An Interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe

ADALBERTO AGUIRRE, JR. University of California, Riverside

By examining a set of descriptive data regarding the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities in academe, a set of observations is constructed re- garding the social relationship of Chicano faculty to academe. The central argument in this article is that Chicano faculty participate in minority-oriented service activi- ties in response to an organizational logic that transforms their participation in minority-oriented activities into personal expectation. The role of sponsorship in this organizational logic is examined.

While a substantial body of literature exists regarding the educational experiences of the Mexican American/Chicano student, there is very little statistical and descriptive data regarding Mexican American/ Chicano faculty.’ The few studies that do exist on Mexican American/ Chicano faculty only provide a very sketchy portrait. For instance, well over a decade ago, Bayer* reported in a national study of college faculty in the United States that slightly over 1,500 faculty identified themselves as Mexican American or Chicano. In an essay focused on the enumeration of Chicano faculty, however, Arce’ argues that Bayer’s figure of 1,500 may have underrepresented the pool of Chicano faculty due to a respond- ent’s unwillingness to accept either the Mexican American or Chicano category. Instead, Arce suggests that if one were to place the Mexican American /Chicano label aside, and only consider the pool of Mexican-origin faculty in the United States, then the number of Chicano (Mexican-origin) faculty would range between a low estimate of 2,000 and a high estimate of 5,000. Even if one were to accept the high estimate as the one most representa- tive of Chicano faculty, Arce argues that that estimate would still represent less than one percent of the total U.S. college faculty. In support of Arce’s estimates, a report by the California Post-secondary Education Commission4 estimates that Mexican American/ Chicano faculty account for 1.1 percent of the total full-time faculty population in the United States. According to the report, they account for 0.1 percent of full professors, 0.3 percent of associate professors, and 0.7 percent of assistant professors.

Tbe Social Science Journal, Volume 24, Number 1, pages 71-81. Copyright @ 1987 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0035-7634.

72 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987

Secondly, while numerical estimates for the population of Mexican American/ Chicano faculty may be at best unclear, their distribution among the academic disciplines clearly shows that Mexican American/Chicano faculty tend to be concentrated in the Humani- ties, Social Sciences, and Education.’ This distribution for Mexican American/ Chicano faculty across the academic disciplines reflects the fact that Mexican American/ Chicano persons are three times more likely to pursue graduate study in either the humanities, social sciences, and education than in the sciences. 6 In summary, not only then does the number of Mexican American/ Chicano faculty appear to be small, but they also tend to be concentrated in certain areas within the academic environment.

CHICANO FACULTY IN ACADEME While one can gather observations of Chicano faculty to show that they are small in number and concentrated in certain areas of academia, we are limited in making obser- vations regarding their institutional activity within academe. In particular, we are limited in making observations regarding the structure of academe as it relates to the functions of Chicano faculty. For example, in an attempt to generate some data that could permit the construction of observations regarding the institutional activities of Chicano faculty, Romero’ conducted an exploratory study focused on the impact and utilization of Chicano faculty within white universities. Romero mailed a questionnaire to 67 Chicano faculty in Psychology and Education selected from the National List of Chicano Con- tacts In Higher Education. Despite a small return of only 19 complete questionnaires, Romero noted that respondents were: (a) older, well-established scholars, (b) located at institutions where less than 10 percent of the faculty were minority, and less than 1 percent of the faculty were Chicano, and (c) unsure about their role in promoting pluralistic issues within the institution. Regarding the latter (c), respondents viewed themselves as being in a position to make a difference within the university, but did not perceive the university as instrumental in providing opportunities for the expression of those differences.

