I. Introduction

Imagine a young engineering faculty member at a research university, brought from another university as an associate professor with tenure because of his strong credentials in research. Soon after arriving he begins to work with several underrepresented minority students whose backgrounds are weak in relation to other students. Knowing that this university strongly supports diversity, and being a dedicated individual, the young associate professor works hard (and does a wonderful job) advising, mentoring, and directing the doctoral theses of several underrepresented minority students who eventually go on to receive Ph.D.’s. In fact, the quality of the students’ research is excellent and exceeds the expectations of the department. Unfortunately, in the process this faculty member produces slightly fewer research papers than before. He eventually comes up for promotion to full professor, and the department turns him down, citing their disappointment at the decrease in productivity. But look at all the underrepresented minority students that have received doctorates since he has been here. Shouldn’t that contribution to the department, coupled with the research that he has done, win him promotion? The answer from the department is a resounding “No”. Intervention to the dean, on the faculty member’s behalf, elicited a similar response: “Advise him to concentrate solely on his research and not accept any more minority students”. What is the lesson here? Does this department value diversity? Does the dean? Does the university?

Although this is a true story that took place in a particular university, it could have happened practically anywhere in the country. Research universities value and reward research over all other faculty activity. In Making a Place for the New American Scholar, Eugene Rice (1996) observed that research and scholarship are deeply entrenched and rewarded in research universities as more prestigious endeavors than teaching and service. Rice suggested that by isolation research from teaching  and service, universitites create academic hierachies which lead to inappropiate and imbalanced standards for excellence

Advising underrepresented minority students is one of the least prestigious endeavors in which faculty engage, and some who engage in it, like the faculty member described above, may do so at their peril. The university reward system was designed to promote research, not diversity. Yet well-meaning university administrators try to advocate for both, within a reward system and a faculty culture that is not intended to encourage the kind of effort required to foster graduate student diversity.

Measured against research productivity, the nation’s attempts to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in science and engineering have been largely unsuccessful. Over the last thirty years, numerous programs have been implemented with so little improvement that one wonders if the same increase would have occurred if none of these efforts had been expended (see Table 1). Given the huge growth in minority populations, especially Hispanic, during this same time period, minority participation actually may have declined proportionally rather than increased. Not only has the growth in minority science and engineering Ph.D.’s not kept up with the growth in the minority population, but very recent Hispanic and African immigrants received a disproportionately high percentage of the degrees earned. A Chilean, Nigerian, Argentinean, El Salvadoran, or even a Mexican national coming to this country to get a Ph.D. frequently gets counted as an American minority. What this means is that we may be doing no better, and possibly even worse than 30 years ago, at educating this nation’s underrepresented minority youth to become scientists.

Table 1: Earned science and engineering doctoral degrees, by race/ethnicity, and citizenship: 1977—99 (selected years)

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002, National Science Board

Many university presidents make a strong commitment to encouraging student diversity, in some cases allocating significant resources to increase participation of underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Even though this financial support is critical, it is not enough. Admitting and producing graduate students is done not at the administrative level, but at the faculty level. Faculty members determine graduate admissions and accept students into their research programs. Faculty members support students on their research grants, serve as research advisors, and make decisions about when a student’s research merits the Ph.D. University faculties, not university presidents, determine who will be the next generation of scientists. Hence the faculty’s deep understanding of, and commitment to, diversity is especially critical to the success or failure of diversity efforts at the graduate level.

Rice’s Board and administration strongly support increasing campus diversity. At its September 1997 meeting, the Rice University Board unanimously adopted a resolution that states:

Rice University is convinced that it can most effectively carry out its “Enduring Vision” in a learning community drawn from the full range of ethnic and cultural traditions represented in Houston, our nation and throughout the world.

Rice’s president, Malcolm Gillis (1999) argues that diversity in higher education is a social and economic concern, not only for the underrepresented minority population, but also for the nation as a whole.

