistic Perspectives on Identity Development

Structured Intergroup Contact

Concluding Observations

Strategies and Recommendations for Practice

References

Appendix A: Data Sample

Written Survey Sample

Interview Sample

Advert

Name Index

Subject Index

About the Authors

About the ASHE Higher Education Report Series

Call for Proposals

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1

Table 2

Chapter 4

Table 3

List of Illustrations

Chapter 2

Figure 1

Intercultural Development Continuum

Chapter 3

Figure 2

Applying the Ecology Model to a Campus Environment

Figure 3

The Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

1

Pages

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

32

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

173

174

175

Executive Summary

CULTURAL COMPETENCE IS arguably one of the most critical skills that college graduates need for careers and citizenship in a diverse global society. Its importance is reinforced by the emergence of a minority majority American nation by 2042 and by the global nature of much professional work today. As a result, the urgency of the mandate to prepare college graduates for careers and citizenship in a diverse society requires focused efforts by colleges and universities to address the multiple, interlocking dimensions of diversity in the undergraduate educational experience. At stake is the relevance of a college education to students’ ability to successfully navigate the complexities of multicultural working environments.

A number of colleges and universities have adopted inclusive excellence as a student-centered paradigm that addresses the synergy between diversity and quality in the intellectual and social aspects of the educational experience and fosters an inclusive campus environment. At the same time, however, most institutions have struggled to develop integrated and intentional approaches to addressing cultural competence in the curriculum and cocurriculum. The operationalization of cultural competence within the undergraduate experience remains an elusive and often neglected goal.

A key reason that colleges and universities have struggled with the attainment of cultural competence is the lack of a clear definitional framework that clarifies the meaning and implications for educational practice of such competence. Overlap with similar terms such as multicultural competence and intercultural competence has caused further confusion. Faculty steeped in an environment driven by disciplinary expertise may perceive cultural competence as a kind of “jargon” laden with politically correct overtones. The complexity of defining culture also poses a substantive challenge in moving from the predominant focus on nation states to an emphasis on the integral connection between culture and identity. Common conceptualizations of culture often fail to recognize the fluid, evolving nature of culture as it is redefined and contested by cultural members. In addition, the notion of “competence” itself is often disputed as a desired disciplinary outcome. As an example, the recent battle over the incorporation of a diversity requirement in the undergraduate curriculum at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) referenced in this monograph reveals the contentious and ongoing nature of the academic debate relating to cultural competence and diversity learning outcomes.

By contrast, the helping professions including social work, counseling education, nursing, and medicine have identified the centrality of cultural competence in communicating with and working with diverse clienteles. A well-developed research literature in these fields offers substantive insight into how practitioners can operationalize cultural competence in their day-to-day work and has formed the basis of an emerging body of scholarship pertaining to the college or university environment.

Within the realm of higher education, cultural competence shares the inherent irony of the diversity rationale that has emerged from the legal reinterpretation of affirmative action by the Supreme Court. This reinterpretation requires that institutions of higher education demonstrate that white students receive educational benefits from policies that during the course of American history have reinforced white preference (Orfield, 2001). In fact, over the past 35 years, the court has moved from remedial, disparate-impact affirmative action designed to address historical discrimination to a nonremedial diversity rationale that establishes the educational benefits of diversity as the sole, acceptable legal basis for race-conscious admissions practices in higher education (Leiter & Leiter, 2011). From this perspective, cultural competence tends to focus on how white students grow and learn about other cultures while leaving unanswered the larger questions of what it means for students from underrepresented minority backgrounds on predominantly white campuses who may face assimilation pressures or pressures to conform to the dominant culture.

More often than not, the notion of cultural competence is stripped of its uncomfortable sociohistorical implications of inequality, social stratification, oppression, and privilege. The result is a bland and watered-down concept of cultural competence that often refers to international study, celebratory potlucks, and getting to know people from other nations.

In unpacking the meaning of cultural competence, we suggest an alternative term, namely, “diversity competence,” that is more congruent with the range of educational experiences that occur on college campuses as well as the multilevel characteristics that make up the diversity spectrum. We offer a definition of diversity competence that encompasses the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to communicate and engage with others who are different from oneself in interactions characterized by reciprocity, mutual understanding, and respect (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004).

