Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, March 2007 (Ó 2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9041-4
THE STATUS OF EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY
AND ADMINISTRATORS IN PUBLIC HIGHER
EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH
Laura W. Perna,* Danette Gerald,** Evan Baum,†
and Jeffrey Milem‡
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
This paper uses descriptive analyses of data from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System to examine the status of Blacks among faculty and
administrators at public higher education institutions in the South, where ‘‘status’’ is
defined as representation in employment relative to representation among
bachelor’s degree recipients. The descriptive statistics show that, although some
progress has been made in some states in some indicators during the past decade,
substantial race inequities for Blacks among full-time faculty and administrators
remain. The gaps in equity are greater for Black faculty than for Black administrators.
Among faculty, the degree of inequity for Blacks is greater among higher than lower
ranking faculty and among tenured than tenure track faculty. The degree of inequity
also varies across different types of public higher education institutions.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
KEY WORDS: equity; faculty; administrators; tenure; rank; desegregation; institutional
type.
Although more progress is necessary to achieve race equity, the representation of Blacks among undergraduate enrollments and degree completions has increased over the past decade (Perna et al., 2006). Blacks
represented 12.4% of all undergraduates in fall 2002, up from 11.6% in
fall 1999 and 9.6% in fall 1990 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
During the same period, Blacks also increased their representation
among graduate students from 5.3% in fall 1990, to 7.2% in fall 1996,
to 9.3% in fall 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
**The Education Trust, Washington, DC, USA.
yThe George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
àUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
*Address correspondence to: Laura W. Perna, Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut, Room 424, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. E-mail: lperna@gse.
upenn.edu
193
0361-0365/07/0300-0193/0 Ó 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
194
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
While the nation’s higher education institutions have made some progress in increasing the representation of Blacks among undergraduate
and graduate students, they have made virtually no progress in increasing the representation of Blacks among their faculty. Just 5.5% of all
full-time faculty nationwide were Black in fall 2003 (Cataldi, Fahimi,
Bradburn, and Zimbler, 2005), only slightly higher than the share in fall
1998 (5.1%) and fall 1992 (5.2%, Glover, Parsad, and Zimbler, 2002).
Blacks are better represented among full-time executive, administrative,
and managerial staff than they are among faculty, as Blacks represented
11% of this group in fall 2003 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Nonetheless, Blacks continue to represent smaller shares of
administrators and faculty than of undergraduates.
The challenges that are associated with raising the representation of
Blacks among the nation’s faculty and administrators vary along multiple dimensions, including institutional type and discipline. For example,
in fall 2003 Blacks represented a higher share of full-time faculty at
public master’s institutions than at public doctoral institutions (8.6%
versus 4.0%) and a higher share of full-time faculty in social sciences
than in agriculture/home economics (7.4% versus 2.1%, Cataldi et al.,
2005). Blacks represented a higher share of executive, administrative,
and managerial staff (full-and part-time combined) at private 4-year
institutions and public 2-year institutions than at public 4-year
institutions in fall 2003 (10% and 9% versus 6%, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2005).
Despite variations in the distribution of racial/ethnic groups across
the United States, variations in the representation of faculty and executive staff by state and geographic region are less commonly examined
than differences by institutional type and academic field. Examining the
status of Blacks among college and university faculty and administrators in the nation’s southern states is particularly important, given the
relative concentration of Blacks in this region. In 2001–2002, 52% of
Black high school graduates nationwide lived in one of 15 southern
states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia (WICHE, 2003).
Attention to the status of Blacks in the South is also important because of the historical and current dimensions of racial segregation in
these states. Therefore, we expand WICHE’s (2003) definition of South
to include the 19 states that once operated racially segregated colleges
and universities: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
195
Virginia, and West Virginia. Federal authority for monitoring and regulating systems of higher education and individual institutions within the
19 previously segregated states derives from Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act. Title VI prohibits programs or activities that receive federal
funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
During the 1970s and 1980s lawsuits by private parties against the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education (e.g.,
Adams v. Richardson) helped prod OCR to begin enforcement actions
against states and to promulgate desegregation guidelines (Williams,
1997). Following the end of court monitoring of OCR enforcement in
1987, OCR ruled eight states (Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia) in compliance with Title VI. OCR continues to monitor desegregation agreements with seven of the 19 states: Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Federal district courts are currently
monitoring cases in four other states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Tennessee. For the 11 states that remain under OCR or federal
court oversight, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in United
States v. Fordice specifies legal criteria for eliminating continuing vestiges of segregationist policies from public higher education systems.
Desegregation oversight in nine of the 11 states may be nearing its final
stages. Partnership agreements between states and OCR, as well as
court monitored consent agreements, were scheduled to conclude before
or by 2005 in seven states (although OCR has not yet deemed any of
these states to be compliant) and for completion by 2006 and 2007 in
two states.
Thus, 50 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision,
40 years after the enactment of Title VI, and at the potential end of federal desegregation oversight, this paper examines the status of Blacks
among the leadership (i.e., the faculty and administrators) of public
higher education institutions in the South. Because examining only public higher education in the aggregate masks variations by institutional
type, and because some desegregation plans specify goals for particular
public institutions within a state, this paper also describes the status of
equity in these indicators for different types of public higher education
institutions within each state.
The descriptive statistics show that, although some progress has been
made in some states, in some indicators, during the past decade, substantial race inequities for Blacks among full-time faculty and administrators remain in the 19 states. The gaps in equity are greater for Black
faculty than for Black administrators. Among faculty, the degree of
inequity for Blacks is greater among higher than lower ranking faculty
196
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
(i.e., full professors rather than assistant professors) and among tenured
than tenure track faculty. The degree of inequity also varies across
different types of public higher education institutions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cole and Barber (2003) describe five potential benefits of achieving a
more ethnically diverse faculty. First, achieving equity for Blacks (and
other groups) in employment suggests that discrimination no longer limits opportunity for these careers. Second, raising the representation of
faculty of color will promote the academic success of students of color.
Third, a more ethnically diverse faculty will ensure that the contributions of diverse groups are recognized. Fourth, greater faculty diversity
provides more role models for minority students, thereby raising their
career aspirations and academic performance. Fifth, ‘‘faculty diversity
ensures that theories and empirical data will be informed by the special
perspectives that, by virtue of their own experience only members of
certain racial and ethnic groups and women can bring to research and
teaching’’ (p. 3). Other research (e.g., Umbach, 2006) documents the
benefits of a diverse faculty to teaching and learning.
Scholars have examined various sources of inequity in faculty and
administrative employment, although more attention has focused on
faculty than administrators. One line of research examines the extent to
which the underrepresentation of Blacks among college and university
faculty is a pipeline issue. Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh, and BonousHammarth (2000) identified the low representation of Black students at
selective undergraduate institutions and in prestigious graduate degree
programs as one factor contributing to continued inequities between
Blacks and Whites in the faculty ranks. Another line of research attributes the low representation of Blacks among faculty to organizational
and institutional barriers that thwart their recruitment, hiring and promotion and tenure at colleges and universities (Epps, 1989; Kulis,
Chong, and Shaw, 1999). In a study of the experiences of tenured and
tenure-track minority faculty, Turner, Myers, and Creswell (1999) found
that faculty of color often work in tense environments that are characterized by insidious racial and ethnic bias and a devaluation of their
scholarly interests. Based on his review of the limited available relevant
research, Jackson (2001) concluded that retention of Black administrators is limited by such barriers as the absence of a clear career path and
the need to work long and often erratic hours for relatively low pay. In
a study of staff at one large public predominantly White university,
Mayhew, Grunwald, and Dey (2006) found that, after controlling for
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
197
measures of staff demographic characteristics, staff professional characteristics, department structural diversity, and department climate for
diversity, perceptions of the campus community’s ability to achieve a
positive climate for diversity were lower for staff members of color than
for White staff members.
