 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Paper for the Extension Service, University of Minnesota
Karen Zentner
Bacig, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
2003-2004
President’s Emerging
Leaders (PEL) Program Participant
Karen Zentner Bacig can be contacted at 234 Morrill Hall, kbacig@umn.edu, 612.624.5082.
Executive Summary
In this paper, I explore the historical roots of the University
of Minnesota’s Land-Grant mission relative to its present-day opportunity
and responsibility to address the increasingly diverse world in which we live.
I look at recent arguments and evidence to support the need to diversify organizations
and to prepare individuals and organizations to harness effectively the benefits
of diversity. I then explore some of the challenges diversity presents, suggest
a central role for the University of Minnesota Extension Service in addressing
the state’s diversity, and end with a series of recommendations to address
access and representation, environment and climate, programs and products,
and special initiatives.
Land-Grant Mission and the Cooperative Extension Service
The Justin Morrill
Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890, simply put, provided federal support for
the establishment of public institutions throughout the country to provide
agricultural and mechanical education and to promote liberal and practical
education. The Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever
Act of 1914 are the historical
forbearers of what is today a Cooperative Extension System that serves both
rural and urban constituents nationwide.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service (Extension) is part of this Cooperative Extension System. The Land-Grant movement and Extension have an historical commitment to democracy and to extending the benefits of higher education to all citizens who wish to pursue it. In turn, these citizens further enrich higher education (Moreno):
There is vigorous reciprocity in the Extension Service because it is with the people, as well as ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ It not only carries knowledge from the State Colleges to the people, but it also works in reverse: it carries from the people to the State Colleges practical knowledge whose workability has been tested on farms, in industry, in homes, and in communities. In ideal extension work, science and art meet life practice. Mutual benefits result for the people and for the educational institutions they support. Thus the Extension Service develops not only better agriculture, industries, homes, and communities, but better colleges.
--Ruby Green Smith (1949)
Ideals such as equality of opportunity were central not only to the fundamental tenets of democracy (Moreno):
In a democracy such as we have in the United States it is important to maintain as nearly as possible equality of opportunity for all citizens. The nearer this goal or ideal can be approached and realized the stronger and more enduring will be our democratic institutions.
--R.K. Bliss (1952)
But also at the heart of the Land-Grant movement (Moreno):
Social and economic democracy in America means primarily liberty in action and equality of opportunity. The central idea behind the Land-Grant movement was that liberty and equality could not survive unless al men [sic] had full opportunity to pursue all occupations at the highest practical level. No restrictions of class, or fortune, or sex, or geographical position – no restrictions whatsoever – should operate.
--Allan Nevins (1962)
As well as the role envisioned for Extension, past, present, and future (Moreno):
[Extension’s future] lies with helping those who have the greatest need. That is where the pioneers of Extension started their work and the work in which those who followed show the most pride. It is an awesome assignment for an organization and its personnel if they are to find ways to ‘pick up’ those left behind. Yet it is no more of a challenge than the pioneers faced when Extension began. [Extensions’] program, as it has always been, continues to be in the hands of those people for whom Extension carries the name Service. Hope for the future remains in a basic concept of democracy, of all civilized society, that the majority of their citizens will hold firm to their ‘mission of concern’ for those in need.
--Ralph L. Reeder (1979)
As the Kellogg Commission reaffirmed in 1996, the Land-Grant movement, primarily through Extension, continues to make as one of its primary contributions a responsible engagement with the community. This engagement is not always easy. Determining the most effective ways to partner and serve communities and with which communities to engage are complex questions.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities
Following
a four-year study (1996-2000) examining needed reforms in public higher education,
the Kellogg Commission published Public Higher Education
Reform: 2000 – The
Results of a Post-Kellogg Commission Survey. Written by John V. Byrne, former
Executive Director of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant
Universities, the report noted areas of reform stressed by faculty, mid-level
administrators, and presidents. All three of these groups noted “…the
need for improved diversity, stronger engagement with society, better planning
and setting of goals, and equitable distribution of resources to match university
needs.” [2]
In a nation that faces increasing diversity of all kinds, but especially increasing racial and ethnic diversity, in no time in our country’s history has the need for attending to issues of diversity been greater. According to recent Census 2000 growth projections, while the nation’s overall population will continue to grow, the largest growth in the coming fifty years will be seen in the Hispanic and Asian populations, both of which will triple. By the end of this fifty-year period, non-Hispanic whites are projected to make up approximately one-half of the total United States’ population, according to these projections.
State of Minnesota
The state of Minnesota, much like the nation, is experiencing
sweeping demographic changes. The overall number of people in the state increased
12.4 percent between the 1990 and 2000 Census (Census 2000). From July of 2001
to July of 2003, the state’s overall population has increased yet another
2.8 percent. Between the years 2000 and 2025, the state’s population
is projected to increase another 14.1 percent, reaching over five million in
the next twenty-five years (Census 2000).