The lack of intentionality in campus diversity programs and practices is synonymous with “magical thinking” or the assumption that the attainment of a diverse student body automatically leads to realization of the educational benefits of diversity (Chang, 2007; Chang, Chang, & Ledesma, 2005). The monograph integrates a review and analysis of the literature coupled with the observations of 43 recent college graduates now engaged in professional careers or graduate study in a survey conducted for this monograph. The survey findings vividly illustrate the common disconnection between institutional diversity mission and the lived experiences of students on campus. For the most part, these graduates from different types of institutions had to seek out the diversity experiences they had and some of these experiences were purely accidental.

To address such disconnection, the monograph explores the application of a holistic, integrated ecological model to the development of cultural competence in the undergraduate experience. In this exploration, we note the frequent collision between macro-level, unequal social structures, and the everyday microcosm of student experiences that perpetuate systems of inequality through normative structures and social networks (Feagin, 2006). We introduce two prominent holistic environmental models for diversity learning outcomes: the Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments (MMDLE) (Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013) and the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of student success (Museus, 2014). These nuanced models offer significant promise for systemic approaches to diversity learning outcomes.

The monograph then examines the common ground and points of connection between democracy citizenship learning outcomes and diversity competence. Studies confirm that democracy outcomes include a pluralistic orientation or the ability to view multiple perspectives and work cooperatively with diverse others as well as civic engagement and leadership skills. The goals of a liberal education provide a framework for developing democratic citizenship. Ideally, such an education provides a progressive learning continuum that moves from the self to others, culminating in cooperative work to achieve the common good (Musil, 2009).

The monograph offers an overview of the educational terrain for diversity through the development of a cohesive institutional approach across curricular, cocurricular, and service learning domains. Leading-edge examples of rubrics for the attainment of diversity competence provide ways to measure diversity awareness, knowledge, and skills. We also address the pivotal relationship between regional accreditation criteria and diversity competence. In this regard, the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) developed under the auspices of the Lumina Foundation presents a learning framework that includes the need for broad, integrative knowledge that addresses intercultural issues as well as civic and global competence that engages diverse perspectives.

Based on the research literature that substantiates the cognitive dissonance or disequilibrium arising from encountering difference, the monograph discusses the critical impact of diversity experiences on identity formation during the undergraduate years. This impact can be experienced by members of dominant groups and nondominant groups alike. Because of the critical time period for identity formation during college, we highlight approaches to structured intergroup interactions such as the Intergroup Dialogue Program (IGD) developed by the University of Michigan. IGD facilitates efforts to communicate across different social identity groups in the classroom, within the campus community, and in preparation for work in culturally diverse societies.

From an overall perspective, the monograph will serve as a resource for institutions seeking to provide an organizing ecological framework for the attainment of diversity/cultural competency in the undergraduate experience. The models and examples provided are applicable to a broad range of institutional types and settings. As a result, the monograph focuses on the ways in which colleges and universities can accelerate their progress in the development of an integrated campus ecosystem for diversity competence. The concrete recommendations for practice that conclude the book will assist institutional leadership, faculty, and administrators in developing systemic approaches to diversity competence during the undergraduate college years.

Foreword

AS STUDENTS PREPARE for life in an increasingly complex and global world, it is vital for colleges and universities to facilitate student development related to positive and productive interactions with people from a broad array of social and demographic contexts. In spite of the importance and even agreement that preparing students for operating in a diverse world is key, what is not always as clear is how to actually go about the work.

In this monograph, Rethinking Cultural Competence in Higher Education: An Ecological Framework or Student Development, authors Edna Chun and Alvin Evans provide readers with clear and thoughtful information about why cultural and diversity competence is important, how it can be integrated into the curriculum and other aspects of higher education, and how it contributes to student development. The strength of the monograph is in its specificity and comprehensiveness. Readers will find clear roadmaps to create programs and develop curriculum in addition to learning more about the importance of endeavors related to cultural competence. The authors provide clear definitions of different aspects of diversity that are informative.

The monograph is also helpful to readers in terms of providing different perspectives and a broad-based approach that looks at campus systems overall as well as societal contexts. Chun and Evans offer different views on diversity and cultural competence and tie them to different outcomes (e.g., democracy). The book goes beyond the “how to” of cultural competence by providing foundational information about why, in what ways, and to what end.

Chun and Evans take a unique approach in the writing of the monograph. Unlike many other editions in the series, the monograph relies on a combination of data from the authors’ research in addition to an analysis and synthesis of the literature. The authors also integrate examples from institutions across the country. The result is a comprehensive volume that integrates theory, research, foundations, data, and practical approaches.