While these studies shed light on the forces that contribute to the status of Blacks among the nation’s faculty and administrators, improving
equity also requires a clear understanding of the magnitude of the problem. As Perna et al. (2006) discuss, efforts to establish the degree of
‘‘inequity’’ in various outcomes typically use such measures as participation rates and relative levels of representation (e.g., comparing the representation of Blacks among undergraduate enrollments and high school
graduates). Nonetheless, to make meaningful comparisons across racial/
ethnic groups, an examination of race/ethnic equity in higher education
outcomes must also take into account differences in the size of each
group’s population, as well as differences in the rate of change in the size
of each group’s population (Heller, 1999; Price and Wohlford, 2005).
More recently, researchers (e.g., Bensimon, Hao, and Bustillos, 2006;
Perna et al., 2006; Price and Wohlford, 2005) have used equity indices
to assess the status of different groups on various outcomes. Bensimon
et al. (2006) developed the Academic Equity Scorecard, a set of equity
indicators that they recommend be included in state accountability reports. The indicators include attention to a range of higher education
outcomes, including access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence. Institutional receptivity focuses on equity in the composition of
faculty, including new faculty appointments, and tenured and tenure
track faculty. Perna et al. (2006) utilized this framework to create indices that assess the status of African Americans among undergraduate
enrollments and bachelorÕs degree completions in each of the 19 states,
as well as for different types of public higher education institutions in
each state.
Perna et al. (2006) offered several reasons for using this approach to
measure equity. First, as also argued by Bensimon and colleagues, the
results of the calculation are easy to interpret and provide clear benchmarks. An index that is equal to one indicates that equity has been
achieved, while an index that is less than one is below equity and an index that is greater than one is above equity. In addition, because of the
way it is computed, the equity index provides a mechanism for comparing equity across racial/ethnic groups, institutions, and states. Adopting
Bensimon et al.’s approach, Price and Wohlford (in press) demonstrate
the benefits of an indicator that has meaning across multiple
populations in their comparison of equity in educational attainment by
198
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
race/ethnicity and gender in each of the 50 states, each year from 1960
to 2000. For these reasons, we also use this approach to measure equity.
RESEARCH METHOD
This study uses descriptive analyses to assess the status of equity for
Blacks among full-time faculty and administrators at public higher education institutions in the South between 1993 and 2001. Specifically, the
paper addresses the following two sets of research questions:
1. What is the status of equity for Blacks among full-time faculty at
public higher education institutions in the 19 states? How does the
status of equity for Blacks among full-time faculty at public higher
education institutions in the 19 states vary by tenure status and academic rank? What progress have public higher education institutions
in the 19 states made in improving equity in full-time faculty employment for Blacks between 1993 and 2001? How do the status of, and
trends in, equity vary by type of public higher education institution
within each state?
2. What is the status of equity for Blacks among full-time executive,
administrative, and managerial staff at public higher education institutions in the 19 states? What progress have public higher education
institutions in the 19 states made in improving equity among full-time
executive, administrative, and managerial staff for Blacks between
1993 and 2001? How do the status of, and trends in, equity vary by
type of public higher education institution within each state?
The analyses describe equity for Blacks among faculty and administrators, by institutional type within each state, for selected years between 1993 and 2001. Following the example of Perna et al. (2006), the
analyses consider Blacks because the federal government’s historical and
continuing attention to desegregation has focused on Blacks. We also
focus on Blacks because, except for Florida and Texas, the numbers of
other minority groups are growing but are still small. For example,
analyses of IPEDS data show that, in 2001, Latinos accounted for less
than 1% of college and university faculty in five of the 19 states:
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, and Mississippi.
The analyses rely on the Academic Equity Index developed by
Bensimon et al. (2006) and used by others (Perna et al., 2006; Price &
Wohlford, 2005). We calculate equity indices for full-time faculty
employment and full-time executive, administrative, and managerial
employment. The equity index defines equity as the representation of a
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
199
particular group among individuals with a particular outcome, relative
to the representation of that group among the relevant reference population. As a result, equity is achieved when the index is equal to one.
An index that is less than one is below equity, while an index that is
greater than one is above equity. Because of the way in which it is calculated, the equity index provides a mechanism for comparing equity
across racial/ethnic groups and states, and takes into account both
changes in representation among both faculty (the numerator) and
bachelorÕs degree recipients (the denominator).
For these analyses, we use bachelor’s degree completions as the reference population. Although a bachelor’s degree is often insufficient for
accessing a faculty or administrative position and faculty and administrators are typically recruited from national rather than state pools, true
equity in public higher education will only be achieved when the distribution of racial/ethnic groups among faculty and administrators mirrors
the distribution of racial/ethnic groups among bachelor’s degree recipients. Moreover, bachelor’s degree completion is a conservative standard,
as other analyses show substantial inequities for Blacks among bachelor’s
degree recipients (Perna et al., 2006). Bachelor’s degree completion is also
a less stringent standard than has been used by others (e.g., Bensimon
et al., 2006 use student enrollments as the reference population).
Therefore, equity for Blacks in faculty outcomes is defined in Eq. (1)
as:
Black Full-Time Faculty Equity Index
¼
Black facultyijk =Total facultyijk
Black B.A.degreesijk =Total B.A. degreesijk
ð1Þ
Equity for Blacks in full-time executive, administrative, and managerial
staff is defined in Eq. (2) as:
Black Administrators Equity Index
¼
Black administratorsijk =Total administratorsijk
Black B.A. degreesijk =Total B.A. degreesijk
ð2Þ
In both equations, i represents one of four types of public higher education, j represents one of the 19 states, and k represents the year. The four
types of public higher education considered are: public 4-year institutions
overall, public 4-year predominantly white institutions, public flagship
institutions, and public 4-year historically black institutions. We limit the
analyses to public higher education because desegregation mandates
focus on public colleges and universities and because a primary purpose
200
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
of public colleges and universities is to serve the state by educating the
state’s citizens (Morphew and Hartley, in press). We identified flagship
institutions based on a review of state policy documents.
We obtain bachelor’s degree completions data from the annual Completions surveys of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and faculty and executive, administrative, and managerial
employment data from the bi-annual IPEDS fall staff surveys. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the IPEDS surveys are designed to provide data and information about enrollments, program
completions, faculty, staff, and finance for all postsecondary educational
institutions nationwide (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Limitations
The research design of this study has at least two limitations. First,
while bachelor’s degree completions is the most appropriate reference
group for calculating the equity index, this choice has limitations. Using
the representation of Blacks among bachelor’s degree recipients as the
denominator in the equity index is most problematic for the equity indices for faculty and administrators at the public flagship institutions because the representation of Blacks among bachelor’s degree recipients at
these institutions is generally quite low. In other words, a public flagship university with a low proportion of Black bachelor’s degree recipients may have a very high equity index for Black faculty even though
the representation of Blacks among the institution’s faculty is also very
low. For example, the equity index for Black faculty at the public flagship in Georgia in 2001 was .96. The index approaches equity because
the representation of Blacks among full-time faculty at the University of
Georgia is comparable to the representation of Blacks among bachelor’s
degree recipients at this institution (about 5% among both bachelor’s
degree recipients and faculty). If we were to instead use the representation of Blacks among bachelor’s degree recipients from all public 4-year
institutions in the state (19%) as the denominator, then the equity index
for Black faculty at the University of Georgia would be .28, substantially lower than .96. Therefore, the indices in this paper provide conservative estimates of equity for Blacks among faculty and administrators
especially at the public flagship institutions, and may be interpreted by
some readers to underestimate of the status of equity for Blacks.
