The Relationship Between Student Body Racial Composition and the Normative Environment Toward Diversity at Community Colleges

Abstract

While there has been increased scholarship in recent years on diversity in higher education, most of this research has failed to include 2-year institutions in its analyses. This study examined whether the racial composition of the community college student body is correlated with an institution’s normative climate toward three diversity outcomes: student conversations with racially different peers, student conversations with peers holding different beliefs, and student understanding of racially different others. The results indicate that having a more diverse student body had a positive, statistically significant relationship with each outcome. This finding suggests that community colleges, like 4-year institutions, can be positively influenced by enrolling a more racially heterogeneous student body.

Keywords

campus climate diversity outcomes of education student interactions

As the United States becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, institutions of higher education are being called on to prepare students to live and work in an increasingly multicultural society. Educational organizations, college and university administrators, elected officials, and the U.S. Supreme Court have all charged postsecondary institutions with a key task: making the preparation of students to function in a diverse society a core institutional mission (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Pike & Kuh, 2006).

To achieve this goal, many have argued that colleges and universities must provide students the opportunity to engage with diverse others by enrolling a racially heterogeneous student body. The belief is that the enrollment of a more diverse student body creates a peer-normative environment in which cross-racial and cross-cultural interactions among students are more common. These interactions with diverse others are believed to contribute to students’ intellectual and personal development as well as their understanding of individuals from different backgrounds.

Over the past 30 years, there has been increasing empirical support for this argument, often referred to as the diversity rationale. Several studies have found that student body racial diversity, or structural racial diversity, helps an institution create a normative environment in which student interactions with diverse others occur more frequently (Chang, Astin, & Kim, 2004; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003; Hurtado & Wathington Cade, 1999; Pike & Kuh, 2006). Student interaction and engagement with diversity have in turn been found to be positively correlated with a range of desirable educational outcomes, including higher levels of student cross-cultural competence, increased academic engagement, and greater gains in critical and active thinking (Adams, 1995; Astin, 1993; Milem, 2003).

Much of this research on diversity in higher education has been motivated by the desire to protect race-based admissions programs such as affirmative action. Therefore, research on the diversity rationale has focused almost exclusively on selective 4-year colleges and universities. Four-year institutions, however, enroll only around 57% of undergraduates in the United States (“Undergraduate Enrollments,” 2010). The remaining 43% of students (around 6.9 million) attend various types of 2-year colleges. Little published research, however, has attempted to explore racial diversity at 2-year institutions. This study used data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System to examine whether community college student body racial diversity is correlated with an institution’s normative environment toward diversity outcomes.

The following section outlines the motivation for this study by reviewing previous research on the impact of diversity in higher education and providing a rationale for investigating this relationship at 2-year institutions. This is followed by a detailing of the empirical questions that guided this study and the research methodology employed. The article concludes with a presentation of the study results and a discussion of the research findings.

Study Motivation

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case in 1978, a substantial body of research has accumulated examining whether ethnic and racial diversity among college students yields significant educational benefits.¹ This research has two distinct strands. The first examines whether enrolling a more heterogeneous student body increases the likelihood that students will engage and interact with diverse others. The second focuses on whether these interactions with diverse others improve the educational experience of students.

A review of both strands of research reveals that community colleges have been largely excluded from analysis. Using data on over 2,000 undergraduates at a racially diverse 4-year university, Antonio (1998) found evidence that attending a more racially diverse institution of higher education increases the likelihood that a student’s friendship groups will be racially heterogeneous. Chang (1999), using Cooperative Institutional Research Program data from over 300 four-year colleges and universities, found evidence to suggest that “when there is a diverse student body, one also tends to find enhanced chances that students will socialize across racial groups and discuss racial issues” (p. 389).