The monograph is sure to be of use to faculty, staff, and administrators looking for specific ideas on how to implement more intentional approaches to developing cultural competence. Too often a commitment to diversity is stated but not enacted. Some of the lag in action is from lack of clarity about how to develop students related to diversity outcomes and lack of support to pursue systematic approaches to developing cultural competence. Chun and Evans provide sage advice and multiple perspectives for how to garner institutional support to advance diversity education programs in addition to providing readers with multiple approaches that can fit different institutional contexts.

Throughout the series, as editors, we have been committed to pursuing topics related to diversity. The volume reads as a companion piece to Guthrie, Bertrand Jones, Osteen, and Hu's work on Cultivating Leader Identity and Capacity in Students from Diverse Backgrounds, as well as Museus’ monograph on Race and Racism and Critical Race Theory by McCoy. Read together, these monographs provide a range of foundational information, critical perspectives, and strategies for a more intentional approach to developing diversity competence.

Kelly WardLisa E. Wolf-WendelSeries Editors

Acknowledgments

THIS MONOGRAPH IS dedicated to the memory of Alexander David Chun who exemplified in every way the attributes of diversity competence in embracing, valuing, and transcending all forms of difference in his relationships and professional work in the medical field. Alex designed the online survey of recent graduates that underpins the ethnographic research conducted for this monograph and brought his finely honed, critical research skills to the process. Alex taught us to question and refine our research assumptions and his nobility, courage, generous spirit, poetic creativity, and passionate sense of social justice will always serve as a compass and guide for us in our own journeys.

We especially thank Professors Kelly Ward and Lisa Wolf-Wendel for their foresight and encouragement on the need for a monograph on this important topic as well as their supportive guidance. We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Joe R. Feagin, Ella C. McFadden professor of sociology at Texas A&M University for his invaluable insights and suggestions that have immeasurably strengthened the monograph. We greatly appreciate the continuous, inspirational help of Professor Charles Behling, codirector of the Program on Intergroup Relations at the University of Michigan (retired), and his proactive outreach to recent graduates. We also would like to thank the peer reviewers for the many helpful and insightful suggestions that they provided.

We would like to express our appreciation to the dedicated professors who assisted us in contacting recent graduates and the survey participants who generously shared their time and perspectives related to recent college diversity experiences. We also thank Kimberly Thompson Rosenfeld for her responsive and skilled research assistance.

Finally, we express our deep gratitude to all the family, friends, mentors, and colleagues who have inspired us throughout the writing of the monograph and who continue to offer hope for a changed world.

The Politics of Cultural Competence in Higher Education

I realized that, although the university advertises diversity, diversity is still seldom seen on campus. I also realized that as a transracial adoptee, my checkbox says “Asian” while culturally, I am Scandinavian. My ideas and decisions are influenced by the Scandinavian culture. What does “diversity” even mean to the university?

Miranda, a transracial teacher and graduate of a private Midwestern liberal arts college

MIRANDA, A TRANSRACIAL teacher who recently graduated from a small, predominantly white liberal arts college, questions the extent to which her institution's espoused commitment to diversity has been translated into reality. As a minoritized student, Miranda found the absence of faculty, administrators, and staff from nondominant groups at her college to be a matter of serious concern1:

I think that that's where the college struggles, to be honest. You can advertise that you have this percent of students of color…but when it comes to putting it into practice, the administration and all the higher ups were all Caucasian and the majority of my professors. I had two professors who were not. I am looking at our administration and our president, and our provost, and all of these people. There are no people of color really at all.

When I was looking at schools, I didn't think to ask about the diversity of faculty and staff. It makes a huge difference. I think that if the representation could have been there in the faculty and the administration that would help students relate better and especially students of color.

Unfortunately, the disconnection Miranda experienced between the institution's stated diversity mission and how this mission is reflected in the college's infrastructure and concrete practices is not uncommon within the realm of higher education. Evidence indicates that the alignment between espoused and enacted mission may be an important factor in student success (Museus & Harris, 2010). Few institutions have been able to bridge this gap to provide an integrated framework for diversity that fosters the learning outcomes and cultural competence students need to function effectively as citizens and employees in a diverse, global society. In fact, cultures of avoidance lead educators, administrators, and students to constantly evade acknowledgement of the realities of race and factors that advantage particular groups on campus (Harper, 2012a). Further, scholars have identified the absence of an authentic commitment to diversity and multiculturalism on college campuses as well as a superficial approach that fails to address the genuine inclusion of minoritized students (Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Despite a substantive body of research that demonstrates the ways diversity can enhance learning outcomes (Chun & Evans, 2015), little evidence indicates that institutions of higher education have implemented a framework of policies and practices to implement diversity learning.