Well-educated graduates of U.S. colleges and universities generally will carry into the next century an array of skills well suited for the information age. Demands for their services will grow steadily, while calls for less well-educated, less adaptable labor are expected to shrink. While those with a larger repertoire of skills and a greater capacity for learning can look forward to lifetimes of unprecedented economic fulfillment, the poorly educated face little better than the dreary prospects of lives of quiet desperation in the coming decades. Moreover, these trends will surely reverberate down through successive generations, as parents lacking full access to higher education will experience diminishing capacities for financing higher education opportunities for their children, and so on through the next generation and the next. These circumstances are guaranteed to lead to growing misdistribution of income and wealth, and worsening social fissures.

(Source: http://www.acenet.edu/hena/issues/1999/03_29_99/opinion_diverse.cfm)

These commitments are reflected in Rice’s success at the undergraduate level. Rice’s underrepresented minority undergraduate population currently stands at 18.1%, even under Hopwood ^§ constraints. After the Hopwood decision, Rice administrators looked for creative ways to recruit and fund minority students, yet remain within the confines of Hopwood. University policy can directly control undergraduate recruitment and admissions through centralized staff and committees.

At the doctoral level, Rice’s success over the years at producing minority graduates has varied greatly from department to department. Some departments have never produced a minority Ph.D., whereas others have produced several and/or have several students nearing graduation.  Between 1998 and 2001, only nine departments (Anthropology, Applied Math, Chemistry, English, Geology, History, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Psychology) produced any minority Ph.D.’s.  Over four years, a total of twenty-four minority Ph.D.’s came from the nine departments.  The successes were generated by entrepreneurial, committed faculty members in those departments.

Table 2: Number of minority Ph.D. recipients, 1998-2001, Rice University.

SOURCE: Rice Office of Institutional Research, 2003.

In an evaluation of Rice’s successful underrepresented minority graduate retention program, researchers identified the critical elements of its success (Alexander, 1998).  In that study researchers found that it was critical that the program director be an established senior faculty member with credibility with other faculty and the ability to advocate on students’ behalf when needed.  If we are to understand the factors that influence the commitment of faculty to that goal, we must understand the culture within which faculty operate, and in particular, fully appreciate the reward system that influences that culture.

To determine faculty beliefs and practices regarding diversity, Rice University commissioned a study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination (LEAD) Center.  As part of Rice University’s National Science Foundation-funded Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate evaluation, LEAD surveyed Rice’s science and engineering faculty to determine: (1) their views of diversity as an institutional, departmental, and individual goal; (2) their opinions of the effectiveness of Rice’s efforts to increase diversity; and (3) their recommendations for new strategies that Rice and research funding agencies might implement.

Questions that we hoped to answer through conducting this study included: How much does Rice’s faculty know about or believe in the administration’s commitment to diversity at the graduate level?  Does the faculty share the university’s commitment to diversity? Do they think that those who devote time and effort to promoting increased participation of underrepresented minorities are rewarded for their efforts?  Do their departments (the real operating bodies of universities in graduate student production) support diversity?  How well does the university’s reward system align with its stated commitment to diversity, and, consequently, how effectively does it motivate faculty to work towards that goal?  What could the university do to encourage faculty to increase diversity?  How important and effective is the reward system of external research funding agencies?  What could these agencies do to encourage faculty to promote diversity?

Methodology: Data used in this paper comes from two sources: (1) a survey conducted in January 2002 with 97 (45%) of Rice University science and engineering faculty and (2) a set of interviews with 14 Rice University faculty members in July 2000.  See Appendix 1 for a discussion of methodology and demographics information for the faculty survey respondents

^§In March 1996, the Court opinion in the case of Hopwood vs. Texas held that race/ethnicity cannot be used as an explicit factor in admissions decisions. In Texas, that ruling was subsequently extended in an opinion by State Attorney General Dan Morales to also encompass financial aid programs based on race. However, in 2003, a five-to-four decision by the United States Supreme Court supported the policy of the University of Michigan’s law school that takes race into account to achieve diversity among its student body.