Leadership So White: Working Toward Equitable Representation of Latinx Leadership at Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Abstract

Ximena was sure she would be appointed as the Director of Student Life at Aspirante University, a Hispanic-Serving Institution. As interim director, Ximena strove to enact servingness in her everyday practice. Her efforts to create a culturally responsive, relevant, and affirming campus environment for Latinx students were unparalleled. However, she was overlooked yet again for the directorship. This case study is intended to challenge leaders to check their assumptions and examine how they operationalize Whiteness, reproduce the dominant model of professional, and thereby preclude candidates from being earnestly and equitably considered for the job. It raises implications for current leaders who may enact deficit thinking and racially and culturally biased practices as well as for leaders who may be hindered by such practices.

Keywords

Hispanic-Serving Institutions Latina/o/x professionals leadership student affairs

Case Background

Aspirante University (AU) is a large Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) with over 15,000 students. The U.S. federal government defines Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) as accredited, nonprofit, degree-granting institutions of higher education with 25% or more undergraduate Hispanic full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). More than 50% of AU’s students are Latina/o/x and in pursuit of becoming the first in their families to graduate college. Although AU’s Latinx student population continues to increase, the university has made little to no progress toward Latinx representation in senior leadership and among the faculty. Most of AU’s leadership is White. Latinx personnel is found mainly in entry- and mid-level positions, with limited opportunities for career progression within the workplace. Staff demographics, much like AU’s student demographics, are by default.

This case study highlights Ximena’s hiring and promotion experiences at AU. Ximena, who identifies as Chicana and a proud almost triple AU alumna, had been the Assistant Director of Student Life for 8 years. She was asked to step into the role of Interim Director of Student Life upon Kyle Whitten’s departure from AU a year and a half ago. In fact, Ximena had been overlooked for the directorship in favor of Kyle 4 years ago. Evidently, Kyle did not last long at AU. Ximena never understood why Kyle Whitten had been hired over her. Kyle was a White man who held previous professional roles at private, predominately White institutions. He held degrees from highly ranked institutions, yet, had no experience working with Latinx students and communities and a limited understanding of HSIs. Still, the university made extraordinary efforts to get him to AU. Ximena was hesitant to accept the interim role but knew she was the most qualified person for the position. Ximena was so sure of her qualifications that she reapplied for the Director position once it opened.

The purpose of this case study is to challenge leaders to check their assumptions and examine how they operationalize Whiteness, reproduce the dominant model of professional, and thereby preclude candidates from being intently and equitably considered for the job. It raises implications for current leaders who may enact deficit thinking and racially and culturally biased practices as well as for leaders who may be hindered by such practices. Ximena is a composite character. Composite characters represent real experiences. As Solórzano and Yosso (2002) state,

We are not developing imaginary characters that engage in fictional scenarios. Instead, the “composite” characters we develop are grounded in real-life experiences and actual empirical data and are contexualized in social situations that are also grounded in real life, not fiction. (p. 36)

All names used in this case study are pseudonyms.

Case Narrative

Interim Director

Ximena thrived in the role of Interim Director of Student Life at AU. Student Life was charged with promoting the learning and development of the whole student as well as fostering a welcoming and inclusive campus community. Under Ximena’s leadership, as much as she disliked that expression, all student programs had achieved the highest levels of student participation. Assessment activities revealed gains in sense of belonging, leadership identity, and civic engagement. One of Ximena’s proudest accomplishments was working closely with the Department of Chicana(o) and Latina(o) Studies to revive MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) on campus. MEChA began at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1969, for the purpose of increasing Chicana/o/x participation in higher education and persists as a community empowerment and advocacy student organization (Urrieta, 2004). Ximena was a proud Mechista during her undergraduate years at AU and was sad to see it fall apart when AU lost its only Full Chicano Professor.

In her role as interim, Ximena worked closely with the staff to rethink engagement to reflect AU’s student population. When staff came back from national conferences such as Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) and American College Personnel Association (ACPA), excited to implement a new program or practice, she pushed them to think about the relevance to AU students. “Best practice for whom?” she’d ask.

