The Status of Minority Faculty at UCSC by eddaybrown




                    (AUGUST 17, 1995)

                     DEBORAH WOO
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface                                                                      3
I. Diversity, Equal Opportunity, and Affirmative Action
       Issues of Organizational Culture and Underrepresentation             10
       A. Target of Opportunity (TOP) appointments.                         11
       B. Faculty Diversity Plans                                           15
II. Perceptions of Minority Faculty                                         20
       A. The Wasserstrom survey                                            22
       B. Faculty interviews -- The Current Situation                       24
             1. Campus Reputation                                           26
             2. Introduction to the Campus                                  29
             3. Social Isolation and the Undervaluation of Research Needs   34
             4. Undervaluation of Teaching and Service Contributions        44
             5. Faculty relations with administration                       48
III. Conclusion                                                             50
IV. Recommendations                                                         52
       A. Recruitment                                                       52
       B. Retention                                                         55


        The ability of UCSC to serve the broad base of California's citizenry depends on
improving the recruitment and retention not only of students from a wide band of its
population but of its faculty as well. The present document reports on issues relevant to the
recruitment and retention of minority faculty. While written as a special report to the Acting
Dean, it is hoped that the following summary will also help orient any incoming Dean on
such issues. Moreover, because there has been no similar appointment of a faculty assistant
in other Divisions, it might also serve to facilitate more coordinated efforts on the part of
various units on this campus. Recommendations refer specifically to the Social Science
Division, although some of this research pointed to issues having to do with organizational
culture and underrepresentation that apply to the campus as a whole.

        Major expressed Divisional concerns were for diversification strategies that would
assist Boards in both their short-term and long-term hiring, and where necessary, facilitate
the coordination or collaboration of various units on campus towards this end.

       The racial profile of UCSC faculty indicated a major challenge ahead for the campus.
The Senate faculty at UCSC stands in sharp contrast to the ethnic make-up of the students in
California public schools, which is 42 percent are white, 37 percent Latino, 11 percent Asian,
9 percent African American, and 1 percent Native American.1 Out of a total Senate faculty
of 391 at UC Santa Cruz, the campus is 77.7 percent white.2 Of the total senate faculty
appointments made for the 1994-95 period, eighty percent (or 16 out of 20) were white.
Should such a trend continue over the next two years when a majority of hirings are expected
to occur and fill the vacuum left by recent retirements, the campus will have lost one of its
rare opportunities to diversify. As the table below indicates,3 the student body at UCSC is far
more diverse than the faculty.

1Grades K-12, as noted in the Chancellor's call for "Ladder Rank Faculty Affirmative Action and Diversity
Reports by Boards and Programs," April 24, 1995
2Data provided by Academic Human Resources for January 20, 1995.

3This table is Figure D.7 in UCSC's recent self-study, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March
1994, p. 139.

In its 1994 self-study prepared for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC),4 UCSC indicated "substantial progress" towards diversity since its last review in
1986. Although the WASC team agreed with this self-assessment, it was also reserved in its
praise. Despite the positive view of minority faculty recruitment provided by certain
aggregate data, campus statistics on faculty representation by Board indicated unevenness.
Thus, the WASC team questioned "whether there are adequate numbers and distribution of
faculty of color and women of all ethnicities" and pointed to "the imbalance among various
boards of study and across divisions."

4University of California, Santa Cruz, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March 1994.

       Divisional impressions of the problems associated with past hiring efforts revolved
around two related issues in recruitment. Specifically, there were strong perceptions that (1)
Board recruitments did not tap into or canvass the widest range of possible candidates and (2)
the success or failure of recruitment and hiring of minority faculty is related in good part to
the way job positions are defined and advertised. Institutionalizing measures that would
broaden the pool for diversity hires in the next two years was the Division's most pressing

        As Faculty Assistant to the Social Science Dean during the Spring Quarter of 1995, I
assumed the task after wide consultation. Most of the colleagues with whom I consulted
voiced, at best, mixed reactions to the idea of motivating faculty to expend more energy on
behalf of faculty diversity when there were questions about resources and the kind of
collaborative efforts that might be reasonable to expect. It must be noted that the colleagues
with whom I consulted early on were those who already had some interest and concern for
diversity. They were generally cautious or skeptical of the administration's seriousness of
purpose regarding resource allocation with respect to diversity. What, after all, they asked,
had the administration itself done? Specific criticisms all started and ended with references
to resources: where were the "structural incentives" -- the FTEs -- for this undertaking? how
can diversity be a serious venture when the most effective and proven mechanism for
diversification -- TOP appointments -- is suspended? if diversity is truly valued, why are
those Boards or Divisions which have actively pursued diversity not been rewarded, and in
other respects, "penalized"? was not the very way the problem was framed indicative of the
administration saying that the faculty was "the problem"?

        To the extent that symbolism and structural position both mattered, the semblance of
coordination was absent and the role of faculty assistant an ambiguous one. Consequently,
several asked me: how serious could the administration be if they were not asking a person
more senior than myself to do the job? was not a Chair's experience minimally required?
what assurances were there of continuity, institutional memory, and hence serious long-term
planning if there was no permanent Dean for the Division in sight? why are not high-level
administrators meeting directly with Board Chairs to address issues of resource commitment?

        Others warned that such a role could be a negative detour from my own research and
from the more predictable responsibilities of teaching: why is it that every time the issue of
diversity comes up, it's always the same people who are called upon? can they find no more
than one or two white males who are committed? My own Board chair was concerned that
course relief would have a deleterious effect on our "numbers."

        In the end, my decision to accept the position was strongly influenced by the
flexibility exhibited by both Dean Harding and Assistant Dean Bob Jorgensen with regard to
defining the job position itself. Such flexibility might facilitate the appointment of faculty
assistants in other Divisions. The Committee on Committee might also assist in this regard
by making greater efforts to broaden the membership of the Senate Committee on
Affirmative Action to include faculty members from other Divisions, such as Natural
Sciences and Art.

        While the initial proposal from the Social Science Division was to work with Board
Chairs, "advocacy" and "recommendations" seemed premature, if not presumptuous, though
such language may have been an effort to address concerns about symbolism. A second
reservation about focusing on Board Chairs at the outset, later shared by the advisory group
convened on behalf of this project,5 had to do with the organization of the campus and how it
contributed to the attrition of those very faculty the campus was trying to recruit. Although
recruitment was an important undertaking to approach in systematic and systemic ways,
retention of minority faculty also called out for institutional commitment. Minority faculty
themselves could be instrumental in tapping into pools for recruitment. Interviewing
minority faculty thereby became a major priority, and the progress of this report subsequently
became of interest to Board chairs themselves who were contacted and interviewed later in
the quarter to contribute to the Division's submission of Faculty Diversity Plans.

        An official call for "Ladder Rank Faculty Affirmative Action and Diversity Reports
by Boards and Programs" came from the Chancellor's office in the middle of the quarter.
The task of interviewing Board chairs as well as Board Assistants was assigned to Caroline
Berger, the Divisional staff person appointed to assist with this project. Ms. Berger provided
invaluable assistance not only in gathering unofficial information on recruitment and
retention efforts but in integrating this information with official Divisional data as part of
these Faculty Diversity Reports to the Chancellor. Her submission, under separate cover,
should be considered as the first step in a long-range institutional strategy. Produced within a
very short period of time as a response to the Chancellor's official call,6 the reports do not
necessarily represent the full range of faculty opinion on a Board, and there should be some
follow-up to ensure a broader canvassing of other views. The general responsiveness,

5Professors Herman Gray (Sociology), Dana Takagi (Sociology), and Pat Zavella (Community Studies).

6This official call came on April 24, 1995, with the reports due July 1, 1995.

cooperation, and in some cases enthusiasm on the part of Board Chairs, in this first phase of
the process, need to be seen as the foundation and grounds for further development.
Original concerns about diversity plans being purely "symbolic" or "make-work activity"
faded or subsided, partly because of the sense that both faculty and administration were
actively collaborating towards some larger vision.

        The recommendations in the concluding section of this report are based upon
interviews with minority faculty, as well as a review of the Faculty Diversity Plans submitted
by Caroline Berger. Other faculty and administrative views were also heard,7 and select
documents were reviewed in order to place these interviews within a larger campus context.
An overview of these sources include the following:

              * the Office of Academic Human Resources8

              * the Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Office

              * Divisional records of Board appointments and departures

              * Board Assistants and Board Chairs

              * faculty who have been explicitly concerned about issues of
              underrepresentation at UCSC, especially minority faculty

        An attempt was also made to assess UCSC's more general efforts at addressing issues
related to faculty diversity by consulting the following additional sources:

              * UCSC's 1994 Self-Study Report

              * the 1994 Final Accreditation Report by the Western Association of
              Schools and Colleges (WASC)

              * the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action9

              * the 1995 Task Force on Diversity10

7Some of this exchange occurred as a result of my participation on the Senate Affirmative Action Committee and
the Task Force on Diversity.
8Formerly, Office of Academic Personnel.

9Understanding here derived from my being a member of the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action, as well as
the Task Force on Diversity.
10One of major tasks of this task force has been to draft principles to guide recruitment, retention, and review of

          * the Assistant Chancellor of Human Resources/Assistant Vice Chancellor
          of Faculty Relations

        In the end, the report which follows both exceeds and falls short of original goals.
Specifically, as both Caroline Berger and I separately explored different units and faculty
perspectives, it became clear that search efforts presently proceed with little shared
understanding of basic information that would facilitate broader and more methodical
recruitment. My own observations indicated that this lack of information extended to
informal understandings of how even successful recruitment initiatives in the past, such as
TOP (Target of Opportunity), concretely operated and, relatedly, how Faculty Diversity
Plans would differ. Faculty understandings were partial, sometimes conflicting, and
generally vague, all indicative of how the campus needs a more organic approach to
recruitment. For this reason, the Divisional call for recommendations expanded into this
much longer report which includes "background" information uncovered in the initial phase
of researching issues related to recruitment.

        The report falls short of discussing in rich detail just how much faculty are caught in a
number of contradictions and double-binds that work against their retention. Specifically,
while the report discusses the undervaluation of faculty research needs, there was insufficient
time to explore the undervaluation of faculty research efforts, a point which was nevertheless
alluded to in several interviews. These efforts are undermined by a series of conflicting
expectations, perpetuated, moreover, by the institution's dominant tendency to perceive itself
as a neutral and objective enterprise, whereby faculty work is presumably evaluated simply
on the basis of its "individual" merits. If the overall mission of the University where
diversity is concerned, is to be pursued in not simply mechanical ways ("upping numbers")
but substantive change, i.e. realizing the implications for new knowledge, then this
philosophy needs to permeate the system. At present, there is not even a centralized,
organized database of information which can aid in the monitoring of such concerns. Indeed,
the infrastructure of support for faculty after hire is tenuous. Apart from voluntary efforts
provided by individual faculty or Boards, there are no institutionalized mechanisms for
ensuring that such support is sustained or not undermined by other institutional dynamics.
To the extent that there exist departmental conflict or controversy over minority hires, this
can itself create an inhospitable and problematic environment for promoting faculty
development. The research done by minority faculty, moreover, may or may not overlap
with a department's primary direction. In general, minority faculty have at best "survived"
rather than "thrived" at UCSC.

         Regrettably, too, the analysis here cannot be more detailed with respect to examining
the experiences of minority faculty in terms of their relative field of expertise in relationship
to their department, and the implications of this fit for both individual career development
and departmental growth. In terms of faculty recruitment, one diversity ideal is that such
recruitment will broaden existing areas of curricular development, and perhaps lead to the
evolution of pedagogically creative styles that will better serve the state's more diverse
population of students which, in turn, would have implications for the pipeline. What are the
implications of such an ideal, on the other hand, for racial ethnic minorities who do not
explicitly offer alternative intellectual perspectives but may serve as implicit "role models"
for other reasons? Moreover, insofar as increasing diversity truly implies the inclusion of
"alternative" perspectives and the broadening of existing areas of curricular study,
diversification efforts will thereby mean that faculty do not necessarily share the same
background assumptions or knowledge, with consequences for how faculty view and
evaluate one another's work. Both past survey data of UCSC faculty (the Wasserstrom
survey) and the more recent interviews of minority faculty indicate that the review process is
more problematic for those who deviate from some disciplinary norm, or otherwise cannot be
assured that their work is understood or appreciated by colleagues working in other areas.

       Because part of the campus' reputation derives from its receptiveness to alternative
views which depart from the mainstream, it is philosophically positioned to take a more
concerted look at those questions which have already been raised by larger campuses with
more diverse student enrollments.

          * What are the benefits of increasing the diversity of faculty in terms of its
          sex, race, and ethnicity?

          * What is meant by "excellence" or other such terms (e.g., "scholarly
          distinction") with respect to faculty hiring?

          * Is the application of traditional academic standards, without regard to
          sex, race, or ethnicity, likely to foster or inhibit greater diversity in the

          * If traditional standards need to be changed, is there an academic cost
          involved in such change?

          * What, if any, measures should the University take to increase faculty

          * Should sex, race, and ethnicity be factors specifically considered in hiring
          and promotion decisions?

              * What do we know about the significance of "role models"?

              * Are there aspects of diversity other than sex, race, and ethnicity that
              faculties should be concerned with?11

In short, the above questions have implications for the kind of diversity that is possible or
considered desirable. The Social Science Division, more so than other Divisions, might play
a particularly crucial role in addressing some of these questions given the greater likelihood
that its faculty will be intellectually oriented towards such social concerns.12 The results of
such ongoing work would not only provide an important service to the University as a whole
but to the larger public understanding of issues which are often controversial.

I. Diversity, Equal Opportunity, and Affirmative Action: Issues of Organizational
Culture and Underrepresentation

        Affirmative action refers to an administrative/legal attempt to redress past grievances
based upon the historical exclusion of specific groups. Units are required to show efforts at
inclusion of larger pools through their search strategies and to justify their selection of
candidates. The organizational strategies for compliance are often perceived as bureaucratic
requirements, and are so treated by many faculty.

       The goals of diversity are distinct from equal opportunity or affirmative action goals.
Diversity goals tend to revolve around efforts aimed at creating an organizational culture or
climate conducive to opening up the institution to a wider array of perspectives and
experiences than have heretofore characterized the academy. Endorsements from high
administrative officials represent an important first step towards creating an institutional
environment that more widely embraces such values. Educational workshops, lecture series,
employee surveys, or small-scale incentives are among the strategies employed towards this
end. At UCSC, the Chancellor's lecture series on diversity13 and a recently proposed
Diversity Award fall into this category. Such initiatives, while symbolically important, can

11Questions addressed by a panel convened by the California Association of Scholars on "Faculty Hiring: The
Issues of Diversity and Excellence," University of California, Berkeley on October 27, 1992.
12Thus, for example, the Psychology Board might be a reasonable place to locate research literature on "role
models," whereas the Sociology Board would better positioned to address issues of race, ethnicity, and gender as
structural or institutional concerns.
13i.e. the Chancellor's Distinguished Seminar Series on Mission, Quality, and Diversity, established in the Fall of

be limited and even ignored or trivialized if they do not alter the organization's fundamental
structure of rewards.