More recently, Chang et al. (2004), Pike and Kuh (2006), and Pike, Kuh, and Gonyea (2007) found a positive relationship between student body racial diversity and the frequency of student interactions with diverse others. Using updated Cooperative Institutional Research Program data from over 134 colleges and universities, Chang at al. found that enrolling larger proportions of students of color could increase cross-racial interactions in higher education. None of 134 institutions studied, however, were community colleges. In fact, the authors noted that 2-year institutions were dropped from their analyses. Pike and Kuh used data from over 300 institutions participating in the National Survey of Student Engagement and found that “there was a substantial positive relationship between structural diversity and informal interactional diversity” (p. 441). None of the 300 institutions used in this analysis were 2-year colleges. National Survey of Student Engagement data from 4-year colleges and universities were also used by Pike, Kuh, and Gonyea, who found that among first-year students and seniors, student body diversity was positively correlated with the frequency of diverse interactions among peers.

Community colleges have also been absent from research looking at the relationship between interactions with diversity and student educational outcomes. High-profile empirical studies from Astin (1993), Chang (1999), Gurin (1999), Hurtado (2001), and Nelson Laird (2005) each appear to exclude community colleges from their samples.

A likely explanation for this lack of focus on 2-year colleges in diversity research is the desire of scholars to provide empirical support for race-conscious admissions policies, which are employed primarily by selective 4-year institutions. Understanding the impact of diversity in higher education, however, should be broader than simply looking for evidence to support race-based admissions programs at a handful of institutions. To gain a more complete understanding of diversity and its role in postsecondary education, it is important to understand if and how diversity can be used to create enhanced learning environments for students at all levels of higher education.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework guiding this analysis is presented in Figure 1. In this model, which has guided much of the research on diversity in higher education, positive educational outcomes are presumed to be affected by the amount and quality of student interactions with diverse others while in college. The amount and quality of student interactions with diverse others are proposed to be strongly correlated with various institutional characteristics, especially the overall diversity of an institution’s student body (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of the relationship among institutional characteristics, student body racial diversity, and student educational outcomes.

This contention that student body racial diversity results in more opportunities for students to engage with racially and culturally diverse others is based largely on the idea that organizational environments shape the dynamics and frequency of social interactions (Kanter, 1977). The hypothesis is that as the relative proportion of a minority social type within an organization approaches parity with the majority social type, interactional isolation decreases, and organizational members will engage with one another more frequently (Hoffman, 1985).

In the higher education sector, this hypothesis has been tested only at institutions with high levels of interaction among its students. The residential 4-year colleges and universities that have typically been the subjects of research on the diversity rationale are characterized by their on-campus living facilities, large student affairs departments, and mostly full-time students. These organizational design elements mean that 4-year institutions are often successful in creating the type of environment that encourages frequent contact and interaction among students (Kuh et al., 1991). At these types of institutions, it might be expected that higher levels of student body diversity would be positively related to the frequency of interactions among diverse peers given the high number of overall opportunities that students have to interact with one another.

Extrapolating the findings of this research at 4-year schools to the community college setting, however, is problematic, primarily because of the different levels of student involvement at 2-year schools as compared to 4-year schools. While many community colleges are working to increase engagement among students (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2012), “community college students are less engaged in college than are students at four-year institutions, a phenomenon certainly related to the nonresidential nature of most community colleges and the external constraints that occupy students’ time” (A. Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 213). In addition, although almost two-thirds of beginning students at 4-year institutions live on campus (King, 2002), most community colleges do not offer on-campus student housing. While most residential colleges enroll full-time students, over 60% of community college students are enrolled part-time (Bryant, 2001); around 60% work more than 20 hours per week; and over 25% work more than 35 hours per week (Evelyn, 2004).

These housing and enrollment patterns often leave community college students little opportunity for campus involvement, in comparison with that of students at 4-year colleges and universities. Therefore, while diversity at 4-year schools (where student interactions are more frequent) may lead to a normative environment with more frequent engagement among diverse peers, at 2-year schools (where student interactions occur less frequently) diversity may not have the same positive impact. In other words, the organizational environment of 2-year institutions may limit community college student engagement with diverse others, even in situations where the institution has a higher level of student body racial diversity. Exploring this hypothesis was the goal of this study. Specifically, it examines whether the first part of the conceptual model presented in Figure 1 is supported among 2-year colleges.