Secondly, in an essay regarding the construction of models for examining the partici- pation of Chicano faculty in academe, Arce* characterizes the participation of Chicano faculty as peripheral relative to the overall academic enterprise, and one that is typified by their participation in “aflirmative action” roles and activities. This pattern of pe- ripheral participation in academe, according to Arce, is made possible by the exclusion of Chicano faculty from mainstream decision-making sectors at both the institutional and discipline level. As a result, Arce suggests that it is not unexpected to find that most Chicano faculty are channeled into positions where they can serve as buffers in protect- ing institutional interests regarding minority issues. Thus, Arce argues that Chicano faculty are victims of “academic colonialism.”

In an attempt to describe the institutional nature of Chicano faculty participation in academe, Escobedog identities two factors that contribute to the contention that Chicano faculty are peripheral to the academic enterprise. On the one hand, Chicano faculty suffer from the institutional overloading of demands that are minority-oriented. There is the implicit belief that Chicano faculty are an institution’s avenue for dealing with minority issues. On the other hand, Chicano faculty lack an established network in academe that could maneuver Chicano faculty into institutional sectors apart from

An interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe 73

minority-oriented activities. The co-occurrence of these two factors limits the amount of energy Chicano faculty can commit to developing major linkages between themselves and the academic environment. Consequently, it is not so much that Chicano faculty are peripheral to the academic enterprise, as much as the nature of their institutional activity depicts them as peripheral participants in academe.

The portrait of Chicano faculty participation in academe one can draw from the preceding studies is at best sketchy. One thing appears to be clear-the institutional relationship between Chicano faculty and academe is one that places them in a situation of relative isolation. To a large extent, the nature of the relative isolation Chicano faculty encounter in academe is formed by the type of institutional activities they participate in. For instance, the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities may be indicative of their relative isolation in academe. It is obvious that the time and energy Chicano faculty spend in minority-oriented activities will limit their participation in nonminority-oriented activities in academe. In this sense, they are going to be in a position of relative isolation within academe.”

The purpose of this article is to examine a set of descriptive data regarding the type of activity Chicano faculty report participating in within academe. The data are derived from a study that examines the educational and career patterns of Chicano faculty in the Southwest.” By focusing on the type of activity Chicano faculty report participating in within academe, it is intended to demonstrate how this type of information can be used to develop interpretative frameworks for the institutional participation of Chicano faculty in academe.

THE STUDY

The data examined in this article are derived from a survey, conducted during 1981- 1982, of Chicano faculty at postsecondary educational institutions in the Southwest’* (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas). Respondents for the survey were selected from the National List of Chicano Contacts In Higher Education. The list contains the names and institutional affiliations, by academic rank and department, of 553 Chicano faculty at four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Of those listed, 424 are located at schools in the Southwest. Table 1 provides a summary descrip- tion of Chicano faculty on the list.

Table 7. Summary Features of Chicano Faculty (in percent)

Discipline

Humanities and Social Sciences Education Sciences

Total Southwest Total Southwest Total Southwest Academic Rank (N = 362) (N = 279) (N = 105) (N = 87) (N=86) (N=58)

Assistant Professor 62 64 73 76 62 64 Associate Professor 23 23 16 14 21 22 Full Professor I5 13 II 10 17 14

74 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1967

The National List of Chicano Contacts In Higher Education was employed as the principal vehicle for selecting our sample of Chicano faculty because (1) it is the only listing of its kind known to the author that may serve as a means for identifying Chicano faculty, and (2) the list is updated on an annual basis. As a result, the list is assumed to be a reasonable index with a high degree of representativeness for Chicano faculty. How- ever, there are limitations in using the list: (1) persons listed may be from an Hispanic background that is not of Mexican heritage, and (b) while efforts are made to update the list, this may enhance the representativeness of those already listed, but not necessarily the universe of Chicano faculty.

