Still Marginalized After All These Years

Leonard A. Valverde

After 35 years in education and 29 years in higher education, through personal experiences, observations, conversations, and formal ethnographic research, I believe it is defensible to state that persons of color no matter what role they are in (student, faculty, professional support staff, or administration, even as a governing board member) continue to remain in a marginal status. While our marginal status is primarily due to the fact of sparse numbers, to the point of being continuously under-represented, we are placed and held on the edge of the institution by how we are treated by others. We are consistently reminded of our superficial status by the treatment and practices applied to us, and of course, such behavior is less considerate than what others normally experience. It appears that the few Latinos who are able to gain positions of greater responsibility, typically called academic leadership roles, are kept in check, and their latitude of action is restricted much more than others in similar roles.

But before proceeding, let me state the obvious. While higher education likes to think of itself as being more progressive and liberal minded about societal issues, it is filled with conservative thought and mirrors societal norms and circumstances. The most glaring example of higher education being the same as society is the segregation and desegregation struggle. As we all know, the history of Latinos is the same in many ways as that of African Americans.

The fundamental basis for keeping Latinos and other groups of color in a marginal status can be ascribed to four dual constructs. They are higher standards, less favorable expectations, tighter supervision, and alternative tracking or side tracking.

Before proceeding into providing you with particular illustrations that are applicable to the above four dual constructs, it is appropriate to share some qualifying statements. First, the examples that follow apply to Latinas and Latinos as well as other persons of color who are working to create more space and a receptive environment for the traditionally excluded populations in higher education. Those Latinos who are put in place for show and who do "nothing" to question the prevailing institutional perceptions and practices are spared from such behavior. In fact, such tokens are visible reminders of our marginalized status. Tokens give the illusion that the institution is open to diversity. Second, these four constructs apply primarily in white-dominated higher education campuses. For the most part they do not apply to the very, very few places where there is some history of Latino control, such as New Mexico Highlands University, University of Texas-Pan American, or National Hispanic University. Third, these four constructs are in place widely across the entire country, and while I am not prepared to label such actions as a conspiracy (unlike, many current doctoral students of color), it does represent a high degree of commonality among institutions of higher education.

Due to lack of (space and) time, I offer only eleven illustrations that are common and as such easily recognizable as means to keep Latinos removed from the inner circle of influence and kept from full acceptance, if not equal incorporation. "They lead us to the water, but they don't let us drink" (from the film Chariots of Fire). This phrase spoken by the lead actor captures how many persons of color in higher education feel about their circumstances. That is, the actor portrays a talented track runner whom England wants/needs to represent the country in the Olympic games. Yet, because he is Jewish, he is treated differently than the other team members, who are not as talented.

    A. Our deficiencies are emphasized, while with others, their assets are emphasized.

Have you ever noticed that when we are being discussed for student admission, faculty promotion, administrator appointment, more time is spent on our weaknesses than our strengths. Conversely, when a white person has a deficiency, there is some element in the record that counteracts this weakness. This profile of deficiency or "lesserness" stays with us longer than white persons.

    B. We are rarely given as much latitude, discretion, and benefit of doubt.

We are required to meet the letter of the law, not the spirit. Oral agreement is not enough, we need to put it in writing. When we are responsible for the submission of a document, it must be all-inclusive. We must be explicit. More reporting is asked of us than our colleagues. We are on a shorter leash. Closer supervision and more micro-management represent a lack of confidence in our ability or trust in us as a team member.

    C. Second chances or opportunities are rare.

If one leaves an academic administrative role, rarely are you appointed to the same role again, i.e., this applies to the position of dean and higher. If you are in a professorial role and up for promotion, and don't get it, you are informed that it will take a longer time to be reconsidered. A corollary to this lack of opportunity exists in administrative roles: Latinos have shorter tenure. Less opportunity reflects that institutional forces are less forgiving and are unwilling to make allowances.

    D. Fewer incentives and rewards.

Our rewards are generally fewer in number and amount than for others. Salary reports reveal that amounts are lesser (however, there is usually a stated rationale: managing smaller units, traditionally lower-paying units, etc.). By the way, we should note that lower salary is not the common perception. Just the opposite is the thinking. That is, in order to hire the scarce Latino faculty, we have to pay more to beat the competition. Finally, fewer rewards represent a true devaluing of our work and less respect for us as professionals and maybe as persons.