Research Questions

This project addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Controlling for other factors, is the racial diversity of a community college’s student body correlated with an institution’s normative environment toward student conversations with peers of a race or ethnicity different from their own?

Research Question 2: Controlling for other factors, is the racial diversity of a community college’s student body correlated with an institution’s normative environment toward student conversations with peers who differ in terms of their personal beliefs and values?

Research Question 3: Controlling for other factors, is the racial diversity of a community college’s student body correlated with an institution’s normative environment toward student understanding of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds?

Method

The aforementioned research questions were each estimated using ordinary least squares regression on data from a national sample of 2-year colleges. This sample came from the CCSSE. Established in 2001, the CCSSE surveys students and faculty members nationwide in an effort to gain a better understanding of student engagement and institutional practices at 2-year institutions.² In the spring of 2008, 316 two-year institutions participated in the CCSSE. Student survey responses for 17 of these institutions were not reported on the CCSSE website, and these schools were dropped from analysis. Seven additional schools were dropped due to missing Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System enrollment data, making it impossible to determine the racial composition of the school’s student body. One institution was dropped because it was located outside the United States. Finally, because this study focused on public 2-year institutions, 4 private junior colleges were dropped from analysis.³ The remaining 287 community colleges served as the sample used for this study.⁴

As part of the 2008 survey, students at these institutions were asked three questions regarding their interactions with diverse others. The first asked, “In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you engaged in serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity?” Students responded on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 4 = very often). The second question asked, “In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you engaged in serious conversations with students with different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values?” Students responded on the same 4-point scale. The final question asked students, “How much has your experience at this college contributed to your understanding of people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds?” The response scale ranged from 1 (very little) to 4 (very much). Institutional mean scores for the questions were used as dependent variables for this study.⁵ The mean score was computed using all students who completed the CCSSE at each sample institution. This aggregation of individual responses to the institutional level is representative of the normative environment of a college or university (Ethington, 1997, 2000; Milem, 1998).

The primary independent variable of interest for this study was community college student body racial diversity among all students (full- and part-time). The operationalization of this variable was a modified version of the diversity index score used by Chang (1999):

1 - \sqrt{\frac{{(% Asian - μ)}^{2} + {(% Black - μ)}^{2} + {(% Hispanic - μ)}^{2} + {(% White - μ)}^{2} + {(% Indian - μ)}^{2}}{5}} * 100

where µ is the average of the percentages of the student enrollment for the five racial groups.

This index calculates an institution’s level of racial diversity based on the amount of variance in student populations across racial groups. Chang’s original index was based on the distribution of students across four racial/ethnic groups (Black, Asian, White, and Latino). The index used in this study adds a fifth group to the equation (American Indian/Alaskan Native), in an effort to be more inclusive of the major racial/ethnic groups reported by colleges and universities. According to this index, community colleges with similar proportions of students across the five groups (e.g., 20%, 23%, 17%, 19%, 21%) would have higher diversity scores than would institutions with less distribution across the five groups (e.g., 85%, 5%, 4%, 4%, 2%). Information on community college student enrollment was collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Because the CCSSE used here was conducted in the spring of 2008, enrollment figures from the 2007-2008 academic year were used to calculate the equation.

One of the motivating factors for this study was the idea that organizational characteristics, which affect overall student involvement, could serve to moderate the relationship between student body racial diversity and an institution’s normative climate toward diversity outcomes. To control for this, several institutional characteristics where included in model estimation. Each characteristic has been found in previous research to affect an institution’s ability to increase student involvement and interactions (Kuh et al., 1991; Porter, 2006; Schuetz, 2008). The geographic location of an institution was controlled for using dummy codes to indicate whether a community college was located in the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, or West.⁶ Dummy codes were also used to control for the degree of urbanization of an institution’s geographic location (i.e., whether an institution is located in a city, suburb, town, or rural area). To control for whether a community college offered on-campus housing, dummy coding was used; colleges without on-campus housing were assigned a value of 0, while colleges with on-campus housing were assigned a value of 1.