         Theoretically, diversity goals should involve a reassessment of priorities and the
institutionalization of decision-making processes that support these priorities. Key examples
include re-framing the recruitment process so that the chances are optimized for obtaining a
more inclusive pool of candidates. Such changes might also involve more careful monitoring
of the initial search and later screening processes. At present, formal institutional
responsibility for such monitoring efforts lies with the Office of Human Resources, the
Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Office, and the Dean. However, it is
clear from initial inquiries into this search and screening process14 that monitoring
procedures are both supportive of diversity and yet restricted by existing guidelines.

        Strictly speaking, equal opportunity and affirmative action goals are aimed at
addressing issues of fairness and underrepresentation in the workforce population. While
premised on different assumptions and thereby distinct from one another as legal approaches
to correcting imbalances in the workforce,15 both have historically been concerned with the
make-up of the work force.16 Their respective federal and legal guidelines seek to directly
alter the workforce composition by ensuring that certain minimal, baseline procedures for
hiring and promotion are adhered to. Affirmative action itself emerged as a result of the
failure of non-discriminatory efforts to open doors to minorities and women.17 It is possible
that the development of Faculty Diversity Plans may also be unproductive in the long run
unless there is a way of ensuring that they are part of a larger institutional endeavor and

A. Target of Opportunity (TOP) appointments.

14Nancy Degnan, Senior Administrative Analyst for Academic Human Resources, and Valerie Simmons, Director
of Affirmative Action.
15Jeffrey Praeger, "Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action: The Rise of New Social Understandings,"
Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control, Vol. 4: 191-218, 1982
16Marilyn Loden and Judy Rosener, "Valuing Diversity in Leading-Edge Organizations," Workforce America:
Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin), 1991.
17In the 1950s, California was then a relatively progressive state, and along with states like New York and Illinois,
established Fair Employment Practices Commissions in order to open the doors to minorities and women in
previously exclusive occupations. It was the failure of such practices, based on laws which otherwise did not have
sanctions or "teeth" to them, led to the institution of affirmative action programs. Troy Duster, "The Structure of
Privilege and Its Universe of Discourse," The American Sociologist 11 (2), May 1976.

       The campus' faculty affirmative action efforts have been largely accomplished
through the Target of Opportunity (TOP) program, which has historically been the key to the
campus' past success in minority appointments and its formerly unique distinction as having
the most diverse faculty in the UC system.

        The TOP program was introduced to the campus in the early 1980s, with guidelines
carefully written to address legal concerns raised by the Bakke case that certain positions are
restricted only to women and minorities. Since 1984/85, TOP has become the single most
effective method of recruiting minorities and women. While several other campuses in the
UC system have adopted the TOP program, it has been particularly successful at UCSC.18
Thus, the recent WASC review not only noted that UCSC had "the most diverse faculty in
the UC system," but that the TOP was largely responsible.

             The vehicle most responsible for these dramatic rises was the Target of
             Opportunity Program (TOP) which since 1986 resulted in the hiring of 29
             minorities of both sexes and women of all ethnicities to the faculty, 25 of
             whom remain there today.19

             The 25 faculty members who were the result of TOP appointments and are
             still on the faculty represent a small but significant percentage of these
             gains and demonstrate the potential effect of this program in diversifying
             the pools of applicants contacted in regular searches. The possibility of
             TOP appointments appears to have been effective in connecting board
             chairs and other faculty to networks of women and ethnic minority
             scholars; in the 1990-1991 academic year, 68 percent of faculty
             recruitments resulted in the appointment of women or ethnic minority

Since the WASC review, budgetary considerations and the decline in available FTEs have

led to the program being temporarily suspended or used only sparingly,21 as long-term
remedies for diversification are sought.

18At some campuses, e.g. UC Berkeley, it has been re-named EXOP (Exceptional Opportunity) to indicate the
wider range of options.
19Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Final Accreditation Report, November 1994, p. 71.

20Self-Study Report, pp. 135-136.

21Each year, up until recently, each Division has generally received a single TOP position, which different Boards
within the Division have had to compete for. In the last year, searches were undertaken in the Humanities
Division, and a TOP was given to the Division for which American Studies, Literature, and Women's Studies

        Despite this positive track record, and the overall assessment that TOP hires have
been the most effective strategy for minority faculty recruitment at UCSC,22 the status of
TOP appointments is highly problematic in the present period. A major reason which has
been offered is that such FTE have been allocated on the basis of affirmative action targets,
which follow strict legal guidelines based on Ph.D. availability in a given field as the
benchmark. As a consequence, other, alternative benchmarks which have been proposed
include minority group representation in the state or undergraduate population.23 Differences
in opinion surrounding the present viability of the TOP frequently return to the issue of its
legal defensibility. For example, on the issue of campus climate for faculty diversity, the
campus' Self-Study Report concluded:

              In part, because recruitment of women and ethnic minority faculty (through
              the Target of Opportunity Program (TOP) and general affirmative action
              goals) has proven successful on this campus, and targeted percentages have
              been reached with many groups, the campus faces a dilemma in forming
              legally and philosophically defensible positions which will extend this
              record of accomplishment. The challenges are heightened by the current
              state budget crisis and the generally bleak outlook for academic

Thus, despite the fact that the TOP was, in its very origination, very carefully written with
legal considerations in mind, the present political climate and attitudes towards affirmative
action have led the university to adopt a more cautious approach in this regard. Indeed,
according to its own strict review, many affirmative action goals had (with a few exceptions)
already been achieved.

              One can defend a program such as the TOP if the program is clearly
              designated as a temporary remedy to the underutilization of women and
              minority men on the faculty, and if the appointments are linked to the
              immediate or eventual achievement of affirmative action goals.
              Unfortunately, because the campus did not have an up-to-date Affirmative
              Action Plan, the program was never defined in this way. Our numbers of

competed. Based on American Studies demonstrated its ability to identify a large pool of candidates, the Board
was awarded the TOP position.
22University of California, Santa Cruz, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March 1994. Western
Association of Schools and Colleges, Final Accreditation Report, November 1994. (Evaluation Visit, University
of California, Santa Cruz, May 2-6, 1994.)
23See the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action letter to Chancellor Karl Pister (July 14, 1994) for a discussion
of this distinction between "diversity" goals in hiring, as opposed to "affirmative action" goals.
24Self-Study Report, March 1994, p. 137.

             female and minority faculty were so low at the time the program was
             initiated that it was clear where the most severe underrepresentation lay.
             Once having carried out that "eyeball test," we did not review our progress
             in achieving affirmative action goals until 1989 when, for the first time
             since 1979, the campus had a new Affirmative Action Plan. It became
             apparent that we had succeeded so well in appointing Native-American,
             Chicano/Latino, and African-American faculty we no longer had goals. As
             of October 31, 1990, the goals still remaining were for women (of any race
             or ethnicity) and Asian/Pacific Islanders, all at the tenured level.

             We need, therefore, to rethink the TOP, and if we intend to link the
             program more closely to the actual or eventual achievement of goals, our
             targets now must primarily be women and Asian-American males, to
             satisfy current divisional affirmative action goals.25

The confusion and legal vagaries which continue to surround the TOP have led those
supporting it to argue even more fervently for its usage before the political and legal climate
definitively rules it out, or at minimum to seek independent counsel regarding its status.

        Since the WASC review, the campus has dropped to third place (among the UC
campuses) in terms of diversity, and it would seem that the TOP could theoretically have a
legitimate basis for being revived because of present "underutilization." However, in
general, legal and statistical obscurities have combined to not only lead the campus to adopt a
more conservative approach towards hiring, but to discourage faculty themselves from being
able to move forward and actively engage the issue of TOP.

        Other factors have also undermined efforts to promote TOP hires. The TOP is
expressly disallowed for the purpose of meeting the stated "programmatic" needs of a unit.
(Instead, an open search is required.) Advertising for a TOP can be a very difficult process
from the writing of the job position, locating the relevant pools, and advertising widely.26 In
the past, a TOP has generally been a position for which various Boards have competed. For
example, in the Humanities Division, a TOP was given to American Studies after having
demonstrated its ability to develop a larger pool from which candidates might be recruited. It
is not unprecedented, however, for a TOP to simply be offered to a single Board, without
such competition. Given the extra efforts that have been found necessary to recruit more
widely, some of these methods need to be institutionalized as part of the regular search

25Julia Armstrong, "Report on the TOP with Proposed Program Revisions," December 1991, p. 4.

26Lynn Westerkamp, Committee on Affirmative Action, 1994-95.

process. Information gleaned from past TOP search efforts should be drawn upon and where
relevant, integrated into regular searches.

        One attempt to build in an attractive feature of a TOP hire, which makes it different
from other FTEs, lies in the fact that there is a three-year period in which it does not count as
an FTE. After this grace period, a TOP can become one of "thorniest issues."27 There is, for
one, the issue of how TOPs are to be numerically calculated as part of UCSC's MFR
(Managing Faculty Resources) system. Moreover, there are differences of opinion over the
issue of whether TOPs should be allocated to Boards which do not appear to have actively
recruited a diverse faculty. In other words, despite TOP hires, aggregate statistical data
computed for the Division as a whole obscure problems with diversity at the Board level.
Given differential progress towards diversification, a major question that requires fuller
discussion is the extent to which it makes sense, in a larger scheme of systematic rewards, to
essentially "reward" those departments which have not demonstrated efforts in this direction.

         While there is no definitive evidence that the negative experiences of minority faculty
were directly attributable to negative associations of being a TOP hire, a significant number
of minority faculty reported feeling undervalued. It is unclear to what extent minority faculty
even know the circumstances under which they were recruited. One minority faculty, for
example, indicated that she thought she was a TOP hire but upon inquiry learned she was a
regular hire. The available information on minority faculty at UCSC points to other reasons
contributing to their negative experiences. Their TOP status, and how they are perceived as a
result, may -- or may not -- have much to do with that experience. Whatever the perceptions,
institutional remedies need to be set in place to begin addressing some of the major concerns
of minority faculty.

B. Faculty Diversity Plans

        Discussions of long-range plans for diversity have included the idea of
"mainstreaming diversity" so that every new hire is essentially a "TOP." The implication is
that the campus would seek to increase racial-ethnic diversity through the normal hiring
process and without the constraints of legal limits implied by TOP appointments. By linking
Boards to viable networks where minority and female scholars can be found, the TOP

27Julia Armstrong, Assistant Chancellor of Human Resources and Assistant AVC on Faculty Relations, in a
meeting with the Committee on Affirmative Action, November 16, 1994. See also Julia Armstrong, "Report on
the TOP with Proposed Program Revisions," December 1991.

program is said to have already facilitated the campus' ability to achieve a significant amount
of diversity through normal hires. In 1991, it was reported that between October 1981 and
August 1981, the gain in minority faculty through TOP appointments was only a small
percentage of the overall gains. Specifically, out of a total of 89 faculty, 29 were TOP
appointments, whereas 60 were non-TOP hires.28 While continuing diversity in campus
hiring is considered the ideal, a number of steps would need to be taken to reinforce this

         At present, information on job positions itself is not as widely circulated as it could
be. The Office of Human Resources, in conjunction with the Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Office, are the institutional offices which carry the weight of the responsibility
for ensuring that hiring efforts adhere to minimal, legal guidelines set by the federal
government for public universities such as UCSC. These guidelines are laid out in two
different documents: UCSC's Recruitment Guidelines and the Universitywide Academic
Personnel Manual. All faculty positions advertisements are sent out by the Office of Human
Resources to a nationwide list of campuses and organizations. Although job positions are
initially defined by the Board, they are subsequently reviewed by the Office of Human
Resources to ensure procedural consistency (e.g. that the salary offered match the position

        These job openings are then widely advertised through the Academic Opportunities
Bulletin, which is not only sent to campuses and placement offices nationwide but also put
on the internet. A major limitation to the AOB is that it is often sent to central campus
locations which do not necessarily forward such information to relevant departments.
According to Nancy Degnan, Senior Administrative Analyst for Academic Human
Resources, notices or bulletins in professional journals were the most common way in which
candidates learned about job offerings at UCSC. Apparently less successful were
publicization through the UCSC Bulletin, the Chronicle of Higher Education, professional
organizations, or other posted announcements.29

28Julia Armstrong, "Report on the TOP with Proposed Program Revisions," 1991, p. 3.

29Affirmative Action guidelines require that at the time of hire, applicants be given the opportunity to provide
relevant applicant information. Such information is voluntary and includes a checklist of these recruitment
sources noted here.

        Aware of the limited nature of existing advertisements or recruitment sources, the
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Office Efforts has put together a preliminary list of
organizational affiliations outside strictly mainstream professional organizations.30 The
Academic Human Resources Office also sought to target underutilized or underrepresented
groups through the use of directories of professional organizations. These efforts to broaden
the scope of its mailings were for the most part unproductive, limited mainly by the office's
inability to identify viable organizations. As Nancy Degnan explained, the most successful
search efforts for tapping relevant pools of candidates ultimately turn out to be the result of
active faculty involvement, whereas "return to sender" was a common response to such
outreach efforts.

         In general, UCSC's recruitment efforts are largely governed by efforts to maximize its
utilization of available Ph.Ds. rather than diversifying beyond these efforts. Present practices
could themselves be improved.

        For example, it is the understanding in Academic Human Resources that listings of
President's Postdoctoral Fellow are made available to each Division for Boards to utilize as
part of their recruitment efforts. However, this listing was not easily retrievable within the
Social Science Division, and this resource is not part of common knowledge. Board
Assistants, who are primarily responsible for distributing advertisements at the Board level,
did not mention consulting this listing. Boards which managed to diversify their faculty,
such as American Studies and History in the Humanities Division, for example, have actively
solicited such listings, with Chairs and faculty actively involved in the recruitment effort. In
the Social Science Division, the Economic Board benefits from the discipline's generally
organized market for recruitment, whereby economics departments are set up to routinely
send packets of their students' resumes to major hiring institutions. In addition, in November
of each year, there is a major conference in Washington which serves as a clearing house for
job openings. This is a place where potential candidates are not only identified but

30Resource Organizations for Minority/Women Academic Recruitment, Affirmative Action Office, 1994-95.
According to Valerie Simmons, the listed organizations were primarily useful for non-ladder appointments. Part
of the reason may have to do with the fact that this listing was compiled without faculty input and is, therefore, not
as comprehensive as it might be of those scholarly organizations with which minority faculty might be likely to
affiliate. The Association for Asian American Studies, for example, is an important affiliation for many Asian
American scholars, and yet is not listed in the handbook. Other organizations recommended by minority faculty,
but not listed, included the National Council for Black Studies and the African American DRUM network (an
internet model of networking). The listing did, however, contain some organizations which minority faculty
themselves noted, such as the National Association of Chicano Studies or Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio
Social (a professional newsletter).

interviewed and arrangements made for them to visit campuses where there is a mutual

        Conceivably, it would be useful to have a computerized directory which contained
up-do-date inventory of graduate students advanced to doctoral candidacy at various UC
campuses. Such a directory might include an abstract of a doctoral candidate's thesis, interest
areas, or publications.31 Presently, however, the University's informal, if not formal, policy
discourages the hiring of its own campus graduates. Legal issues, moreover, surround the
possibility that job descriptions might be narrowly tailored to particular candidates.