Staff morale was at an all-time high. Unlike during Kyle’s tenure, the staff felt valued, heard, and understood. While Kyle employed a very transactional, top-down leadership approach, Ximena operated from an applied critical leadership perspective (Santamaría & Santamaría, 2012). Her identity was at the core of her leadership. She practiced and affirmed cultural values of familismo and communidad. She knew building confianza was key (Núñez et al., 2021). Ximena placed great emphasis on staff professional development and coaching. Also, she believed in a “grow-your-own” approach to leadership. Although she had few mentoring experiences over her 15-year career at AU, she was determined to be both a mentor and sponsor for her staff, who were majority early-career professionals of color.

Aspirante University

Ximena did not want to minimize the critical role AU played in expanding access to higher education for Latinx students, but she felt AU could do better in serving Latinx students. From Ximena’s perspective, AU’s HSI designation was because of demography and geography, not because of intentional efforts on behalf of the institution (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). It was expected that local students would attend AU. Ximena could not recall ever being actively recruited to attend AU—neither at the undergraduate or graduate level. After all, AU was one of very few postsecondary education options in the region. The lack of educational opportunities was tied to a long history of marginalization.

Intentional recruitment and retention of Latina/o/x faculty were also feeble. Ximena wondered if the administration and faculty, some of whose time with the institution preceded AU’s HSI designation, understood the importance of having faculty who look like and share experiences with the students they serve (Alcantar & Hernandez, 2020). As a second-year doctoral student in educational leadership, Ximena learned about and used Garcia’s (2017a, 2017b) work to classify AU as a Latinx-producing institution. As Ximena had learned, “Latinx-producing suggests an institution enrolls at least 25% Latinx students and produces a significant number of outcomes for Latinx students. The institution, however, might lack a culture for supporting the success of Latinx students” (Garcia, 2017b, p. 114). Ximena aspired to eventually become Associate Vice President of Student Affairs and help not only produce equitable outcomes for Latinx students but also “enact a culture that enhances the educational and racial/ethnic experiences of Latinx students” (Garcia, 2017b, p. 114).

AU was still operating in White ways (Garcia, 2019). Rather than focus on creating a culturally responsive, relevant, and affirming campus environment for its students, AU was fixated on comparing itself to non-HSIs and engaging in prestige-seeking behaviors, which have been documented among HSIs (Doran, 2020; Gonzales & Pacheco, 2012). White research continued to guide a lot of student affairs policies and practices at AU. Dr. Ruth Harrison, the vice president for student affairs had been at AU for nearly 20 years.

She identified as a White woman and viewed herself as a social justice ally (Patton & Bondi, 2015). Yet, she did little to challenge the status quo. She was a nice White woman (Castagno, 2019).

Ruth continuously referred to the theory of student integration (Tinto, 1993). “Are you kidding me?” Ximena muttered under her breath. “Our students should not have to separate from their pre-college communities. It’s these very communities that are going to help them succeed!” Accordingly, Ximena had worked arduously to develop programming for families. Ximena who attended AU for both her bachelor’s, master’s, and now doctoral degree, knew the critical role family played in the success of Latinx students (Acevedo-Gil, 2017; Matos, 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2019; Saenz & Ponjuan, 2009; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995; Yosso, 2005). Praising families during graduation was not enough recognition for their role in supporting their child/grandchild/sibling/niece/nephew into and through higher education.

The Interview

It was the morning of Ximena’s interview for the position of Director of Student Life. “You got this!” read the good luck card on Ximena’s desk. It was from the Student Life staff. In addition to good wishes from her staff, other directors in the division were rooting for Ximena. Ximena, much like her colleagues, was certain the director position was hers. Her achievements as well as that of her staff and the Center altogether were undeniable. It was no wonder she received a remarkable annual evaluation from Dr. Taylor Raines, the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs. Taylor, another nice White woman (Castagno, 2019), joined AU a little less than 10 years ago. Although years apart, Taylor and Ruth graduated from the same educational leadership doctoral program.

The interview went as Ximena expected. “I killed it,” she told her trusted friend and colleague Marcus. Marcus was a program coordinator with Student Life. “You were the best candidate. Hands down. The other finalist had such a deficit view about us and our students,” Marcus said. “We don’t need another Kyle who is going to use AU to build his resume and claim he’s worked with ‘diverse students.’ AU is not a launching board, and we certainly don’t need another white savior,” he added.