A total of 424 questionnaires were mailed to Chicano faculty located in the Southwest. The questionnaire consisted of 35 items within three general areas: (1) demographic and social background, (2) educational background, and (3) participation in academic/faculty activities. A total of 182 questionnaires were returned. Only 159 of these questionnaires were returned by persons that identified their ethnic background as Chicano/Mexican American. The data then discussed in this article are derived from the survey responses of 159 Chicano faculty, and are limited to those questions regarding their participation in academic/faculty activities.13 The general descriptors for the respondents are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. General Descriptors of Chicano Faculty (in percent)

Descriptor

State In Southwest

Arizona California Colorado New Mexico Texas

Respondents’Academic Rank

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor (N = 89) (N=40) (N = 30)

16 5 13 25 28 29 18 20 13 25 27 35 16 20 IO

Sex Male Female

75 90 90 25 IO 10

School Employed

Public Private

82 76 74 18 24 26

Time In present Position

less than I year I year-3 years 4 years-6 years 7 or more years

8 8 0 38 20 19 33 28 19 21 44 62

Area of Academic Appointment

Humanities Social Sciences/ Education Sciences

33 33 21 53 49 55 14 18 24

An interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe 75

An interesting pattern one can observe in Table 2 is the concentration of females at the assistant professor level, while males are represented across the ranks with a slight concentration in the senior ranks. The concentration of women faculty at the assistant professor level, with decreasing representation in their senior ranks, has been noted to typify the status of women faculty in academe.14 Our female respondents’ distribution across the academic ranks is reflective of this observation for the distribution of women in the academic faculty ranks.

RESULTS

Respondents were asked to report their participation in the following types of service activity: (a) department/program chair, (b) university-oriented committees, (c) teaching classes focused on Chicano/ Mexican American topics, and (d) minority-oriented com- mittees. Our respondents’ participation, by academic rank, in these activities is presented in Table 3. One can observe in Table 3 that: (a) regardless of academic rank, our respondents report more participation on minority-oriented service committees than on university-oriented service committees; (b) participation on minority-oriented service committees tends to decrease, and service on university-oriented service committees tends to increase, as one ascends the academic ladder; and (c) comparatively speaking, assistant professors report more involvement in teaching classes focused on Chicano/ Mexican American topics.

Regarding the participation of our respondents on minority-oriented service commit- tees, Table 4 is a summary of their participation in the following two types of activities:

Table 3. Participation in Institutional Activities by Respondent’s Academic Rank (in percent)

Department/Program Chair

University Minority Respondent’s Academic Rank (A)” (gJ* Committees Classes Activities

Assistant Professor (N = 89) I 0 21 30 48 Associate Professor (N = 40) 3 3 25 25 44 Full Professor (N= 30) 3 7 30 24 36

“Ethnic/ Minority Studies km-Ethnic/ Minority Studies

Table 4. Participation in Minority-Oriented Service Activities (in percent)

Descriptor

University/Community Recruitment/ Retention

Respondents’ Academic Rank

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

(N = 43) (N = 18) (N=77)

70 40 20 30 60 80

Y(2)= 12.48,p<.o5

76 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1967

universityJcommunity focused activity-service on university committees (i.e., affirma- tive action) or local community committees (i.e., Mexican American Chamber of Com- merce) that are concerned with minority-specific issues; recruitmentlretention activity- service on committees focused on the recruitment and retention of Chicano/Mexican American students.

One can observe in Table 4 that there is a close association between a respondent’s academic rank and the type of minority-oriented service activity he/she participates in (gamma = -0.653).” According to the results in Table 4, an increase in academic rank is accompanied by a decrease in participation for University/ Community service activity, and an increase in Recruitment/Retention service activity. To examine the relative differences in the respondents’ reported participation for Table 4, individual post-hoc comparisons between each possible pair were conducted by means of Chi-square tests on each of the three corresponding two-by-two tables.r6 The reported participation of as- sistant professors was shown to be significantly different from associate and full profes- sors: assistant vs. associate, X2 (1) = 5.07, p < .05; assistant vs. full, X2 (1) = 9.65, p < .05. No significant difference was found between associate and full professors: X2 (1) = 1.37, n.s. As a result, assistant professors participate differently in minority-oriented service activities than either associate or full professors.