         Despite the fact that UC produces more minority Ph.Ds than any other major
institution, its graduates tend to be hired elsewhere. The "on-line" information which it
presently provides of its Post-Doctoral Fellows, and most recently, the Dissertation-Year
Fellowship Program,32 are easily accessible by other institutions, including the top 10
universities with which UC competes. Given the pattern of Ph.D. loss, system-wide efforts
need to be made to establish better relations with non-UC institutions, including those
regional or state pools which offer the promising places from which to recruit33 but which
presently are not considered "the right schools" because of patterns based on precedence and
bias towards the more elite, well-recognized institutions. California has a larger minority
pool to draw upon than many other states, yet federal guidelines requiring nationwide
recruitment do not encourage efforts to examine and focus on state or regional pools.
Nearly-half of UC Berkeley's hires come from Berkeley Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and
Columbia.34 Although official information was not readily available for UC Santa Cruz, it is
likely that the campus would reflect a similar bias.35

31According to one informant, UCSB systematically keeps a computer-bank of its own minority Ph.Ds.

32This program provides support each year to 52 outstanding minority and women Ph.D. candidates, selected
competitively by Graduate Divisions at UC's nine campuses, during their dissertation. James Litrownik,
Coordinator, Data Management and Analysis, Academic Advancement, University of California, Office of the
33African Americans doctorates are concentrated at historically black colleges and universities in the South,
Chicano and Latinos candidates in the Southwest, and Asian Americans in institutions in West.
34Asian Americans at Berkeley: A Report to the Chancellor, May 1989, p. 43. Justus, Joyce Bennett, Sandria B.
Freitag, and L. Leann Parker, The University of California in the Twenty-First Century: Successful Approaches to
Faculty Diversity, Spring 1987.
35While such information is compiled by the University, such information is not available by race. See Annual
Academic Personnel Statistical Report, 1994-95, University of California, Office of the Provost and Senior Vice
President -- Academic Affairs, Oakland, California 94612-3550.

         In general, the University's present recruitment methods need to be reassessed in light
of what it hopes to achieve through faculty diversity. At present, there is little shared
understanding or consensus regarding the meaning or scope of faculty diversity. The
question of how much faculty diversity is satisfactory, laudable, or ideal for departments or
institutions, is therefore a murky one, with few guidelines. Such issues need thorough
discussion at all levels. Chancellor Pister's recent call to the Divisional Deans for Ladder
Rank Faculty Affirmative Action and Diversity Reports by Boards and Programs (April 24,
1995) is a starting point. The report requirements guiding the diversity plans not only
emphasize recruitment strategies (e.g. "a description of outreach efforts employed during
ladder faculty recruitments, including outreach plans for anticipated recruitments..."), but
also include retention issues, i.e. identifying problem areas surrounding faculty development
and factors leading to "separations" from the campus. If taken seriously, such plans could
provide a place for Boards to begin rethinking their own curricular plans and hiring efforts,
as well as demonstrating their level of commitment to diversity in other ways, such as faculty
development and retention. However, the mere production of these drafts without
administrative commitment to providing resources, particularly FTEs, will reduce such plans
to the level of "make-work."

        Boards will need assistance to be able to effectively use some of the statistical
information provided by the Division for this purpose, specifically the frequently referred to
"utilization data," which are linked to the number of available candidates in the Ph.D. pool.
Thus, for example, data from the Affirmative Action Office on "UCSC Ladder-Rank
Utilization" assess the relative presence (or absence) of minority or women faculty against
the overall external availability of minority and women in the pool of eligible Ph.Ds. By
these standards, the Social Science Division underutilizes African-American faculty at the
untenured level, whereas Native American faculty and women faculty are underutilized at the
tenured level. Focusing simply on African Americans for the sake of illustration, this means
that the Division could do much to improve its hiring here, since there are a relatively smaller
percentage of African American faculty at the assistant professor level (3.45%), compared to
the external availability of African American Ph.Ds (4.48% of all Ph.Ds). Utilization is
considered a kind of "minimum standard" by which the University seeks to ensure that
various departments or fields of specialization maximize their utilization of available Ph.Ds.
But this requires a widening of the band of universities from which UC recruits, since the 4.4
percent figure is national, not just the top ten.

        In sum, for diversity goals to succeed, they need to be promoted within an
organizational culture and work environment that is attractive for both recruitment and
retention purposes. Because this culture and environment, however, are themselves
influenced in critical ways by the very composition of the workforce, diversity goals cannot
be separated empirically and practically from equal opportunity and affirmative action goals.
Insofar as diversity goals are themselves broadened to include hiring efforts, and are
effectively institutionalized as a part of regular searches, they have the potential of having a
greater impact. While TOP searches have temporarily assumed a secondary place in terms of
hiring efforts, the concrete strategies used in successful past TOP searches should themselves
be drawn upon and integrated into regular searches. Equally important are strategies that will
improve retention, since it is a critical mass of such faculty which is needed to facilitate and
promote certain changes in the organizational culture, which includes broadening the
intellectual scope of the existing curriculum.

II. Perceptions of Minority Faculty

       There are very few reports on issues related to faculty hiring and retention, and even
fewer still on minority faculty. While the University has taken steps towards tracking and
evaluating diversity efforts,36 the best information available on diversity continues to be
confined to data on the undergraduate student body. Institutional research conducted out of
the Office of Planning & Budget attests to the campus' commitment to student interests.37
While minority faculty recruitment is critical for attracting and retaining students of color,38

36In the late spring of 1993, an external evaluation of campus units implementing diversity programs at UCSC
was also undertaken, its report yet to be made public. In terms of concrete strategies already institutionalized as a
means of monitoring faculty career progress, the campus has undertaken to facilitate the tracking career progress
through a new payroll system that would include relevant information such as years spent at each step, rank,
accelerations. University of California, Santa Cruz, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March 1994,
pp. 136-137, 140-141.
37Included among its publications are the following: Reasons Freshpersons Come to UC Santa Cruz; Personal
Characteristics of Santa Cruz Freshpersons: A Twenty-Year Summary; The Academic and Social Environment at
UC Santa Cruz, August 1992; Retention and Graduation Update, 1991-92.
38The Diversity Project: Final Report (Berkeley: Institute for the Study of Social Change), 1991. Advocating for
greater faculty diversity has been less of a concern for white students, apparently since the make-up of the larger
faculty body is largely white.
While the Diversity Project report noted that campus size or scale was an important factor affecting race relations
at UC Berkeley, the experience of minority students at UC Santa Cruz echoed some of the experiences of their
Berkeley counterparts. In a classroom project which I supervised in the Fall of 1992, students conducted their
own focused group interviews with Asian American students at UCSC. Among their findings were several
recurrent needs, including issues of social isolation, the need for different kinds organizational affiliations
(diverse, multi-cultural groups vs. ethnic-racial specific), the less than rich curricular offerings in the area of ethnic

little attention has been paid to ascertaining the needs of these faculty. Indeed, the campus'
1994 Self-Study noted not only a paucity of information on faculty experience of the campus
climate, but expressions of concern that attention was focused more on recruitment rather
than on retention and career development. Apart from a 1984 survey of faculty conducted by
the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action, the campus has seen few other efforts to
ascertain the well-being and needs of its faculty. A decade later, these efforts were resumed
and include a 1995 survey by the same Senate Committee as well as a follow-up mailing to
women and minorities who have left the campus.

        What we know about minority faculty is generally inferred from what we know about
UC faculty in general. Thus, it has been widely publicized that UC's comparatively low
faculty salaries make overall recruitment and retention hard.39 Related monetary factors have
included California's high cost of housing, less support for instruction and research, and the
lack of spousal employment. Successful raids of faculty between campuses within the UC
system, however, suggest that there are also differences between campuses in their ability or
willingness to address issues which have led to the loss of faculty to institutions outside the
UC system.

Local campus differences in organizational culture seem to place UCSC at a special
disadvantage where minority hiring is concerned. The 1994 WASC Accreditation team
soberly concurred with the campus' own self-evaluation that there exist obstacles to
diversification at UCSC which are "specific to the local context." Two major obstacles to
integration singled out by the Self-study included: (1) the decentralizing and disunifying
tendencies associated with the "physical and architectural organization of UCSC (its non-
urban setting, dispersed campus geography, and lack of central facilities for faculty
interaction)" and (2) the tentative stability posed by small faculty size, such that the loss of
even one individual is a threat to developing a critical mass necessary for creating "a sense of
community in a small setting." "As a consequence, the achievement of a target percentage of

racial study, and the strong view that more minority faculty were necessary as way of addressing the narrow range
of intellectual topics.
39Thus Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs Ellen Switkes reported that UC's compensation levels were
9 percent below the mean when compared with eight comparable institutions, i.e. those with similar missions.
These included Harvard, MIT, Stanford, SUNY Buffalo, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, the
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, the University of Virginia, and Yale. In 1992-93, 48 percent indicated they
left the university for reasons of salary. In 1993-94, UC did not get its first choice in 12 percent of cases, with 43
percent of first-choice candidates giving salary as the reason, 21 percent indicating lack of spousal employment,
and 11 percent citing inadequate research start-up funds. Notice Vol. 19, No. 2, November 1994.

representation may not be adequate to fulfill long-term campus goals."40

40University of California, Santa Cruz, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March 1994, p. 137.

A. The Wasserstrom survey

        An earlier survey of women and minority faculty at UCSC was conducted in the 1984
Winter Quarter by the Senate Committee of Affirmative Action. As part of its Annual
Report to the Academic Senate, the Committee (chaired by Richard Wasserstrom)
enumerated several issues that arose out of the distribution of a ten-page questionnaire to
each of the 85 minority and female Senate members. Among those which the Committee
identified as "problems in need of the greatest attention if the campus' faculty affirmative
action efforts are to be genuinely successful" were two closely related issues: heavy service
responsibilities and the paucity of a critical mass of female and/or minority faculty. Thus,
the CAA major assessment of the problem included the following observations:

             ....the great majority of these faculty members regularly find themselves
             enmeshed in unusually heavy responsibilities concerning student
             counseling and committee service resulting from the fact that they are
             female and/or minority faculty members, and a number of them also report
             distinctive difficulties in the classroom attributable to this same

             ... Singled out by the respondents as among the most significant and
             important changes needed on the campus are an increase in the number of
             female and/or minority faculty members, the specific recognition of the
             special service and other responsibilities of these faculty members, and the
             implementation of concrete, meaningful responses to the continuing
             presence of subtle, as well as more obvious, forms of racism and sexism on
             the campus.41

        The high visibility of minority faculty, combined with their small numbers,
contributed to their excessive workload in terms of teaching, advising, and service to students
and campus committees. This work has been, and continues to be, largely unrecognized and
unrewarded. Whatever their previous training, their identification as minority faculty so
overwhelms that most report the experience of pressures to meet a variety of instructional
and service needs. These, in turn, frequently stretched them to service, advising and
sometimes even teaching in areas "not even remotely related" to their formal training or
intellectual interests.

41Report of the Committee on Affirmative Action to the Santa Cruz Division, AS/SCP/852-2 and AS/SCP/852-3.

        The Wasserstrom Report also noted that teaching, in other respects, was much more
difficult for women faculty, who (more often than many male faculty) were expected to be
"more nurturing." In addition, they were more likely to find themselves in a "power
struggle" with students who tended to be less accepting of their authority.42 Not surprisingly,
it may be difficult for women and/or minority faculty to advocate on their own behalf, since
they may find themselves ignored by unsympathetic colleagues. As one person pointed out
with regard to teaching: "I must lobby and pressure very hard to teach courses in my area at
the risk of incurring resentment among others in the department." Another commented on
the negative implications for her own research: " senior colleague has gone out of his
way to undermine me, my efforts, my research. Had I elected to play a subservient role as an
acquiescent female minority faculty member, I might have gotten along better with him..."

       Positive expressions of support and assistance were also forthcoming from
colleagues. Thus, two-thirds of these faculty respondents mentioned signs of appreciation
and specific kinds of advice or help. The way in which these data were collected and
reported make it unclear as to how extensive such support was since survey responses were
summarized to indicate only that these faculty reported receiving "at least one" of various
types of help. One third, moreover, indicated that their colleagues had actively hindered
them in their performance in one way or another.

       Personnel reviews were a major area in which the majority (66 percent) of
respondents felt that bias on the part of their colleagues led to negative views of the research.
Thus, typical of the kinds of bias faculty respondents perceived included the view that
"standards are higher, criteria tougher" and that one's work is often reviewed by "faculty with
no knowledge of this area."

         The recommendations which issued from the Wasserstrom report focused on three
interrelated problems identified by faculty: (1) the heavy service demands, (2) an overall
sense of isolation and being treated as "outsiders," and (3) differential treatment that worked
to their disadvantage in the personnel process. A major recommendation included improving
the hiring and retention of minority and female faculty. A larger pool would not only help to
absorb some of the service and advising responsibilities but become the basis for a network

42In a separate paper, Norma Wikler has reported on the differential treatment which students accord female
faculty. "Sexism in the Classroom," Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New
York, September, 1976

of faculty with comparable research interests and pedagogical concerns, whose participation
in the personnel process might, in turn, assure a fairer reading and assessment of a
candidate's file and contributions. Other suggestions for dealing with difficulties in
sustaining research activities and developing collegial relations included course relief, the
establishment of a faculty club, the funding of organized research activities, and short-term
workshops and meetings to facilitate relations with faculty from other Boards and colleges.
Finally, recommendations also included steps to ensure greater commitment on the part of
campus administrators to affirmative action concerns, and a call for more direct or active role
from the Senate Affirmative Action Committee in this regard.

B. Faculty interviews -- The Current Situation

        This past academic year (1994-1995), the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action
conducted a faculty survey of Assistant and Associate Professors at UCSC in order to
identify factors relevant to faculty development and retention. It also attempted to follow up
on minority faculty who over the years had voluntarily exited the campus, but whose reasons
had never been made a matter of official record. The findings and recommendations from
these inquiries will be officially released sometime during the Fall of 1995.

        The interviews conducted in the Spring of 1995 with minority faculty still on campus
are reported on here. Faculty were informed that the general purpose of the interviews was
to enlighten the administration regarding issues of minority faculty recruitment and retention,
and that the goal was to include their responses in a "collective" report, so that individual
faculty were not identified with particular Boards or programs. Interviews averaged 45
minutes to an hour, though some took significantly longer, and faculty were asked to speak
directly to those issues affecting their own personal recruitment and retention. While
echoing themes highlighted a decade ago in the Wasserstrom survey, the interviews
uncovered certain patterns suggestive of why certain issues might constitute problems for
some faculty, and not for others.

