Working Group Report:  Task Force On Diversity

Harriette Gregg, Ed.D.
South Carolina State University

Gerald Kidd, Ph.D.
Boston University

Joel Stark, Ph.D.
Queens College


(This report is presented in text format only.  For the entire report in its original format please refer to the  CAPCSD Website at  www.capcsd.org )

CHARGE

3. Identify and catalog all existing Council materials (resolutions, conference presentations, etc.) dealing with the topic of diversity.
4. Organize these materials for dissemination.  In dissemination, priority should be given to electronic publication.
5. Offer recommendations to the Executive Board for future Council efforts to promote diversity.

RECOMMENDATIONS


 

INDEX FOR THE TOPIC OF DIVERSITY

Annual Conferences on Graduate Education
1980-1999
Note:  Page numbers indicate where attached “Excerpts” appear in Proceedings


Resolutions

Resolution - Issue I:  Ethnic, Cultural, Linguistic Diversity:  Challenges and Opportunities for Faculty, Students and Curriculum, page 211.  1990

Resolution 97-14 (as amended), page 147.  1997

Resolution 98-6, page 145.  1998

Recommendations

Round Table Discussion - Minority Student/Faculty Recruitment, Facilitators:  Aguiles Iglesias, Temple University; Priscilla Hellum, University of Arkansas-Little Rock; Recorder:  Stephen McFarlane, University of Nevada at Reno, page 18.  1988

Report - Task Force on Undergraduate Education, Terry L. Wiley (Chair), University of Wisconsin-Madison, James R. Andrews, Northern Illinois University;  Raymond D. Kent, University of Wisconsin-Madison;  R. Jane Lieberman, Appalachian State University, page 16.  1989

Recommendation - Issue I:  In a Climate of Change:  CSD Professoriate for the 21st Century, Replacing the Professorate:  Perspectives from a Doctoral Program, Kim A. Wilcox, University of Kansas, page 16.  1998

Recommendations - Report of the Working Group on Doctoral and Postdoctoral Education, Robert Fox, Ohio State University; Fred Minifie, University of Washington; Ann Smit, Kansas State University;  Irving Hochberg, City University of New York, page 114.  1998

Recommendation – Report of the Working Group on Diversity, Joel Stark (Chair), City University of New York; Barbara Johnson, University of Texas-Pan American;  Harriette Gregg, South Carolina State University, page 120.  1998

Addresses/Reports

Comments-Keynote Address, Educational Quality at a Time of Retrenchment, Donald T. Counihan, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, page 4. 1982

Comments- Keynote Address, A Celebration of the Tenth Anniversary:  Where have we been and where are we going?  John H. Saxman, Syracuse University, page 24.  1989

Comments- ASHA Update, Ann Carey, President-Elect, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, page 42.  1991

Comments- President’s Remarks, Nancy A. Creaghead, University of Cincinnati, page 3.  1994

Comments- The Crisis in Doctoral Education:  What does the National Survey Tell Us?  Interpretation and Recommendations Based on 1994-1995 Data, Jack R. Mills, Nova Southeastern University, page 107.  1996

Discussion of the Issues

Comments- Presentation of the issue, Survival Strategies for Quality Education Programs, Daniel S. Beasley, Memphis State University, pages 34-35.  1982

Presentation of the Issue- Ethnic, Cultural, Linguistic Diversity:  Challenges and Opportunities for the faculty, Students and Curriculum, Li- Rong Lilly Cheng, Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, pages 57.  1990

Discussion on Summary of Issue 1:  Ethnic, Cultural, Linguistic Diversity:  Challenges and Opportunities for Faculty, Students and Curriculum, John A. Ferraro, Professor and Chairman, Hearing and Speech Department, Associate Dean, School of Allied Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, pages 182; 185.  1990

Small Group Discussions- Issue III:  Legal Issues in Academia, Attorney Stuart Bompey; Summary, Elaine M. McNiece (based on summaries provided by Bob Augustine and Lisa O’Conner), page 112.  1994

Issue III:  Restructure II:  Recruiting and Retaining the Best Students- Issues Related to Diversity in Student Recruitment and Retention, Aquiles Iglesias.  Note:  Listed in program on page ix, text not included in Proceedings.  1996

Comments- Issue II:  Innovative Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Science, Clinical Theory, and Multiculturalism in a Revamped Master of Arts Program, Peter J.  Alfonso, The University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, pages 73, 74. 1999

Workshop Presentations

Workshop Presentation- Multicultural Issues in Communication Disorders, Lorraine Cole, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, page 48.  1989

Workshop presentation – Recruitment and Retention of Minority Students: From the Perspective of an American Indian Clinical Training Program, Lucy E. Weeks, University of Arizona, page 96.  1991

Workshop Presentation – Dialogue for Diversity, Elaine McNiece, University of Central Arkansas, page 60; Joe A. Melcher, Xavier University, page 66;  Maurice I. Mendel, The University of Memphis, page 70; H. Donnell Lewis, North Carolina Central University, page 72.  1997

Diversity Survey Results –pages 74-81 (N = 46).  1997

Workshop Presentation-- Establishing Admissions Criteria That Go Beyond the Numbers, Noma Anderson, Howard University, pages 146-149;  Maurice I. Mendel, The University of Memphis, page 151;  Edmund L. Thile, San Diego State University, page 165.  1999

EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS
Of the
Annual Conferences on Graduate Education
1980-1999

1982

Comments – Keynote Address, Educational Quality at a Time of Retrenchment, Donald T. Counihan, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, page 4.