Marcus’s reference to White saviorism was related to Kyle and other leaders at AU. The predominately White leadership was from outside the local region and held a strong cosmopolitan orientation (Gouldner, 1957). In some sense, they felt they were hired to save/fix AU. They believed they had the best and new ideas, a stronger connection to the broader higher education community, less institutional baggage, and more adequate preparation and experiences to lead the university. Some of the few Latinx leaders on campus had internalized Whiteness ideology too. They believed White was right. Even so, Ximena, who strongly identified as a local cosmopolitan (Rhoades et al., 2008) and refused to accept and “embody whiteness as a universal standard of professionalism” (Nguyen & Duran, 2018, p. 113), left campus that day never feeling surer about something in her life. “There’s no way I won’t get the offer,” she thought on the way home.

The Chat

Two weeks later, Ximena received an email from Taylor. “Let’s Chat,” read the subject line. Her heart sank. She was expecting a call from Human Resources, not an email from Taylor. Ximena tried to hold back tears as she made her way to the AVPs Office. During the 30-minute meeting, she heard the same nonsense feedback and recommendations other AU colleagues had received when they were overlooked for leadership positions on campus, including:

Thank you for holding down the fort.

We are so lucky to have you at AU.

I don’t know what we would do without you.

You’re an asset to the department, but you’re just not ready.

To “move up” in student affairs, you must “move out” (Rhoades et al., 2008, p. 226).

You can come back once you’ve gained some outside experience.

The position prefers a doctoral degree.

I know you’re working on your doctorate, but you already have your other degrees from here.

We’re looking for innovation and change.

We want AU to be the best. And that requires we hire the best.

The field is very competitive.

We hope you will facilitate a smooth transition. We know how much the staff loves you.

After the one-sided conversation, which was riddled with microaggressions, Taylor asked Ximena if she had any questions. Ximena refused to entertain Taylor’s dehumanization and devaluation of her and her work any further and excused herself from the meeting. As she walked backed to her office she wondered: How could they do this to me again? You want the best? What’s that supposed to mean? How is it that I am not ready when I’ve elevated the department tremendously over the past year and a half? Did they simply interview me as a formality and to avoid commotion? Was I used to diversify their candidate pool? How am I going to face the team? Perhaps I should start looking elsewhere for leadership opportunities. After all, I’ve been approached several times about applying to higher-level positions at other institutions. There’s no way I will reach my goal of becoming AVP here. Most of our leadership is White and folks are likely to hire individuals with whom they have similarities in culture, experiences, and interests (Rivera, 2012). Plus, clearly, they’ve not consciously aimed to decolonize leadership practices, including “tak[ing] time to understand their identities in relation to larger systems of oppression” (Garcia & Natividad, 2018, p. 32). Apparently, we are only good for entry-level and mid-level positions (Lozano, 2017) and diversity-related initiatives (Mena, 2015).

Ximena was tired of individuals doubting her abilities and being disrespected (Silva, 2003). She wanted to be somewhere where her expertise and rich cultural and linguistic contributions would be valued. She refused to tolerate any more personal and professional invalidation (Fuentes, 2021), which was negatively impacting her well-being. At the same time, she could not help thinking about her team, the students, and her community.

Teaching Notes

The percentage of undergraduate Students of Color increased from 29.6% to 45.2% between 1995 and 1996 and 2015 to 2016 (Espinosa et al., 2019). The growth was “largely driven by the increase in Hispanic undergraduate enrollment” (Espinosa et al., 2019, p. 37). Before the COVID 19 pandemic, Latinos were expected to represent the largest college enrollment growth (Excelencia in Education, 2022). Although in 2020–2021, the number of Hispanic-Serving Institutions decreased (569–559), the number of Emerging HSIs (eHSIs), which are institutions with a 15% to 24% undergraduate FTE Hispanic enrollment, increased from 362 to 393 (Excelencia in Education, 2022). As stated by HACU President and CEO Antonio R. Flores, the increase in eHSIs “highlights the growing population of Hispanics who are pursuing higher education across the nation unlike any time before” (Excelencia in Education, 2022, para. 4).

Despite the growth in Students of Color in higher education, especially that of Latinx, leadership remains mostly White (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018; Espinosa et al., 2019; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Tull, 2014; Wesaw & Sponsler, 2014)—even within Minority Serving Institutions (Imlay & Schaap, 2017) such as AU.

Only 17% of college presidents are from racially minoritized groups (Gagliardi et al., 2017). A mere 4% of college presidents are Latinx, and they are primarily situated at associate colleges (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Only 35.5% of all MSI presidents are People of Color (Imlay & Schaap, 2017) and only 9.2% are Latinx (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019), leading scholars to highlight implications for MSIs when their administration does not reflect the students and communities they serve (Doran, 2020).