An additional limitation is that the analyses are descriptive only, with
no attempt to identify causes of the current status or observed trends
over time. Nonetheless, by describing the status of equity for Black
faculty and administrators at public colleges and universities in the
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
201
South, this paper provides a necessary first-step toward increasing the
status of Blacks in these positions.
FINDINGS
Status of Equity among Full-Time Faculty
Blacks are below equity among full-time faculty employed at public
4-year institutions as a whole in 18 of the 19 states. Table 1 shows that
Blacks approach equity among full-time faculty at public 4-year institutions overall only in Pennsylvania (equity index = .95). In contrast,
equity indices for White full-time faculty at public 4-year institutions as
a whole are no more than 5% points below equity or exceed equity at
public 4-year institutions in all 19 states.
The magnitude of inequity for Blacks varies across the 19 states.
Table 1 shows that, among full-time faculty employed at public 4-year
institutions overall, equity indices range from a low of .38 in South
Carolina, .44 in Georgia, and .45 in Alabama, to a high of .95 in
Pennsylvania.
With only a few exceptions, Blacks experience substantial inequity
among full-time faculty at all types of public 4-year institutions in the
19 states. Disaggregating the data by institutional type shows that, compared to the equity indices for Black full-time faculty at public 4-year
institutions as a whole, equity indices are generally lower at public
4-year PWIs and higher at public 4-year HBCUs.
Unlike the pattern of equity indices for undergraduate enrollments
and bachelor’s degree completions (see Perna et al., 2006), equity indices
for Black full-time faculty are below one even at public 4-year HBCUs
in most (n = 17) of the 19 states. Table 1 shows that Blacks are above
equity among full-time faculty at public 4-year HBCUs only in Oklahoma (equity index = 1.69) and West Virginia (equity index = 1.29).
In fall 2001, Blacks were between 22% and 50% points below equity
among full-time faculty at the public 4-year HBCUs in the other 17
states.
Also contrary to expectations but consistent with the limitation associated with using bachelor’s degree completions as the denominator, disaggregating the data by institutional type shows that, in some states,
equity indices are higher for Black full-time faculty at the public flagship institutions than for Black full-time faculty at the state’s public
4-year PWIs overall. For example, Table 1 shows that the equity indices
for Black full-time faculty are higher for faculty at the public flagship
institution than at 4-year public PWIs as a whole in 10 states: Alabama
202
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
TABLE 1. Equity Indices for Full-time Black and White Faculty by State and
Institutional Type: 2001
Total public
State
Alabama
University of Alabama
Auburn University
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Mississippi
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Univ. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M Univ.
Virginia
West Virginia
Public 4-year
PWI
Public
flagship
4-year public
HBCU
Black White Black White Black White Black White
.45
.54
.73
.61
.44
.72
.51
.64
.56
.61
.61
.73
.54
.95
.38
.50
.56
.56
.81
1.05
1.06
.99
1.17
1.09
.95
1.11
1.02
1.09
.97
1.02
.96
1.14
1.00
1.09
1.02
1.19
1.09
.97
.30
.44
.74
.51
.36
.69
.39
.57
28
.61
.54
.70
.38
.84
.30
.48
.46
.49
.73
1.05
1.05
.98
1.17
1.09
.96
1.04
1.00
1.08
.97
.99
.97
1.14
.96
1.07
.99
1.19
1.08
.97
.38
.73
.88
.74
.65
.96
.63
.43
.48
1.05
.94
1.02
.98
1.07
.90
.95
1.09
1.14
.46
.24
.19
.41
.47
.60
1.02
1.07
1.14
.91
1.01
.99
.40
.40
.72
.24
.71
1.00
1.07
.95
1.11
.91
1.12
.95
.33
1.60
1.22
.99
1.21
1.01
.61
4.90
.78
.55
.71
.65
.50
.72
.75
.68
3.05
2.97
3.28
3.44
1.88
7.63
2.03
10.55
.63
.72
.59
1.69
1.23
1.48
.00
.32
.58
.69
.56
.73
32.51
6.41
2.80
4.28
.69
1.29
3.15
.95
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
(University of Alabama and Auburn), Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi (University of Mississippi only), Oklahoma
(Oklahoma State and University of Oklahoma), Tennessee, Texas (both
UT-Austin and Texas A&M), and West Virginia. However, even with
the conservative reference population, Blacks are at least 10% points
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
203
below equity at the public flagship universities in all 19 states except
Georgia, Texas, and West Virginia.
Tenure Status
Blacks generally experience greater inequity among tenured faculty
than among tenure track faculty regardless of institutional type or state.
Table 2 shows that Blacks were below equity among full-time tenure
track faculty employed at public 4-year institutions as a whole in 2001
in all states except Delaware (equity index = 1.32) and West Virginia
(1.46). The representation of Blacks among tenure track faculty at public 4-year institutions overall was between 9 and 20 points below equity
in three states, between 21% and 40% points below equity in 11 states,
and between 40% and 51% points below equity in three states:
Alabama (equity index = .49), Georgia (.55) and South Carolina (.53).
Among tenured professors, Blacks were between 20% and 40% points
below equity in five states, between 40% and 60% points below equity
in 11 states, and more than 60% points below equity in three states
(Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina).
Disaggregating by institutional type shows a few exceptions to the finding that equity indices are lower for tenured than tenure track faculty.
Table 2 shows that the equity index for Blacks was higher among tenured
than tenure track faculty (but below one for both groups) at three public
flagship institutions: University of Kentucky, Southern Mississippi, and
West Virginia University. In addition, the equity index for Black tenured
faculty was equal to or greater than the equity index for Black tenure
track faculty at the public 4-year HBCUs in 12 of the 19 states: Delaware,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
In most states, Black full-time faculty experience greater equity
among tenure-track than non-tenure track faculty. Table 2 shows that,
at public 4-year institutions overall, equity indices were lower for Black
non-tenure track faculty than for Black tenure track faculty in all states
except Alabama and Oklahoma, and below equity among non-tenure
track faculty in all 19 states. Equity indices for Black non-tenure track
faculty at public 4-year institutions overall ranged from a low of .22 in
South Carolina to a high of .78 in Oklahoma.
Academic Rank
Equity indices for Blacks generally decline as academic rank increases
at all types of institutions in all states. In some cases, the equity index
204
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
TABLE 2. Equity Indices for Black Full-Time Faculty by Tenure Status, Institutional
Type, and State: 2001
State
Alabama
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Arkansas
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Delaware
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Florida
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Georgia
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Kentucky
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Louisiana
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Maryland
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Mississippi
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Missouri
Non-tenure track faculty
Public
4-year
HBCU
Public
Public
4-year 4-year PWI Public Flagships
U. AL Auburn
.24
.77
.85
1.92
.25
.47
.68
.49
.32
.33
.47
.20
.49
.60
.43
.44
.54
.34
.89
.89
.62
.67
.83
.68
.35
1.32
.65
.74
1.32
.56
.86
1.32
.63
.32
.52
.57
.53
.86
.52
.46
.60
.41
.93
.67
.50
.57
.79
.65
.42
.55
.41
.45
.41
.31
1.04
1.35
.80
.66
.69
.62
.37
.79
.68
.02
.78
.68
.24
.65
.79
.79
.47
.48
.39
.65
.43
.53
.34
.16
.00
.38
.20
.70
.69
.65
.51
.64
.46
.46
.55
.36
.74
.68
.67
.65
.68
.37
.31
.38
.21
.47
.64
.58
U.
Miss.
