http://amaejournal.utsa.edu ISSN: 2377-9187 Volume 11 Issue 3 2017 AMAE Invited Special Issue Answering the Call: Hispanic-Serving Institutions as Leaders in the Quest for Access, Excellence, and Equity in American Higher Education Guest Editors Tracy Arámbula Ballysingh Caroline S. Turner University of Vermont California State University, Sacramento Desiree D. Zerquera Victor B. Sáenz University of San Francisco The University of Texas at Austin Editors Patricia Sánchez The University of Texas at San Antonio Antonio J. Camacho AMAE, Inc. Associate Editors Julie L. Figueroa Sacramento State Lucila D. Ek The University of Texas at San Antonio Association of Mexican American Educators Journal A peer-reviewed, open access journal http://amaejournal.utsa.edu/ Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 223 Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Where is the Diversity? Frances Contreras University of California, San Diego Abstract Diversity in higher education with respect to faculty composition and executive leadership remains an elusive goal for many institutions of higher education. Over thirty years of research on faculty of color in academe has found that the pipeline for faculty of color still remains a significant challenge across higher education institutions and sectors (Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, & 2008). For Hispanic-Serving Institutions, that possess a diverse base of students, faculty diversity, and the presence of Latino faculty, plays a critical role in academic excellence, mentorship and overall climate (Milem, 2003; Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). This study examined two systems of higher education in California to explore the trends in Latino faculty diversity, given the critical mass of Latino undergraduates at both the community college and California State University systems of higher education. Findings suggest a disconnect between student diversity and tenure line faculty diversity exists. For HSI systems, like those present in California, faculty diversity may play an even greater role in raising Latino college completion, ultimately transforming the next generation of Latinos in California. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24974/amae.11.3.368 Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 224 Introduction Faculty diversity in higher education, particularly in Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Minority Serving Institutions, (MSIs) is considered an important component of academic excellence, particularly for public institutions that have an additional layer of responsibility to educate and serve the state population. HSIs play a distinct role in educating large numbers of Latinx students, and are increasingly seen as avenues for raising Latinx college completion rates by policy making bodies and higher education institutions. Faculty play a critical role in fostering students with the critical thinking, writing, and analytical skills in higher education (Gurin, 1999; Milem, 2003). And diverse faculty consider mentoring the next generation of students of color and first generations as a personal responsibility, given their experiences in the academy, often being “the first” or “only faculty member” in their respective departments (Turner & Gonzalez, 2014). Faculty diversity plays a key role in providing students with access to mentors, role models, diverse perspectives and approaches to pedagogy in college which helps to challenge the world views of college students and helps them to develop their critical thinking and analytical skills (Hurtado, 2001; Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012, Hurtado & Ruiz Alvarado, 2015; Umbach, 2006; Turner, 2015). Diverse faculty are more likely to mentor students of color, have larger advising loads than their peers, are more engaged with student organizations, and are called to service more often than non-diverse faculty (Baez, 2000; Griffin, 2012; Lopez Figueroa & Rodriguez, 2015; Turner, 2015). Lopez Figueroa and Rodriguez (2015) for example, present a new framework for the mentoring, acknowledging how “mentoring is a racially and culturally mediated experience, instead of a race neutral, objective interaction” (p. 23). That is, for students of color operating in the meritocratic hierarchical academy of higher education, mentoring is often happenstance, and less targeted for students of color. We see this when students of color lack mentors from their fields due to the dearth of Latino or faculty of color in their departments, where they are left to find mentors on their own, often from different fields of study (Lopez Figueroa & Rodriguez, 2015). Exposure to diverse mentors is an important element to academic success, post graduate aspirations and preparation. Since college for many undergraduate students also represents a critical stage in student identity formation and goal setting, having access to diverse faculty plays an even greater role in exposing students to multiple perspectives, expertise, and potentially a shared experience, Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 225 culture or language (Turner, 2015). However, postsecondary institutions and systems typically have struggled with increasing and sustaining underrepresented faculty diversity, even if the student body has become increasingly diverse over time, as is the case for the two-year Community College system and the four-year California State University system in California. For Hispanic-Serving Institutions, much of the attention is being placed on student services and outcomes rather than the infrastructure that exists to support student academic success. That is, it is equally critical to examine the infrastructural elements within colleges and universities that may better support historically underrepresented, first-generation Latino students to succeed in college. Faculty diversity (among tenure line faculty) has been noted as an important feature within postsecondary institutions (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012; Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008; Turner, 2015) for student support through diverse pedagogies, perspectives, and course content, which is integrally intertwined with promoting academic excellence (Hurtado, 2001). This article presents an examination of faculty diversity in two large systems of higher education in California, specifically the California Community Colleges and the California State University systems which serve the majority of Latino college students in the state of California. While each institutional sector has unique priorities and overarching missions, the dearth of Latinos in tenure line faculty positions is a common feature across these institutional contexts, particularly given the unprecedented demographic growth of Latino students in these respective systems in the past fifteen years. Because California is home to 152 Hispanic-Serving Institutions (Excelencia in Education, 2016), the limited representation of Latinos in tenure line faculty positions suggests the need for greater succession planning efforts that specifically addresses diversity. It is even more critical for such systems to reflect on the infrastructure that exists to better serve Latino students to ensure