Although “Faculty diversity also has the potential to provide a pathway for diverse campus leadership and Latinos in administrative positions within higher education institutions and systems” (Contreras, 2017, p. 226), the professoriate remains predominately White as well (Espinosa et al., 2019). In California, which is home to the greatest number of HSIs (175/569; Excelencia in Education, 2021) and the largest public higher education systems (i.e., California Community Colleges, California State University) in the United States, two-thirds of leadership and tenured faculty positions are held by Whites (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018).

Unsurprisingly, Student Affairs leadership is also mostly White. Chief Student Affairs Officers are likely to be 50 to 59 years old, White, and male (Wesaw & Sponsler, 2014). At community colleges, which is where Latinx students are more likely to enroll than others (Sáenz et al., 2018), Tull (2014) found that Senior Student Affairs Officers were 75.3% White and 6.70% Latina/x/o (N=228). Latinx are typically found in entry-level and mid-level positions (Lozano, 2017), and are underrepresented in the field at large (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018).

Student affairs professionals of color are integral to the overall support of Latinx students (Garcia, 2016; Luedke, 2017). They serve as key institutional agents and play a crucial role in fostering belongingness and creating a validating environment for students (Fuentes, 2021; Garcia, 2016; Luedke, 2017). Unfortunately, as student affairs professionals of color strive to create an environment conducive to student success, as some research has pointed out, they themselves may experience invalidation, exclusion, as well as microaggressions, including microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations (Fuentes, 2021; Garcia, 2016; Garibay, 2020; Mena, 2015). These experiences occur at both predominately White institutions (Garibay, 2020) as well as HSIs (Garcia, 2016; Garibay, 2020). As noted by Garcia (2016) “We must recognize that despite the fact that HSIs are more compositionally diverse, both in the make-up of students and staff, negative experiences with racial microaggressions continue to happen to people within these settings” (p. 29).

Ximena experienced what Fuentes (2021) termed professional invalidation, which involves “a statement, action, microaggression, or misunderstanding that communicated to them that they did not belong in the role they were in or that they were not seen as legitimate professionals responsible for performing their tasks” (p. 52). Ximena often felt unheard and dismissed. Ximena was not considered qualified enough for a leadership role. Some of these assumptions were rooted in the dominant model of professional, in which one is expected to move away (Rhoades et al., 2008). Others were steeped in Whiteness, which continues to pervade the field of student affairs (Nguyen & Duran, 2018; Phelps-Ward & Kenney, 2018; Poon, 2018), HSIs (Garcia, 2019; Garcia & Natividad, 2018), and the field of higher education at large (Cabrera et al., 2017). According to Matias et al. (2014) Whiteness is “a social construction that embraces white culture, ideology, racialization, expressions, and experiences, epistemology, emotions, and behaviors. . . whiteness is normalized because white supremacy elevates whites and whiteness to the apex of the racial hierarchy” (p. 290). Furthermore, “Whiteness need not be only indicative of white folks since people of color can inhabit whiteness ideology—albeit for different reasons; yet, whiteness is indeed most prevalent in whites themselves” (Matias & Mackey, 2016, p. 34).

Experiences like that of Ximena’s have influenced Latinx student affairs professionals’ (and potential future institutional leaders) intentions to leave their institutions and the field of student affairs altogether. Their departure carries significant implications for Latinx student sense of belonging, mentorship opportunities, and university retention and graduation efforts (Garibay, 2020). Yet, to what extent is the departure of local/home-grown leaders who respect, reflect, and relate to students and the community understood as a loss to the institution? To be sure, student affairs at HSIs and EHSIs, in general, are doing work to be commended. They are advancing efforts to increase Latinx student completion and creating culturally responsive, relevant, and affirming campuses for students (Garcia, 2019, 2020). Yet, they have a responsibility to do more. Discussions surrounding servingness must extend beyond undergraduate students (Garcia, 2019). HSI culture should also enhance the professional and racial/ethnic experiences of Latinx staff and faculty. The role of leadership and leadership practices in achieving these outcomes cannot be overestimated.

Discussion Questions

What does it take to be deemed a legitimate and or ideal student affairs leader? What norms or rules have shaped your perspective?