    E. We have a dual upward mobility track.

Latinos are stereotyped into ethnic roles. In carving out some legitimate academic space for persons of color, the institution has turned the table on us and limited our participation. We will let you into higher education to attend to your own. Thus most of us as academics are found in ethnic (Chicano or Puerto Rican studies), as professional support staff in special programs usually externally funded, as administrators we hold the title with the term "vice or associate or special assistant to", etc. These positions are newly created, "temporary" in duration, etc.

    F. Our faculty and administrative assignments are generally more difficult.

As faculty we have to attend to more agendas. We need to attend to two agendas, working on diversity matters and on the "normal" departmental matters. For example, we must be role models, recruit minority students, serve on committees directed at minority issues, etc. In addition we are to attend to regular departmental affairs. As administrators, we are asked to provide leadership not only to two agendas, but also typically to a troubled unit, be it a department, college, or campus. Put out the fires, find more resources, gain more community support, etc.

    G. Our work is made harder due to less information.

At a time when information is power, in a workplace called a university, where information is king, status is keyed to how much one knows and when they get the information, as well who gives them the information. For Latinos and persons of color, communication of information is differentiated. Specifically, Latinos get information sometimes late, other times incomplete, at times distorted, and occasionally they don't get it at all.

    H. Our entrance and inclusion is generally the result of external influence.

More Latino students are admitted when there is some political expression stating that minimal progress is not good enough. More faculty are recruited when constituents complain about slow progress or lack of progress. More administrators are appointed when university explanations to interested power brokers are rejected. Because our entrance is less internally driven, our colleagues feel put upon. These circumstances make it harder for university personnel to accept us. They are reluctant to give us proper recognition.

    I. We are suspect.

Because of many of the above attributes (i.e., deficiency in qualifications, special consideration for entrance, etc.), we are viewed with question. After all, we remind the institution what they have not done for persons of color; we carry the message that the institution must change to attend to the diversity agenda. In essence, we are seen as critics and agents of change. Falsely then, our loyalty is in doubt. How can we be committed to the institution, if we say it is in need of change? We have to be more loyal to Latinos than the campus. We do not value the work of the institution, since it has been found wanting in the past and little progress toward reform has occurred.

    J. We pay a higher price.

Maybe because we are falsely seen as being critical of the institution's past and current efforts, in return, our work or effort is judged more critically and we pay a higher price. This harsher evaluation is partially due to the lack of understanding of our role and the limited appreciation of our situation. Again, the general view is that as students, faculty and administrators we are getting unwarranted favorable consideration (due to affirmative action), so when it comes time to pass judgment, unloading comes forth.

    K. We cannot be objective.

I am not talking about the proposition that as Latinos we are "hot blooded" and thus emotional. No, if we support another Latino/a for student admission, or for faculty hiring or promotion, endorse a Latino/a for administration, then we are being biased. The prevailing perception is if we are in a position to hire another Latino/a, and we do so, we are acting like the "good ol' boys" . . . we are playing favorites. They project, incorrectly, the motives of white males to us. This practice is a major contributor to keeping us under-represented and marginalized.

Some Closing Thoughts

Given the above and more not mentioned, it is logical to conclude that life in higher education for Latinos and others is filled with difficulty and hardship. Further, I have not touched upon the psychological aspect or the mental quality of experience we endure as a result of this treatment or marginalized status. However, this is another side to this presentation. A side of our work that goes un-noticed. We few Latinos along with our brothers and sisters of color are making a significant contribution despite these practices of marginalization. We are laboring as intellectual workers to bring into being basic core principles such as equality, equity, democracy, human development, etc. In so working toward this agenda, all others will benefit from our actions and success. I find it regrettable that most of the university community is more interested in symbolic actions and rhetoric than in supporting individuals who are trying to make high-quality education a reality for more persons.

Thank you for your attention. You may not agree with some or all of my observations and conclusions, but let me end with "This is my story, and I am sticking to it!