.41
.52
.50
.51
.58
.29
MS
State
.25
.29
.24
.59
.70
.56
Southern
.32
.07
.20
.71
.62
.63
.80
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
205
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Public
4-year
HBCU
Public
4-year
Public
4-year PWI
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
North Carolina
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Ohio
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Oklahoma
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Pennsylvania
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
South Carolina
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Tennessee
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Texas
.79
.49
.77
.48
.54
.64
.54
.59
.59
.63
.52
.00
.51
.40
.49
.60
.47
.65
.65
.65
.64
.91
.72
.67
.85
.69
.00
.79
.52
.78
.72
.46
.46
.42
.38
.64
.68
.65
OK State
.32
.74
.34
.45
.85
.68
.47
.87
.67
.47
1.47
.75
.49
.49
.62
.22
.53
.30
.26
.40
.23
.29
.39
.19
1.04
.54
.86
.42
.78
.41
.24
.74
.37
.50
.58
.56
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
Virginia
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
West Virginia
Non-tenure track faculty
Tenure track faculty
Tenured faculty
.54
.63
.50
.53
.60
.34
.85
.88
.60
UT
Austin
.78
1.79
1.25
.58
.75
.48
.54
.65
.40
.29
.50
.31
.66
.67
.66
.50
1.46
.63
.44
1.14
.60
.68
.60
.67
.77
2.75
.94
State
Public Flagships
U. OK
.11
.66
.49
Texas
A&M
1.03
1.82
.77
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
1.69
1.73
1.82
.71
.57
.77
206
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
for Blacks is higher for associate professors than for assistant professors. For example, Table 3 shows that the equity index for Black associate professors is comparable to, or higher than, the equity index for
Black assistant professors at public 4-year institutions as a whole in
eight states (Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas) and public flagship institutions in 12
states (Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas).
Regardless, in all cases, the equity index for Blacks is substantially
lower for full professors than for assistant professors at all public 4-year
PWIs in all 19 states. Table 3 shows that, when the data are disaggregated by academic rank, Blacks are within 10% points of equity, or
exceed equity, only among assistant professors at public 4-year institutions as a whole in three states (Delaware, Ohio, and West Virginia),
public 4-year PWIs in one state (Delaware), public flagship institutions
in five states (Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West
Virginia), and public 4-year HBCUs in four states (Delaware, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia).
The equity index declines as rank increases for Black full-time faculty
at public 4-year HBCUs in most of the states (following the pattern for
other types of public institutions). But, in eight of the 19 states the equity index for Black full professors at public 4-year HBCUs equals or exceeds the equity index for Black assistant professors (Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia,
and West Virginia).
Blacks experience substantial inequity among full professors at all
types of public 4-year institutions in all 19 states. Table 3 shows that, at
public 4-year institutions as a whole in 2001, Blacks were more than
40% points below equity in all 19 states. Blacks were between 42% and
75% points below equity in 13 states and more than 70% points below
equity in six states (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and South Carolina). Blacks were 81% points below equity
among full professors working at public 4-year institutions in Alabama
in 2001.
Disaggregating by institutional type shows that considering only public 4-year institutions as a whole masks the higher levels of inequity for
Blacks among full professors at public 4-year PWIs. In six of the 19
states, the equity index for Black full professors is at least 10% points
lower at public 4-year PWIs than at public 4-year institutions as a
whole (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia).
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
207
TABLE 3. Equity Indices for Black Faculty by Rank, Institutional Type, and State
2001
State
Public
Public
4-year 4-year PWI
Alabama
Assistant
Associate
Full
Arkansas
Assistant
Associate
Full
Delaware
Assistant
Associate
Full
Florida
Assistant
Associate
Full
Georgia
Assistant
Associate
Full
Kentucky
Assistant
Associate
Full
Louisiana
Assistant
Associate
Full
Maryland
Assistant
Associate
Full
Mississippi
Assistant
Associate
Full
Missouri
Assistant
Associate
Public Flagships
U. of
Auburn U.
Alabama
.85
1.91
.26
.57
.20
.18
Public 4-year
HBCU
.68
.35
.19
.52
.22
.12
.61
.46
.37
.54
.45
.22
.71
.98
.33
.78
.71
.67
1.08
.77
.47
1.11
.69
.46
.62
.69
.46
1.11
.50
.51
.79
.71
.35
.60
.60
.23
.85
.64
.27
.77
.68
.60
.54
.53
.26
.44
.42
.18
1.34
1.36
.28
.69
.65
.58
.80
.91
.33
.74
.95
.32
.58
1.00
.33
.55
.47
.43
.69
.43
.27
.43
.28
.09
.36
.43
.09
.73
.62
.59
.74
.50
.29
.56
.46
.26
.70
.69
.66
.67
.50
.29
.39
.27
.15
.55
.63
.36
U. MS
.59
.66
.20
.69
.70
.70
.77
.49
.70
MS State
.29
.22
.22
.67
.55
.46
Southern
.17
.21
.12
.64
.70
.52
.53
.50
208
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
TABLE 3. (Continued)
State
Full
North Carolina
Assistant
Associate
Full
Ohio
Assistant
Associate
Full
Oklahoma
Assistant
Associate
Full
Pennsylvania
Assistant
Associate
Full
South Carolina
Assistant
Associate
Full
Tennessee
Assistant
Associate
Full
Texas
Assistant
Associate
Full
Virginia
Assistant
Associate
Full
West Virginia
Assistant
Associate
Full
Public
4-year
Public
4-year PWI
.32
.23
.26
.68
.63
.67
.32
.53
.53
.27
.63
.69
.27
.67
.66
.62
.90
.93
.45
.85
.90
.43
.66
.58
.50
.69
.74
.31
.45
.53
.25
.74
.73
.38
OK State
.76
.49
.11
.69
.73
.54
.72
.73
.50
1.12
.80
.43
.47
.65
.60
.53
.33
.24
.44
.28
.15
.40
.23
.11
.65
.53
.85
.73
.51
.33
.70
.45
.29
.60
.64
.45
.64
.64
.35
.61
.48
.21
.70
.83
.35
UT Austin
1.78
1.79
.67
.75
.56
.40
.64
.58
.28
.48
.33
.25
.70
.55
.74
.97
.82
.58
.86
.74
.52
.94
.84
.40
1.49
1.30
1.25
Public Flagships
Public 4-year
HBCU
U. OK
.58
.55
.35
TX A&M
1.79
.88
.48
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
1.76
1.75
1.76
.59
.80
.75
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
209
Trends in Equity in Tenure Status and Academic Rank
Blacks experienced not only substantial inequity among both tenured
and tenure track faculty at public 4-year institutions in most of the 19
states in 2001, but also little improvement in equity during the 1990s.
Table 4 shows that equity indices were at least 10% points lower in
2001 than in 1993 for Black full-time tenure track faculty at public 4year PWIs in 16 of the 19 states. The largest declines were in Kentucky
(with a decline in the equity index from 2.17 in 1993 to .78 in 2001) and
Ohio (from 1.96 in 1993 to .85 in 2001). Only in Delaware did the equity index for Black full-time tenure track faculty increase (from .48 in
1993 to .74 in 2001). Table 4 also shows that the equity index for Black
tenure track faculty was lower in 2001 than in 1993 at all but four of
the 24 public flagship institutions.
Equity indices were lower for Black tenured faculty than for Black tenure
track faculty in all 19 states in 2001 (Table 2), but were more stable during
the 1990s for Black tenured than for Black tenure track faculty. Table 5
shows that equity indices for Black tenured faculty at public 4-year PWIs
changed by less than 10% points between 1993 and 2001 in 15 of the 19
states. Equity indices improved between 1993 and 2001 for Black tenured
faculty at public 4-year PWIs by 35% points in Kentucky, 18% points in
West Virginia, 12% points in Missouri, and 6% points in Virginia. Table 5
also shows substantial improvements over this period in the equity indices
for Black tenured faculty at five public flagship institutions: University of
Georgia (47% point increase), University of Kentucky (45% point increase), University of Texas at Austin (56% point increase), Texas A&M
(41% point increase), and West Virginia University (32% point increase).