DISCUSSION Based on their reported participation in university-service activity, the respondents tend to participate mostly in minority-oriented activities. According to the results, university- service activity is lowest at the Department/ Program Chair level, and highest in the area of minority-oriented activities. Our results are consistent with Arce’s” argument that it is not unexpected to find Chicano faculty participation within the postsecondary organiza- tion focused on minority activities. As straightforward as our results are regarding the institutional activity of our respondents, our results are not as clear when one considers interpretative contexts for their occurrence.

For instance, does the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities justify their presence in academe? According to Alvarez,‘* organizations justify the presence of members by placing them in task situations that correspond to what they are capable of doing. What is problematic, according to Alvarez, is that the organization employs selective criteria with “new” members to prevent disruptions to established patterns of social interaction within the organization. Secondly, the introduction of “new” members, such as women and minorities, into organizations usually places the organization in the position of developing specific contexts for their participation. Thus, the presence of “new” members within an organization is justified to the degree that they participate in those contexts structured for them.

The participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities is then a visible means for justifying their presence in the postsecondary organization. Implicit is the observation that the postsecondary organization structures contexts for the participation of Chicano faculty that are reflective of what Chicano faculty can do, and that shield them from creating disruptions for established contexts of social interaction. This obser- vation is less problematic to accept if one adopts the perspective that Chicanos are relatively “new” participants in the postsecondary organization.” As such, their partici-

An interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe 77

pation would require the organization to create contexts that justify their presence. The participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented service activities thus serves to justify their presence within the postsecondary organization, as well as facilitate the institutionalization of their performance in those activities.

Academic Rank

Our results show that participation in minority-oriented service activities is associated with academic rank. For instance, the majority of associate and full professors reported participating in recruitment/ retention activities, whereas the majority of assistant profes- sors reported participating in university/community activities. Based on these results, it appears that as Chicano faculty gain some relative level of institutional permanency, such as that which derives from ascending the academic ladder, they tend to participate in minority-oriented service activities, such as recruitment/retention, that contribute to organizational stability and continuity. Secondly, this pattern of participation in minority-oriented service activities could serve as a valuable institutional signal for the symbolic representation of Chicano faculty within the postsecondary organization.

If the postsecondary organization creates interactive contexts for Chicano faculty that are minority-focused, then our results suggest that participation in organizational activi- ties that are necessary for organizational stability increases with a person’s level of institutionalization. That is, progress through the postsecondary organization requires enhanced and correspondent levels of institutionalization (e.g., successive and incremen- tal presence within the postsecondary organization). Enhanced levels of institutionaliza- tion, in turn, bind a person to the organization’s need for stability by shielding him/ her from exclusionary institutional practices” (i.e., those that would place limits on presence within the organization). Thus, the increased participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented service activities that are tied to organizational stability as they ascend the academic ladder reflects both the institutionalized nature of their interactive contexts in academe, and the incorporation of their performance into those contexts.

Secondly, an important observation one can make from our results is that Chicano faculty do not necessarily decrease their participation in minority-oriented service activi- ties as they ascend the academic ladder. It may be that Chicano faculty are not able to alter their participation in minority-oriented service activities as they ascend the aca- demic ladder.*’ The important interpretative aspect of these results is that they provide some insight regarding the absence of an academic network among Chicano faculty, as noted by Escobedo,22 that could maneuver them into nonminority-oriented activities in the postsecondary organization. According to Alvarez,” sponsorship of a person by other persons within the same organization ensures the allocation of rewards to that person. It is reasonable to assume that as the number of sponsors and the variety of interactive contexts they represent increases, so will the level of rewards for the spon- sored person. As a result, the level of rewards a person receives is justified on the basis that the allocation reflects the person’s importance to the organization.