        More recently arrived faculty had a much more positive view of the campus than
those with longer histories. Their greater optimism was due to various factors, ranging from
a strong welcome and show of support from their Board, as well as from administrators, to
orientations that facilitated their adjustment (e.g. a workshop orienting junior faculty to
academic personnel procedures). Faculty with longer histories, were much more cynical
about the recruitment process and the way that minority faculty are integrated into campus
life. Such concerns included teaching responsibilities at the Board level, opportunities to

pursue or nurture their research interests through the development of collegial relations on or
off the campus, and possibilities for diversifying the campus in the near future.

        Boards differed in their ability to integrate the research or teaching interests of their
faculty with their respective disciplines or programs. Where this programmatic integration
was problematic, so was faculty content. Where minority status was more salient than other
aspects of one's disciplinary or professional identity, faculty tended to express more problems
related to being "stretched" to meet various teaching or service needs. Minority faculty
whose scholarly or professional contributions were explicitly valued apart from their
minority status were far less likely to express problems. Even, however, when faculty
interests intersected well with departmental needs, there were other factors making them
vulnerable to attrition. These factors includedissues which cut across Boards and are not
necessarily specific to minority faculty. Thus, faculty otherwise satisfied with their job
indicated that spousal employment and the high cost of housing might become deciding
factors relevant to long-term retention. For those faculty with a more onerous connection to
the campus, opportunities elsewhere for more competitive salaries or greater intellectual or
collegial support were appealing as alternatives, compensating for what was seen as lacking
at UCSC.

        While the interview process permitted a greater appreciation of how and why
minority faculty not only had similar but "diverse" experiences of the campus, the majority
had few problems identifying avenues where minority faculty recruitment and retention
could be improved. More apparent from these interview data than from survey data are
deficiencies in the campus' organizational culture, at best minimally supportive of faculty
diversity. Despite an increase in minority faculty hirings over the past decade, there have
also been losses due not only to retirement but voluntary resignations. The experience of
being a minority faculty on the Santa Cruz campus tends to exact substantial personal or
professional costs which are largely invisible to those outside this experience. Again, such
sentiments tended to be more prevalent among faculty with longer histories and whose
integration with the campus has been more problematic. Insofar as the campus has "retained"
its minority faculty, it has been more by default than through any coordinated program of
support or intervention. While the Wasserstrom survey indicated that the personnel process
was characterized by differential treatment which worked to the disadvantage of minority and
women faculty, there was little opportunity in the present review to systematically explore
such issues.

        The following summary and set of recommendations focus on problems with the
overall institutional culture or organization of the campus relevant to the career development
of minority faculty.

During the course of the quarter, twenty-seven minority faculty were interviewed. The
majority were from the Social Science Division. In addition, select minority faculty were
interviewed outside the Division as well. There were two main reasons for the latter strategy:
(1) Several Boards outside the Division, namely, American Studies and History, offered
themselves as possible models for recruitment and retention;43 (2) Despite the fact that the
Social Science Division compares much more favorably than other Divisions in terms of
overall number of minority faculty, the absolute number of minority faculty within the
Division itself is small, and at the time of these interviews, several were on leave. A larger
sample not only helped to preserve the confidentiality of those interviewed but offered a
sense of how certain concerns extended beyond Boards or Divisions. During the time these
interviews were conducted until the completion of this report, at least six of the faculty
interviewed were actively considering positions elsewhere because of their disenchantment
with the campus. A large majority of the remaining faculty gave expression to problems
which underscored their social isolation on campus and the undervaluation of their research
needs, as well as an undervaluation of their research, teaching and service contributions.

1. Campus Reputation

         Of the nine campuses which make up the UC system, Santa Cruz is the youngest,
founded in 1965. Like the other campuses, it is part of a public university system which has
at its legislative mandate the mission of serving the state's diverse population. Although part
of the campus' reputation lay in it being described, until fairly recently, as "the most diverse"
in terms of faculty hiring, there are indications that its claims to diversity may not extend into
the 21st century.

        In its 1994 self-study prepared for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC),44 UCSC indicated "substantial progress" towards diversity since its last review. In
fact, the presence of ethnic minority faculty more than quadrupled:

43Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Final Accreditation Report, November 1994, p. 71.

44University of California, Santa Cruz, Affirmation of Accreditation: Self-Study Report, March 1994.

              In October 1981, there were 22 minority faculty. Ten years later there
              were 89 minority faculty....45

Out of 430 Academic Senate faculty members, this meant that 20 percent were from ethnic
minority groups, making it "more diverse than the overall composition of UC faculty as a
whole," where only 15 percent were from ethnic minority groups.46 When each ethnic
category is separately reviewed, the percentage of minority faculty continued to be "higher at
UCSC than for UC as a whole." According to some analysts,47 however, such statistical
campus-by-campus comparisons are often not productive in the long run because of
individual variations in campus character (e.g. the existence of professional schools) which
might not be duplicated elsewhere.

        This most recent period of the campus' history has been one of serious retrenchment.
With faculty retirements, the total faculty now stands at 391. Fall 1994 data indicated that
compared to UC as a whole, which is 83.2 percent white, UCSC is 78 percent white and has
a higher proportion of American Indian (.8), African American (3.8), Chicano/Latino (6.3),
and Asian (10.4) faculty than the UC average. According to data on current faculty
computed for January 20, 1995, in absolute numbers, the campus had 3 Native Americans, 15
African American, 26 Hispanics, and 41 Asian Americans.48 By individual campus
comparisons, UCSC has already fallen behind UC Irvine and UC Riverside in terms of
faculty diversity,49 raising the question as to whether it can maintain even its current third-
place standing unless more systematic efforts are made to both recruit and retain minority

        Several factors were mentioned by faculty as contributing to the initial attractiveness
of UCSC. These included not only its status as part of a major university but its standing as a
public university committed to serving a broad base of the state's population as well being
different from mainstream work elsewhere. The campus' "regional" location along the coast
and proximity to nearby urban areas was itself attractive. The fact that Santa Cruz or

45Self-Study Report, p. 135.

46Self-Study Report, p. 131.

47James Litrownik, Coordinator, Data Management and Analysis, Academic Advancement, University of
California, Office of the President.
48Data provided by the Office of Academic Human Resources.

49Committee on Affirmative Action discussions.

California was perceived as less "racist" than other parts of the country was no small
consideration for some. Being situated in a region of the country which was home to large
racially and culturally diverse populations, it held out the promise of meaningful contact in
terms of working with or teaching a diverse student population.

          (1) "A major reason for my coming to campus was because I wanted to
          work with minority students because this is a public university not private.
          Because you really feel you're giving back to the community."

          (2) "I liked the intellectual orientation of the campus because it was not

          (3) "My advisor recommended the environment because it was seen as
          open to alternative thought, specialized in particular areas of study I was
          interested in, and the small size meant being able to work closely with

          (4) "I was a student here and liked the personal attention I got here as a
          student from professors. Some of them are still here, and that really stuck
          in my mind."

Although some of the above comments point to UCSC's longstanding reputation as a campus
dedicated to small-scale, undergraduate teaching, the more recent, historical shift towards
graduate level teaching was also reflected in faculty responses. Shaping the direction of
graduate programs was an important professional consideration, along with that of being
affiliated with particular departments because of their faculty-makeup or subfields of
specialization. Thus, the following remarks capture the ideal to be part of a collaborative
effort in building or developing a graduate program.

          (5) "I thought I could have more of an impact here than at 'X' (previous
          institutional affiliation). The department's graduate program was
          particularly attractive, and I was also able to teach my area of specialty.
          This was also a public university which seemed to be dealing with political
          issues at hand."

          (6) "I was attracted into coming because they said they were working
          collaboratively. They said they were developing a Ph.D. program, and it
          was a chance to get in on the ground floor. I like the idea of being
          involved in this kind of teaching."

        Ironically, some of the reasons for UCSC's initial attractiveness as a place of
employment are discovered by some of these same faculty (after hire) to be undermined by
factors which undercut these initial perceptions. Thus, the potential for teaching a diverse

student population may or may not be realized. To the extent that it is, it is frequently an
undue burden given the scarcity of minority faculty. The collegiality that might offset or
alleviate the weight of this pattern is absent due to geographical and social isolation, both on
the campus and in terms of the campus' accessibility to other intellectual or urban centers.
Those minority faculty who seemed to make the most successful adjustments were those
whose research and teaching interests intersected well with departmental goals, regardless of
their minority status. Long-term retention issues will thus partly revolve around the ability of
both department and candidate to accurately assess and anticipate the nature of this fit at the
earliest stage of recruitment or, alternatively, to try to find institutional flexibility that will
permit units to adjust and accomodate those faculty who find themselves "stretched" for one
reason or another.

        Whatever its historical reputation, the campus has begun to develop a reputation in
certain circles for being inhospitable to faculty of color. This image is increasingly
circulated through both informal and professional networks. The reasons are multiple,
having to do with a combination of factors reflecting institutional values and priorities
around recruitment, hiring, and retention. If viewed against the institution's threefold
emphasis on research, teaching, and service, then the interviews suggested an undervaluation
of research needs as well as an undervaluation of research, teaching and service
contributions. Again, due to departmental differences, the experiences of minority faculty in
this regard will vary. But to the extent that minority faculty are essentially "different" from
other faculty, there is an overall absence of an administrative or organizational infrastructure
that can be responsive to those needs. The routine and normal way in which the campus
operates, in other words, is itself a problem, apart whether certain administrators were seen
as insensitive or actively "hostile." In short, the future recruitment of faculty without regard
to these concerns may contribute to retention problems and, hence, the campus' negative
reputation in certain arenas.

        The following overview of faculty concerns focuses on those issues which were
recurring themes among those who pointed to problems.

2. Introduction to the Campus

       Faculty learned about the campus in a variety of ways. Some were familiar with the
campus from the perspective of having been students at UCSC, or having previously taught
here on some other occasion. Others heard about the campus through a mentor or graduate
advisor who directed them to the campus because of a particular department's reputation.

This included a department's reputation for being supportive of faculty development in
comparison to other institutions. Still others were directly recruited by UCSC faculty visiting
their campus. Even when the campus' formal professional reputation was itself not a salient
feature, and the reputation of certain Boards a tarnished one vis-a-vis diversity, a candidate
might be nevertheless predisposed to come. Indeed, there were faculty who came even
though they had no strong desire to be at UCSC, were not on the job market, or otherwise
had few expectations. They came for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they might
have been actively recruited, or simply wanted "to try out the academic experience."

          (1) "I was recruited by 'X' (faculty member) who really pushed because I
          didn't want to come. I reluctantly sent my vita in and came to the
          interview... I still don't like UCSC geographically (i.e. no large minority
          population) and institutionally. If it weren't for 'X,' I wouldn't have come.
          I came to try it out."

          (2) "I wasn't looking for a job, and I only heard about it through my mentor
          and then another colleague who encouraged me to apply. I was mildly
          interested in certain features of the program but really didn't look into it. I
          thought it would be good practice to just go through the motions of
          applying for a job which I wasn't really invested in and to see if I wanted to
          be in the academic world. I remember one person congratulating me on
          getting the job by saying what a 'plum' of a job he thought it was. It were
          better described as a 'living hell.' The only reason I'm still here is because
          something always happens that makes me think, maybe things will get

          (3) "I was looking for a university closer (to my home). I had zero
          expectations. Nothing. I never knew anything about this campus. Still
          don't know much!"

        Whatever their previous knowledge of the campus, faculty responses to their initial
reception and orientation to the campus tended to be either positive or negative. (Having few
expectations did not make for a greater adjustment.) Positive reactions were overwhelmingly
concentrated among the more junior faculty (especially recent hires), from those who
perceived their recruitment as a matter of departmental consensus, and from those whose
individual research interests seemed to overlap or dovetail well with the department's
programmatic needs. Negative first-impressions tended to be expressed by more senior
faculty and by those whose arrival was shrouded by a certain ambiguity as to whether they
were truly being welcomed by their department. Thus, for example, the job interview
process itself might be recalled with a great deal of disappointment, if not resentment, with
responses ranging from reports of being "slighted" during their job talk to being more harshly

interrogated than might be normal. Subtle indications of the campus' interest or disinterest
lay in how well attended a job talk was, whether conversations during a luncheon or dinner
with other faculty indicated real interest in one's work or perspective, or whether there were
opportunities to otherwise have an exchange about mutual interests. The availability of other
minority (or female) faculty as informal informants of the local scene was important and
valuable, particularly if there were questions about the local or ethnic community,
commuting issues, or childcare concerns. Thus, one faculty reported being so "impressed"
by the visit in this regard as to give UCSC an edge over other institutions. Another faculty
similarly remarked,

          (1) "My hiring was a wonderful experience. They had someone pick me up
          at the airport. A graduate student. They put me up at 'X' (a local motel)
          which was nice... Everyone was friendly, helpful. Secretaries were helpful.
          Meeting with the chair individually was good. He mentored me through
          the job interview process."

       In other instances, faculty recalled their much earlier experience of the campus in a
more negative light. "It almost made me not want to come because of the way the search was
conducted." Such attitudes were linked to such issues as the fact that there were no tours of
the campus, no opportunities to talk to majors or to negotiate a start-up package, along with
various other indications that the recruiting faculty did not take this candidacy seriously:

          (1) "I think there may have been a lot of problems with the department at
          the time. There was only a brief lunch where I didn't have a chance to talk
          about my work, and then the Chair asked to get out of the dinner, and I had
          to insist on having dinner with the Search Committee because I wanted to
          be able talk about my work."

          (2) "I was encouraged to send my vita in. I gave a job talk, had an
          interview. I don't mind hard questions but there were questions that were
          unusually hard here. Only a couple of people showed up for dinner, so I
          felt there might have been some departmental conflict over me. I learned
          later on that was true and have been caught in the conflict between senior
          faculty ever since."

        In general, not being offered opportunities to negotiate one's start-up package
emerged as a salient issue which evoked variable responses ranging from self-deprecation ("I
was too green. I didn't even know enough to ask."), appreciation for a Board's assistance, to
frustration at an actively hostile administration ("Negotiations over start-up were horrible.").

          (1) "I never thought to negotiate. I didn't know about 'start-up packages.' I
          just had a baby, and my Board didn't know the leave policy but they made

          an informal arrangement, no teaching, just office hours. It turns out I was
          entitled to that legally. I used what start-up money they gave me to buy a
          computer. I thought I had only one year spend. Only after meeting other
          women faculty (in another Division) did I learn that the campus provided
          computers to its faculty."

          (2) "I had to stay with a graduate student when I got here because no one
          thought to look into housing for me. I got not computer. Just a typewriter,
          which was not even self-correcting. I was not on Unix like other people,
          and no one was assigned the task of helping me get hooked up to the
          computer to get data relevant to my own work... What money I got for
          research was a fluke because of some contentiousness on my Board over
          hiring. Apparently, they liked me better than some other person. I was
          reluctant to come anyways and they thought it was because I wanted
          research money. They were not being proactive but reactive."