Part of these changes includes increasing numbers of residents of color. According to U.S. Census data provided by the Minnesota State Demographer’s Office (Peterson, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 13, 2005), the projected population growth in the state for Black/African Americans is 115 percent, for Asian or Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders is 121 percent, for American Indian or Alaska natives is 59 percent, for Hispanic or Latinos is 185 percent, and for persons of two or more races, is 243 percent; growth among those who identify as White is projected to grow just 17 percent. Clearly, much of our state’s growth over the next 25 to 30 years will be among Minnesota’s communities of color.
The remaining sections of this paper address the impact of demographic changes on two sectors in the state of Minnesota – higher education and non-profits – and the real benefits accrued when these sectors invest in diversity. Both sectors are facing and will continue to face significant shifts in both their membership and the constituencies each sector serves, and both experience significant benefits when investments are made to create a diverse environment.
Higher Education. Recent research delineates the benefits accrued to students when learning in an environment diverse both in peers and content. In a 2000 issue of Academe, Jeffrey Milem notes that students experience at least the following benefits:
While these are benefits that accrue to an individual, diversity benefits organizations and society as well.
Harvard’s former president Derek Bok noted that universities have a special obligation to serve society at large (see Bok’s expert testimony in the University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits at http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bok.html). The most recent 2004 State of Students of Color: Building Alliances for Student Success report by the Minnesota Minority Education Partnership (MMEP) illustrates both the significant demographic shifts at the K-12 level as well as the imperative for the higher-education community to respond to these demographic shifts. The continuing trend of an increasing number of students of color enrolled in Minnesota’s K-12 school shows no signs of ebbing, and these increases are impacting not only the urban areas of the state, but also the rural areas. These rises in the number of students of color in K-12 schools have resulted in the concomitant rise in the number of students of color in Minnesota’s postsecondary institutions. As the MMEP report argues, “With workforce needs requiring higher-level skills, it is critical for students to graduate from high school and to be well prepared for postsecondary education.” [25] Higher education’s role in producing a well-prepared work force that is equipped to contribute to a healthy state economy cannot be understated. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (2003) at the University of Georgia predicts that for the period 1990-2008, the “buying power” [1] of communities of color is and will continue to be a significant force in the strength of the country’s economy.
How can higher education play a role in this success, economic and otherwise? Part of the role that higher education can play in this preparation is through the creation of a diverse learning environment. Patricia Gurin has noted that students often enter the college or university environment having few of the skills that will allow them to effectively work in a diverse environment (ACE/AAUP, 2000). Gurin’s expert report for the University of Michigan’s Supreme Court case regarding the use of race in admissions decisions notes that a diverse learning environment contributes to students’ acquisition of skills such as critical thinking and participation in a democracy, among other things (see Gurin’s expert testimony in the University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits at http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html).
In his expert report, William G. Bowen (see Bowen’s expert testimony in the University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits at http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bowen.html), former president of Princeton University and currently president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation noted that diversity “…has become…important at the highest levels of business, the professions, government, and society at large…” [7] Noting that “[b]y the year 2030, approximately 40 percent of all Americans are projected to be members of minority groups…” [7], Bowen observed that this purchasing power and workforce membership bestow on higher education a responsibility to prepare a diverse student body to take up the leadership in the business and non-profit sectors. He reported that chief executives from major corporations such as Coca-Cola, Chrysler, American Express, and Merck recognize the competitive advantage they gain both by employing a diverse workforce and by employing people who are competent in such environments.
Non-profits. While the higher-education sector is responding more recently to an increasingly diverse applicant pool, the non-profit sector has historically been more attuned to diverse constituencies due to the very nature of the non-profit mission. Demographic shifts, combined with what Hyde (2003) refers to as the “…devolution of government programs…” [40] have placed an even greater challenge at the foot of the non-profit sector to deliver services and respond to the needs of increasingly diverse constituencies.
As with the higher-education sector, though perhaps for much longer, the non-profit sector’s workforce diversity increasingly reflects the diversity of the populations being served (Hyde, 2003). This increasing internal diversity reflects good practice; as Hyde (2003) notes, “…given the rise in particular client populations, the need to diversity staff and develop staff highly competent in cross-cultural practice is and will be a major organizational endeavor.” [40]
Not unlike the higher-education sector, attracting and retaining a diverse workforce as well as responding to diverse clients in a culturally competent way are increasingly important agenda items for the non-profit sector.