The remaining control variables were continuous. To control for institutional size, the natural log of the total number of students enrolled during the 2007-2008 academic year was used. Institutional cost was controlled for using the natural log of published in-district tuition and fees for full-time students in the 2007-2008 academic year. To control for the fact that some 2-year institutions enroll higher proportions of full-time students than others, the percentage of a community college’s 2007-2008 student enrollment that was full-time was included in model estimations. Finally, faculty racial diversity was controlled for by using the equation to calculate a faculty diversity index score for each community college based on the racial composition of full- and part-time faculty members during the 2007-2008 academic year. Data for each control variable came from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

The inclusion of these control variables help to ensure that the estimated relationship between student body racial diversity and the normative environment of a community college toward diversity is not contaminated by omitted variable bias. While this is by no means an exhaustive list of factors that could contaminate the relationships studied here, it is believed that the most salient measurable institutional characteristics are controlled for that could be correlated with both community college student body racial diversity and each of the three outcome variables studied.

Results

Descriptive Findings

Descriptive statistics for the variables used in this study are presented in Tables 1 and 2. These data indicate that the sample of community colleges used here is similar to the larger population of community colleges, in several aspects. According to the American Association of Community Colleges (2011), around 40% of all community college students are enrolled full-time. A similar percentage (41%) were enrolled full-time at the institutions used here. The average in-district tuition and fees for the community colleges in this study were $2,464. Within the larger population of community colleges, average annual in-district tuition and fees are around $2,700.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Categorical Variables.

Variable name	Distribution (%)
Institutional location
Northeast	17.42
Midwest	16.38
Southeast	32.06
Southwest	15.33
West	18.82
Degree of urbanization
City	28.92
Suburb	21.25
Town	21.95
Rural	27.87
Institution offers on-campus housing?
No	80.84
Yes	19.16

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Noncategorical Variables.

Variable name	M (SD)
Conversations with students of different racial/ethnic groups	2.35 (0.23)
Conversations with students of different beliefs and values	2.32 (0.12)
Greater understanding of people from different racial/ethnic backgrounds	2.36 (0.19)
Student body racial diversity score	71.21 (6.94)
Total enrollment	6,189 (6,107)
Institutional cost	$2,464 ($1,070)
Percentage of students enrolled full-time	41% (12%)
Faculty racial diversity score	66.55 (5.38)

On-campus housing was the one area where there was some difference between the larger population of community colleges and the sample used in this study. Around 27% of community colleges offer some form of on-campus housing to students (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011). Among the institutions in this study, however, only 19.16% offered on-campus housing.

Other interesting notes from the descriptive findings of this study relate to community college racial diversity and student enrollment. In comparing student and faculty diversity index scores among the institutions, it appears that on average there was more racial diversity among community college students (M = 71.21) than among community college faculty members (M = 66.55). A t test revealed that these mean diversity index scores are significantly different, t(286) = 14.80, p = .000. This finding is likely a symptom of the underrepresentation of minorities among community college faculty members (Kirkpatrick, 2001; Perna, 2003).

Institutional enrollment numbers indicate wide variation in the size of the community colleges studied here. Average student body enrollment was 6,189 students, with a standard deviation of 6,107. This large standard deviation indicates the considerable variety of community colleges, large and small, captured in this data set.

Multivariate Findings

Table 3 displays the results of the multivariate analyses run to examine the aforementioned research questions. The first column shows the results of the regression analysis using the normative environment of a community college toward student conversations with racially/ethnically diverse others as the dependent variable. The findings show that, controlling for other factors, student body racial diversity was positively related to the development of a normative environment in which student conversations with racially or ethnically diverse others occurred more frequently (β = .024, p < .000).

