-
Chapter 3: Institutional Diversity Work as Intellectual Work at the University of Missouri–Columbia
- Rutgers University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
61 The University of Missouri–Columbia (MU) is the flagship institution of the four-campus University of Missouri System. Located between Kansas City and St. Louis, it is the home of more than , ranked, full-time, tenure-track faculty members who serve more than , undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. A Carnegie research university, MU maintains international collaborations with institutions in South Africa, China, North and South Korea, and elsewhere and is home to one of ten European Union centers. Although students come from all fifty states as well as ninety-eight nations, most are from Missouri and reflect regional demographics. The greatest numbers come from St. Louis and Kansas City, but a large proportion also come from relatively insulated, homogeneous rural areas and suburban communities with a strong evangelical bent. About percent of MU’s undergraduates participate in fraternities and sororities with a tradition of nurturing future state leaders. The university was established in as a whites-only men’s institution. Women were admitted thirty years later, initially only in the Normal School (today’s College of Education). In , the first African American applicant to the university was denied admission, sparking a three-year legal battle that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against MU in . Still, the university did not admit African American students until . More recently, however, MU has made strides toward building a more inclusive and welcoming campus among both students and faculty. Recent administrative initiatives have encouraged the recruitment and retention of minority faculty and students; provided diversity training for faculty, staff, and students; and explored institutional changes to promote equity and inclusiveness. To better 3 Institutional Diversity Work as Intellectual Work at the University of Missouri–Columbia JENI HART, MARGARET GROGAN, JACKIE LITT, AND ROGER WORTHINGTON understand how such initiatives fit within faculty responsibility, we provide a conceptual framework to help guide the remainder of the study. Conceptual Framework “Teaching,” “scholarship,” and “service” are terms embedded in the professoriate . At research universities such as ours, “service” work is considered the least valuable of the three roles. Diversity work is more often than not considered in the category of service and ultimately devalued. However, placing service in a category separate from other faculty roles (such as scholarship and teaching) creates false dichotomies. When faculty use their expertise, time, and energies to become involved in efforts to increase institutional and educational opportunities for marginalized students and faculty, they are connecting the different roles they undertake in academe. They are using the scholarly skills of identifying problems worthy of study, using their critical capacities to understand how the problem has (or could be framed), engaging in a presentation of evidence, and eliciting critical feedback (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff , cited in Ward ). Ward argues further that any work viewed as intellectual and tied to faculty expertise should be considered as scholarship. The knowledge that emerges from such work is most likely incorporated into the faculty member’s teaching and research projects. Boyer () used the term “scholarship of engagement” to refer to the idea of weaving together the scholarships of discovery, integration, teaching, and application , especially in the interest of addressing the most important social and civic problems. “Scholarship of engagement” suggests that the faculty member is working on projects aimed at increasing the common or public good (Checkoway ). There is an emphasis on new research methods, education for democracy , and institutional change both from the bottom up and the top down. Diversity service work that is evidence-based and embedded in research findings can be recast as an intellectual enterprise—a professional activity that is approached with the same “depth, rigor, and curiosity as any other research or pedagogical project” (Ward , ). Clearly, instead of being seen as an add-on to the central faculty roles and responsibilities, this kind of service work should be regarded as integral to the core. Women and racial minorities generally perform more institutional service work (including, but not limited to, diversity work) than other faculty members; this often constitutes a dual burden (Baez ; Glazer-Raymo ; Turner ). Women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups are disadvantaged by being placed on committees in order to ensure representation (see, for example, Baez ; Fields ; Glazer-Raymo ; Hernández and Morales ; Moody ; Tierney and Bensimon, ). HART, GROGAN, LITT, AND WORTHINGTON 62 [3.238.161.165] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 12:47 GMT) As such, the disproportionate weight of institutional service rests on the shoulders of the marginalized members of the academy, particularly when...