they are not commodified for enrollment numbers (Contreras-McGavin, 2009), rather Chicano/Latinx students are strategically invested in and cultivated for academic success, graduation and graduate school enrollment. For HSI systems, like those present in California, faculty diversity may play an even greater role in raising Latino college completion and transform the next generation of Latinos in California (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 226 Relevant Literature Research related faculty diversity has been applied to higher education generally (See Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008), and less so to Hispanic-Serving Institutions with respect the the limited pool of Latinos in administrative and executive positions (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). Faculty diversity has been noted as an important feature of academic excellence in postsecondary institutions because it enhances the overall learning experience of college students through the classroom environment, research experiences, and campus climate (Hurtado, 2001; Gurin et al., 2002). Particularly for underrepresented students in higher education, faculty of color play a pivotal role in mentorship and research apprenticeship, as they are more likely than their peers to mentor historically underrepresented students (Milem, 2003). Faculty diversity also has the potential to provide a pathway for diverse campus leadership and Latinos in administrative positions (Haro & Lara, 2003; Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013) within higher education institutions and systems. Impact on Student Success Literature related to the impact of faculty diversity on student outcomes and success has been limited (Jacobi, 1991; Umbach, 2006; Sedlacek et al., 2007). Umbach (2006) conducted a national study of 13,499 faculty at 134 colleges where he explored the role of faculty of color on select student outcomes. He found that faculty of color contribute to the education of their students in important ways, including utilizing diverse pedagogical approaches with their students, providing broader course offerings to students, and they were more likely to interact with their students more frequently than their white counterparts (Umbach, 2006). Umbach argues that “greater structural diversity leads to an increased use of effective educational practices” with their students. This study represents one of the first attempts to quantify faculty practices and levels of engagement with their students, noting distinct approaches by racial and ethnic background as well as gender. Hurtado and Ruiz-Alvarado (2015) also examined the role that instructors within HSIs play in utilizing a student centered approaches to pedagogy that better engaged Latino students, including reflective writing practices, critical discussions, group projects and journaling practices (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2015). Their study further strengthens earlier arguments made in the higher education literature on the value of diverse faculty as having an impact on student outcomes Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 227 (Umbach, 2006). Therefore, HSIs play a critical role in providing a more engaging academic context that supports student learning and represents tangible approaches to “serving” Latino students. Núñez (2015) notes the existence of empirical evidence to suggest that Hispanic- Serving Institutions do in fact make distinctive efforts to “serve” their Latino students. However, the retention and graduation rates, longer completion rates, also suggest that a greater critical mass of Latino faculty and faculty of color might greatly improve the ability of HSIs in optimally serving their growing Latino student bodies (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). In one of the most relevant studies related to the impact of faculty diversity on student outcomes, Tran, Gaetane, Powers, Bell, and Sanders (2016) examines the role that faculty play in the success of graduate students (n=198) as their work toward their graduate degrees. Using survey data from graduate students on the role of institutional resources and agents in supporting their degree completion, Laitno students were more likely to acknowledge that faculty mentors played a significant role in their academic success compared to their peers. The study further found that because Latinx students do not possess comparable levels of social capital to their peers and are largely first-generation college students, faculty play an even greater role in supporting their academic pathway and success because they helped to facilitate social capital (Tran et al., 2016, p. 5). This study conveys the critical role that faculty mentorship plays in the pathways and lives of Latinx graduate students attending graduate programs in an Hispanic-Serving Institution and the potential that exists for such efforts to facilitate graduate degree completion, doctoral degree enrollment and ultimately transition to faculty roles in HSIs. Systemic diversity In an extensive critical literature review of faculty of color in Academia, Turner et al. (2008) examined twenty years of literature related to the experiences, supports and challenges that faculty of color encountered at the departmental, institutional and national contexts (Turner et al., 2008). This work sheds light on the challenges and supports necessary to increase faculty diversity in higher education. The central challenges identified through this rigorous literature review were primarily related to the documented barriers to promotion and tenure among faculty of color, such as tokenism, institutional racism, navigating departmental politics, and salary inequities. The article further noted best practices that had measurable Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 228 impact on faculty of color who where successful in academia, including the importance of mentorship, institutional policies and merit practices that recognized contributions to diversity, and salary equity. For the few studies related to faculty diversity within HSIs, the unit of analysis for these studies has been on the institutional leaders, noting the needs that exist within HSIs (De Los Santos & De Los Santos, 2003; de Los Santos & Vega, 2008) or the trends in the dearth of faculty and leaders as it applies to four-year institutions (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). For example, De Los Santos Jr. and De Los Santos (2003) conducted a study of Chancellors, Presidents, and CEOs of Hispanic-Serving Institutions using a survey that explored the central issues and challenges they faced as leaders within their institutions. With a sample of 91 university Presidents and CEOs, De Los Santos Jr, and De Los Santos (2003) found that HSI leaders noted funding, technology, and faculty as their top three concerns in managing their institutions. Faculty diversity, specifically “the ability to attract qualified faculty—especially Hispanic and other underrepresented groups” was raised as a key challenge within the HSI leaders surveyed (De Los Santos, Jr., & De Los Santos, 2003, p. 385). Hurtado and Ruiz (2012) provide an important yet critical overview of Hispanic-Serving Institutions and offer a new framework for