          (3) "When it came to negotiations, they refused to talk about negotiation,
          from the Chair on up to the Vice Chancellor. No one was interested in
          even exploring. UCSC didn't think it had to make any overture. It was
          only later that I learned I could negotiate a quarter off, and was given this
          in my second year when I should have gotten it my first. Other candidates
          were given the offer, whereas I had to prove myself to get the

          (4) "I didn't think to even talk to many people about their views of the
          campus, let alone negotiate. I moved my own books. Since I've been here,
          I've hardly applied for the research funds and travel money that other
          people routinely apply for. I realized this after serving on a Committee
          which disperses such money. I'm sensitive to budgetary issues and err on
          the side of being conservative in what I ask for."

While the more horrific stories tended to be associated with an earlier period in the campus'
history, there is still evidence of problems surrounding start-up packages.

          (5) "Minorities in (my discipline) are scarce, even women. The
          administration doesn't allow us to bid enough for them. Recently we did it
          on our own with the Assistant Dean and Dean going out of their way to do
          that. In general, though, this campus hasn't been really intelligent about
          it...Once you have a candidate that's good, what matters most are the
          material costs: computers, extra summer support, moving expenses."

          (6) "We have no ability to attract people with attractive start-up packages.
          (Regarding a particular candidate who decided not to come...) We need to
          give release-time in terms of teaching and resources, such as relocation
          costs, and then helping them make the transition to the local scene. Two to
          three years of supports is no small issue."

           (7) "I know of a case where a minority faculty didn't come because the
           campus refused to pay for more than half the cost of moving his books."

           (8) "If you really want minorities, you can't hem and haw when the market
           commands a certain price and then make them feel they are upsetting the
           system. Marketable people can be seen as greedy but this is a
           departmental, cultural problem... Persistence is a feature of recruitment of
           faculty at other universities which is not something UCSC is good at. They
           have an open time-frame. They don't rush faculty they are interested in.
           The attitude is 'We'll do this as long as this takes.' It shows their serious."

           (9) "Younger minority Ph.Ds are very savvy, and so if you want to get
           them, you have to be willing to reward."

        UCSC's relatively lackluster efforts at negotiating good start-up packages were
attributable to its sense of its own attractiveness as an institution. Thus, given its prestige and
status as a public university, mere affiliation was considered sufficient in and of itself, the
grounds in some instances for preempting any real negotiation.

           (10) "I was asked by the Dean to submit a wish list. I then consulted my
           dissertation chair and post-doctoral mentor for advice. But when I
           eventually submitted my request (which was fairly minimal), the Dean was
           aghast and said, "Don't you know that the University of California has
           called? Your job is to support the University of California, get research
           grants, and maintain the campus' reputation!"

Even those attributes not directly related to its institutional performance, such as its
apparently attractive geographical location, were noted to contribute to the campus'
unwillingness to be more responsive.

           (11) "Geographical location is very important to me. I wanted to be on the
           West Coast. I was attracted to San Francisco and the Bay Area. The
           University can afford not to provide that much because they can bank on
           people wanting to be here. The University rationalizes these things."

Indeed, for all appearances, where the University has seen minority faculty hires simply as
minority hires, it were as though race was considered a key factor in their recruitment,
discouraging further discussion. The perception of differential treatment was certainly

           (12) "If they want someone, they'll attend to it very fast. The campus
           uniformly does not treat white faculty as poorly."

Slow administrative responsiveness at the level of making a decision about a candidate was
noted as responsible for the loss of potential candidates, or for jeopardizing a candidate's
relations elsewhere.

          (13) "The administration sat on this temporary appointment for a long time,
          even though all that was being asked for was a slight increase in salary,
          amounting to an extra $200 a month. After the person bailed out, then the
          Dean approved. In the case of this other hire, a white male, who came in at
          the wrong time (in terms of meeting the appropriate deadlines), they hired
          him without hesitation and at a figure far exceeding this other person's

          (14) "The campus was so slow in responding. Once they made the offer, it
          took three to six months to have a letter in hand. I was petrified. In my
          case, it took months just to make me the offer whereas 'X' (previous
          institutional affiliation) had Fedexed an offer in one day (when it originally
          hired this person). I was afraid I was jeopardizing my relations with my
          colleagues at 'X' since they needed to know whether I would be staying or

         In general, the mirror which the University has of itself has is one uninformed by
those perspectives which paint a very different picture, one which is less attractive or
appealing, and seen as particularly disadvantageous for minority faculty. Ironically, where
minority faculty have themselves been effective recruiters, the propensity and zeal to put the
"best face on the place" is such that many problems associated with campus life are often
glossed over or simply not mentioned to visiting candidates. As indicated in the following
section, the ability to negotiate adequate and appropriate start-up packages has consequences
for whether or not minority faculty are able to effectively work in the capacity for which they
were recruited. Even more importantly, their effectiveness is undermined by an institutional
culture which is monolithic and resistant to change. Its overtures to diversity stop short of
reassessing its own values, or ways of doing things, which in the final analysis make the
institution a less than hospitable place for minorities.

          (1) "People are so engaged in getting you to come here that they don't tell
          you everything. That's what got me on the downslide. I kept asking lots of
          questions but didn't really get the information I needed to make a really
          good assessment or negotiation regarding start-up...If I were coming in in
          the normal process, people would have looked at me skeptically, critically,
          and asked me questions.... Diversity stops at the level of hire rather than a
          fundamental change in how you do business and how you relate."

3. Social Isolation and the Undervaluation of Research Needs

         The campus' small-scale promise of collegiality is perhaps one of the first illusions to
go. Opportunities for collegial relations, internal or external to the campus, were found to be
far less available than anticipated. While historically the organization of campus life around
the colleges was aimed to serve as centers of teaching and collegiality, such organizational
decentralization exists with few alternative possibilities for faculty engagement. Campus
geography and the absence of a faculty center thwart such relations locally, making it hard to
find occasions to casually meet to discover or explore mutual interests. The absence of
anything approaching a faculty lounge, center, or dining area has been a major source of
alienation. However, the student-oriented nature of the campus culture, together with recent
budgetary cuts, has worked against the creation of such natural settings for faculty

        The very few faculty who seemed to have been able to cultivate a satisfactory set of
collegial relations on campus have done so within the narrow niche of the Boards for which
they were originally recruited, or in the few organized scholarly activities on campus.

          (1) "There's not enough space for people to intersect. Women's Studies
          Seminars and Cultural Studies Seminars are possible areas for some
          faculty. Once in the space, there are no hindrances and much collegiality,
          but apart from that there is no way to otherwise meet other people who
          might overlap with my area of intellectual research."

          (2) "The Chicano/Latino Research Center is underfunded and yet it is the
          most enjoyable thing I've been involved with. There are people I can talk
          to, scholars I am learning from."

Even, however, among those who feel located in a supportive network, the transition to Santa
Cruz gave rise to vague and amorphous feelings suggesting displacement or a lack of

          (1) "There were a lot of things for me to adjust to. Because 'X' (previous
          place of employment) recognized itself as being remote, 'second-string,'
          people took it upon themselves to go out of their way to make me feel
          welcome. Apart from the womb of the University, it was redneck. It's
          hard to get together with people here (at UCSC) because of the spatial
          displacement and people's social calendars seem to be full. It's hard to
          break into that. It's California culture, where people are plain busy ... along
          with it being a high-powered institution that makes claims on people's

          (2) "After several years, you ask yourself, 'Is it worthwhile?" You always
          feel you are a marginal person. Being here, I feel I never will be a real part

          of it.... (Reflecting further) I am in a position, lifestyle where I have so
          much work to do... At 'X' (a large UC campus) where I was a postdoc, I felt
          less pressure, felt more connected to people, more resources, more people
          with research interests. It may have been because I was a student, not a

          (3) "I almost feel like I'm cut off from the real world. I can feel trapped in
          an ivory tower."

        Despite the implications of social fragmentation for scholarly exchange, years of
residence do not necessarily resolve the problem. Faculty members may feel peripheral to
their Board, and those who are actively excluded from certain activities may or may not find
their needs met outside the Board, in other parts of the campus. Regional proximity to urban
communities and other intellectual centers itself turned out to be more apparent than
realizable, even though the majority of faculty interviewed expressed a need to operate and
establish intellectual ties beyond the campus or home Board. Thus, the following responses
reflect the need to develop and create ties beyond the home Board.

          (1) "In terms of job satisfaction, I had much more at 'X' (previous
          institution), where it was clear that each person in my department was
          interested in and read my work."

          (2) "I need to meet more people who do the research that I do. I know
          some people on other campuses."

       Despite the patterned nature of these concerns, some faculty continue to entertain
self-doubts about whether the problem of social isolation lay with their own failure to take
more of an initiative to meet others. Others clearly see the need for change in the
organizational structure of the campus so that it is supportive of faculty needs and not simply
student interests. The present arrangement was seen to place faculty and student interests at
odds with another:

          (1) "I would love to have a faculty club. It would enable me to compare
          notes with members of other departments, explore cross-disciplinary
          research projects. You can run into people in a faculty club, and they can
          connect you to other colleagues. (In the present situation) students are
          being pampered."

          (2) "I really resent it when I have to mingle with students beyond all the
          other service hours. If there were a faculty center of some sort, this could
          also serve as a meeting place for program development or sharing teaching

        Faculty were quite explicit about how such social isolation was detrimental to their
careers. Such reasons included exclusion from networks and contacts necessary for career
development, as well as access to informal knowledge that would facilitate one's
interpretation of existing expectations regarding research, teaching, and service. Thus, for
example, the following persons explained how teaching and service responsibilities became
unmanageable because of the nature of mentoring, or lack thereof.

          (1) "Nobody told me I could teach the same courses every year so I taught
          a whole set of new courses each year. Nobody told me I could redesign
          someone else's courses. I never felt on top of my courses. Nobody told me
          this is reasonable committee work. Don't do any more. I was on all kinds
          of committees, SAA/EOP, and college committees. No one told me I
          didn't have to teach the core course at 'X' (one of the colleges) twice."

          (2) "Although I had a mentor, he was also the chair, and I don't think he
          was able to truly advise me in ways that were in my long-term best
          interests. Consequently, the interest courses I developed were never truly
          'interest' courses. There was always the agenda of serving some broad
          student population, not to mention our own majors, which made it really
          hard to think about what was my own best interests in terms of research,
          teaching, and service. That is in some ways still a problem."

          (3) "We get excited about recruiting minorities and then think the job is
          done. We've lost a lot of minorities that way. The University doesn't take
          a strong position on retention and on trying to think of creative ways to link
          me into the Board."

          (4) "I felt there were these old guys from the 1960s who were still fighting
          their battles twenty years later and didn't really care about the new faculty."

Available forms of support tend to be identified with a few individuals, rather than with an
organizational infrastructure.

          (5) "'X' and 'Y' (faculty colleagues) were the only ones, the few individuals
          who cared. They gave me a reception and were the only ones who really
          looked out for me. No one in my department ever invited me to dinner or
          gave an orientation to the town."

          (6) "I was lucky because I have good minority faculty (as mentors). In
          general, I felt more welcomed at 'X' (my old university). I feel half-
          welcomed here. The retention of these senior faculty would be really
          helpful. They are really important. A shield of protection. They listen.
          Show concern."

          (7) "'X' (non-minority faculty) is the only person who has really listened to
          me, read my material, given me feedback. Other than he, no one has
          supported me. I had no real mentor even as a graduate student. In other
          ways, the faculty have ignored and actively excluded me from activities...
          I've never had the opportunity to collaborate on a damn thing!"

        The only mention made of broad, institutional support and responsibility for the
acculturation of minority faculty pointed to first-year orientations geared towards junior

          (1) "Pister's welcoming dinner was very nice. I got to know who the other
          incoming faculty were, the various deans. Leo Laporte also had an
          orientation where I met some wonderful women faculty. Nancy Degnan
          downloaded information from our files. It was great. It explained when
          you come up for merit, leaves. When it counts for credit and when not. It's
          good to hear from responsible offices about what's expected. The campus
          should have a weekly, monthly newsletter directed toward minority faculty
          just like the SAA/EOP paper for students. Or maybe we could be sent
          email with other bulletins saying, 'All faculty who are interested in this
          topic, can press "X".' It would be nice to have some kind of informal
          gathering in both the Fall and Spring."

The positive responses from participating faculty should encourage the development of other
kinds of organizational initiatives, which oversee and monitor the long-term development of
faculty at various stages of their career. The following responses echo earlier needs surround
start-up packages (e.g. computer equipment and leave time) as well as subsequent needs for
sound mentoring.

          (2) "It was frustrating when I came here, with a friend. We bought faculty
          housing together but since we were not married, she couldn't benefit from
          taking courses here. While we are now married, that first year of transition
          was hardest... I also need more resources than other people. I have two
          areas of research. My primary reservation was that although my research
          was in one area, I was hired to teach in a different area. I was willing to
          bend in terms of teaching. But then I put all of my start-up money in one
          area where no one in my department does this kind of research. In my
          third or fourth year, I could have really used computer equipment. A lot of
          my equipment is still the Board's and not assigned to me so I could risk
          losing it. While I'm able to get some Divisional seed grants for research
          assistants, I'm restricted because I can't use this money for computer

          (3) "I can't think, I can't write. I'm tired of it. Worrying about whether
          they are going to take away the equipment that I already have. They've
          already indicated so."

           (4) "I was pissed about the fact that I could have tried for tenure at mid-
           career but the Board didn't inform me... If they want minorities to stay,
           they should at least help getting them the most mileage out of their work."

While a few faculty were content with the available sabbatical credit, others felt they needed
more options for time-off other than sabbatical. Existing institutional mechanisms for getting
additional leave-time were generally viewed as not conducive to helping faculty. About
grant-writing, faculty expressed the following sentiments:

           (5) "Resources are good in terms of researching funding, junior faculty
           support, conference travel, RA support, equipment, and teaching
           improvement grants. As far as administrative support of grant-writing, it's
           limited to helping those where there is a big overhead. So you have to
           learn to write these yourself. We need more help with proposal writing
           instead of 'here are all the deadlines.' They do minimally what's
           possible...If I can negotiate with the Chair to double up, that's one way to
           get a quarter off, but that's not always possible."

           (6) "Not only are there limits on the numbers of leaves you can take, paid
           and upaid, but this can affect your career if you can't get a leave. If I
           submitted a leave plan, I probably wouldn't get it next year."

        In general, the cultural values and assumptions underlying the existing organizational
structure not only belie the campus' claims to being "interdisciplinary" or "collaborative," but
are culturally biased in favor of those who are most individualistically inclined and single-
mindedly career-oriented.