A similar pattern emerges for changes in equity for Black full-time
faculty by academic rank. Table 6 shows that the equity index for Black
assistant professors was lower in 2001 than in 1993 at public 4-year
PWIs in all of the 19 states except for West Virginia. The greatest declines in equity were for Black assistant professors at public 4-year
PWIs in Florida (68% point decline) and Ohio (71% point decline).
Table 6 also shows that the equity index for Black assistant professors
declined between 1993 and 2001 at 19 of the 25 public flagship institutions, and increased at only six: University of Alabama, Oklahoma
State University, University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, University
of Virginia, and West Virginia University.
Like the pattern for tenure status, equity indices were lower for Black
full professors than for Black assistant professors in all 19 states in
2001, but between 1993 and 2001 equity indices were less volatile for
full professors than for assistant professors. Table 7 shows that the
Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Auburn Univ.
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Miss.
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
State
.77
.70
.33
1.35
.72
2.21
.44
.78
.12
1.26
.72
1.65
.62
.48
1.34
.71
2.17
.42
.79
.43
1.17
.79
1.96
1995
.70
1993
1.04
.58
1.16
.44
.31
1.06
.62
1.83
.41
.74
.58
.61
1997
.77
.51
.85
.54
.74
.60
.41
.78
.34
.55
.31
.47
2001
).40
).28
)1.11
).08
.26
).74
).30
)1.39
).08
).24
).12
).37
Change 1993–2001
Public 4-year PWIs
.28
1.81
1.28
1.75
1.58
2.02
2.31
.84
1.17
1.41
.60
.36
1.94
.92
1.29
.81
.57
.38
1.68
.96
1.85
1995
.34
1.43
1.88
1.74
1.06
1.65
3.00
2.13
.98
1993
1.19
.55
.40
1.66
.94
1.13
.34
1.22
1.30
1.08
1.44
2.77
1.68
.49
.97
1997
.52
.29
.07
.54
.60
.68
.24
1.92
.89
1.32
.67
1.35
.65
.38
.64
2001
).29
).28
).31
)1.14
).36
)1.17
).10
.49
).99
).32
).39
).30
)2.35
)1.75
).34
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
TABLE 4. Equity Indices for Black Tenure Track Faculty at PWIs and Flagships by State: 1993–2001
210
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
.83
.98
.63
.72
.63
.97
1.82
.82
1.03
.57
1.10
.65
.96
1.28
.91
1.78
1.14
.53
.61
.88
.60
.65
1.14
.87
.40
.74
.60
.42
).31
).14
).16
).17
).36
).05
).40
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
U. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M
Virginia
West Virginia
1.86
1.08
1.43
.68
1.04
1.98
2.08
.36
1.75
.37
1.23
.81
.79
2.26
1.63
1.32
.33
1.50
2.56
1.91
.45
1.47
2.48
.85
2.55
.52
.66
1.79
1.82
.50
.60
.74
.66
1.47
.39
.88
.16
.50
.17
).90
.37
).57
).66
).40
)1.38
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
211
.22
.39
.60
.49
.32
.42
.22
.38
.20
.36
.37
.63
.22
.37
.61
.47
.30
.33
.23
.40
.23
.36
.36
.62
Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Auburn Univ.
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Miss.
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
1995
1993
State
.45
.42
.66
.36
.64
.45
.32
.49
.20
.35
.21
.23
1997
.48
.40
.69
.34
.56
.41
.31
.68
.16
.36
.21
.20
2001
.12
).04
).07
).03
).05
).06
.01
.35
).07
).04
).03
.02
Change 1993–2001
Public 4-year PWIs
.20
.50
.40
.66
.48
.41
.49
.34
.60
.43
.25
.19
.72
.37
.65
.34
.33
.26
.72
.33
.78
1995
.18
.43
.55
.67
.35
.33
.34
.48
.65
1993
.48
.26
.11
1.07
.43
.66
.25
.34
.62
.71
.48
.61
.62
.25
.40
1997
.50
.24
.20
.64
.47
.65
.25
.47
.62
.63
.50
.80
.79
.20
.58
2001
.16
.02
.06
).08
.14
).13
.07
.04
.07
).04
.15
.47
.45
).28
).07
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
TABLE 5. Equity Indices for Black Tenured Faculty at PWIs and Flagships by State: 1993–2001
212
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
.35
.76
.21
.41
.27
.33
.40
.37
.79
.29
.37
.30
.34
.42
.39
.51
.70
.21
.40
.28
.35
.40
.60
.67
.23
.37
.34
.38
.01
.06
.18
).12
).06
.00
.04
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
U. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M
Virginia
West Virginia
.45
.28
.70
.12
.71
.73
.49
.24
.26
.39
.47
.74
.13
.58
.69
.36
.27
.35
.73
.45
.34
.42
.27
.31
.82
.17
.90
1.25
.77
.31
.67
.34
.49
.75
.19
.60
.56
.41
.04
.32
).05
.02
.01
.06
.02
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
213
Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Auburn Univ.
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Miss.
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
State
.71
.76
1.15
1.31
.70
1.85
.48
.70
.54
1.04
.68
1.19
.70
1.54
1.28
.69
1.03
.47
.74
.51
.97
.78
1.56
1995
.66
1993
.93
.59
1.06
.58
.90
1.01
.59
1.43
.44
.61
.50
.65
1997
.70
.53
.85
.54
1.11
.60
.44
.74
.43
.56
.39
.52
2001
).27
).25
).71
).16
).43
).68
).25
).29
).04
).18
).12
).14
Change 1993–2001
Public 4-year PWIs
.82
1.73
.99
1.15
1.51
2.41
2.30
.88
.88
1.00
.75
.62
1.51
.82
.94
.81
.58
.43
1.48
.88
1.58
1995
.39
1.14
1.38
1.54
.98
1.72
2.60
**
.75
1993
.96
.65
.53
1.51
.83
.91
.99
1.03
1.46
.90
1.37
3.19
1.65
.60
.72
1997
.59
.29
.17
.49
.63
.74
.85
1.91
.71
1.11
.85
1.34
.58
.36
.55
2001
).22
).29
).26
)1.01
).25
).84
.46
).77
).67
).43
).13
).38
)1.02
**
).25
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
TABLE 6. Equity Indices for Black Assistant Professors at PWIs and Flagships by State: 1993–2001
214
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
.89
.96
.65
.74
.65
.94
1.11
.75
.90
.63
.88
.67
.82
.79
.88
1.16
.90
.55
.59
.78
.73
.64
.86
.72
.44
.70
.61
.45
).18
.07
).18
).21
).18
).06
).30
1.09
1.25
1.10
.71
.80
1.98
1.79
.35
.91
.55
1.33
.73
.76
1.89
1.61
1.24
.23
.82
**Data not available. Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
U. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M
Virginia
West Virginia
2.63
1.98
.45
.87
1.76
.89
1.77
.56
.57
1.78
1.79
.48
.94
.76
.58
1.12
.40
.70
.17
.55
.25
.12
.21
).75
).39
).36
)1.19
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
215
.11
.18
.31
.27
.17
.25
.12
.27
.12
.16
.23
.30
.13
.41
.28
.27
.17
.18
.13
.28
.09
.16
.22
.33
Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Auburn Univ.
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Miss.