Take some time to critically analyze your beliefs. Have your beliefs prevented candidates from being earnestly and equitably considered for the job? If so, what steps might you take to avoid dismissing and invalidating qualified candidates?

In what ways do you maintain Whiteness? In what ways have you attempted to disrupt Whiteness, if at all?

What steps could someone like Ximena take to respond to the treatment she is experiencing? To which offices on campus, if any, would you refer Ximena for assistance?

What steps can be taken to ensure that such behavior does not continue institutionally?

Is it important for the leadership of an institution to reflect its student body? Explain and support your answer. If so, how might HSIs diversify their leadership bodies?

Operating from an asset-based perspective, what do AU, its students, and the community stand to lose should Ximena leave the university and potentially the region?

How might HSIs foster career progression among their current staff?

Ximena strived to enact servingness through her role as interim director. In what ways do you enact servingness in your current position?

In what ways can HSI leaders support and create culturally responsive, relevant, and affirming campus environment for their students, faculty, and staff?

Classroom Activities

The class has been selected to serve as hiring consultants for AU. You have been charged with developing an interview protocol for future AU faculty, staff, and administrators to ensure they are committed to AU’s HSI mission. What questions would you ask to gauge a commitment to servingness? What specific evidence of such commitment would you require of applicants?

In your role as consultants for AU, you have also been asked to establish certain criteria, perhaps even training requirements for individuals to be able to serve on hiring committees. What recommendations would you advance to promote equitable hiring practices?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Edna Martinez

Author Biography

Edna Martinez is an associate professor of educational leadership at The University of Texas at El Paso.

References

Acevedo-Gil

(2017). College-conocimiento: Toward an interdisciplinary college choice framework for Latinx students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(6), 829–850.

Alcantar

C. M.

Hernandez

(2020). “Here the professors are your guide, tus guías”: Latina/o student validating experiences with faculty at a Hispanic-Serving community college. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(1), 3–18.

Bustillos

L. T.

Siqueiros

(2018). Left out: How exclusion in California’s colleges and universities hurts our values, our students, and our economy. Campaign for College Opportunity. https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Left-Out-Report-FINAL.pdf

Cabrera

N. L.

Franklin

J. D.

Watson

J. S.

(2017). Whiteness in higher education: The invisible missing link in diversity and racial analyses. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(6), 7–125.

Castagno

A. E.

(Ed.). (2019). The price of nice: How good intentions maintain educational inequity. University of Minnesota.

Contreras

(2017). Latino faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Where is the diversity? Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(3), 223–250.

Contreras

G. J.

(2015). Raising the bar for Hispanic serving institutions: An analysis of college completion and success rates. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 151–170.

Doran

(2020). How Hispanic should Hispanic-Serving Institutions be? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 23(4), 104–114.

Espinosa

L. L.

Turk

J. M.

Taylor

Chessman

H. M.

(2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. American Council on Education.

10.

Excelencia in Education. (2021, April). Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): 2019-2020. https://www.edexcelencia.org/research/publications/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis-2019-2020

11.

Excelencia in Education. (2022, March 17). New data shows decrease in the number of Hispanic-Serving Institutions for the first time in 20 years, but significant increase in emerging HSIs. https://www.edexcelencia.org/press-releases/new-data-decrease-number-hispanic-serving-institutions-increase-emerging-hsis

12.

Fuentes

E. V.

(2021). Exploring the experiences of Latinx first-generation professionals in student affairs [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis].

13.

Gagliardi

J. S.

Espinosa

L. L.

Turk

J. M.

Taylor

(2017). American college president study 2017. American Council on Education.

14.

Garcia

G. A.

(2016). Exploring student affairs professionals’ experiences with the campus racial climate at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(1), 20–33.

15.

Garcia

G. A.

(2017a). Defined by outcomes or culture? Constructing an organizational identity for Hispanic-Serving Institutions. American Education Research Journal, 54(1S), 111S–134S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216669779

16.

Garcia

G. A.

(2017b). What does it mean to be Latinx-serving? Testing the utility of the typology of HSI organizational identities. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(3), 109–138.

17.

Garcia

G. A.

(2019). Becoming Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Opportunities for colleges and universities. Johns Hopkins University Press.

18.

Garcia

G. A.

Natividad

N. D.

(2018). Decolonizing leadership practices: Towards equity and justice at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and emerging HSIs (eHSIs). Journal of Transformative Leadership & Policy Studies, 7(2), 25–39.