Since the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented service activities does not necessarily decrease as they ascend the academic ladder, the role of Chicano faculty as sponsors in maneuvering Chicano faculty into nonminority-oriented activities within postsecondary organization is limited. At the individual level, the number of

78 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987

Chicano faculty that do participate in nonminority-oriented activities may be too small to serve as an effective sponsoring agent for other Chicano faculty within the postsecond- ary organization. At the organizational level, the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities constrains their interaction with other organizational mem- bers of contexts. As a result, the number of sponsors and the variety of interactive contexts they represent for Chicano faculty are small and limited.*” Thus, at both the individual and organizational level, the sponsorship of Chicano faculty that could deliver the allocation of organizational rewards that derive from participation in nonminority- oriented activities is absent.

Finally, one must not lose sight of the general observation that if the participation of Chicano faculty in the postsecondary organization is focused on minority-oriented activ- ities, then it is very difficult for them to do anything else. Our results suggest that participation in minority-oriented activities is integral to the institutionalization of Chi- cano faculty within the postsecondary organization. In addition, the participation of Chicano faculty in minority-oriented activities is not an organizational option they are exercising. A lack of options for Chicano faculty, in turn, limits the construction of a sponsoring network within the postsecondary organization.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The interpretative frameworks presented here were developed to understand the reported participation of our respondents in minority-oriented service activities within the post- secondary organization. The observations constructed from the results presented suggest the presence of an organizational logic that sorts and channels Chicano faculty into a limited opportunity structure in academe. The limitations imposed by this opportunity structure locate Chicano faculty in activities that may be quite visible, yet are peripheral to the mainstream activity in the postsecondary organization. As a result, while Chicano faculty may be depicted as peripheral participants in academe, they are functional members in that they allow the postsecondary organization to satisfy some of its expecta- tions through their presence. Participation in minority-oriented service activities, there- fore, is a necessary condition for the social relationship Chicano faculty establish with the postsecondary organization.

The results discussed in this article are a start in a multistage research strategy that seeks to understand the presence of Chicano faculty in academe. A next step in this research strategy could be an autobiographical analysis of the educational experiences reported by Chicano faculty. At a time when big issues and questions revolve around the retention and progression of Chicano students in school, an examination of what shaped the educational experiences of Chicano faculty may shed some light on those features in their background that interacted with the school in a successful manner.25

An autobiographical examination of the educational experiences of Chicano faculty would result in a set of data that could be compared and contrasted with a set of data regarding the autobiographical educational experiences of non-Chicano faculty.26 Such a comparative analysis would permit the evaluation, for example, of decisions and options exercised within the postsecondary organization by Chicano and non-Chicano faculty. An interpretation could, in turn, be made from such an evaluation regarding the types of organizational contexts that shape the participation of Chicano and non-Chicano

An interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe 79

faculty. In this manner, one can generate meaningful interpretations in furthering the understanding of the Chicano presence in academe.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported in this article was made possible by an intramural research grant from the Academic Senate at the University of California, Riverside. The development of the observations outlined here has benefited from the comments of Leonard Valverde, Michael Olivas, Ray Padilla, Randall Collins, Jorge Bustamante, and the late Tomas Rivera. The anonymous reviewers for the journal provided extremely helpful and infor- mative comments. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance I received from Carlos Arce and Marta Diaz in tracking down elusive sources. I would like to especially thank the staff at the Office of Chicano Affairs at Stanford University for providing me with the National List of Chicano Contacts In Higher Education. All shortcomings in this article, however, are mine.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

I. For overviews regarding the educational experiences of the Chicano student, see T. Carter and R. Segura, Mexican Americans In School: A Decade of Change (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1979); R. Duran, Hispanics' Educurion and &&ground (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1983); A. Aguirre, Jr., Inrelligence Testing, Educution and Chicunos, ERIC/TM REPORT 76, ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1980).