           (1) "Okay. They hired me to do this. Based on my notion of modeling,
           they should have taken me around and showed me. Instead, it's you're here
           now. Jump in the pool and swim, and we'll pull you out when you're dead.
           Zero-support. It's a go-for-yourself environment, even though they talk
           about interdisciplinary and collaborative work. Zero points for this."

Social isolation, and all that it implies, therefore, can undermine the retention of faculty in
even the best of situations.

           (2) "For me, it's a great situation except for being isolated. I'm isolated on
           campus both personally and professionally. I didn't get into it for the
           money. I'm single, don't have kids so I have freedom and flexibility thus
           far, and I'm in a department that is strongly supportive of what I teach.
           Except for one course (a required course for the major), I teach what I
           want. I have virtual autonomy and don't have to do the service courses
           other Boards have to. I have computer equipment that meets my needs,
           and the Board's relatively non-conflictual. However, whenever I see a job

          that's in (certain regions of the country), I put in an application. If I leave it
          will not be because of salary."

         The campus culture not only tends to undermine the development of intellectual ties
but its implicit requirements for community create dilemmas. As several disaffected faculty
members explained, while prestigious research institutions elsewhere place emphasis upon
research accomplishments, UCSC has sought to preserve the close connection of faculty
identified with campus and student life, without regard to its effect on faculty development:

          (1) "One of the first things I was told since I came to this university was the
          importance of always being in your office, with your doors open. I also
          learned that there were all these stated and unstated expectations about
          residing locally. This one faculty person in my college would often come
          by, and since I wasn't living in Santa Cruz would routinely ask, "So when
          are you here?" There were never any other overtures at being collegial.
          The irony is that I thought I might have been missing something and even
          experimented with living here an entire year. People were hardly ever
          around and office doors were always closed."

          (2) "They want to create this atmosphere of old Santa Cruz but also want
          you to be competitive with the rest of the institution. It's a no-win
          situation. The only way to cultivate your research interests is to go where
          the environment is more nurturant, but then you're not considered a good

          (3) "There's the parochialism and preoccupations of a very small university
          and the pedigree problem of those recruited. There's little pretense of
          community at other universities but here the issue of intimacy and
          smallness can create certain mind trips. It seems like we're always trying
          to convince each other that we're important. One thing I like about UCSC
          is that you don't have to deal with the heavy-duty issue of production for
          prestige where expectation is high. Minority faculty who buy into the idea
          of small culture eventually find they are not part of the community and are
          then disappointed. These things may change depending on what rank you
          are. By the time you're tenured, you'll have figured out how to negotiate
          your life and it doesn't depend on geographical place."

        Minority faculty who feel culturally more at home in an urban and more diverse
environment find the adjustment to Santa Cruz more difficult than other minority faculty.
Whether they reside locally or elsewhere, there is inevitably some kind of trade-off or
sacrifice. Thus, those who permanently relocate to Santa Cruz may do so because their
family or friendship circles, for example, are not within commuting distance, or because the
commute itself has both direct and indirect costs. While social isolation may not be unique

to minority faculty, it is exaggerated for those more junior and dependent upon the
establishment of viable networks for furthering their career. Because certain cultural
lifestyles simply cannot be reproduced within the Santa Cruz context, the attendant loneliness
and nostalgia for family and a more diverse, urban lifestyle are some of the consequences of
living locally.

           (1) "Being very busy, everyone has their own life. There's a
           disappointment. If you have a family, that may be different. The life of an
           academic is having to be productive (in terms of research). There is also
           teaching and other things to do. But these will never replace family."

           (2) "The commute was very difficult since coming here. I wish there had
           been another way of commuting. I chose not to move here initially
           because there was no ethnic community. As liberal or nice as people are, I
           still have a sense of being alien, of feeling like the token person of color in
           many situations, committees. I'm never sure whether it's because there's
           something I have to offer."

         For those faculty centrifugally pulled to reside outside of Santa Cruz, the logistics of
the commute combine with certain expectations of the informal, local campus culture to
create their own set of contradictions. Although scheduling meetings, classes, and other
events is a pervasive problem, for commuters and non-commuters alike, the university has
tended to treat such issues as personal problems. Rather than entertain restructuring
initiatives that might attract and retain those faculty it seeks to recruit, the local campus
culture has been described as "hostile," or at best "indifferent," to the problems of those
whose interests and networks are more broadly based. By failing to recognize that recruiting
for cultural or social diversity will also mean creating a supportive environment for regional
diversity, the institution operates in such a way as to marginalize these faculty.

           (1) "I never feel as efficient as I would like to be. Apart from all the
           worries associated with the actual commute -- traffic jams, car problems --
           I always feel like I'm rushing, tired, and 'on the road.' I know colleagues
           elsewhere who commute equally as far, but they do it by train, where they
           can get a lot of their reading done. If you add it up, that's a lot of time per
           week, so you have to be really selective regarding what you participate in.
           That, in turn, puts you in an awkward situation with even your best of

           (2) "... I do feel strongly that in the context of a sense of welcome, support,
           schedules, availability and so on that people of color feel this issue is
           important. ... if the campus is going to aggressively diversify its faculty, it
           needs to acknowledge that people of color may well see living elsewhere as
           one of the conditions of working at UCSC, then the university at all levels -

          - but especially the departmental culture -- will have to hear the concerns of
          commuters as part of the overall strategy of what it takes (to recruit)... it is
          a part of the culture of the place, a kind of grudging benign neglect which
          has the effect of making commuters more sensitive and aware of the fact
          that we've made choices to live away from scheduling
          meetings and classes, are our colleagues willing to work with the kinds of
          schedules that we have without making us feel guilty?"

While commuting faculty experience not only marginalization but stigmatization, minority
faculty who reside locally also experience a certain marginalization, especially if their
research and teaching interests are focused on serving a more diverse community. Implicit
value differences between minority and non-minority faculty are seen as problematizing what
is valued in terms of research, thereby affecting one's sense of belonging. The following
sentiments reflect this aspect of their estrangement:

          (1) "There is no large ethnic community here. No class diversity. It's
          basically a wealthy, resort community. The commute was another issue.
          Research resources are better at 'X' (another university where this person
          had been interviewed for a job). It's not a minor issue to go to San Jose or
          San Francisco where they have minor archival material in my area of

          (2) "My basic values are in conflict with the elitist values of the institution.
          I had to fight to get off-campus.... We're serving a very tiny fishbowl.
          There's burnout because you can't teach the privileged, elite. After two
          weeks, I asked myself, 'What am I doing here?' Okay. I'll carve out my
          own niche, work with these students. I'll try to get off campus. I need to
          get who I am really back.... It's a class issue, not race."

          (3) "Campus does not seem to appreciate that research occurs in other parts
          of the world."

          (4) "There is a marked difference in interpretation between 'big white men'
          and others who like my work. What makes me worry is how people talk
          about other minority candidates. Then I wonder, whether that would apply
          here (in my case). You wonder, why you are here."

        Again, as noted earlier, faculty whose research interests intersect with ethnic-racial
issues were more likely than other minority faculty to express such problems. Those faculty,
on the other hand, whose research interests do not revolve around such issues, or encompass
them at most peripherally, were more likely to feel that their intellectual needs could be
satisfied within the niche of their own Boards or other parts of the campus.

         Because informal knowledge of the campus culture is as important as formal, official
requirements, there are certain inherent dilemmas in what gets conveyed as relevant informal
information that may have consequences for one's career. Thus, one minority faculty
interviewed recommended that all new faculty should be provided with a "contact person"
who could introduce them to the informal culture upon their arrival. Upon learning later that
commuting faculty were viewed and treated with resentment, this same person remarked, "I
was really surprised because I hadn't realized this." In another instance, a senior colleague
informed a junior faculty, then commuting, that teaching, and by implication, campus
presence, was a "five-day, Monday through Friday" responsibility. Apart from psychological
distraught over this news, there are implicit career consequences insofar as colleagues
express their resentment in personnel reviews. The extent to which such implicit, informal
expectations should be relevant considerations, communicated even by well-intentioned
faculty, including mentors, is a sticky, unresolved issue, where relative interests and needs
are seen as incompatible. In those rare instances where departments have made efforts to
adjust to these logistical issues, faculty adjustment was reported to be much more positive, at
least in terms of collegial relations. In the worst scenario, such informal criteria were later
reported as grounds for negative assessments of one's performance and participation at the
level of teaching or service to the campus.

        In sum, despite the potential for small-scale community, faculty are isolated from one
another and their interests too diverse to be met simply within the confines of the local
environment. Indeed, for minority faculty guided by a certain idealism and larger social
vision, the campus culture undermines this sense of purpose by magnifying the routine
problems of academic life, such that petty conflicts remove them even further from what they
thought it possible to achieve in their academic role.

          (1) "If I could just get away from all the picayune departmental stuff..."

          (2) "This campus is so small that confidentiality is an issue. There are
          social problems having to do with this..."

          (3) "Because of all the political infighting, others are considering
          institutions offering a better package, which includes being able to teach in
          one's own area of research."

          (4) "You really don't know what goes on in those faculty meetings until
          you ascend. 'This is important?' Even though I had studied it, even though
          I knew academia wasn't (the ideal many people think it is), it was
          'shocking' to see the behavior, the lack of leadership, the unwillingness to
          take responsibility. It was draining."

          (5) "I'm here because I want to be able to develop a perspective on issues
          that doesn't fit into the mainstream but is very much a critique of it. I've
          been frustrated by a lot of things here, but should the time come, when
          everything gets in the way of my being able to write or do research, I will
          leave. That goal is the only thing that presently keeps me going."

Both because of their minority status and because of the introversion induced by the campus
culture, the option of simply withdrawing is not a viable one.

          (1) "Every time I'm not there, even if it's one out of several meetings, it's
          known. Whereas other people's absence is not noted... "

          (2) "I'm conscious of my background. Conspicuous. I'm here only because
          I'm satisfying someone else's agenda."

        While a fuller exchange with candidates at the very earliest stages of the hiring
process may address certain informational needs, certain problems need to be substantively
addressed if they are not to surface later as retention issues. Curricular reform and the
establishment of intellectual centers could have a significant and simultaneous impact on the
intellectual climate, the possibilities for collegial exchange, and ultimately the attraction and
retention of minority faculty. The success of certain organized research activities at
promoting scholarly collaboration should encourage the establishment of other, viable
centers where faculty can interact.

          (1) "The campus has a good track record on producing students of color but
          if you wanted to study stratification and race, then the campus doesn't have
          a great reputation."

In addition, other measures aimed at assisting faculty develop or maintain collegial networks
elsewhere were also noted as important.

          (2) "The administration could support 'Monday luncheons' as a way of
          facilitating minority faculty getting together."

          (3) "Since isolation is an issue, going to conferences is valuable for
          networking with my intellectual community. However, there is only
          campus funding for those presenting papers."

          (4) "That's an excellent idea (i.e. money to minority faculty attend
          conferences). Also money to meet with one's advisor at one's former
          university. You have to help minority faculty to be professionally
          connected. Personal contacts matter even more than ever even with
          connection with the internet. Or money to go work in a different place for
          a week. That's incredibly valuable for all junior faculty, to be out there,

          inundated. If you send a paper out, they are not going to read it. It's a
          great way of improving someone's professional standing. A week at a
          different place."

          (5) "The institution needs to actively affirm and support faculty who are
          doing the kind of research they are presumably being recruited to do.
          Some of this research will only be done by minority faculty, and yet there
          are only token gestures to support their research needs. On top of that, all
          the other expectations serve to undermine what small steps they are able to
          take in that direction on their own."

4. Undervaluation of Teaching and Service Contributions

        Of the three areas in which faculty are expected to excel, i.e. research, teaching, and
service, minority faculty perhaps feel the most ambivalent about their teaching and service
responsibilities as minority faculty. Even faculty who were recruited for programmatic or
disciplinary reasons which had little to do with areas of minority research acknowledged the
importance of role modeling and their own role here.

          (1) "Very often minority students welcome the fact that I'm a minority.
          They appreciate the idea. Otherwise, I'm the wrong sort of minority.
          Politically, I'm not important. (At the same time) it's important to have
          people who look different. It says, 'Here's someone who's successful and is
          not part of the mainstream.' This issue of role modeling can be very tight.
          Diversity has many dimensions and we should be open to those."

          (2) "As a student I thought the 'role model' idea was stupid. Now I see the
          importance. As a graduate student, I knew of a woman instructor who had
          kids, showed it was possible."

At the same time, some of these faculty were quite explicit and concerned that they not be
viewed simply through the lens of their minority status. Indeed, positive relations with
colleagues and students were premised on this not being the overriding consideration.

          (3) "The Board talked to me because of my research not because of my
          minority status. If I got the feeling that it was because I was a minority,
          then that would have been a problem. It's an added plus that I can help
          with the diversity issue.... The crucial issue is that individual faculty
          members didn't address the minority issue."

          (4) "I have a very good group of colleagues who don't make me feel like a

        In general, faculty play multiple roles, and a delicate balance needs to be observed in
this respect. As teachers, a major source of satisfaction had to do with whether they had
sufficient opportunities to work with minority students, to assist them in going on to graduate
school, or in their work at the graduate level.

          (1) "I like teaching here. I like the students. They're good students. I'm
          teaching the courses I want and able to get students in graduate schools. A
          lot of autonomy, flexibility. Though there are hassles with independent
          major and no systematic mechanism for processing students who fall
          through the cracks."

Frustration for some stemmed from insufficient opportunities in this regard, either because
Boards themselves are not linked with graduate programs or because other institutional
constraints prevent a faculty member from working with a diverse group of students in this

          (2) "I feel the responsibility and challenge of working on developing the
          pipeline. There's a real demand that's not being met. It's particularly
          frustrating on our Board because our courses are not getting very many
          minority students...It's a campus problem in that there are many Boards that
          don't have graduate problems, so there's no way in which we can work with
          graduate students systematically."

          (3) "I was sad because I heard from a colleague elsewhere that she had just
          graduated four Ph.D. students. If they would let me be myself and give me
          some flexibility around teaching, I could have graduated one every two
          years. My data lend themselves to apprenticeships. I have masses of it not
          being used."

          (4) "Teaching has been unrewarding. It doesn't have to be. It's just that
          there are a lot of external constraints affecting the kind of students I get --
          don't get -- to work with, including minority students. Rarely do their
          interest areas intersect with my own, and so it is a very draining

        Another balance that faculty found it hard to maintain was that between research and
teaching in general, especially the problem of being overengaged with students. While
faculty recruitment efforts over the past decade have made UCSC, up until recently, "the
most diverse" of UC campuses, there is still not the critical mass of minority faculty that
would reduce such teaching imbalances, and evidence, furthermore, that white faculty
generally do not feel the same responsibility in this regard:

          (1) "It's not just minority faculty but white faculty who need to assume the
          burden of teaching a diverse curriculum."

          (2) "I was invited to speak at this event for entering students, and in the
          process learned from the organizer, that five white male faculty had already
          declined the request."

