The Diversity Challenge: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College Campus

10. Ethnic Organizations and Ethnic Attitudes on Campus

Chapter 10 Ethnic Organizations and Ethnic Attitudes on Campus I n this chapter, we focus on an issue that has been a central focus of the multiculturalism debate for some time, namely, whether ethnically oriented student organizations, such as the African Student Union, the Vietnamese Student Union, and the Latin American Student Association, increase or decrease the level of ethnic tension and conflict on campus. As we recall from chapter 2, scholars weighing in on this debate fall into two camps. On the one hand, there are those who argue that such ethnically oriented student organizations are detrimental to the creation and maintenance of a common student identity and tend to exacerbate ethnic tensions by further isolating students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds into mutually suspicious and hostile ethnic enclaves (see, for example, D’Souza 1991). On the other hand, the defenders of such student organizations argue that, rather than increasing the level of ethnic strife on campus, they contribute to student life by providing minority students with a safe and welcoming environment and a greater sense of belonging to the university community. This increased sense of belonging to the wider university community, they argue , leads to wider and more intimate contact with other ethnic groups (see, for example, Ethier and Deaux 1994; Hurtado, Dey, and Treviño 1994; Hurtado et al. 1999; Moran, Algier, and Yengo 1994; Reyes 1998; Rooney 1985; Treviño 1992). We refer to this as the “multicultural” or “pluralist” argument. Despite the, at times, sharply argued debate concerning this issue, there has been surprisingly little research devoted to it. The little work that has been done suggests that students join minority racial-ethnic organizations for the purpose of identity enhancement and that this increased comfort with their identity leads to greater interest in cross-cultural contacts, a richer sense of belonging to the university community, and greater integration into broader campus life. For example, Michelle Gilliard (1996) found that, for African American students , participation in ethnically oriented activities is correlated with enhanced social involvement, increased social interactions with faculty, and greater use of support services at predominantly white institutions. Overall, this line of research appears to support a multicultural perspective . Participation in ethnic organizations enables minority students to experience less threat to their social identities and to feel a greater sense of inclusion in campus life, and thus contributes to an improved intergroup atmosphere on campus. While much of this earlier work has focused on the effects that minority ethnic organizations have on academic achievement (Gilliard 1996), attrition rates (Guiffrida 2003; Reyes 1998; Tinto 1993), and the integration of minority students into campus life (Treviño 1992), relatively little research has specifically focused on the broad effects of these student organizations on intergroup attitudes and behaviors. Furthermore, many of these earlier studies used cross-sectional research designs or panel studies over relatively short time intervals. In an extension of this earlier work, our longitudinal study explores both the possible effects of ethnically oriented student organizations that primarily serve minority students and the effects, both positive and negative, of student organizations that primarily serve white students. Primary among such predominantly white student organizations are the fraternities and sororities belonging to the “Greek system.” The history of American fraternities and sororities makes it clear that Greek organizations have served as exclusive enclaves of ethnic and economic privilege for most of American history. The first college social fraternity with a Greek-letter name, Phi Beta Kappa, included a secret initiation ritual and was established at William and Mary College in 1776. The first nonsecret social fraternity began in 1825 at Union College in Schenectady, New York. In the 1870s, men’s fraternities were joined by women’s fraternities, which were called “sororities.” Although these fraEthnic Organizations and Ethnic Attitudes on Campus 229 ternities and sororities were exclusionist in both racial and socioeconomic terms, explicitly discriminatory entrance requirements did not become widespread until the beginning of the twentieth century. By 1928, more than half of the national fraternities and sororities had written rules and constitutions explicitly excluding applicants on the basis of religious affiliation and “race.” Furthermore, on a large number of American campuses interfraternity councils admitted only white Christian fraternities and sororities to their membership (Lee 1955a, 1955b). These explicitly discriminatory practices were not seriously challenged until the end of World War II. By the end of the 1970s, explicitly discriminatory entrance...