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
1995
1993
State
.19
.25
.32
.19
.40
.26
.24
.26
.12
.23
.17
.13
1997
.23
.27
.43
.22
.46
.23
.18
.32
.09
.26
.15
.12
2001
.07
.05
.10
).19
.18
).04
.01
.14
).04
).02
.06
.01
Change 1993–2001
Public 4-year PWIs
.07
.00
.23
.31
.28
.18
.19
.14
.33
.00
.15
.16
.27
.27
.25
.00
.14
.33
.41
.30
.37
1995
.19
.00
.31
.28
.19
.23
.17
.00
.35
1993
.08
.25
.10
.21
.33
.28
.16
.10
.29
.40
.34
.28
.20
.14
.36
1997
.20
.22
.12
.26
.27
.38
.20
.18
.33
.46
.27
.28
.33
.09
.36
2001
.20
.08
).21
).15
).03
.01
.01
.18
.02
.18
.08
.05
.16
.09
.01
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
TABLE 7. Equity Indices for Black Full Professors at PWIs and Flagships by State: 1993–2001
216
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
.21
.53
.14
.31
.16
.26
.22
.21
.56
.16
.30
.19
.26
.22
.27
.41
.48
.14
.29
.19
.22
.28
.52
.50
.15
.33
.21
.25
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
U. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M
Virginia
West Virginia
.02
.30
).06
).01
.03
.02
.04
.16
.21
.56
.10
.79
.63
.12
.20
.00
.14
.37
.49
.12
.39
.54
.11
.20
.09
.48
.23
.24
.30
.00
.60
.58
.12
.53
.67
.48
.25
.40
.11
.35
.43
.11
.35
.12
.37
.05
.31
).03
).02
).06
).01
).04
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
217
218
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
equity index for Black full professors changed by fewer than 10% between 1993 and 2001 at the public 4-year PWIs in 14 of the 19 states.
The equity index for Black full professors declined by more than 10%
points at the public 4-year PWIs in one state (Arkansas, 19% points)
and increased by more than 10% points at the public 4-year PWIs in
three states (Delaware, 18% points; Kentucky, 14% points; and West
Virginia, 30% points). At the public flagships, the equity index for
Black full professors declined by more than 10% points between 1993
and 2001 only at the University of Southern Mississippi (21% points)
and University of Missouri (15% points). Between 1993 and 2001, the
equity index for Black full professors increased by more than 10%
points at Auburn University (18% points), University of Delaware
(18% points), University of Kentucky (16% points), University of Mississippi (20% points), University of Texas at Austin (12% points),
Texas A&M (37% points), and West Virginia University (31% points).
Status of Equity for Blacks among Full-Time Executives,
Administrators, and Managers
In contrast to the pattern for faculty, Blacks were more than 10%
points above equity among full-time executive, administrative, and managerial staff at public 4-year colleges and universities in 11 of the 19
states and at equity in 3 other states in 2001. Table 8 shows that Blacks
were below equity among staff at public 4-year institutions in just five
states: Alabama (37% points), South Carolina (21% points), Tennessee
(17% points), Texas (18% points), and Georgia (10% points). Whites
were at or above equity among full-time executive, administrative, and
managerial staff at public 4-year institutions as a whole in all 19 states
in 2001.
Disaggregating by institutional type suggests that, in some states,
equity indices for Black full-time staff at public 4-year institutions as a
whole are above equity because of the relatively high levels of equity
that Blacks experience at public 4-year HBCUs. Table 8 shows that
Blacks are within 10% points of equity among full-time executive,
administrative, and managerial staff at the public 4-year HBCUs in 11
states, more than 10% points above equity in five states, and more than
10% points below equity in only 3 states. In 2001, Blacks were 25%
points below equity among full-time executive, administrative, and managerial staff at public 4-year HBCUs in Ohio, 12% points below equity
in Pennsylvania, and 12% points below equity in Texas.
Considering equity for Black full-time executive, administrative, and
managerial staff only at public 4-year institutions as a whole also masks
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
219
TABLE 8. Equity Indices for Full-Time Black and White Executives, Administrators,
and Managers by State and Institutional Type: 2001
Total public Public 4-year
4-year
PWI
State
Alabama
University of Alabama
Auburn University
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Mississippi
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Univ. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M Univ.
Virginia
West Virginia
Public
flagship
Public 4-year
HBCU
Black White Black White Black White Black White
.63
1.16
1.02
1.14
.90
1.53
1.20
1.25
1.11
.98
1.00
1.50
1.16
1.42
.79
.83
.82
1.16
1.17
1.14
1.03
1.05
1.18
1.10
.99
.96
1.06
.99
1.07
1.03
1.01
1.18
1.01
1.11
1.06
1.21
1.11
1.02
.48
1.04
1.61
.98
.78
1.08
1.33
1.10
.77
.99
1.04
1.45
.27
1.39
.50
.86
.69
.87
1.03
1.14
1.05
1.01
1.21
1.12
1.03
.99
1.11
1.08
1.07
1.02
1.01
1.24
1.02
1.14
1.05
1.22
1.15
1.03
.46
.67
2.02
1.61
.73
.65
.83
.63
1.07
1.13
1.03
1.05
1.01
1.22
1.04
1.06
1.17
1.31
.46
.36
.29
.56
1.13
1.07
1.11
1.16
1.18
1.11
1.04
1.06
.40
.20
.94
.08
1.47
1.14
1.26
1.08
1.30
1.03
1.88
1.90
.58
1.60
1.28
1.07
1.28
1.01
1.01
1.74
1.01
1.22
.98
.97
1.01
.97
.99
.94
.37
.34
1.22
.96
.93
1.92
1.41
3.06
1.84
1.12
.75
1.87
.33
.55
.00
.19
.88
.96
.91
.88
13.92
1.39
.97
2.68
.98
2.69
1.27
.85
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
substantial inequities at the public flagship institutions in many of the
19 states. Table 8 shows that, in 2001, Blacks were more than 10%
points below equity among full-time staff at 14 of the 24 public flagship
institutions. Equity indices for Black full-time staff were 92% points below equity at the University of South Carolina, 80% points below equity at the University of Oklahoma, 71% points below equity at the
220
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
University of Southern Mississippi. In contrast, Blacks were substantially above equity among full-time staff at the University of Arkansas
(equity index = 2.02), University of Texas at Austin (1.88), Texas
A&M (1.90), University of Delaware (1.61), and West Virginia University (1.60).
Between 1993 and 2001, the 4-year PWIs in four of the 19 states
experienced improvements of greater than 10% points in equity for
Black full-time staff (Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, and Mississippi).
Table 9 shows that, of these four states, only in Mississippi was the
equity index for Black full-time staff below equity in 2001 (equity index = .77). In 12 of the 19 states the equity index for Black full-time
executive, administrative, and managerial staff declined by more than
10% points between 1993 and 2001. In 7 of the 12 states with declines,
the equity index in 2001 continued be at or above one (Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). Over
this time period, the equity index for Black full-time staff declined
from at or above equity in 1993 to below equity in 2001 in four states:
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Between 1993 and 2001, equity indices for Black full-time executive,
administrative, and managerial staff increased by more than 25% points
at four public flagship universities: University of Arkansas, University
of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, and West Virginia University. Table 9
shows that, at five public flagship institutions, the equity index for
Black full-time staff declined between 1993 and 2001 but remained
above one in 2001 (Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Tennessee). At five other public flagship institutions, the equity index
declined from above equity in 1993 to below equity in 2001 (Auburn,
Kentucky, Louisiana, University of Mississippi, and Missouri). At two
other flagship universities, Blacks experienced substantial declines in
equity among full-time staff between 1993 and 2001: Oklahoma State
University (21% points) and University of Oklahoma (53% points).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results suggest that, 50 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Blacks continue to experience substantial inequities among
the leadership (i.e., faculty and executives, administrators, and managers) of many public 4-year colleges and universities in the South. Blacks
generally experience greater equity among full-time executives, administrators, and managers at public colleges and universities in the 19 states
than among full-time faculty. However, even among executives, administrators, and managers Blacks experience substantial inequity, as these
.55
.96
2.02
1.32
.84
1.27
1.03
.95
.48
1.14
.92
1.79
1.25
2.10
.55
1.02
.59
.78
2.09
1.39
.85
1.26
.94
.99
.58
1.31
1.01
2.00
1.09
2.36
.52
1.27
Alabama
Univ. of Alabama
Auburn Univ.