Table 3.

Results of Regression Analyses.

	Dependent Variables
	Conversation With Racial/Ethnic Different Others	Conversation With Others of Different Beliefs	Understanding of Racial/Ethnic Different Others
Student body racial diversity	.024^***	.007^***	.008^***
	(.002)	(.002)	(.002)
Faculty racial diversity	.003	−.002	.018^***
	(.002)	(.002)	(.002)
ln total enrollment	−.014	.009	−.015
	(.012)	(.010)	(.013)
Suburb	.026	.007	−.022
	(.021)	(.017)	(.022)
Town	−.041	.022	.008
	(.028)	(.021)	(.027)
Rural	−.011	.013	−.003
	(.024)	(.018)	(.022)
Percentage of students enrolled full-time	.216^**	.270^***	.266^***
	(.077)	(.066)	(.080)
Midwest	−.080^**	−.081^***	−.085^***
	(.028)	(.021)	(.025)
Southeast	.068^*	.019	.006
	(.027)	(.019)	(.025)
Southwest	−.049	−.022	−.059
	(.034)	(.028)	(.035)
West	.009	.050^*	−.083^**
	(.030)	(.022)	(.030)
ln institutional cost	−.015	−.013	−.054^**
	(.025)	(.019)	(.021)
On-campus housing	.014	−.034	.047
	(.024)	(.020)	(.024)
Constant	.590	1.825^*	1.066^***
	(.332)	(.233)	(.274)
n	287	287	287
R ²	.664	.330	.569

Note. Unstandardized beta coefficients are presented. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Omitted reference groups: community colleges located in cities, community colleges located in Northeast, community colleges without on-campus housing.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

In examining the magnitude of this coefficient, it was found that student body racial diversity had a strong statistical relationship with the normative environment of a community college toward student conversations with racially/ethnically diverse others. Cohen’s f ² effect size for student body racial diversity in the model was .684. Based on the metric established by J. Cohen (1988) where f ² effect sizes of .02, .15, and .35 are considered small, medium, and large, respectively, the effect size found in this study would be considered very large. The R² value of the full model used to examine Research Question 1 was .664.

With regard to Research Question 2 (as shown in column 2 of Table 3), the same statistically significant positive relationship was found (β = .007, p = .000). More racially diverse community colleges were able to create a normative environment in which student conversations occurred more frequently with peers holding different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values. The effect size of student body racial diversity in this model was .104. Based on the Cohen matrix (J. Cohen, 1988), this effect size suggests that the strength of this relationship was small to medium. The R² value for this estimation (.300) was lower than that of the model used to estimate Research Question 1.

The final column in Table 3 suggests that enrolling a more racially heterogeneous student body, controlling for other factors, helps a community college create a normative environment in which students have a greater understanding of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds (β = .008, p = .000). As with the model used to estimate Research Question 2, the effect size of student body racial diversity in this estimation (f ² = .08) is considered of small to medium strength according to Cohen’s matrix (J. Cohen, 1988). The R² value of this estimation was .569.

Limitations

Several limitations should be taken in account when considering the findings of this study. First, despite the number of control variables used, the estimations from this analysis could be adversely affected by omitted-variable bias. If an institutional characteristic (observable or unobservable) is correlated with student body racial diversity and the outcome variables studied but not controlled for in the regression models, there is the potential for omitted-variable bias. As a result, causal claims about the relationships studied here should not be made.

A second limitation involves the CCSSE instrument. Scholars have recently raised questions about the design and psychometric properties of this instrument as a tool for assessing student engagement (Olivas, 2011)—specifically, questions concerning the ability of students to accurately respond to survey questions (Porter, 2011), the survey’s consideration of “intercultural effort” (Dowd, Sawatzky, & Korn, 2011), and the CCSSE’s benchmarks of effective educational practice (Nora, Crisp, & Matthews, 2011). McCormick and McClenney (2012) offer a strong defense of the CCSSE instrument, and several studies have shown the it to be a valid tool for assessing student engagement (Mandarino & Mattern, 2010; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2007). The findings of this study, however, must be considered in light of the debate regarding the quality of the CCSSE instrument.