Teaching and service not only consume inordinate time but tend to fall upon the shoulders of
a select group by virtue of their stated areas of teaching or research interest. Such work not
only detracts or diverts from the research pursuits necessary for promotion and advancement,
but is itself undervalued and unrewarded in personnel reviews.

          (1) "I spend twice as many office hours as expected, sometimes 8-10 hours
          of meeting per week, or three hours of work per week with one student."

          (2) "The campus does not recognize or reward teaching. A bilingual-
          bicultural teacher has to provide course material in two languages. No one
          acknowledges that you have to operate in another language to demystify
          the institution. This can mean 10-15 extra hours for a course that has 10-15
          such students. The course becomes remedial and you're playing catch-up.
          In lecture classes, these students fall through the cracks.... We are stretched
          out between Boards to satisfy the shortage of minority faculty on another
          Board. This extra teaching as visitors in other courses add up... 5 to 10
          visits can amount to half a course. There are also different committee
          demands, being pulled in three different directions. People use up minority
          faculty. We ask too much of them, making them more vulnerable, feeling
          embattled, bittered. Then they wonder why they're not so productive."

          (2) "Service was not a plus. I was constantly getting phone calls to be on
          panels. This became a problem at mid-career. My chair said, 'You really
          need to focus on your publications. If you never lift another finger for
          service, fine.' Also, it meant, I need to not volunteer myself."

          (3) "It's a culture in which we don't recognize service. Some feel we work
          ourselves to the bone, then are criticized for not doing enough. We're left
          with long records of extraordinary service, so that pushes us onto the job
          market. For many years, I resisted that, but I was getting frustrated to the
          point that I was seriously considering other offers. It feels so good to be
          appreciated, getting an offer for what you think you're worth."

          (4) "The campus will use you up and there is no end in sight. I totally
          identified with the students and couldn't say 'no.'... Every time there's a
          minority person on campus I have to meet them. There's a lot of additional
          work of meeting these people. Maybe nonwhites could be more sensitive
          to minority people and begin seeing things from their perspective. I once
          heard 'X' (minority speaker) say, 'When people ask you to do something,

          say "no." If you say "yes," they will not think or know that there are not
          enough around.'"

        Withdrawing from these various teaching or service requests presents a dilemma for
minority faculty. Some have eventually done so, either because of the strong advice of their
Board or other colleagues. However, given that minority faculty are ostensibly valued,
indeed specifically recruited, for the intellectual perspectives they bring as well as their
potential for serving as role models, the individual injunction to "just say no" is hard unless
there is also some kind of a collective or organizational support.

        Some of this support might take the form of ensuring flexibility in teaching
assignments. Satisfaction, or dissatisfaction, surrounding teaching was clearly related to such
issues as whether a person was actively encouraged to teach in his or her interest area.

          (1) "Flexibility in courses was something I was really grateful for."

          (2) "I was given complete freedom over teaching. What I like most about
          the way our Board approaches things is that they always put things in terms
          of 'What do we want?' 'What do we need?'"

          (3) "I may have formally been given flexibility but these communications
          were also layered with other expectations, aimed at attracting the largest
          numbers. That made me think first about what students might be
          interested. Had I been really encouraged to pursue my own interests, I
          would be more excited about the courses I teach and probably be able to
          convey some of that excitement."

        Regardless of the fit between individual interests and teaching, minority faculty still
find themselves stretched because of service demands. Students themselves are often the
orchestrators of this as sponsors of their own events, little realizing the extra burdens this
creates for minority faculty. Some of these teaching or service contributions may be
intrinsically meaningful as avenues for participation, but these responsibilities were generally
acknowledged to be underrewarded and to be in conflict with research needs.

          (1) "I allowed my energies to be dissipated by performing certain service
          work as opposed to being careerist."

Despite expressed needs for resources and time off to do their research, this was also noted to
add to the teaching burdens of the remaining faculty. However, without relief from teaching,
they are unable to produce the research required for career advancement. In general, the

institution was seen as providing little material support or official recognition for particular
accomplishments, while applying administrative pressure to do more.

           (2) "The campus offers a little to support research (e.g. Affirmative Action
           Grants) but most are 'crumbs,' such as a course off for $5000, then you get
           the resentment of the Board."

           (3) "There is no flexibility in terms of time off to allow faculty to do what
           they are supposed to do, such as write up their research. If I drop this
           particular course, there is no replacement money and more of a burden on
           remaining faculty."

           (4) MFR places such an emphasis on bodies. It doesn't matter how many
           publications you put out in terms of assessing how well your department is
           doing. When I came on board, departments were promised certain FTEs
           because of our Ph.D. program and the latest external review said we need
           more faculty. Not only do we not have the FTEs but the rules of the game
           have changed. When students have a problem with (their performance in
           this area), we tighten our standards but then the numbers go down. There's
           a contradiction between what the external review and MFR tell us.

           (5) "When MFR was instituted, it was presented as something written in
           stone. There is no sense in which there is faculty input. Lots of work we
           do that doesn't get counted."

5. Faculty relations with administration

        Where can faculty make a difference? Despite the fact that one might think small
campus size would enable one to shape the direction of an institution, few thought this to be
true. Indeed, administrative authority appeared to be so diffuse that one faculty member's
frustration in a particular exchange with administrators culminated in what amounted more to
an exclamation than a true question: "Who's in charge?" The perception that only a few
individuals ran the institution was matched by the view that the entire institution --
administrators, faculty, and staff included -- operated in ways that undermined minority
faculty interests and needs, despite the liberal reputation of the campus.

           (1) "What's most demoralizing is the great inertia of the University. You
           hardly can make a difference here or anywhere else. You push against
           structures and they don't give."

           (2) "One of the things that has disturbed me is that since we are isolated,
           we are not open so that only a few people run the campus. So long as you
           fit into a niche. Academic honesty is lacking. People in the (political)

          'center' have been more willing to do things for minority than others who
          claim to be for diversity."

          (3) "Even though 'X' (an administrator) likes me and treats me well,
          everything that person has done with respect to faculty diversity has had a
          negative impact on my own situation."

          (4) "I assume my colleagues are going to be close-minded in terms of
          diversity. The real issue is that you get it at every level, including staff, in
          the Steno Pool as well as administrative offices. The staff in the Steno
          Pool are racist. There's a confusion of boundaries or roles, and I could pull
          rank if I weren't committed to a non-elitist perspective."

          (5) "No one thanks you for anything. They just cite you for what you
          haven't done. They don't understand the psychology of being included.
          You don't know what's up or down, and so your paranoia goes up. The
          problem is the liberal nature of the people of Santa Cruz, who think they
          have already dealt with these problems."

Despite the campus' apparent interest in recruiting minority faculty, there is the strong view
that their perspectives and voices do not otherwise count. The devaluation of minority faculty
views, along with the inflexibility of the institutional culture, was perceived in no small way
as contributing to existing problems of retention.

          (6) "I've had to make many compromises but I'm not willing to give up on
          family. Being here has been at a high cost already to myself and family.
          This whole notion of affirmative action/diversity remains at the level of
          'we're going to have that as a goal but we're not going to adjust anything
          else.' It would be considered an excuse to bring up anything else in terms
          of social background. None of that is going to be taken into account, and
          the nature of one's participation in that endeavor is as if there is an
          objective standard."

          (7) "Even though minority faculty are frequently called upon to serve, the
          ideas of these faculty do not matter, are dismissed and not taken seriously
          in the larger venue, and yet whenever a minority faculty is asked to serve,
          the input is taken but it's more like window dressing. This problem is
          especially germane to UCSC. They really do not care what minorities
          think about this stuff. The University has to see minority faculty as
          resources (in leadership roles), not as rationalization of its diversity
          process. By the time we get to the point where we are potentially capable
          of leading, we are are so embittered and burned over incredible tenure
          fights, we want to leave."

          (8) "The administration does not treat minority faculty with respect. I know
          of a case where a faculty got an offer elsewhere, and because things were

          so bad here that person did not want a counter offer... For the campus to
          recruit, the public perception needs to be countered. There is a culture of
          paranoia, being demoralized because of budget cuts, rotating deans, and the
          way that the budget cuts were handled. Even though there were focus
          groups set up to advise the Dean, the task force felt they were competing
          with one another for scarce resources. It was a horrible process."

          (9) "People really want to be in a place where they're valued. When the
          budget cuts came down, the administration pit the faculty against staff and
          vice versa. They could have been more about open it. Instead, they fiddled
          with the numbers. When they cut graduate student money, they counted it
          as an administrative cut because it was some extra money the EVC had.
          We need to ask what are we trying to achieve together in terms of
          education. Instead of formal letters of congratulations from administrators
          on merit, which are merely formalities, not really meaningful,
          administrators should try to meet with the faculty. Sinsheimer (former
          chancellor) would go eat lunch with the faculty at each college and you
          could chat. If you really want to do something, want diversity, you've got
          to hear the voices. Not the grand show. I wonder if they ever go out and
          have a beer with minority faculty."

        Some of the things mentioned as a way of improving faculty-administrative relations
around issues of diversity were more open and honest dialogue, the appointment of more
minority faculty to administrative roles, the inclusion of diversity in five-year plans, and
broadening the curriculum in academically feasible ways that would also optimize the hiring
of more minorities.
 III. Conclusion

        The first part of this report spoke to issues of recruitment in terms of how the campus
has historically diversified its faculty, as well as to how it is oriented to doing so in the
future. Recruitment aside, a major part of this report has underscored retention issues
affecting minority faculty still affiliated with UCSC. Again, minority faculty not only had
similar but "diverse" experiences of the campus. Similarly, while retention was a major
concern, it was not possible to explore issues mentioned in the Wasserstrom survey related to
how the personnel process produced differential treatment which worked to the disadvantage
of minority and women faculty. However, if the campus is to truly maximize its potential for
diversity, it will need to address the retention problems which, in different ways, undermine
the possibility of achieving a critical mass.

        The majority of faculty pointed to how routine, institutional dynamics can translate
into "individual" problems at the level of research, teaching, and service, affecting subjective

job satisfaction as well as objective, long-range career development. Where Boards have
been accommodating, actively supportive, or relatively free of strife, faculty were much
likely to be content and feel they were able to satisfactorily meet their responsibilities and
play a significant role in their department, if not shaping the direction of the university. In
general, though, the mutually conflicting demands imposed by research, on the one hand, and
teaching and service, on the other, are far from being reconciled. Where diversity is
concerned, there were no indications that faculty felt engaged as participants in some larger
campus vision. Their isolation from one another itself inhibited collegial relations in basic
ways, let alone collaboration towards some more collective endeavor, where their actions
really "count," "make a difference," or are truly rewarded.

       Given the lack of any infrastructure of support for minority faculty outside of Board
programs, any number of factors can prompt departure, even among those presently satisfied
with their situation.

          (1) "I would be enticed to leave if I met someone serious and couldn't get a
          spousal hire. If the budget got worse and I could get a job elsewhere. If it
          because less diverse, that would drive me batty. If my mother got sick, I
          would take a temporary leave and look for a job elsewhere. If the
          department changed and got into political fights."

          (2) "Everything is devised to make faculty leave. There's a general feeling
          of uncertainty and lack of a future."

Problems with retention having to do with longstanding concerns or grievances, with no
resolution in sight, have their own unfolding and consequences. Tenurability is one issue.
Voluntary departures are another. When this occurs, it can have a snowball effect,
influencing the decisions of other disaffected faculty members.

          (3) "I think if 'X' (another minority colleague) goes, then maybe I should."

Those otherwise content with their situation can be motivated to leave for other reasons, a
different set of dynamics, not necessarily specific to being a minority (e.g. spousal
employment, housing, departmental conflicts).

          (4) "They need to make sure we can get housing. More mortgage plans,
          not necessarily housing on campus."

          (5) "There's no mechanism for helping as far as spousal hiring. If my wife
          gets a job elsewhere, I would consider leaving."

          (6) "I'll decide when the moment comes (whether I have to leave because
          of spousal issues). I know a couple of colleagues who've had to deal with
          this issue of distant relations. The Board arranged for the spouse to teach
          for a year since they were in need of temporary lecturers."

       The following recommendations relate to the recruitment and retention. Ideally, they
might serve as a catalyst for a more broad-based discussion, a basis for generating further
ideas about how the campus or various units might proceed.

IV. Recommendations

A. Recruitment

  Traditional methods of recruitment have generally tended towards the "mainstream," and
consequently those labor pools which may not reflect the kind of diversity which the campus
is seeking. TOP appointments at UCSC represented a critical move in the direction of
discovering other networks. Insofar as it is the intent of Board diversity plans to
institutionalize a more systematic approach to recruitment that will tap into a broader pool of
candidates, the campus' minority faculty are themselves critical resources, tied in as they are
to networks where they have the ability to serve as conduits to pools of potential applicants.
While minority faculty can be instrumental in promoting the recruitment and retention of
newer faculty, this pattern concentrates responsibilities in a few select individuals rather than
institutionalizing such efforts as part of a larger campus strategy.

 The following recommendations are steps towards raising the consciousness of all faculty,
not simply minority faculty, towards the need for greater commitment to faculty diversity:

1. Board diversity plans should be reviewed and assessed with every new recruitment,
       and with the participation of as many Board faculty as possible.

  The very process of defining a job position can be a matter of dispute, in which minority
faculty are thereafter made vulnerable to the extent that their views conflict with the
majority. The review of Board diversity plans by all Board faculty, prior to any future hire,
is valuable for not only reinforcing the view that there is a larger institutional commitment
towards diversity but also serving as an occasion for serious reflection on the barriers to
recruitment and retention.

Differences of opinion should be encouraged and fully discussed, precisely because there are
many ways in which diversity can be conceived. Diversity should be ideally addressed in
terms of intellectual and programmatic needs. For this reason, recruitment efforts are some
of the most complex because diversification involves an over-arching understanding and
review of disciplinary turfs and specialties. Thus, for example, if diversity planning is a
value which is to be reflected in curricular planning, then each Board or program in the
Social Science Division will need to devise its own plan on how it might better focus on the
educational research needs of the state. While the Dean can monitor recruitment efforts,
injunctions from the Dean will be less useful than these internal deliberations. Outside
consultants, however, might be called upon, especially when their expertise is specific to the

discipline in question and to curricular issues around diversity.50

  Where departments have had special success in their recruitment efforts, these strategies
should be part of the campus' "working knowledge" and be given a special place in the
Board's five-year plan. Thus, for example, a departmental chair in another Division reported
reviewing programs of professional meetings and writings letters describing the department
and its particular interest in a particular person's candidacy. Other documentation might
include mention of important networks that not only reflect the disciplinary mainstream but
diverse organizational developments within the discipline. The networks tapped through past
TOP recruitments are also relevant here.

  Where the history of a Board reflects a pattern which is less than diverse, an accounting of
existing patterns needs to be initiated. Resources should be made available by the Division
(or to the Division) for the purposes of identifying and addressing these barriers to a more
diverse pool. Thus, for example, where a Board is able document that minority candidates
are simply not available, then it may need to shift its own diversity efforts towards attracting
and training graduate students to enter the pipeline. Its reflections on what is intellectually or
programmatically desirable should be integrated as part of its Board Diversity plans.