understanding this institutional type. They note in particular that there are “multiple aspects of institutional identity and transformation” that have been difficult to identify given the ever changing nature of Hispanic-Serving Institutions and the degree to which the HSI identity is adopted by postsecondary institutions (Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012, p. 9). That is, colleges may have a critical mass of Latino students, the 25% required to be labeled and HSI, however, in practice may not have full adopted this identity with respect to tailoring essential services for Latino students to be academically successful (Contreras, Malcom, & Benison, 2008; Hurtado & Ruiz, 2012). Rightfully, Hurtado and Ruiz (2012) acknowledge that the HSI identity is an “evolving concept” (p. 9). Finally, in a report card on Latina/o Leadership in California’s public universities, Santos and Acevedo-Gil (2013) take a systemic approach in examining Latino faculty, students and executives, in the CSU and UC systems. However, this analysis was focused on Latino faculty within two systems, not necessarily the HSIs within these respective systems. They explored the overall status of diversity across these subgroups of stakeholders in these two public systems of higher education and found that the UC system and CSU system has a sizable gap in Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 229 the number of Latino executives and faculty in both systems, requiring them to better plan for the continued demographic shifts California will witness among the pool of prospective college students. This article extends the work of Santos and Acevedo-Gil (2013), by concentrating on the California State University system, that I consider to be a largely HSI system, with over 78% of its colleges officially reaching the HSI designation over the past 20 years. However, since the majority of Latino students that transition to college in California begin their postsecondary path in the community college system, this study also examines the two-year public education system that has also transformed into an “HSI system” in the past twenty years in California. Challenges to Latinx Faculty: The Postsecondary Pipeline There are several reasons for smaller pools of Chicano/Latinx faculty across fields compared to their peers. Well documented issues of persistence help to explain the limited number of Chicanx/Latinx faculty across the United States, including: academic challenges based on attending low resource schools in K-12, high levels of remediation, being first-generation without a clear understanding of college options, expectations and competitive environments, limited access and knowledge of academic supports, and working more than 20 hours per week (Contreras, 2011; Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Perna, 2010; Reyes & Nora 2005). Another well documented phenomenon for Latinx students in higher education is the pipeline, or pool of students that diminishes as students’ progress through higher education. Overall, the trends of Latinx students enrolling in four-year institutions immediately after high schools has been lower than their peers, as noted in Figure 1. Since 1976, Latinx progress in four-year degree enrollment has remained largely flat until recent years (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 230 Figure 1. Percent of students in four-year postsecondary institutions by race/ethnicity, select years 1976-2014. Adapted from NCES (2016). Figure 2. College completion rates by race ethnicity, students entering college 2010. Adapted from National Clearinghouse Research Center (2017). 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1976 1980 1990 2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 231 One of the most critical challenges is the lower college completion rates among Latinx students compared to their peers. If students are not completing their undergraduate degrees, then transition to post baccalaureate degrees influences are also limited. HSIs for example, while possessing critical masses of Latino students, struggle with college transfer and completion rates for the myriad of reasons noted above (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). Figure 2 shows the national completion rates for Latinx students enrolled in four-year colleges. Shapiro et al. (2017) found the lowest overall four-year completion rates among Latino and African American students and higher proportions of Latinx students no longer enrolled in college after a six-year period. These data also convey higher departure rates for Latino and African American students compared to all other groups examined. It is not surprising then, why a limited pool of students exists at the doctoral level, and graduate degree production is limited. Table 1 shows the percentage of doctorate degrees conferred in the aggregate by race/ethnicity from 1976 through 2015. The national data confirms the majority of students earning doctorate degrees in the United States remains individuals from White backgrounds, while Latinos remain less than 8% of all doctorate degrees conferred since 1976. Concerted efforts therefore are critical to improving doctorate degree production for Latinx students in order to increase faculty diversity in postsecondary institutions. Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 232 Table 1 Doctor's Degrees Conferred by Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex of Student: Selected Years, 1976-77 through 2014-15 Year White Black Latino Asian/ Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native 1976-77 91.9 4.1 1.8 1.9 0.3 1980-81 90.9 4.2 2.1 2.4 0.3 1990-91 86.2 4.7 3.4 5.4 0.4 1998-99 78.3 6.7 4.7 9.6 0.7 1999-2000 77.9 6.6 4.7 10.0 0.7 2000-01 77.0 6.6 4.9 10.8 0.7 2001-02 76.5 7.1 4.9 10.8 0.7 2002-03 76.2 7.0 5.1 11.1 0.7 2003-04 75.8 7.2 5.2 11.1 0.7 2004-05 75.8 7.2 5.2 11.1 0.7 2005-06 75.6 7.1 5.2 11.4 0.8 2006-07 74.8 7.4 5.2 11.8 0.7 2007-08 75.0 7.3 5.3 11.7 0.7 2008-09 74.6 7.5 5.5 11.7 0.7 2009-10 74.4 7.4 5.8 11.8 0.7 2010-11 73.2 7.5 6.0 11.8 0.7 2011-12 72.5 7.8 6.1 11.9 0.6 2012-13 71.6 7.8 6.5 11.9 0.6 2013-14 70.4 8.1 6.8 12.2 0.6 2014-15 69.3 8.4 7.2 12.2 0.6 Note. Adapted from NCES, Table 324.20. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 233 Hispanic-Serving Institutions in California California is home to one of the most diverse base of residents in the nation largely due to the ongoing demographic growth of the Mexican American/Latinx community. Latinos in California represented 39% of the state’s population in 2015, surpassing the White population, which constituted 37% of the state’s residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). California is unique in that it has surpassed the White population and now represents a state where Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, and Mixed-Race residents together, constitute the majority of the state’s residents. As a result of this tremendous diversity, the composition of K-12 schools has also changed, with Latino students comprising over 54% of K- 12 students in 2016. Latino students are a large base of students that institutions of higher education will need to recruit as they work to secure their undergraduate enrollments. The community college system in California is the largest two-year college system in the United States, with 113 institutions serving 2.1 million students in 2016 (CSU Chancellor’s Office, 2016). The mission of the California Community Colleges, like other two-year college systems, is to provide open access to postsecondary institutions for the state’s residents. The Community College system in California is also the most diverse, with over half percent of its students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. In addition, 42.5% of the students attending California’s community colleges in 2015 were Chicano/Latino. The community college system in the state however, has long struggled with two-year completion and transfer to the four-year sector for its underrepresented students. Because the community college system in California is so robust, understanding how to better serve the critical mass of Latino students in this system, is increasingly relevant for the system to explore and take action. The California State University serves over 473,000 students system-wide, and is extremely diverse, with Latinos constituting 37% of the CSU system in 2015. White students comprise the second largest group attending the CSU system, with 25.7% in 2015. In addition, eighteen out of the twenty-three CSU campuses are designated as Hispanic-Serving Institutions. The CSU system is also widely known for preparing California’s teacher workforce, with the majority of CSUs offering teacher credentials and special certifications to teach at the K-12 level. Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 234 Postsecondary Policy Context In 2012, the California legislature passed the Student Success Act of 2012, which attempted to restructure student success and establish a framework to improve the overall outcomes of community college students in the state. This act provides a framework for assessment for all community colleges, and placed an emphasis on raising the completion rates for historically underrepresented students in the community college system. However, previous research challenges the efficacy of the rubrics used by the scorecard, given that the model is largely focused on a full time student population. Yet, the majority of students of color are enrolled part-time in the community college system which presents challenges for accurately accounting for their time-to-degree, hours spent working, and time-to-transfer rates (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). The Bill does however, provide additional infrastructure and assessment support for the Community Colleges and attention to this population with respect to student achievement and outcomes. However, assessment that replicates and outdated model, one that doesn’t fully acknowledge the student population it serves, limits the overall picture and our understanding of student progress and academic success (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). The CSU system also has a college completion initiative, called the CSU Graduation Initiative, GI 2025 Initiative, mandated in part, through Assembly Bill 1602 in 2016. The Bill was passed as part of the Budget act “The Library Services Act of 2016” and provides a one-time $35 million grant funding for all campuses within the CSU system to focus on increasing graduation rates, develop and adopt a graduation rate improvement plan. Specifically, by 2025, all CSUs are expected to raise their four-year college completion rate to 40% and their six-year graduation rate to 70%, and eliminate all achievement gaps that exist for special populations (e.g., Pell Eligible, First-generation, etc.) (CSU Graduation Initiative, 2025). This ambitious policy framework responds to the ongoing criticism of the system for its graduation rates, particularly among Latino and underrepresented students. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 235 Methods For the purpose of this article, systemic data were utilized to assess student and faculty trends, including historical data from CPEC (California Postsecondary Education Commission), 1 Data Mart from the California Community College system and the Office of Analytic Studies from the CSU system. For the Community College system in California, data was used to analyze faculty diversity over a fifteen-year period. Disaggregated faculty data by race/ethnicity and student level data were acquired from Datamart, a secondary data system managed and overseen by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. Student diversity was also analyzed to provide valuable context for the transformation that has occurred within the California two-year system to becoming an HSI system. Descriptive statistics and analyses are relevant to understanding the baseline for faculty diversity as well as trends over time. For the California State University System, data was analyzed using the secondary data reported by the Office of Analytic Studies for the CSU system, which collects data from all 23 CSU campuses with respect to enrollment, graduation, staffing and select outcomes like retention and graduation. In addition, secondary data and reports produced by the California Faculty Association were utilized for this analysis. Finally, historical data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission also complemented the Office of Analytic studies for both the community college and CSU systems for historical trend data. Analysis This analysis highlights and expands upon previous work that notes the disconnect between rapid demographic shifts in higher education in California, with sizable proportions of Latino students entering the two-year Community College and four-year CSU systems, and the limited growth of Latino tenure line faculty in these respective systems (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013; Contreras & Contreras, 2015). At the same time, the CSU system and the community college systems have their own respective completion initiatives, have garnered financial support from the California legislature, and have developed metrics focusing solely on student outcomes rather than also assessing the infrastructural changes necessary to sustain academic support and degree completion. 1 Data however from CPEC was unavailable as of 2010 when the commission was closed due to funding. Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 236 Student enrollments over a fifteen-year period in the California community college system for example, shows Chicano/Latinx student enrollments have steadily increased. The fact that 95 of the community colleges can be considered Hispanic-Serving Institutions (84%), based on their Latino student enrollment greater than 25%, the system can largely be considered an HSI system. No other system of higher education in the United States has the level of student diversity that exists in the California community college system. However, as noted in previous research on HSIs, access alone does not necessarily translate into student success (Contreras et al., 2008) nor an institutional mission, identity, and effort to raise Latino student academic outcomes. Figure 3 shows the growing and steady gap in student enrollment between Latinos and Whites, a phenomenon that continues to widen. Chicano/Latino students constitute the single largest ethnic group enrolling California community colleges. Figure 3. Trends in Community College Enrollment in California, Latinos & Whites, 2000-2015. Adapted from California Postsecondary Education Commission. The faculty data for the California community colleges across select years since Fall 2000, show a very different story from the student enrollment growth seen in Figure 1, one of ongoing underrepresentation of Latino faculty across the same years examined. While modest improvement over a fifteen-year period has occurred, it has not kept pace with the sheer 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Community College Enrollment, 2000-2015 Latino White Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 237 volume of Latino students entering the community colleges in California. And the largest growth in faculty members has occurred among the lecturer pool of faculty, a less secure line of faculty employment, and with varying levels of access to voting rights within academic departments. Given the demographic transformation of the community college system over the past twenty years, it is increasingly important to examine the faculty diversity trends, given the benefits having a diverse faculty has on students of color in higher education. A few trends in the community college faculty data in Table 1 are important to note. First, that the Latino faculty pool has witnessed growth, however, there remains a significant gap between the proportion of tenure line faculty and students across the community college system. In fact, the majority of Latinos in faculty positions, with respect to critical mass, are seen in the temporary pool of instructors since 2000 with 2,994 Latinos in this pool compared to 75% (n=27,131) of White instructors in the temporary pool in 2000; and 5,004 of Latinos compared to 26,185 of White temporary faculty in 2015. The greatest percentage growth, five percent between 2000-2015, also occurred among this pool of temporary community college instructors growing from 45.2% of instructors in 2000 to 47.5% in 2015. It is important to note that the data are limited in understanding whether the faculty that began teaching in the system as temporary faculty actually acquired more permanent positions within the system. However, it suggests that the greatest faculty investment being made by the State’s community college system is in the temporary pool of faculty members rather than tenure line faculty. Tenured faculty in academic positions from 2000-2015 showed a decline overall, going from 20.8% in 2000 of faculty to 19.9% in 2015. In terms of overall staff in the community college system, the temporary pool of faculty, as seen in Table 2, comprise the largest proportion of employees (48% in 2015) across the system. The challenge with having temporary faculty is the limited ownership these faculty members possess to contributing to curriculum expectations and standards, lack of office space and comparable voting rights to tenured faculty members and overall lack of integration to the academic department and overall campus climate. The community college tenure line faculty pool is important to monitor for a number of reasons. First, students of color are in need of academic connections when they are on campus. Having role models who share a common experience, culture, language, or history provides students with a tangible connection to their college environment. Second, faculty of color are Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 238 more likely to mentor students of color and take on a sizable advising and mentorship load, ranging from undergraduate research projects, to serving as mentors (ie., Puente Mentors) or faculty (Milem, 2003; Turner, 2015; Contreras & Gandara, 2006). Third, tenured line faculty members become part of the pool poised to become department and institutional leaders. The educational administrator data for example, showed Latinos at 17.2% in 2015 compared to 54.8% of Whites in this same leadership category. Having diversity in the tenured faculty pool establishes a base and primer for institutional leadership and diversity to be cultivated and developed (Haro & Lara, 2003; Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). For these reasons, having faculty members that are tenured rather than occupying the broad pool of contingent/temporary faculty is critical to creating an infrastructure that supports academic development, support and ultimately institutional success. The temporary pool is also important to assess given the larger critical mass of this group. These are the instructors that are more likely to teach the students in need of development courses, rather than the tenure faculty in a given community college setting. A significant challenge exists within community colleges, with respect to motivating more senior and seasoned faculty to teach the students in need of the greatest academic support (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). As a result, temporary faculty are more likely to teach the students with the highest level of academic support needs while the tenure line faculty possess greater input on their course schedules. Community college faculty are often quick to place the onus of achievement on students rather than critically explore the role of faculty in student failure rates in remedial track courses. In addition, tutoring and academic supports are first noted as the solution, rather than assigning tenured faculty members to teach the developmental courses where students in need of highly skilled instructors first enroll (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). The California State University System The CSU system is also one of the largest public higher education systems in California, serving close to half a million students. The greatest growth in the number of students in the CSU system has occurred among the Chicano/Latino student population while other groups have remained relatively flat or declined in student enrollment from 2006-2015. As more Latino students constitute the K-12 system in California (55% in 2016), and seek postsecondary Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 239 Table 2 California Community College Faculty by Race/Ethnicity & Level, 2000-2015 Fall 2000 Fall 2000 Fall 2005 Fall 2005 Fall 2010 Fall 2010 Fall 2015 Fall 2015 Employee Count Employee Count (%) Employee Count Employee Count (%) Employee Count Employee Count (%) Employee Count Employee Count (%) State of California Total 80,377 100.00% 86,791 100.00% 89,033 100.00% 89,104 100.00% Educational Administrator Total 1,818 2.26% 1,932 2.23% 2,031 2.28% 2,025 2.27% African-American 202 11.11% 201 10.40% 202 9.95% 216 10.67% American Indian/Alaskan Native 24 1.32% 21 1.09% 16 0.79% 15 0.74% Asian 116 6.38% 136 7.04% 147 7.24% 174 8.59% Hispanic 248 13.64% 290 15.01% 306 15.07% 348 17.19% Multi-Ethnicity 0.00% 0.00% 12 0.59% 19 0.94% Pacific Islander 4 0.22% 7 0.36% 7 0.34% 14 0.69% Unknown 29 1.60% 62 3.21% 115 5.66% 129 6.37% White Non-Hispanic 1,195 65.73% 1,215 62.89% 1,226 60.36% 1,110 54.81% Academic, Tenured/Tenure Track Total 16,689 20.76% 17,594 20.27% 18,086 20.31% 17,709 19.87% African-American 1,072 6.42% 1,100 6.25% 1,110 6.14% 1,032 5.83% American Indian/Alaskan Native 183 1.10% 199 1.13% 167 0.92% 127 0.72% Asian 1,184 7.09% 1,412 8.03% 