Finally, the dependent variables studied here were measured using student responses to a single question. Using a single question to operationalize these variables represents a fairly narrow view of an institution’s normative environment toward a diversity outcome. Ideally, additional questions would have been used to help operationalize the outcomes of interest. These questions, however, were not included in the CCSSE instrument.

Discussion

The educational benefits of diversity have been the subject of much research over the years. Some have found significant educational benefits associated with the creation of a diverse student body (Milem, 2003), while others have found little evidence that diversity has any impact on student educational outcomes (Herzog, 2007). This research, however, has focused almost exclusively on diversity in 4-year colleges and universities. No published research to date has examined the influence of student body racial diversity at community colleges.

The development of a better understanding of diversity at 2-year colleges is essential for a number of reasons. One, attacks on diversity research from commentators such as Wood and Sherman (2001, p. 81) have been based in part on the fact that 2-year colleges had been excluded from analyses on the educational impact of diversity. Research on diversity and student interaction with diversity at community colleges would aid the higher education community in addressing this criticism.

Research at 2-year colleges would also add a level of nuance to our understanding of the impact of diversity in higher education. A variety of structural, input, and output differences make the organizational environments of 2- and 4-year institutions quite different. Currently, the bulk of our knowledge regarding the educational impact of diversity is concentrated in the organizational environments of 4-year institutions. By focusing on 2-year institutions, stronger claims may be made about diversity’s impact in a variety of organizational environments within higher education.

A focus on 2-year institutions can also serve to broaden the utility of research on diversity in higher education. For many scholars, the motivating factor for better understanding the educational impact of diversity has been attacks on race-based admissions programs. Diversity, however, is both a policy initiative and a broader educational initiative. If it is believed that the cognitive dissonance created by diverse learning environments positively affects the intellectual growth of students (Gurin et al., 2002), it should be encouraged within all sectors of postsecondary education. Community colleges represent a large sector of higher education responsible for producing graduates who will serve in important leadership positions within an increasingly diverse society (A. Cohen & Brawer, 2008). A better understanding of if and how diversity can be used to create enhanced learning environments at 2-year schools extends the utility of this line of scholarship.

This study takes an initial step in this direction by exploring the relationship between student body racial diversity and an institution’s normative environment toward diversity outcomes among a nationally representative sample of community colleges in the United States. The findings support the work of Chang et al. (2004), Pike and Kuh (2006), Pike et al. (2007), and others who have found that more racially diversity institutions of higher education are able to create a normative environment in which student conversations with diverse others occur more frequently. Even after controlling for a variety of institutional characteristics, community college student body racial diversity was positively correlated with a normative environment in which students engaged more often in conversations with racially different others and with peers holding different personal beliefs and values.

From an organizational perspective, this study suggests that even among institutions where interactions among organizational members occur less frequently, higher levels of diversity aid institutions in creating a normative environment in which interactions with diverse others occur more frequently. The first part of the conceptual model detailed in Figure 1 now has empirical support within the organizational environments of 4- and 2-year institutions of higher education.

This study also found a direct correlation between community college student body racial diversity and one important educational outcome. As noted earlier, supporters of affirmative action–type policies propose that a diverse student body leads to increased cross-racial and cross-cultural interactions among students. These interactions in turn contribute significantly to students’ intellectual and personal development. The hypothesis that student interactions with diversity lead to a variety of positive educational outcomes could not be directly tested here given the available data. It was found, however, that community colleges enrolling a more racially heterogeneous student body appear to have a normative environment in which students develop a greater understanding of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. This suggests that further investigation into the second part of the conceptual model in Figure 1 would show a positive relationship between community college student interactions with diverse others and what Gurin (1999) describes as student “democracy outcomes” (p. 366).