Relatedly, the philanthropic community, which directly serves the non-profit sector, needs to have a grasp of the needs of the community and its diverse constituents. A recent study by Bothwell (n.d.), however, indicates that many philanthropic foundations have been relatively unresponsive to the needs of the most vulnerable members of the communities they serve. Diverse groups are also largely not represented on foundation boards of directors. Given that foundations are created and operate to serve a common good or public interest (Shaw, Furnari, and Odendahl, n.d.), it is imperative that foundations diversify their internal membership and governance as well as the community members they serve.
This diversification of organizations and constituencies served aligns with the Minnesota Council for Nonprofits Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence, adopted in October of 1998. These principles guide non-profits to reflect, in their organizational structures, the diversity of the communities they serve, as well as to engage in work that is respectful and responsive to diverse communities.
Conclusion. Across the two sectors examined above, diversity, it is argued, brings benefits to organizations in at least two ways. A diverse workforce or organizational membership brings many points of view that improve an organization’s ability to respond effectively to tasks and challenges. With a diverse organization, both a greater range and a higher quality of potential solutions are generated (Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, and Downing, 2003). Secondly, this diversity allows organizations to respond more effectively to the needs of diverse constituents. For example, a firm marketing products can market more effectively to previously underserved populations (Reskin, 1998 in Crosby, et al., 2003). The organizational case for diversity seems fairly straightforward.
Challenges. While the case for organizational diversity may be straightforward, organizational diversity is not without its challenges. The very benefits argued as reasons for organizational diversity present significant challenges to organizational effectiveness and productivity, if not managed well.
A recent study of team and organizational diversity by Jackson, Joshi, and Erhardt (2003) suggests a number of ways that diversity of all kinds challenges team and organizational effectiveness relative to conflict, productivity, cohesion, etc. The authors point out that across numerous studies, conflicting evidence exists regarding the influence of diversity on effective organizational functioning, both short and long-term. They examine, however, diversity’s effects unmediated by any structural or leadership interventions. Their meta-analysis suggests the need is great for training to manage effectively the diversity in teams and organizations that is inevitable.
This conflicting evidence for diversity’s benefits is noted in other studies as well. Kirkman, Tesluk, and Rosen (2004) explored team empowerment along dimensions of potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact. Their findings conclude that members of more racially diverse teams felt less empowered than those on more racially homogeneous teams. Their findings suggest that simply having a diverse organization will not necessarily result in positive outcomes – defined across studies in numerous ways but almost always related to productivity, creativity, or market share – unless careful attention is paid to how the diversity is harnessed and managed.
The need to manage diversity effectively is raised by Konrad (2003) as well. She argues that making the case for diversity based on respecting individual differences, appealing to diverse consumers through a diverse set of employees, and reaping the benefits of multiple perspectives ignores the issues of system-level and institutional oppression, risks limiting individuals to occupying organizational roles in which they work only with members of their own community, and suggests that only when a heterogeneous group outperforms a homogenous group should diversity be a consideration.
Each of the above challenges raises the question of how we know others (Levine, 2003). Levine (2003) asks, “Do we know them in their ascribed group identities? Do we know individuals without having to discover anything distinctively individual about them? Or, in coming to know individuals, do we suspend any prior knowledge based on ascribed group connection?” (283). His questions point us toward the very fundamental considerations of what we mean when we talk about “diversity.” Related to the challenges raised by Levine (2003) is the lack of assessment of need relative to diversity training, as pointed out by Roberson, Kulik, and Pepper (2003). Critical to diversity training efforts are attention to the reasons for initiating training and to the training goals.
While diversity within organizations presents very real challenges, these challenges suggest that a number of proactive organizational responses are in order, given that workforce and overall demographic diversity are organizational realities that must be addressed effectively, if an organization is to optimize opportunities and strengths, minimize weaknesses and threats, and create an organizational climate that values and affirms all members.
The University of Minnesota As one of Minnesota’s largest organizations, the University of Minnesota is impacted by diversity as an organization and in turn impacts the state’s effectiveness in successfully responding to an increasingly diverse population. The University is looked to by other state organizations as a resource for training and development in many areas, including diversity. A 2000 report of the Task Force on Diversity Education, Training, and Development at the University of Minnesota concluded that:
One of the most glaring realities the Task Force has discovered is that the University is not adequately fulfilling its role in serving the needs of the community. Task Force members report that over the last couple of years, even with a tremendous increase in the private sector to provide consultation and diversity training, there has been a marked increase from the community seeking the University’s assistance in this area. A large number of corporations and non-profit and educational institutions, particularly high schools, have looked to the University as the primary resource for academic and professional assistance in addressing various diversity-related issues.
Recognizing that the University’s land-grant status calls it to respond to the state’s needs, the report recommends that resources need to be dedicated not only to address the University’s internal diversity needs within student, faculty, and staff groups, but also to the state’s business, nonprofit, and K-12 sector needs for these resources.
University of Minnesota Extension Service. As the outreach arm of the University, Extension is poised to act as a primary repository for these resources and a primary respondent to the state’s needs for diversity training and education. Within Extension’s Community Vitality program area, the unit titled Diversity and Inclusion was charged to serve the state’s needs relative to an increasingly diverse demography. This unit, while still in its initial stages, was eliminated in December 2003 due to budget reduction and reallocation strategies undertaken by Extension to respond to decreasing state support for the University as a whole.
… a university that will not support its community with outreach services, engagement in contemporary problems, and contributions to economic development is an institution that cannot reasonably expect to draw support from that community.
--Mark Yudof, March 12, 2004, Chronicle of Higher Education
As the primary producer of research in the state and a key contributor to the state’s economy, the University is uniquely poised to bring its expertise to bear on the state’s response to an increasingly diverse population base and on the ultimate success of people and organizations as we respond to the multiple opportunities and challenges that diversity presents. The University must be successful not only in producing graduates capable of effectively functioning in a diverse environment but also in helping the state respond to its increasingly diverse communities. No other realm of the University is more strategically positioned to serve in this boundary-spanning function than the University’s Extension Service. Extension can bring the best the University has to offer in training and research and partner with communities and organizations to deliver effective and efficient resources, training, and support. While the evidence making the case for diversity in many kinds of organizations is clear, it is also clear that very real challenges for justly and effectively responding to this diversity exist. I offer a number of strategies for employing the University’s expertise and resources in these efforts.
Access and Representation.
Environment and Climate.
Programs and Products.
Special Initiatives.
Conclusion
Much can and should be done to assure that the state of Minnesota
harnesses the talents of all of its citizens and to assure that all of Minnesota’s
citizens have the opportunity to realize their full potential. The University
of Minnesota, and Extension in particular, has not only the expertise and resources
to make opportunity a reality for the state’s citizenry, but more importantly,
in the spirit of our land-grant roots, the obligation.
American Council on Education/American Association of University Professors (2000). Does diversity make a difference?: Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education and American Association of University Professors.
Bok, D. (n.d.). University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits, The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education, Expert Report of Derek Bok, Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bok.html.
Bowen, W. G. (n.d.). University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits, The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education, Expert Report of William G. Bowen, Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/bowen.html.
Byrne, J.V. (2000). Public higher education reform: 2000 – The results of a post-kellogg commission survey, Retrieved March 5, 2004 from http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellogg/Kellogg2000_PostComm_survey_summary.pdf.
Census 2000 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt
Crosby, F.J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R.A. (2003). Affirmative action; Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist (February), pp. 93-115.
Gurin, P. (n.d.). University of Michigan’s Admissions Lawsuits, The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education, Expert Report of Patricia Gurin, Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html.
Hyde, C.A. (2003). Multicultural organizational development in nonprofit human service agencies: Views from the field. Journal of Community Practice, 11(1), 39-59.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N.L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801-830.
Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 29(3), 334-368.
Konrad, A. M. (2003). Special issue introduction: Defining the domain of workplace diversity scholarship. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 4-17.
Levine, D.P. (2003). The ideal of diversity in organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), 278-294.
Milem, J. (2000). Why race matters. Academe, Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2000/00so/SO00Mile.htm.
Minnesota Council for Nonprofits (October 1998). Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence. Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://www.mncn.org/info_principles.htm.
Minnesota Minority Education Partnership, (2004). State of Students of Color: Building Alliances for Student Success.
Moreno, J. (n.d.). The land-grant idea and its democratic significance. University of Minnesota Extension Service, Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
Peterson, D. (2005, January 13). A changing identity: Cultural changes reflect predictions that Hispanic numbers in Minnesota are on the rise, but so is tension over minority growth. Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C.T., & Pepper, M.B. (2003). Using needs assessment to resolve controversies in diversity training design. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 148-174.
Selig Center for Economic Growth (2003). University of Georgia, Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.selig.uga.edu/.
Shaw, A., Furnari, E., & Odendahl, T. (n.d.). Preserving the public trust: A study of exemplary practices in grantmaking. Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, Retrieved May 20, 2004 from http://www.nonprofitresearch.org/newsletter1531/newsletter_show.htm?doc_id=16139.
University of Minnesota (August 8, 2000). Task force on diversity education, training, and development: Final report.
Yudof, M. (March, 12, 2004). What if the Yankees were run like a public university?, Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved on March 12, 2004 from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i27/27b00701.htm.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the feedback and contributions of
Mahjoub Labyad, Juan Moreno, and Beth Zemsky to this paper. I also want to
express my thanks to the University of Minnesota for supporting the President’s
Emerging Leaders program, which made this work possible.
The information given in this publication is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the University of Minnesota Extension is implied.
Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Distribution Center at (800) 876-8636.
University of Minnesota Extension is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.