1,501 8.30% 1,681 9.49% Hispanic 1,742 10.44% 2,009 11.42% 2,320 12.83% 2,650 14.96% Multi-Ethnicity 0.00% 0.00% 96 0.53% 188 1.06% Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 240 Pacific Islander 29 0.17% 37 0.21% 99 0.55% 93 0.53% Unknown 265 1.59% 434 2.47% 1,004 5.55% 999 5.64% White Non-Hispanic 12,214 73.19% 12,403 70.50% 11,789 65.18% 10,939 61.77% Academic, Temporary Total 36,335 45.21% 40,122 46.23% 41,029 46.08% 42,325 47.50% African-American 1,762 4.85% 1,930 4.81% 1,995 4.86% 2,125 5.02% American Indian/Alaskan Native 321 0.88% 317 0.79% 293 0.71% 280 0.66% Asian 2,363 6.50% 3,158 7.87% 3,452 8.41% 4,280 10.11% Hispanic 2,994 8.24% 3,815 9.51% 4,412 10.75% 5,503 13.00% Multi-Ethnicity 0.00% 0.00% 123 0.30% 420 0.99% Pacific Islander 82 0.23% 114 0.28% 209 0.51% 258 0.61% Unknown 1,682 4.63% 1,979 4.93% 3,225 7.86% 3,274 7.74% White Non-Hispanic 27,131 74.67% 28,809 71.80% 27,320 66.59% 26,185 61.87% Classified Total 25,535 31.77% 27,143 31.27% 27,887 31.32% 27,045 30.35% African-American 2,740 10.73% 2,556 9.42% 2,383 8.55% 2,220 8.21% American Indian/Alaskan Native 307 1.20% 290 1.07% 265 0.95% 213 0.79% Asian 2,526 9.89% 3,199 11.79% 3,323 11.92% 3,277 12.12% Hispanic 4,974 19.48% 6,167 22.72% 6,773 24.29% 7,505 27.75% Multi-Ethnicity 0.00% 0.00% 145 0.52% 319 1.18% Pacific Islander 106 0.42% 143 0.53% 190 0.68% 209 0.77% Unknown 756 2.96% 837 3.08% 1,671 5.99% 1,554 5.75% White Non-Hispanic 14,126 55.32% 13,951 51.40% 13,137 47.11% 11,748 43.44% Note. Adapted from California Community College Data Mart. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 241 options close to home (Perez & McDonough, 2008; Turley, 2006) the CSU system is a viable option for students transitioning to college. These trends illustrate how the system has transformed into an HSI system given the ongoing growth trends in Latino student enrollment. Chicano/Latinx students are attending the CSU system in large numbers, given the strong preference of Latinx students to remain closer to home or live at home during their undergraduate years (Desmond & Turley, 2009; Hurtado, 1997). Latinx students are therefore more likely than their college going peers to only apply to regional institutions. Thus, in a state like California, this segment is likely to become even more diverse, as more Latinx students graduate high school and transition to college. Figure 4. Enrollment in California State University system by race/ethnicity 2006-2015. Adapted from California Faculty Association (2016). Figure 5 further shows the difference between faculty diversity and student enrollment by race/ethnicity across CSU campuses. The percentage of Latino faculty is almost three times less than the critical mass of Latino students in the CSU system. While few would argue that faculty parity with the student demographic composition is a requirement for student success or outcomes (Jacobi, 1991), having access to Latino and diverse faculty that has been documented in the field of higher education as having a strong commitment to mentoring, a greater likelihood of mentoring students of color, offer more regular and critical feedback, and 0 10 20 30 40 50 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CSU Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2006-15 Mexican American/Latino White Asian American Black Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 242 engage in diverse modes of pedagogical delivery are factors that faculty of color contribute toward in postsecondary institutions (Lopez Figueroa & Rodriguez, 2015; Milem, 2003; Turner, 2015; Turner & Gonzalez, 2014). Figure 5. Faculty diversity compared to students, 2015. Adapted from California Faculty Association (2016). In addition to understanding the composition of faculty diversity compared to students, it is also important to assess faculty diversity by rank. Table 3 delineates the percent of CSU faculty by race/ethnicity in Fall 2015. The data show similar trends to the CC system in California, with the Latino Lecturer pool comprising the largest proportion of faculty in the system at 10.4% compared to 8.3% of professors, and 9.1% of Assistant Professors. Latino faculty are the least likely to be in the Full Professor Rank, and Associate Professor (tenured) ranks compared to Assistant Professors and Lecturers. Conversely, the greatest proportion of White faculty in the CSU system are at the rank of Full Professor (68.4%) and Associate Professor at 59.2%. Across All categories of faculty in the CSU system, White faculty are the majority by a sizable proportion. The challenge and opportunity for these respective public higher education systems is to move beyond acknowledging the limited diversity of their respective professoriates, and to also establish tangible efforts to alter the composition of their faculty by expanding the pools of FTE faculty and mentoring Latinx and diverse faculty hires to cultivate their success within the institution and system. The limited proportion of Latino full professors suggest a limited likelihood of tenure and security of employment beyond the Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 243 Assistant Professor rank. Literature on this drop off from the Assistant level to Full Professor has pointed to the level of racial privilege that exists in the Professoriate nationally (Contreras & Gandara, 2006; Haro & Lara, 2003; Jayakuma et al., 2009). Table 3 Percentage of CSU Faculty by Race/Ethnicity & Rank (Percent), Fall 2015 Race/Ethnicity Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer White 68.4 59.2 54.3 64.2 Asian/Pacific Islander 16.5 20.3 20.2 10.7 Latina/x 8.3 8.2 9.1 10.4 Black 3.1 4.9 3.9 4.0 American Indian .6 .6 1.0 .7 Note. Adapted from California Faculty Association (2016). Because lecturers are a group of non-tenure line faculty that has expanded over the past two decades in the CSU system, it is important to also examine this pool of faculty within the CSU system. Lecturers represent a pool with less job security and autonomy within the CSU system, and their employment is contingent upon the demand for courses within a given department, existing faculty loads, and content knowledge/expertise of the lecturer. They also do not have the same departmental standing as tenure line faculty members within a given department. However, empirical evidence related to the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education remains difficult to assess (Contreras & Contreras, 2015; Jacobi, 1991; Umbach, 2006). The CSU lecturer data shows the majority of Latino faculty designated as Lecturer A, which is the entry level lecturer, and less likely to be at Level D, the highest level of Lecturers within the CSU system. While this is snapshot data for the Fall 2015, the data clearly conveys the opposite for White lecturers in the CSU system. The majority (81.4%) of lecturers in level Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 244 D are White, and the smallest percentage are classified as lecturer A. However, White lecturers represent the majority across all of the lecturer levels represented. Given that in recent years in the CSU system (California Faculty Association, 2016), the greatest growth in Table 4 Percentage of CSU Lecturers by Race/Ethnicity & Rank (Percent), Fall 2015 Race/Ethnicity Lecturer A Lecturer B Lecturer C Lecturer D White 61.6 65.8 73.3 81.