In sum, these findings show that community colleges can benefit from enrolling a more racially heterogeneous student body through the creation of a normative environment that supports more frequent contact among diverse peers and that fosters increased student understanding of diverse others. This raises several interesting questions regarding student recruitment among 2-year institutions. In general, community colleges are more racially diverse than 4-year colleges and universities in that they often have high concentrations of minority students (A. Cohen & Brawer, 2008). Creating a more racially heterogeneous student body, however, remains a challenge for many 2-year institutions (Kallur, 2006). The findings of this study suggest that accepting this challenge and attempting to create a more racially balanced student body can be beneficial for students. As noted by Pike et al. (2007), there are generally two ways in which colleges and universities become more diverse: when the demographics in the surrounding area change and through the intentional recruitment of students from diverse backgrounds. For 2-year institutions, more diversity may require substantial recruitment of students outside an institution’s home district. Is this type of student recruitment within the budgetary constraints of 2-year institutions? Does it conflict with tuition policies in states that require out-of-district students to pay higher tuition rates than in-district students? Given the nature of community college students, would this type of recruitment be effective at creating more diverse community colleges? These are questions that institutions would have to ask as they attempt to balance the educational advantages of diversity with the realities of their organization contexts.

These findings also raise interesting questions about how more diversity in community college student populations facilitates increased cross-racial interactions. Are these informal interactions that naturally occur during the course of the academic year? Are they more formal interactions facilitated by the institution? Do they occur inside or outside the classroom? What other conditions are necessary if community colleges hope to increase student interactions with diverse others? These are questions that should be part of a larger research agenda on diversity at community colleges.

Future research should also more thoroughly explore the validity of the second part of the diversity rationale within community colleges. Given the data available, this study could explore only the direct relationship between community college student body racial diversity and the normative climate toward one educational outcome. Before a true proclamation regarding the educational benefits of interactions with diverse others at community colleges can be made, however, more research is needed. Particularly, student-level research is needed examining if community college student interactions with diverse others are correlated with learning outcomes, democracy outcomes, citizenship engagement, process outcomes, or material outcomes. Research in that area, in combination with the findings here, would give the higher education community a more complete understanding of the role that diversity plays in the educational experiences of students at 2-year colleges.

Conclusion

Just as many 4-year institutions extol the educational benefits of creating a more diverse student body, this study shows that community colleges also have a compelling interest in enrolling a more heterogeneous student body. As community colleges continue to play a critical role in the preparation of students to live and work in a diverse society, they should strongly consider the educational relevance of diversity. The larger discussion regarding diversity in higher education should not focus exclusively on 4-year colleges and universities. If the goal is to foster an educated citizenry for a diverse democracy, efforts should be focused at all sectors of postsecondary education, including 2-year institutions. It is hoped that this study serves as a catalyst for research and debate in this area.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Willis A. Jones is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

Adams

S. E.

(1995). The relationship between social contact and comfort with social interaction among student ethnic groups. NASPA Journal, 32, 251-261.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2011). Fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts.aspx

Antonio

A. L.

(1998). The impact of friendship groups in a multicultural university (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.

Astin

(1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen

W. G.

Bok

D. C.

(1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bryant

A. N.

(2001). Community college students recent findings and trends. Community College Review, 29(3), 77-93.

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A matter of degrees: Promising practices for community college student success (a first look). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.

Chang

M. J.

(1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 377-395.

Chang

M. J.

Astin

A. W.

Kim

(2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45, 529-553. doi: 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032327.45961.33

10.

Cohen

A. M.

Brawer

F. B

(2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Dowd

A. C.

Sawatzky

Korn

(2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. Review of Higher Education, 35, 17-44. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2011.0033

13.

Ethington

C. A.

(1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 165-194). Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.

14.