2. A. Bayer, Teuching Faculty In Academe: 1972-1973 (Washington, DC: American Council on Educa- tion Research Report 8:2, 1973).

3. C. Arce, “Chicanos In Higher Education,” Integrated Education 14(1976): 14-18.

4. California Postsecondary Education Commission, Women and Minorities In Cuhforniu Public Post- secondary Eduration (Sacramento: CPEC, 1981).

5. National Research Council, Science, Engineering and Humanities Doctorates In The United States (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982); National Research Council, Young und Senior Science

und Engineering Faculty (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981); E. Padilla, “Hispanics in Clinical Psychology: 1970-1976,” and Hispanic Mental Health Profession&, Monograph No. 5, ed. by E. Olmedo and S. Lopez (University of California at Los Angeles, Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center, 1977). pp. 43-57; R. Ruiz, “Relative Frequency of Americans with Spanish Surnames in Associations of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Sociology,” American Psychologist 26( 197 I): 1022-1024.

6. F. Atelsek and 1. Gomberg, Selected Characteristics of Full-Time Humanities Fuctdty Higher Educa- tional Panel Report No. 51 (Washington, DC.: American Council on Education, 1981). For a descriptive summary of the Hispanic student, see W. Trent, “Equity Considerations In Higher Education: Race and Sex Differences in Degree Attainment and Major Field From 1976 Through 1981,” American Journul of Educa- tion 92( 1984): 280-305.

7. D. Romero, “The Impact and Use of Minority Faculty Within A University,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco (August, 1977).

8. C. Arce, “Chicano Participation In Academe: A Case of Academic Colonialism,” Grit0 del Sol: A Chicano QuurterJy 3(1978): 75-104.

9. T. Escobedo, “Are Hispanic Women In Higher Education The Nonexistent Minority?” bducationu/ Researcher g 19801: 7-l 2.

IO. What I refer to as a “position of relative isolation” has been treated by Wiley as an ‘ethnic mobility trap.” Wiley argues that ethnic group members within organizations are often offered greater opportunities for mobility that capitalize on their ethnicity. By taking these opportunities, ethnic group members find themselves in a mobility trap that shields them from more rewarding opportunities offered by the organiza- tion. See Norbcrt F. Wiley, “The Ethnic Mobility Trap and Stratification Theory,” Social Problems IS( 1967): 147-159.

80 THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. l/1987

I I. A. Aguirre, Jr., “Chicano Faculty At Postsecondary Educational Institutions In The Southwest,”

Journal of Educational Equiry and Leadership 5( 1985): 133-144.

12. Well over 70 percent of the Chicano faculty population is located in the Southwest. Though I do not

assume that my sample is representative of Chicano faculty, it is a close approximation to the nature of its

representativeness.

13. The response rate for our sample was 52 percent. While the response rate is higher than would be

expected for a mail survey, it may be an indirect indication that our respondents were interested in the topic. For

example, many of the questionnaires were returned with suggestions for expanding the study, and many

included regional contact lists for Chicano faculty. For a discussion of how factors, such as respondent interest,

may affect a survey’s response rate, see T. Heberlein and R. Baumgartner, “Factors Affecting Response Rates

to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis," American Sociological Review 43(1978): 447-462.

14. P. B. Hyer, “Women Faculty at Doctorate-Granting Universities: A Ten-Year Progress Report,” Journal of Educarional Equiry and Leadership 5( 1985): 234-249; M. J. Ayer, “Women, Space, and Power in

Higher Education,” in Women and Educurion: Equity or Equality? ed. by E. Fennema and M.J. Ayer (Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1984). pp. 221-238; B. Rosenberg, “Retrenchment in

Education: The Outlook for Women and Minorities,” in Declining Enrollmenr: The Challenge of rhe Coming Decade ed. by S. Abramowitz and S. Rosenfeld (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office, 1978).

pp. 371-404.