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 10.3 11.1 11.8 8.3 Latina/x 12.7 8.0 5.9 6.2 Black 4.1 4.1 2.6 1.4 American Indian .7 .8 .4 0 Note. Adapted from California Faculty Association. (2016). faculty positions has occurred among the lecturer pool, it is important to note that faculty diversity is a challenge for this pool of faculty members in the CSU system. A stronger infrastructure to cultivate the lecturer pool that tends to be more diverse than the tenured line faculty, is one approach to ensure greater diversity across all lecturer classifications, including level D. Recommendations The following recommendations are intended to provide additional considerations for postsecondary systems that are evolving into Hispanic-Serving Systems, in an effort to assist colleges and universities move from Latino enrolling to serving Latino students (Contreras & Contreras, 2015; Malcom, 2010). States like Texas, Florida, Arizona, New York, and New Mexico, that have sizable Latino populations that continue to constitute a larger proportion of the K-12 sector, have a vested interest in strategically planning for the wave of Latino students that will transition to college in California and across the country. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 245 1. Better data systems to support cross segment analysis and ongoing critical research on faculty trends. Data systems are not seamless in California and the state lacks an integrated system of data collection that researchers and campuses can use for comparative analyses. CPEC for example in California, which housed data from all systems of higher education, at one time was a highly valuable resource for cross segment comparisons, and added an additional layer of accountability for data accuracy in reporting. However, it was defunded in 2011, leaving the valuable infrastructure built to serve the state in the hands of each respective system of higher education. As a result, each system has its own data collection approach, portals, websites and interfaces that are not directly comparable and have to literally be developed by each entity that engages in conducting cross segment analysis. 2. Research on contingent faculty and their role in supporting undergraduate students in Hispanic-Serving Institutions (in both the two-year and four-year sectors). It is important to understand the shifts in contingent faculty that have occurred in HSI systems, as well as the drop off over time that has occurred among faculty attempting to move to secure lecturer levels and positions within two-year and four-year systems. The current model inhibits a foundation for relationship building and mentorship among students, due to the limited stability contingent faculty experience in academic departments. Thus, it is increasingly important to understand how to create a network and infrastructure that supports temporary and contingent faculty, while questioning the value, utility and trade-offs for having a less stable and financially rewarded faculty pool provide a sizable teaching role in HSI systems. 3. Research on the relationship between faculty diversity and student engagement, mentorship practices, departmental climates, within HSIs. There needs to be greater research and academic discussion on the relationship between faculty diversity and the GI 2025 initiative. That is, how might faculty of color support the Graduation Initiatives in the CSU system as well as the strategic goals of the community college success act of 2012. As noted in this article, the research Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 246 documenting student academic outcomes and faculty diversity is limited (Jacobi, 1991; Sedlacek et al., 2007) in part due to the evaluation processes by campus that varies greatly. It is important to understand the impact of programs or initiatives on practices within the infrastructures of these respective systems and ultimately the outcomes of these higher education policies. 4. Examine the infrastructure that exists for non-tenured (but tenure track) Assistant Professors. Examine and create an infrastructure for support among faculty of color at the Assistant professor level that actively invests in their career and positive transition to tenure at the Associate Professor level. It is important for HSI systems to cultivate a critical mass of faculty that have a track record of giving back through being mentors to undergraduates, supervising research and are engaged with the local Latino and diverse communities surrounding HSIs. 5. Establish and utilize Offices of Diversity and Equity to support, develop and monitor faculty recruitments and retention efforts. It is critically important to educate faculty on the importance of recognizing and combatting implicit bias that inhibits hiring diverse candidates in searches (See Turner, 2002). While Diversity Offices in higher education institutions are not new to the postsecondary sector, not all campuses in the CSU or CC systems have these offices, and responsibilities vary, with a primary focus on student services, campus diversity and campus climate. Greater effort and attention is necessary to better understand the role faculty play in establishing a climate of inclusiveness, engagement, civility, and critical consciousness within HSIs and HSI systems. Conclusion Parallels exist between the CSU and California community college system with respect to a greater reliance on temporary or contingent faculty, fewer Latinos in the tenured pool of faculty, and limited mobility for Latino faculty in the lecturer pools. The data presented shows an upward trend for both HSI systems as well, with Latino enrollment steadily increasing over the past fifteen years examined. However, student enrollment growth has not translated into greater levels of faculty diversity, despite what we know about the benefits of having role Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 247 models and instructors that are more likely to serve as mentors and provide research opportunities to students of color in postsecondary contexts. Taking a systemic approach to postsecondary sectors that have become HSI systems is a critical aspect of raising Latino college transfer and completion, which ultimately has the potential to expand the pool of graduate students and future faculty members. Systemic policies that call for increasing faculty diversity in tenure line positions, examining supports for assistant professors in tenure track lines, support for contingent faculty, and building a strong infrastructure that includes best practices for Latino student success, are critical for HSI systems as they work to better serve their critical mass of Latino students. As more Latinx students transition to public postsecondary colleges, their success is intertwined with the economic sustainability of California. Greater faculty diversity can serve as a catalyst for increasing college completion and empowering Latinos to further contribute to the social, economic and political fabric of communities, states and this nation. Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 248 References Assembly Bill 1602. California Library Services Act. A Bill of the California State Assembly. Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363-391. California Faculty Association. (2016). Changing Faces of the CSU Faculty and Students Volume VI Publication of the California Faculty Association. CFA Equity Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Contreras, F., & Gandara, P. (2006). Latinas/os in the Ph.D. pipeline: A case of historical and contemporary exclusion. In J. Castellanos & A. Gloria (Eds.), Journey to a Ph.D.: The Latina/o experience in higher education (pp. 91-111). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Contreras, F., Malcom, L., & Bensimon, E. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latina/o students. In Gasman, M., Baez, B., & C. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 71-90). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Contreras, F. (2011). Achieving Equity for Latino Students. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Contreras, F., & Contreras, G. (2015). Raising the bar for Hispanic-Serving institutions: An analysis of college completion and success rates. Journal of Hispanics in Higher Education, 14(2) 151–170. Contreras-McGavin, M. (2009). Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. May 2009. De los Santos, A. G., & Vega, I. I. (2008). Hispanic presidents and chancellors of institutions of higher education in the United States in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(2), 156-182. Desmond, M., & Turley, R. (2009). The role of familism in explaining the Hispanic-White college application gap. Social Problems, 56(2), 311-334. Excelencia in Education. (2016). Hispanic-serving institutions, 2014-15 at a glance. Washington, DC: Excelenica in Education. January 2016. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/hsi-cp2/research/hsis-at-glance Gandara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Griffin, K. (2012). Learning to mentor: A mixed methods study of the nature and influence of Black professors’ socialization into their roles as mentors. The Journal of The Professoriate, 2(6), 27-58. Gurin, P. (1999). Expert report of Patricia Gurin. In The compelling need for diversity in higher education, Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich.) and Grutter et al. v. Bollinger et al. No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.) (pp. 99-234). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 249 Haro, R., & Lara, J. F. (2003). Latinos and administrative positions in American higher education. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and students in higher education (pp. 153-165). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity with educational purpose: How the diversity impacts the classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity challenged: Legal crisis and new evidence (pp.187-203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group. Hurtado, S., Kurotsuchi Inkelas, K., Briggs, C., & Byung-Shik, R. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38, 43–75. Hurtado, S., & Ruiz, A. (2012). Realizing the potential of Hispanic-serving institutions: Multiple dimensions of institutional diversity for advancing Hispanic higher education. White Paper prepared for the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, San Antonio, Texas. Hurtado, S., & Ruiz Alvarado, A. (2015). Discrimination and bias, underrepresentation, and sense of belonging on campus. Los. Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Jayakumar, U., Howard, T., Allen, W., & Han, J. (2009). Racial privilege in the professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention & satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), pp. 538-563. Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 181-198. Malcom, L. E. (2010). Hispanic-serving or Hispanic enrolling? Assessing the institutional performance of public 4 year HSIs and emerging HSIs. Paper Presented at the American Education Research Association, Denver, Colorado. Milem, J. F. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in higher education (pp. 126-69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Nun ̃ez, A. M., Sparks, P. J., & Hernandez, E. A. (2011). Latino access to community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions: A national study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(1), 18-40. Núñez, A. M. (2015). Hispanic-Serving institutions: Where are they now? A discussion paper prepared for “Hispanic-Serving Institutions in the 21st Century: A Convening.” UT El Paso. Santiago, D. A., & Andrade, S. J. (2010). Emerging Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): Serving Latino Students. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from http:/www.edexcelencia.org/gateway/download/2261/1405004649 Santos, J. L., & Acevedo-Gil, N. (2013). A report card of Latina/o leadership in California’s public universities: A trend analysis of faculty, students, and executives in the CSU and UC systems. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(2), 174-200. Contreras Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE) Journal © 2017, Volume 11, Issue 3 250 SB 1456. Student Success Act of 2012. A Senate Bill of the California Legislature. Sedlacek, W. E., Benjamin, E., Schlosser, L. Z., & Sheu, H. B. (2007). Mentoring in academia: Considerations for diverse populations. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 259-280). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P., Yuan, X., Nathan, A & Hwang, Y. A. (2017, April). A National View of Student Attainment Rates by Race and Ethnicity – Fall 2010 Cohort (Signature Report No. 12b). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Tran, N., Gaetane J. M., Powers, K. Bell, S., & Sanders, K., (2016). Using institutional resources and agency to support graduate students’ success at a Hispanic-Serving institution. Education Sciences, 6(28),1-14. Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Turner, C. (2015). Mentoring as transformative practice: Supporting student and faculty diversity. New Directions in Higher Education, 171. Tuner, C. S. V., & González, J. C. (Eds.). (2014). Modeling mentoring across race/ethnicity and gender: Practices to cultivate the next generation of diverse faculty. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J., & Wood, L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139-168. Umbach, P. D. (2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 47(3), 317-345. Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30.2(2006), 91-123. Latino Faculty in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Where is the Diversity? Frances Contreras University of California, San Diego Abstract Introduction Relevant Literature Impact on Student Success Systemic diversity Challenges to Latinx Faculty: The Postsecondary Pipeline Figure 2. College completion rates by race ethnicity, students entering college 2010. Adapted from National Clearinghouse Research Center (2017). Table 1 Hispanic-Serving Institutions in California Postsecondary Policy Context Methods Analysis The California State University System Table 2 Figure 5. Faculty diversity compared to students, 2015. Adapted from California Faculty Association (2016). Table 3 Table 4 Recommendations Conclusion References Contreras-McGavin, M. (2009). Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. May 2009.