In this monograph, we address the development of cultural competence in undergraduate education through systematic efforts that create an integrated campus ecology for diversity. No blueprint exists for such development and no national policies guide this process. Because each campus represents a distinct ecosystem, we focus on research-based approaches that create an integrated, intentional framework for the implementation of diversity learning objectives and outcomes.

For the most part, the critical nature of cultural competence in the undergraduate college experience has been overlooked. Confusion and conflicting perspectives on the meaning and relevance of cultural competence abound. The lack of a clear definitional framework is a key reason that colleges and universities struggle with the operationalization of cultural competence. Terms like multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, and cultural competence are often conflated into a “supra-diversity” concept that is both amorphous and ill-defined (Williams, 2013, p. 89). The notion of “competence” itself is loosely framed within the scholarly literature and fraught with conceptual and semantic landmines (see Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). At times, it is equated with understanding, relationship development, satisfaction, effectiveness, appropriateness, and adaptation (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). At other times, competence is used to refer to a set of abilities and skills and can be equated with subjective evaluation (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).

More often than not, cultural competence is stripped of its uncomfortable sociohistorical implications of inequality, social stratification, oppression, and privilege. Well-intentioned members of the majority group appear reluctant to hear stories of pain, humiliation, and suffering experienced by marginalized groups in society (Sue & Sue, 2013). In addition, members of marginalized groups react strongly when their accounts of pain and discrimination are discounted (Sue & Sue, 2013). The result is a bland and watered-down concept of cultural competence that often refers to international study, celebratory potlucks, and getting to know people from other nations.

By contrast, a transformative paradigm for diversity encompasses the ethics and values of diverse communities, understands that multiple versions of reality are socially constructed and privileged, and recognizes power relations and dynamics in broad sociohistorical contexts (Nunez, Hurtado, & Galdeano, 2015). It offers the opportunity for systemic change through social justice efforts that address the need for disadvantaged or marginalized groups to gain increased opportunities for self-determination, empowerment, and voice (Goodman et al., 2004). Such a paradigm can infuse the efforts of universities and colleges to create a cohesive ecological approach to cultural competence.

Although relatively little progress has been made on operationalizing cultural competence in higher education, the helping professions, including social work, counseling education, nursing, and medicine, have integrated cultural competence within the realms of teaching, research, and practice. They have identified the centrality of cultural competence in communicating with and creating meaningful relationships with diverse clients as well as the relevance of such competence to patient outcomes. A well-developed research literature in these professions offers substantive insight into how practitioners can apply cultural competence in their day-to-day work. In fact, the multicultural competency frameworks and assessment methodologies developed by Derald Wing Sue and others in the counseling field have been adopted by student affairs professionals in higher education (see, for example, Pope et al., 2004; Reason &Watson, 2011).

Clear differences may exist on a campus in terms of the view of the importance of cultural competence, who is responsible for its attainment, and how it is to be attained. Aside from the widely accepted assumption that study abroad programs contribute to such competence, little agreement exists on a developmental model of learning leading to cultural competence (Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). Because institutions of higher education desire legitimacy, colleges and universities often may exercise isomorphic behavior by copying other institutions in standard approaches to diversity and cultural competence due to the safety and comfort these approaches provide (Miller & Toma, 2011). In light of the social construction of legitimacy, such conservative practices can appear to invoke credibility and trustworthiness based upon the congruence between the institution's behavior and collective social beliefs (Suchman, 1995). Safer positions on contested issues such as cultural competence satisfy environmental pressures such as those deriving from widely accepted views of the existence of a color-blind, postracial society. Yet a dependency on sameness will no longer suffice, as the ways demographically diverse cohorts of students respond to campus environments are different from past responses (Harper & Quaye, 2009).

To complicate matters further, within each institutional environment, multiple constituencies, distinct subcultures, and decentralized decision making exacerbate efforts to crystallize a common, institutional agenda for attaining diversity learning outcomes and cultural competence. In large part, administrators, without consolidated input and direction by faculty, have driven diversity efforts. This bifurcation is problematic because faculty and administrators represent, in some sense, natural antagonists. The issues at variance between these two constituencies are the emphasis on discovery and disciplinary knowledge on the faculty side and the focus on sustainable competitive advantage and institutional growth in the face of resource constraints on the administrative side.