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Univ. of Miss.
Miss. State Univ.
U. of Southern Miss.
Missouri
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Univ.
Univ. of Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
1995
1993
State
1.86
.49
.80
1.05
.96
1.52
1.23
1.16
2.18
1.06
.95
1.27
1.00
.94
.52
.57
1997
1.39
.50
.86
.99
1.04
1.45
.28
1.04
1.61
.98
.78
1.08
1.33
1.10
.77
.48
2001
).97
).02
).41
).32
.03
).55
).81
.26
).48
).41
).07
).18
.39
.11
.19
).11
Change 1993–2001
Public 4-year PWIs
1.23
.77
.54
1.47
1.11
1.63
1.32
.87
1.38
.15
1.37
1.02
.34
.34
1.24
1.20
1.58
.61
.73
.94
.12
1.80
1.35
.50
.79
.96
2.02
.87
.88
1.07
1.43
1.33
1995
.27
1.13
1.00
2.09
.65
.69
1.03
1993
1.73
.84
1.72
.09
1.37
.53
.44
.44
.82
1.18
1.24
.34
.76
1.77
1.00
.73
.88
.95
.91
1.32
1997
.40
.20
.94
.08
1.47
.46
.36
.29
.56
1.13
1.07
.46
.67
2.02
1.61
.73
.65
.83
.63
1.07
2001
).21
).53
.00
).04
).33
).56
.02
).05
).68
).07
).51
).28
.19
).46
1.02
).48
.08
).04
).20
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
TABLE 9. Equity Indices for Black Executives, Administrators, and Managers at PWIs and Flagships by State: 1993–2001
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
221
1.11
1.74
1.20
1.66
1.10
1.39
.75
1997
.87
1.03
.69
2001
).33
).63
).28
Change 1993–2001
Source: Analyses of data from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
.90
.97
Texas
U. of Texas-Austin
Texas A&M
Virginia
West Virginia
1995
1993
State
Public 4-year PWIs
TABLE 9. (Continued )
1.40
1.04
.52
1.34
1993
1.87
1.34
.47
1.34
1995
1.85
1.38
.53
2.07
1997
1.88
1.90
.58
1.60
2001
.48
.86
.06
.26
Change 1993–2001
Public Flagships
222
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
223
equity indices were below one at public 4-year PWIs in eight states and
14 of the 24 public flagship institutions in 2001. The magnitude of inequity for Blacks is generally greater among full than assistant professors,
and among tenured than tenure track faculty. Nonetheless, Blacks continue to experience substantial inequity even among assistant professors,
as Blacks were below equity among assistant professors at public 4-year
PWIs in all states except Delaware in 2001.
Over the past decade, the level of equity declined for Black faculty
and administrators at many public colleges and universities. While equity indices increased substantially between 1993 and 2001 for Black full
professors at public 4-year PWIs and flagship institutions in a handful
of states, in most states equity indices for Black full professors remained
stable. Moreover, for Black assistant professors, the equity index was at
least 10% points lower in 2001 than in 1993 at the public 4-year PWIs
in 16 of the 19 states. The equity index for Black full-time executives,
administrators, and managers also declined between 1993 and 2001 at
public 4-year PWIs in 12 states and several public flagship universities.
CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
This study makes at least six contributions to knowledge about the
status of Blacks among college and university faculty and administrators.
First, the analyses illustrate that, although some types of institutions in
some states have made some progress, public higher education in the
South remains highly inequitable for Blacks. Race continues to define
higher education employment in many public colleges and universities in
the 19 states. This finding raises serious concerns about the extent to
which public colleges and universities are achieving their public purpose.
Second, this study demonstrates the importance of disaggregating faculty and staff employment data to understand variations in the current
status, and trends in, equity at different types of higher education institutions. In part because of the formula we used to calculate equity indices, Blacks appear to experience greater equity among faculty at public
flagship institutions in some states than at public 4-year PWIs as a
whole. In contrast to the pattern for undergraduate enrollments and
bachelor’s degree completions (Perna et al., 2006) but also reflecting the
formula for calculating the index, the analyses also show that Blacks
experience inequity among even among faculty and administrators at
many public 4-year HBCUs.
Third, this study offers additional evidence of the critical role of public 4-year HBCUs in the higher education of Blacks in the South.
Although Blacks are below equity among faculty at public 4-year
224
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
HBCUs in most states, the magnitude of inequity is generally smaller
for Black faculty at public 4-year HBCUs than at public 4-year PWIs.
Blacks are at or above equity among full-time executives, administrators, and managers at public 4-year HBCUs in 14 of the 19 states but at
the public 4-year PWIs in only 11 of the 19 states.
Fourth, the results of this study also show the importance of disaggregating faculty data by tenure status and academic rank. Because the
equity index for Blacks is lower for non-tenure track faculty than for
tenure track faculty at public 4-year institutions in 16 of the 19 states,
this disaggregation suggest that public colleges and universities are generally not using non-tenure track appointments as a mechanism for
increasing the number of Black faculty on campus. Disaggregation also
shows that the relationship between the equity index for Blacks and
academic rank is not always linear, as the equity index for associate
professors is equal to or greater than the equity index for Black assistant professors at some types of public colleges and universities in some
states. This finding suggests variations across institutions in the forces
that shape equity for Black faculty at different career stages and
processes (e.g., recruitment, retention, promotion, tenure).
Fifth, this study also illustrates the importance of disaggregating data
by state. Each state offers its residents a set of higher education institutions with varying missions and educational goals (Paul, 1990). States
vary in terms of the characteristics of their state higher education systems
(e.g., numbers of different types of institutions, state appropriations for
higher education, and governance structures), as well as demographic
characteristics (e.g., population size and growth rates, average educational
attainment, family income). Given these variations, differences in equity
indices across states are not surprising. This study shows some substantial
differences across states in most of the indices. As an example, the range
of equity indices for Black assistant professors at public 4-year PWIs in
2001 was 68% points (from .43 in Louisiana to 1.11 in Delaware).
Finally, this study illustrates the benefits of using an equity index to
examine trends in the status of particular groups in different states over
time. We argue that these indices provide a conservative assessment of
equity for Blacks among faculty and administrators, as the reference
population is bachelor’s degree completions. Others may argue that representation among bachelor’s degree completions is an inappropriate
benchmark since a bachelor’s degree is often insufficient to access these
positions. However, if the goal is to employ faculty and administrators
that are representative of a state’s population, then representation
among bachelor’s degree completions is too lenient of a standard, as
research shows that Blacks experience inequity among bachelor’s degree
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
225
recipients at many public colleges and universities in most of the 19
states (Perna et al., 2006).
Moreover, by using equity indices that control for representation
among bachelor’s degree recipients rather than among the general population or among college enrollments, this study helps isolate higher education’s contribution to the continued underrepresentation of Blacks
among faculty and staff. Too often higher education administrators
indicate that a primary source of the continued underrepresentation of
Blacks and Hispanics among the nation’s faculty is the inadequate supply of Blacks and Hispanics among doctoral degree recipients. Such a
response, however, inappropriately reduces the magnitude of the problem that higher education must address. The high levels of inequity for
Black assistant professors and tenure track faculty suggest that persisting underrepresentation of Blacks among the nation’s faculty are attributable, in part, to inadequate numbers of Blacks entering faculty
positions. The lower levels of equity for Black tenured than tenure track
faculty, and for Black full professors than for assistant professors,
suggest that barriers to promotion and retention also contribute to
persisting underrepresentation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
RESEARCHERS
This study illustrates that substantially more progress is needed to
achieve equity for Blacks among faculty and executives, administrators,
and managers at public colleges and universities in the 19 states. To address this persisting problem, institutional researchers must continually
monitor the status of race equity and assess the effects of efforts to
achieve race equity on their individual campuses. Institutional researchers should use the indices developed in this study to assess equity
among faculty and staff for Blacks, as well as other racial/ethnic groups,
on their own campuses.