2. In order to attract eligible minorities, search efforts should embark upon an
        extensive and comprehensive "public relations" campaign to publicize how
        UCSC might be attractive to the scholarly or collegial endeavors in which those
        eligible minorities are likely to be involved.

  While the campus catalogue is a resource for students, no parallel document is available to
potential faculty, addressing needs ranging from research opportunities, computer facilities,
sites for collegiality (e.g. organized research/teaching units) to housing or relevant local
community interests. Job advertisements themselves might include information reflecting an
institutional profile as well.

  Such an inventory will likely reveal "gaps" in what the campus has to offer those minority
faculty it wishes to attract. Thus, for example, while racial stratification and its implications
for institutional politics and policy might be areas in which the campus might want to recruit,
there is presently no organizational structure or center to support such work. Recruitment
efforts, therefore, should give consideration to the kind of profile of intellectual and scholarly
work which the campus seeks to promote in the long run.

3. In keeping with the idea of "mainstreaming" the recruitment of minorities, the
        Diversity Plans need, where feasible, to target those pools where minority
        candidates are likely to be concentrated.

50In the Humanities, for example, Gerald Graff, a professor of English and Education at the University of Chicago
has been a consultant on curricular reform and has written about how existing conflicts in education can
themselves be integrated into the educational process.

  While bulletins in professional organizations, associations, and meetings are strategic and
reasonable arenas in which to target all eligible Ph.Ds, racial/ethnic minorities and women
are also more likely to affiliate with scholarly organizations or groups which may depart
from mainstream perspectives and reflect nontraditional offshoots to the discipline. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, for example, was not necessarily perceived as the best place
for job ads. Instead, faculty encouraged better outreach to counselors or graduate advisors of
specific programs, or to specific networks in which minority candidates might be tied to
outside mainstream professional associations.51 While such efforts do occur, they are not
undertaken as a routine course of action.

         a. Presently available information on minority pools needs to be more widely utilized.

                   For example, it is the understanding in Academic Human Resources that
                   listings of President's Minority Postdoctoral Fellow are made available to each
                   Division for Boards to utilize as part of their recruitment efforts. However,
                   this listing was not easily retrievable within the Social Science Division, and
                   this resource was certainly not part of common knowledge or practice.
                   Wherever possible, other listings should also be made available to Boards,
                   such as the recently compiled computerized listing of graduate students
                   affiliated with the Dissertation-Year Fellowship Program.

         b. Networks or pools discovered in past TOP searches should be integrated as part of
         regular searches or Board diversity plans. This information, including dossiers,
         should be maintained in some central campus clearing house from which they might
         be then rechanneled to, or shared with, appropriate Boards.

         c. Long-term strategies for recruitment should include better relations with non-UC
         institutions for the purpose of promoting and facilitating the pooling or sharing of
         graduate information.

                   While other major institutions nationwide produce fewer minority Ph.Ds than
                   UC, there are regional or state pools from which the campus might direct
                   outreach strategies. Such institutions include historically black colleges and
                   universities in the South, Chicano and Latino candidates in the Southwest, and
                   Asian Americans in institutions in the West. Such recruitment strategies are
                   likely to be controversial because of UCSC historical recruitment patterns and
                   efforts to be recognized as part of a premier public university, which recruits

51Examples of the kinds of places faculty said minority candidates might be targeted were the following: National
Association for Chicano Studies, National Council for Black Studies, Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social
(a professional newsletter), African American DRUM network (viewed by some as a model for setting up a
bulletin internet network); and AAAS (Association for Asian American Studies) Email Network.

               only from the "top ten." At the same time, such strategies will also be the
               ones most likely to address and redress the problem where it appears that there
               is a very small pool of minority Ph.D. candidates available.

4. Search committees, the Social Science Dean, other administrators and relevant offices
       (such as the Office of Academic Human Resources and the Office of Affirmative
       Action) should be more actively involved in assisting Boards at various stages of

       At present the Office of Affirmative Action primarily briefs search committees and
       monitoring is limited to overall numerical results. Given little contact with faculty,
       this present level of involvement was deemed by the OAA to be appropriate.
       However, if statistical data produced by the OAA are directly relevant to Board
       Diversity plans, then Board chairs and the Dean might benefit from being advised
       early on as to how to interpret or utilize such information as the state of eligible Ph.D.
       candidates in their field.

       The Dean is strategically placed to assume a critical role in monitoring and ensuring
       that these hiring pools are diversified. To minimize the possibility of a search being
       aborted, Boards need to be fully informed from the beginning of those steps they need
       to take to avert such a possibility. The expectations here are not unambiguous. For
       example, if Boards have managed in the past to diversify their faculty by advertising
       in conventional mainstream journals, should a search be aborted if continuation of
       this pattern fails to be productive in future searches? Or, alternatively, if new efforts
       to expand the pool do not produce the desired results?

5. Interviews of candidates need to include a more open and honest appraisal of those
        issues which have constituted retention issues for minority faculty in the past.

  The campus visit is a critical occasion where such an exchange might occur, and where the
candidate should have adequate opportunity not only to talk about her or his intellectual
work, but to discover and explore the campus and local community. A variety of
informational resources, printed material and knowledgeable campus contacts, should be
provided so that the candidate can better explore what the institution has to offer. Boards
themselves need to be more forthcoming about their own needs and interests and, where
relevant, facilitate contact and communication with faculty in other Boards.

  In general, a hospitable reception will maximize diversity hiring. While "performance
anxiety" is attached to any interview process, special qualities of minority candidates can be
frequently overlooked, not only because the interview process occurs a very narrow window
of time, but because there may be a lack of "common experience."

6. Boards and Administration need to be both more responsive and proactive with
       regard to the appointments of minority faculty and their needs.

 Certain incidents recounted by faculty pointed to the slow response of the administration to

minority hires, its inability or unwillingness to provide adequate start-up packages, or to act
proactively on behalf of minority faculty. The slow response at the level of making official
offers to candidates was noted to result in the loss of even temporary hires. For such reasons,
minority faculty may feel that the energies which they invest in the recruitment are
essentially wasted.

  Candidates might be more systematically guided or assisted in anticipating some of their
own needs. There was the strong perception that non-minority candidates benefited from
differential treatment either because they knew how to negotiate and/or were more supported
by the administration. By contrast, minority candidates often did not think to aggressively
pursue such negotiations, or were actively discouraged when they did. Once hired, however,
minority faculty routinely reported very limited institutional support and barriers to
addressing their research needs. In general, a fuller and more open exchange at the
recruitment stage may help deflect many later problems with retention.

B. Retention

  Diversification efforts have focused primarily on recruitment or "numbers" of minority
faculty hired. Interviews with minority faculty revealed that even vigorous, and ultimately
very successful, recruitment efforts will be short-sighted if the campus and Boards cannot
address factors which have led to attrition. At present, minority faculty essentially "count" or
matter only at the numerical level. Once hired, they encounter an institutional culture which
has few formal mechanisms of support. Indeed, within certain circles, the campus has
already acquired a reputation of being inhospitable, if not actively "hostile," towards
minorities at both the level of recruitment and retention. Diversity, undertaken simply to
increase the number of minority faculty on campus, stops short of exploring the full
implications of diversity as an institutional endeavor which involves transforming its own
culture so as to truly opens the doors to new values, perspectives, pedagogical styles, and
research knowledge.

  While the loss of minority faculty to other institutions can be attributed to poor start-up
packages and less than competitive salaries, the powerful inducements to leave stem from
dissatisfaction at problems encountered once in place. The development of collegial
networks and protection from onerous service responsibilities are the best protection in the
bidding war for faculty. For its own enlightened self-interest, the University should
undertake a number of steps to alter the present system of rewards and accountability. Doing
so will not only nourish and foster greater loyalty and commitment to the campus on the part
of minority faculty but begin to move the campus in the direction of developing a more
positive reputation for its commitment to diversity. To a large extent unprecedented, this
would involve creating an overall institutional climate based on a broader set of values.

1. Faculty should be introduced to contact persons, who can facilitate their orientation
      and adjustment to the campus culture. The establishment of a mentor-mentee
      relationship should be the first step in this effort to situate the faculty person
      within a viable professional network.

  Although the adjustment of new faculty is sometimes informally facilitated through
socialization to the campus culture by one's senior colleagues, such relationships are not
established as a routine or official matter of course. This is particularly critical in terms of
long-term career development, where a senior colleague can mentor or guide in writing
research grants, identifying publishers, and otherwise help situate a faculty member in
established professional networks. While race or minority status may be a relevant factor,
the more important issue in the choice of a mentor is shared disciplinary interest. In general,
the ultimate goal is to link the faculty person with a range of such professional contacts.

  It is, therefore, recommended that the University establish an official policy reflecting a
commitment to mentoring. This policy should establish basic understandings of those
elements that will constitute effective mentoring, e.g. informal annual reviews of junior
faculty progress. Moreover, since a diverse recruitment will by definition mean that the
expertise of present faculty will not be sufficient to mentor incoming faculty, resources
should be provided to support mentoring programs outside of individual departments. Such
participation on the part of senior faculty should be treated as an official service

  In terms of their own service, junior faculty should be encouraged (in their third or fourth
year) to participate on Senate Standing Committees and systemwide activities that will
enlarge both their perspectives and professional networks.

2. Establishment of a faculty center or dining area.

  In general, the campus culture tends to place its faculty at a disadvantage, compared to
other campuses, because it lacks a place where faculty can meet as colleagues. (Both earlier
and recent surveys by the Senate Committee on Affirmative Action have pointed to this
need.) On May 31, 1995, the Santa Cruz Academic Senate voted overwhelming in favor of
such a center, and steps might be taken to explore how this might optimally serve faculty
needs. In addition to functioning as an informal faculty dining hall, some faculty suggested it
might also serve as a meeting place for other events, including program development or
research-related interests.

  In addition to a center, mention was also made of establishing other ways for faculty to
interact or be kept abreast of relevant faculty news (e.g. via a faculty "bulletin board" or
electronic mail).

3. Travel funding

  Minority faculty at UCSC generally felt isolated from those intellectual circles and contacts
important for career development. Apart from encouraging faculty to participate in
campuswide or systemwide committees or service activities that will broaden their

professional networks, travel funding should also be made available to support them in
developing and broadening their research ties with colleagues on other campuses. Travel
money to conferences did not meet this need since it required presentation of paper, which
presupposed active professional involvement. Funding that would enable faculty to meet
new professional contacts or sustain previous ones (e.g. relationship with a mentor) would be
particularly valuable for faculty in their pre-tenure years.

  The problems faced by commuting faculty have to do with both the culture of the campus
and the absence of a public transportation system and/or overnight accomodations that would
facilitate their ability to maintain ties with not only the campus community but their research,
professional, and community networks elsewhere. Since social and cultural diversity implies
regional diversity, addressing issues such as the commute is an important way of
demonstrating commitment to diversity. Towards this end, the campus might explore
initiatives undertaken by some of its sister campuses or by model companies in the private
corporate sector. In the absence of such a commitment, these issues and concerns need to be
frankly communicated to candidates at the early stages of recruitment.

4. More credit for teaching and service efforts

  Greater recognition of the teaching and service efforts of faculty need to be acknowledged,
particularly at tenure time. The university, moreover, needs to develop a policy of protecting
its faculty from such service overload in general. The injunction for to "just say no" is an
inadequate solution since it fails to recognize the implications which this has in terms of
cutting faculty off from meaningful networks, either campus or community-based.

5. The development of formalized internships.

  This part of the recommendation is critical for any long-term faculty hiring processes that
seek to engage its faculty in graduate education and to diversify the pool of future candidates.
A number of formalized internship programs already exist across the nation for the training.
UCSC might initiate formalized internships as a step towards involving its faculty in the
development of its own doctoral and postdoctoral candidates. This would also serve the
needs of minority faculty who desire greater involvement in graduate programs.

6. Establish an information network on jobs that might be relevant for spousal hiring
       (e.g. educational institutions, state agencies, high tech firms, local businesses).

  The issues which negatively affect retention of minority faculty include those which affect
other faculty as well. These include spousal hiring as well as high housing costs. While the
issue of housing is one which is a systemwide concern, it would be in the interests of the
campus to establish an information network with other institutions or organizations in the
region that have a mutual interest and commitment to resolving such dual career concerns.

7. Follow-up group interview with all minority faculty

  The Social Science Dean should convene a meeting with minority faculty to initiate a
process that will ensure a more institutionalized commitment to such concerns. This

recommendation essentially reiterates that made by the WASC team52 last year, which is that
the Dean, along with the Affirmative Action Officer, convene several meetings with minority
faculty in the Division in order to "discuss ways of making UCSC more 'competitive' in its
retention efforts."53 Discussion here might include ways of devising systematic institutional
mechanisms for ensuring that the concerns of departments and the interests and needs of
minority faculty are pursued and integrated in a mutually constructive fashion.

  Similarly, the Chancellor (possibly with members of the Task Force on Diversity) might
consider initiating meetings with all minority faculty on campus for the express purpose of
devising and institutionalizing more broad-based strategies related to both recruitment and

8. The campus and its various units should begin to consider ways to institutionalize or
       coordinate diversity efforts so that they are better documented and more visible.

  Campus-wide and divisional data on the state of diversity need to be centralized and
evaluated at regular intervals so that faculty needs are better monitored (e.g. annual reports or
some other meaningful interval). At present, this task is left to the Office of Affirmative
Action, although faculty views are themselves rarely a feature of these reports. The Senate
Committee on Affirmative Action has itself solicited such views only twice in three decades.

  Within the context of the existing institutional arrangement, the Committee on Committee
might seek to broaden the membership of the Committee on Affirmative Action to include
faculty members from other Divisions, such as the Natural Sciences and Art, which tend to
be underrepresented. The committee or some campus-wide office (see below) should
undertake annual analyses that examine such issues as the rates of hire, promotion, and

  Towards a more systemic and coordinated effort, each Divisional Office might have some
person specifically designated to oversee the needs of minority faculty. An interview with a
faculty person upon hire might be undertaken by such a person. Likewise, voluntary
departures or separations from campus could be better documented by institutionalizing exit
interviews as part of the closure process.

  Ideally, the establishment of some campus-wide office, directly reportable to the
Chancellor, would help centralize, direct, or coordinate all diversity concerns related to
recruitment and retention. Such a central office would presuppose the existence of
Divisional-level, and perhaps, Board-level representatives, with more proximate knowledge
of faculty situations. The goal is to establish a system of accountability that is
institutionalized at every level. Different levels of the institution, in other words, need to be

52WASC is a group responsible for UCSC accreditation renewal, which takes place every eight years.

53Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Final Accreditation Report, November 1994, p. 73.

variously involved in contributing to career development and retention of minority faculty,
and thereby the institution's attractiveness to minority scholars.


To top