This article examines administrators' perspectives related to embracing and fulfilling a diversityand access-centered mission at urban-serving universities with high Latinx enrollment.Considering today's context of higher education-whereby access and opportunities for Latinx and other marginalized populations has become increasingly stratified-this timely work seeks to foster dialogue regarding how to best uphold an access-centered mission. To achieve this, we framed the study using a critical lens that defines leadership for access as a leadership model that must focus on transformation for the greater good. Our critical lens also critically interrogates the meaning and implementation of "diversity" agendas on America's college campuses. Organizational sensemaking offers an analytical frame to situate administrators' accounts and trigger sensemaking processes, particularly with respect to identity and enactment of the environment. The study analyzes interviews with 21 administrators across four urban campuses within the same state and examines the administrators' commitment to and fulfillment of an access-and diversity-centered mission. The study categorizes the administrators' perspectives into three key areas: 1) diversity as an assumed identity as a byproduct of situation within a diverse region; 2) diversity as a double-edged sword; and 3) enactment of a diversity-and access-centered mission.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the policies, practices and procedures of inclusion across three universities in the San Francisco Bay Area: Stanford University, the University of San Francisco, and the University of California at Berkeley. Using a rubric which measures inclusion based on a three point set of criteria (equity, sustainability, and mission-alignment), the authors analyzed four common statements in which inclusion policies for traditionally marginalized students and students of color are contained: university mission statement, diversity program mission statement, diversity statement, and values/goals statements. The analysis revealed that although the values/goals statements align with the missions of the three institutions analyzed, there is often incongruence between the diversity program mission and diversity statements and the missions of the universities. This tension reflects the practice of institutions of higher education to draft policies that reflect inclusion language for diverse populations without making the necessary structural changes that impact values, attitudes, and practices.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract