In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

209 In  voters in California passed Proposition , a ballot initiative that disallowed more traditional forms of affirmative action at state-funded universities and colleges. A significant setback for progressives, it marked an initial decline in the diversity of incoming student cohorts (Anderson, ; Okong’o, ). Even so, the passage of Proposition  did not mark the end of affirmative action in California so much as the beginning of an era of programmatic initiatives to achieve greater inclusiveness for women and people of color through alternative means (Pusser, ; Douglass, ). Using the University of California–Santa Barbara (UCSB) as a case study, we examine how one university responded to the challenges of a shifting terrain for affirmative action policies and the experiences of faculty members with a new institutional context for change. In this chapter, we first examine the changing political economy of higher education that helped determine the outcome of new policy initiatives on the UCSB campus. We also provide brief descriptions of some of the formal campus programs that constitute sites for faculty leadership in diversity. With that institutional context, and employing data from both qualitative interviews with faculty leaders and an online campus survey of the faculty, we explore four common themes. Our interest is in how faculty leaders define their own activities, including those involving diversifying the campus, how they came to be involved with change-making activities on the campus, their perception of the impact of these activities on policy outcomes, and the consequences of these activities for faculty careers and personal satisfaction. We then offer an analysis of significant interventions that helped contribute to innovative responses to the new post–affirmative action institutional 10 Institutional Contexts for Faculty Leadership in Diversity A University of California–Santa Barbara Case Study JOSEPH CASTRO, SARAH FENSTERMAKER, JOHN MOHR, AND DEBRA GUCKENHEIMER milieu. The story is largely one of successes, as the campus moved to implement new initiatives to overcome the limits of Proposition  and brought about significant increases in student diversity. We conclude with a contemplation of some contradictions and costs—both personal and institutional—of faculty efforts at institutional change. A Campus in Transition With , students and , faculty members, over the last decade and a half the University of California–Santa Barbara has emerged as a leading Research I institution. It joined the elite Association of American Universities, garnered five Nobel Prizes in the nine years from  to , hosts nine national research centers, and was named by Newsweek as one of “America’s hottest colleges” twice between  and . In the same time period the campus demographics shifted profoundly. Primarily known in the s and s as one of the “whitest” campuses in the UC system, UCSB has seen its proportion of underrepresented minority students climb steadily since the early s to the point that the campus was recently singled out by the Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network as being one of the top ten research universities in the nation in the graduation of students of color at the baccalaureate and doctoral levels in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. The QEM award recognized campus accomplishments in the five years after the passage of Proposition . If anything, we are doing even better today, as the number of new freshman of color has increased by about  percent since . And, although the campus is smaller than most of the other UC schools, in fall  UCSB admitted the largest number of Chicano/Latino freshman of any UC campus. Minority student enrollment now stands at  percent, with UCSB on the brink of a formal designation as a “Hispanic Serving Institution.” All of this has occurred even as the university has had to adapt to the cessation of traditional affirmative action programs and as the competition for undergraduate enrollment has spiked sharply upward. Although the size of campus enrollment has changed little, the number of undergraduate applicants has more than doubled in the last decade (and nearly a third of undergraduate applicants in  had a GPA of . or higher). Although a great many factors contributed to changes of this magnitude, we are convinced that programs and policies put in place by UCSB administrators and faculty have been instrumental in bringing about the successful enrollment and retention of ever more students of color at UCSB. Recognizing success is different from explaining it, however. We know from our own experience and observation on a campus that values (and frequently valorizes) a “shared governance” model that faculty members have played an important CASTRO, FENSTERMAKER, MOHR, AND GUCKENHEIMER 210...

Share