15. The numerical value for gamma indicates the proportion of paired directional comparisons that are

excessively in one direction. A gamma of -0.653 indicates that 65 percent of the 802 paired directional

comparisons in Table 4 are predominantly in the negative direction. See P. E. Jacobson, Jr., Inrroducrion ro

Sraristical Measures for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1976), pp.

38 1-386.

16. G. Bohrnstedt D. Knoke, Srodsticsfor Social Dora Analysis(Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers,

Inc., 1982). pp. 306308.

17. C. Arce, ‘Chicano Participation in Academe.”

18. R. Alvarez, “Institutional Discrimination In Organizations and Their Environments,” in Discriminu-

lion In Organizurions ed. by R. Alvarez, K. Lutterman and Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1979).

pp. 2-49.

19. H. Astin and P. McNamara, “Educational and Career Progress of Chicana and Native-American

College Women,” in ne Undergraduare Women: Issues In Educarional Equiry ed. by P. Perun (Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books, 1982, pp. 205-227); G. Brown, N. Rosen, S. Hill and M. Olivas, 7he Condition Of

Educationfor Hispanic Americans (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1980).

20. For an interesting discussion of exclusionary institutional practices and professional advancement

within educational organizations, see L. A. Valverde, Succession Socializarion: Irs Influence on School

Administrarion Candidares and Its Impliearions to rhe Exclusion of Minorities from Adminisrrarion (Austin:

University of Texas at Austin Office for Advanced Research in Hispanic Education, 1974). Also available as

ERIC Document ED 093 052.

21. This is in sharp contrast to everyday life in academe where movement up the academic ladder

increases one’s ability to remove their participation from certain types of institutional service activity-

especially, student service activity. 22. T. Escobedo, “Are Hispanic Women in Higher Education The Nonexistent Minority?”

23. R. Alvarez, “Institutional Discrimination In Organizations and Their Environments.”

24. The limited sponsorship Chicano faculty are capable of generating can be used by others within the

postsecondary organization to demonstrate the peripheral status of Chicano faculty. For interesting discussions regarding this, see E. Hu-Dehart, “Women, Minorities and Academic Freedom,“in Regulating The Inrellecru- als ed. by C. Kaplan and E. Schrecker (New York: Praeger, 1981), pp. 141-159, A. Aguirre, Jr., “Chicano

Faculty In Postsecondary Educational Institutions: Some Thoughts On Faculty Development,” Caiqomia Journal of Teacher Education 8( 1981): 1 l-19; L. Valverde, “Achieving Equity in Higher Education: Inclusion

and Retention of Hispanic Academics,“in Educarion und Chicanos: Issues and Reseurch Monograph No. 8,

ed. by T. Escobedo (University of California at Los Angeles, Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research

Center, 1981), pp. 49-68; R. Collins, “Colonialism on Campus: A Critique of Mentoring to Achieve Equity in

Higher Education,“Journa/ of Educational Equity and Leadership 3( 1983): 277-287; B. Acevedo, “Socializa-

tion: Chicano Administrators In Higher Education,” Emergenr Leadership 3( 1979): 28-41; W. Phillips, Jr. and

R. Blumbcrg, “Tokenism and Organizational Change,” Integrated Eiiucution 20(1983): 34-39.

An interpretative Analysis of Chicano Faculty in Academe 81

25. In exploratory study focused on the autobiographical educational experiences of Chicano faculty, Gandara notes the following features as those her respondents identified as important in motivating them to succeed in their educational career: (a) a translation of the parental work ethic into their school work; (b) attending highly integrated schools; (c) influence of a role model; (d) a strong bicultural self-identification. See P. Gandara, Chicano Scholars: Against All Odds, Report No.-Rand-P4567 (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1980).

26. For an interesting use of autobiographical experiences to evaluate the experiences of faculty from working class backgrounds in academe, see J. Ryan and C. Sackrey, Srrangers In Paradise: Academicsfrom

the Working C&s (Boston: South End Press, 1984).