Ethington

C. A.

(2000). Influences of the normative environment of peer groups on community college students’ perceptions of growth and development. Research in Higher Education, 41, 703-722. doi: 10.1023/a:1007068604692

15.

Evelyn

(2004, December 3). Community colleges struggle to foster “engagement,” survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Community-Colleges-Struggle-to/22805

16.

Gurin

(1999). The compelling need for diversity in higher education. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 5(1), 363-425.

17.

Gurin

Dey

Hurtado

Gurin

(2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366.

18.

Herzog

(2007). Diversity and educational benefits: Moving beyond self-reported questionnaire data. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, Department of Education Reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED508971)

19.

Hoffman

(1985). The effect of race-ratio composition on the frequency of organizational communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 17-26. doi: 10.2307/3033778

20.

Hurtado

(2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the classroom environment and student development. In Orfield

(Ed.), Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187-204). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.

21.

Hurtado

Dey

Gurin

(2003). College environments, diversity, and student learning. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 145-190). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

22.

Hurtado

Wathington Cade

(1999, November). Intragroup and intergroup dynamics on campus: Understanding interaction across racial/ethnic communities. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.

23.

Kallur

(2006). Ethical practice in community college recruitment. In Kallur

Reeves

(Eds.), Guidelines for ethical practices in international student recruitment (pp. 10-15). Washington, DC: NAFSA.

24.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990. doi: 10.1086/226425

25.

King

J. E.

(2002). Crucial choices: How students’ financial decisions affect their academic success. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

26.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

(2001). Multicultural strategies for community colleges: Expanding faculty diversity. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455902)

27.

Kuh

Schuh

Whitt

Andreas

Lyons

Strange

MacKay

(1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Mandarino

Mattern

M. Y.

(2010). Assessing the validity of ccsse in an ontario college. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

29.

McClenney

Marti

C. N.

Adkins

(2007). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from ccsse validation research. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.

30.

McCormick

A. C.

McClenney

(2012). Will these trees ever bear fruit? A response to the special issue on student engagement. Review of Higher Education, 35, 307-333. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2012.0010

31.

Milem

(1998). Attitude change in college students: Examining the effect of college peer groups and faculty groups. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 117-140.

32.

Milem

(2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In Chang

Witt

Jones

Hakuta

(Eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities (pp. 126-169). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univeristy Press.

33.

Milem

Chang

Antonio

(2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

34.

Nelson Laird

T. F.

(2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46, 365-387. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-2966-1

35.

Nora

Crisp

Matthews

(2011). A reconceptualization of ccsse’s benchmarks of student engagement. Review of Higher Education, 35, 105-130. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2011.0036

36.

Olivas

(2011). If you build it, they will asses it (or, an open letter to George Kuh, with love and respect). Review of Higher Education, 35, 1-16. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2011.0032

37.

Perna

L. W.

(2003). The status of women and minorities among community college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 44, 205-240. doi: 10.1023/A:1022003812945

38.

Phillippe

K. A.

Sullivan

L. G.

(2006). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics. Washington, DC: American Association of Community College.

39.

Pike

Kuh

(2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer interactions, and perceptions of the campus environment. Review of Higher Education, 29, 425-450. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2006.0037

40.

Pike

Kuh

G. D.

Gonyea

R. M.

(2007). Evaluating the rationale for affirmative action in college admissions: Direct and indirect relationships between campus diversity and gains in understanding diverse groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 166-182.

41.

Porter

S. R.

(2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47, 521-558. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-9006-z

42.

Porter

S. R.

(2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? Review of Higher Education, 35, 45-76. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2011.0034

43.

Schuetz

(2008). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 305-324. doi: 10.1080/10668920701884349

44.

Undergraduate enrollments by type of college. (2010, August 22). Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Graphic-Undergraduate/124068/

45.

Wood

Sherman

(2001). Is campus racial diversity correlated with educational benefits? Academic Questions, 14, 72-88. doi: 10.1007/s12129-001-1011-x