The analyses suggest several other areas of inquiry for institutional
and academic researchers. First, future research should probe beneath
the equity indices using other research methods to produce a more comprehensive picture of the status of race equity in public higher education. The equity indices paint a grim picture of the status of race equity
for faculty and administrators in public higher education in the South in
terms of ‘‘head counts,’’ but do not describe the status of equity as
experienced by faculty and administrators on campus. As several have
argued, increasing the compositional diversity of a campus is an important first step for improving the campus racial climate, but cannot be
226
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
the only step that is taken (e.g., see Chang, 1999, 2002; Hurtado,
Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen, 1998, 1999; Milem, Chang, and
Antonio, 2005). In other words, the achievement of numerical equity
does not guarantee that Blacks are experiencing equity. Qualitative research methods, particularly ethnography, participant-observation, and
interviews with faculty, will likely generate greater insights into the
sources and consequences of the race inequities identified by the indices.
Second, future research should also explore the sources of variations
in equity among faculty with different ranks and tenure status. The high
levels of inequity for Black assistant professors and tenure track faculty
at many public colleges and universities suggest barriers to equity for
Blacks along the pipeline from bachelor’s degree completion to entrance
into faculty positions. Researchers should explore the obstacles that limit Blacks’ enrollment and completion of doctoral degrees as well as the
recruitment and employment of Blacks into entry-level faculty positions.
The higher levels of inequity for Blacks among full professors than
assistant professors at public 4-year PWIs and public flagship
institutions suggest additional barriers to race equity are associated with
retention and promotion processes.
Third, future research should explore the barriers to equity among
executives, administrators, and managerial staff. While some (e.g., Jackson, 2001) propose a number of strategies for improving the retention of
Black administrators, little is known about the effectiveness of these strategies or the sources of inequities. Unlike the faculty indicators (which assess differences in equity by rank and tenure status), the equity indices for
executives, administrators, and managers do not reveal the extent to
which inequities are attributable to differences in recruitment and hiring
rather than retention and promotion. Although Blacks are above equity
among executive, administrative, and managerial staff at public 4-year
PWIs in many states, Blacks experience substantial inequity among staff
at PWIs overall and at public flagship universities in several states. Moreover, over the past decade, the level of equity for Black staff declined at
public colleges and universities in a sizeable number of states.
Finally, future research should explore sources of variations in equity
among faculty and administrators at different types of colleges and universities. In particular, echoing the recommendation of others (Johnson,
Conrad, and Perna, 2006), future research should explore the policies
and practices that promote retention and promotion of Black faculty at
HBCUs. This study shows that, unlike the pattern at most public 4-year
PWIs, the equity index for Black full professors is comparable to or
greater than the equity index for Black assistant professors at public
4-year HBCUs in many states.
EQUITY FOR BLACK FACULTY AND ADMINITRATORS
227
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the findings from this descriptive study of the status of
race equity for Blacks in the 19 states suggest that discourse regarding
race equity and Title VI enforcement must be reinvigorated. Although
Blacks experience equity among faculty and administrators at some
types of public colleges and universities in some states, problems persist.
These problems must be addressed in order to realize the benefits of an
ethnically diverse faculty that Cole and Barber (2003) and others describe, including promoting the academic success of students of color,
ensuring the recognition of contributions of diverse groups, providing
more role models for minority students, and ensuring that teaching and
research are informed by diverse perspectives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is part of a larger research project that is supported in
part by a grant from the Lumina Foundation for Education.
REFERENCES
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., and Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). The
Black academic: Faculty status among African Americans in U.S. higher education. Journal
of Negro Education 69(1/2): 112–127.
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., and Bustillos, L. T. (2006). Measuring the state of equity in public
higher education. In Gándara, P., Orfield, G., and Horn, C. (eds.), Leveraging promise and
expanding opportunity in higher education. SUNY Press, Albany.
Cataldi, E. F., Fahimi, M., Bradburn, E., and Zimbler, L. (2005). 2004 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003,
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of a racially diverse
undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development 40(4): 377–395.
Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real educational discourse on
diversity?. Review of Higher Education 25(2): 125–140.
Cole, S., and Barber, E. (2003). Increasing faculty diversity: The occupational choices of highachieving minority students, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Epps, E. G. (1989). Academic culture and the minority professor. Academe 75(5): 23–26.
Glover, D., Parsad, B., and Zimbler, L. J. (2002). The Gender and Racial/Ethnic Composition of
Postsecondary Instructional Faculty and Staff: 1992–98. National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2002-160), Washington, DC.
Heller, D. E. (1999). Racial equity in college participation: African American students in the
United States. Review of African American Education 1: 5–30.
228
PERNA, GERALD, BAUM, AND MILEM
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., and Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity through educational policy and practice. Review of
Higher Education 21: 279–302.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Allen, W. R. (1999). Enacting Diverse
Learning Environments: Improving the Campus Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher
Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports Series, 26 (8). Jossey Bass Publishers,
San Francisco.
Jackson, J. F. L. (2001). A new test for diversity: Retaining African American administrators at
predominantly White institutions. In: Jones, L. (ed.), Retaining African Americans in Higher
Education: Challenging Paradigms for Retaining Students, Faculty, and Administrators,
Stylus, Sterling, VA, pp. 93–209.
Johnson, J. N., Conrad, C. F., and Perna, L. W. (2006). Minority-serving institutions of higher
education: Building upon and extending lines of inquiry for the advancement of the public
good. In: Conrad, C. F., and Serlin, R. (eds.), SAGE Handbook for Research in Education:
Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 263–277.
Kulis, S., Chong, Y., and Shaw, H. (1999). Discriminatory organizational contexts and black
scientists on postsecondary faculties. Research in Higher Education 40(2): 115–147.
Mayhew, M. J., Grunwald, H. E., and Dey, E. L. (2006). Breaking the silence: Achieving a
positive campus climate for diversity from the staff perspective. Research in Higher Education
47: 63–88.
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., and Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making Diversity Work on Campus: A
Research Based Perspective. Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington,
DC.
Morphew, C., and Hartley, M. (in press). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric
across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Digest of Education Statistics 2004. Author,
Washington, DC. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d04/index.asp.
Paul, F. G. (1990). Access to college in a public policy environment supporting both
opportunity and selectivity. American Journal of Education 98: 351–388.
Perna, L. W., Milem, J. F., Gerald, G., Baum, E., Rowan, H., and Hutchens, N. (2006). The
status of equity for Black undergraduates in public higher education in the South. Research
in Higher Education, 47, 197–228. AIR Forum Issue.
Price, D. V., and Wohlford, J. K. (2005). Educational attainment equity: Race, ethnic and
gender inequality in the fifty states. In: Marin, P., and Orfield, G. (eds.), Higher Education
and the Color Line: College Access, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 59–81.
Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., and Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The
case of faculty of color in the midwest. Journal of Higher Education 70(1): 27–59.
Umbach, P. (2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education. Research
in Higher Education 47: 317–345.
U.S. Department of Education (2005). Digest of Education Statistics, 2004, National Center for
Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (2003). Knocking at the College Door:
Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income, and Race/Ethnicity, 1988 to 2018,
Author, Boulder, CO.
Williams, J. B. (1997). Race Discrimination in Public Higher Education: Interpreting Civil Rights
Enforcement, 1964–1996, Praeger Publishers, Westport CT.
Received June 9, 2006.