19.

Garibay

(2020). The persistence and advancement of Latino professionals in student affairs (Publication No. 27443448) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego]. ProQuest Dissertations.

20.

Gonzales

L. D.

Pacheco

(2012). Leading change with slogans: Border university in transition. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(1), 51–65.

21.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles—I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(3), 281–306.

22.

Imlay

Schaap

B. M.

(2017). Presidents of minority serving institutions. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/95126/MSIPesidents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

23.

Lozano

(2017). Breaking the Black/White binary in higher education leadership. About Campus, 21(6), 27–31.

24.

Luedke

C. L.

(2017). Person first, student second: Staff and administrators of color supporting students of color authentically in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 37–52.

25.

Matias

C. E.

Mackey

(2016). Breakin’down whiteness in antiracist teaching: Introducing critical whiteness pedagogy. The Urban Review, 48(1), 32–50.

26.

Matias

C. E.

Viesca

K. M.

Garrison-Wade

D. F.

Tandon

Galindo

(2014). “What is critical whiteness doing in OUR nice field like critical race theory?” Applying CRT and CWS to understand the white imaginations of white teacher candidates. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(3), 289–304.

27.

Matos

J. M.

(2021). Utilizing Latinx cultural capital for the retention and graduation of Latinx students in higher education. Journal of Latinos and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/110.1080/15348431.2021.1941030

28.

Mena

T. C.

(2015). A few of us (algunos de nosotros): A multiple case study using critical race theory to examine lived experiences of Latino/a senior student affairs officers at selected public and private two-and four-year colleges and universities (Publication No. 041315) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University].

29.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Minority serving institutions: America’s underutilized resource for strengthening the STEM workforce. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25257

30.

Nguyen

Duran

(2018). Performing and deconstructing whiteness in student affairs. The Vermont Connection, 39(1), Article 17.

31.

Núñez

A. M.

Rivera

Valdez

Olivo

V. B.

(2021). Centering Hispanic-Serving Institutions’ strategies to develop talent in computing fields. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), Article 1842582.

32.

Patton

L. D.

Bondi

(2015). Nice white men or social justice allies? Using critical race theory to examine how white male faculty and administrators engage in ally work. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 488–514.

33.

Phelps-Ward

Kenney

(2018). Surviving whiteness White people: The coping strategies of Black entry-level student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs, 28, 121.

34.

Poon

O. A.

(2018). Ending white innocence in student affairs and higher education. Journal of Student Affairs, 27, 13–23.

35.

Pritchard

McChesney

(2018). Focus on student affairs, 2018: Understanding key challenges using CUPA-HR data. College and University Professional Association for Human Resource.

36.

Rhoades

Kiyama

J. M.

McCormick

Quiroz

(2008). Local cosmopolitans and cosmopolitan locals: New models of professionals in the academy. The Review of Higher Education, 31(2), 209–235.

37.

Rivera

L. A.

(2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.

38.

Rodriguez

Cunningham

Jordan

(2019). STEM identity development for Latinas: The role of self-and outside recognition. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 254–272.

39.

Sáenz

V. B.

García-Louis

Drake

A. P.

Guida

(2018). Leveraging their family capital: How Latino males successfully navigate the community college. Community College Review, 46(1), 40–61.

40.

Saenz

V. B.

Ponjuan

(2009). The vanishing Latino male in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 54–89.

41.

Santamaría

L. J.

Santamaría

A. P.

(2012). Applied critical leadership in education: Choosing change. Routledge.

42.

Silva

(2003). A culture of success: An examination of the life experiences and professional challenges of Mexican American female academic and student affairs administrators at four institutions in the University of Texas system (Publication No. 3126130) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. ProQuest Dissertations.

43.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

44.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford University Press.

45.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

46.

Tull

(2014). An examination of community college senior student affairs officers’ role perception, job satisfaction, and propensity of leave their institutions. College Student Affairs Journal, 32(1), 53–65.

47.

Urrieta

Jr. (2004). Chicana/o activism and education: An introduction to the special issue. The High School Journal, 87(4), 1–9.

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions program—Title V. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/definition.html

49.

Wesaw

A. J.

Sponsler

B. A.

(2014). The chief student affairs officer: Responsibilities, opinions, and professional pathways of leaders in student affairs. NASPA Research and Policy Institute.

50.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.