Faculty steeped in an environment driven by disciplinary expertise perceive cultural competence as a kind of “jargon” laden with politically correct overtones. Responding to cultural diversity through the curriculum and organization threatens the canon of knowledge espoused by dominant forces (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). In addition, the canon suppresses border knowledge, or knowledge outside of the cultural mainstream that addresses the marginality that occurs through race, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). The lack of systematic attention to diversity learning outcomes across the faculty and administrative domains leads to disconnection, resulting in a plethora of piecemeal and often redundant activities. An additional challenge arises from the separation of faculty and staff reward systems within disciplinary or institutional silos, making it difficult to create more integrative learning experiences for students (Reynolds-Keefer, Peet, Gurin, & Lonn, 2011).

The result is that most campus diversity efforts are fragmented and localized within particular programs, such as initiatives for students of color in engineering, cultural houses to address campus life issues, or service-learning initiatives (Kezar & Eckel, 2005). These approaches are typically characterized by a lack of intentionality and even negligence and do not transcend departmental or program boundaries to address the needs of diverse students across the institution (Harper & Quaye, 2009; Kezar & Eckel, 2005). Such a laissez-faire approach is synonymous with “magical thinking” or the assumption that the attainment of a diverse student body automatically leads to realization of the educational benefits of diversity (Chang, 2007; Chang et al., 2005). In essence, weak institutions expect that students engage themselves and assume that the educational benefits of diversity will accrue automatically from the mere presence of demographic diversity (Harper & Quaye, 2009). Rather, diversity on college campuses is fundamentally about time-consuming and difficult work that needs to take into consideration the institution's context in shaping student learning as well as the dimensions and levels of campus climate (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005).

From this perspective, institutional transformation in terms of diversity learning outcomes needs to be addressed systematically within the context of an institution's educational mission, historical legacy, and other contextually driven environmental factors. Drawing on the rich empirical literature on diversity and student learning outcomes, this monograph proposes a model for a holistic campuswide framework or ecosystem for the attainment of cultural competence through diversity learning outcomes. Given the heightened impact of a 4-year college experience on cultural competence as well as the growing body of longitudinal evidence on the educational benefits of diversity in this context, we focus on 4-year institutions, comprehensive master's institutions, and research universities in this monograph.

A Demographic Call to Action

Rapid demographic shifts in student enrollment reveal that the student body in higher education by mid-century will likely be minority majority. Consider the fact that between 1976 and 2012, the percentage of minority students more than doubled and has continued to increase, whereas the percentage of white students declined from 84% to 60% (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). In the span of just 2 years between 2009 and 2011, the number of black undergraduates grew by 8.5%, whereas the number of Hispanic and Latino undergraduates increased by 22%, with only 2.7% growth in white enrollment (Yeado, 2013). By 2060, the United States will be only 43% white. Since 1965, 40 million immigrants have arrived, with nearly 3 in 10 being Asian and half of them Hispanic (Taylor, 2014).

The population of Americans coming from more than one racial background has grown rapidly with 9 million respondents in the 2010 U.S. census reporting more than one race compared with 6.8 million in 2000 (Jones & Bullock, 2012). Although the numbers of multiracial students are increasing, higher education scholarship and practices addressing these new groups of students are both sparse and stagnant (Harris, BrckaLorenz, & Laird, 2014). Few practices have emerged to address issues of “identity dissonance” or the state of “in-betweenness” that arises among students whose parents come from different cultures (Garrod, Kilkenny, & Gómez, 2013).

The increasing diversity of the student body encompasses the primary dimensions of diversity that involve protected classes under federal executive orders and antidiscrimination laws regarding race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, as well as the secondary dimensions or socially acquired characteristics of diversity such as religion, socioeconomic status, parental education, geographic location, and military experience.

At the same time as college campuses grow more diverse, some young American adults may exist in a “cultural bubble” in terms of facility in another language, geographic awareness, and interactions outside of their own communities. A survey of 510 young American adults between the ages of 18 and 24 conducted by the National Geographic Society in 2006 reveals a surprising lack of geographical literacy by young Americans with only half of the participants able to identify the states of New York or Ohio on a map, only 38% able to speak a nonnative language fluently, 63% not able to find Iraq on a map of the Middle East, 75% not aware that a majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim, and 74% believing that English is the most commonly spoken language in the world, rather than Mandarin Chinese (National Geographic Education Foundation, 2006).