Unless we can maintain our graduate schools, and unless we can continue to attract and find opportunities for outstanding graduate students of both sexes and from all races and economic circumstances, we must contemplate the prospect of universities in which increasingly elder professors teach without the stimulation of advanced students and younger colleagues.
Comments – Presentation of the Issue, Survival Strategies for Quality Education Programs, Daniel S. Beasley, Memphis State University, pages 34-35
Related to recruiting by several respondents (Authors’ note: See page 29.) was the issue of sexism and poor pay for our graduates.  An interesting point made by a couple of people who are completing a study in this area is the fact that there has been an astounding decrease in the number of males at the master’s level, and that this trend may be permanent.  They suggest that we failed miserably in recruiting minorities in the 1970’s – and not just racial minorities.
1988

Round Table Discussion – Minority Student/Faculty Recruitment, Facilitators: Aguiles Iglesias, Temple University;  Priscilla Hellum, University of Arkansas-Little Rock; Recorder: Stephen McFarlane, University of Nevada at Reno, page 18.

Recommendation: It was recommended that the issue of minority recruitment be a major topic at the 1989 conference of the Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and  Disorders.  It was suggested that Richard Ainsworth and Steve Gabany be considered as speakers for the topic.  Finally, it was recommended that students are the best means of  recruiting other students.
1989

Report -  Task Force on Undergraduate Education, Terry L. Wiley (Chair), University of Wisconsin-Madison; James R. Andrews, Northern Illinois University; Raymond D. Kent, University of Wisconsin-Madison;  R. Jane Lieberman, Appalachian State University, page 16.

Recommendation: ASHA and/or Council funds should be made available to support
promising ethnic minority students at both graduate and undergraduate levels and that ASHA and/or the Council should provide a forum for leaders of historically black institutions to meet with leaders of other institutions to discuss recruitment of students belonging to ethnic minorities into programs in communication sciences and disorders.

Comments – Keynote Address, A Celebration of the Tenth Anniversary: Where have we been and where are we going?  John H. Saxman, Syracuse University, page 24.
 

There are two more issues I want to highlight because of their importance.  The first is the multicultural concerns and the absolute necessity for us as professionals and educators to respond to diversity issues.

We have to question seriously why we are not attracting a larger proportion of students from ethnic and racial minorities into our ranks.  We know about the future projections for the changing demographic character of the work force, the school population and, by inference, the population with communication handicaps.  We have been extremely slow incorporating information relevant to cultural diversity into our curricula and clinical practice.  What is even more distressing is that many of our  faculty do not really understand the importance of multicultural considerations.  To the extent that clinicians do not have appropriate understanding of cultural diversity and sensitivity to the implications for their clinical practice, they are not appropriately trained to provide service
to major segments of our population.  To the extent that our students remain culturally and racially homogeneous, we are diminished – perhaps even literally diminished as Ted Glattke observed in his address to the undergraduate conference Tuesday night.  He stressed, and I would strongly endorse, the necessity to recruit from the ranks of the culturally diverse.

I don’t presume to know how to increase our diversity.  We must do more than simply not erect barriers, however.  We must make multicultural issues a top priority of faculty concern and commitment.


Workshop Presentation – Multicultural Issues in Communication Disorders, Lorraine Cole, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, page 48.

Conclusion: In closing, it is worthy of note that the high school graduating class of the year 2000 started school in September of 1988.  These children represent the pool from which the first college students of the 21st century will come.  Our challenge must
be to assure that true multicultural literacy is the norm in professional education by the time those students enter our programs.  We must all strive for the day when minority concerns are no longer a matter of concern, but a matter of routine.
1990

Presentation of the Issue – Ethnic, Cultural, linguistic Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities for Faculty, Students and Curriculum, Li-Rong Lilly Cheng, Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, pages 57.

Conclusion: There are challenges and opportunities in examining training institutions’ culture,  self-perception, values, beliefs, attitudes and operation.  These challenges include  redefining the programs as culturally plural, in keeping with the fabric of the American  tapestry.  Faculty  need to be involved in the recruitment and retention process.  The need to improve the quality of the diverse students’ educational experience and move toward educating the culturally/linguistically/ethnically diverse population.  Students in training need to be informed about the issues surrounding the  pre-assessment, assessment and intervention procedures of serving the diverse linguistic/culture/ethnic population.

“As we approach an increasingly multicultural and multiethnic twenty-first century, higher  education must play an important role in educating and training this and future generations of American student – white and black, yellow and brown, immigrant and non-immigrant – if we are to continue to meet the human capital needs that our technologically advanced society demands” (Oliver & Johnson, 1988).

Discussion on Summary of Issue I:  Ethnic, Cultural, Linguistic Diversity:  Challenges and Opportunities for Faculty, Students and Curriculum, John A. Ferraro, Professor and Chairman, Hearing and Speech Department, Associate Dean, School of Allied Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, pages 182; 185.
Comments:  With regard to the overall issue, two major concerns became prominent during the group discussions:
• the “challenges” of providing speech-language-hearing services to diverse cultural/ethnic groups; and
• the education of students from these groups in our academic programs.

Summary:  The general feeling that clearly emerged from the discussion of Issue I was that we must resolve to define the values of our field with strong awareness of and sensitivity to the cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity that exists in the populations that we educate and serve.  Furthermore, we need to define and overcome our own fears and resistant altitudes regarding this overall issue as a first step.


Resolution – Issue I:  Ethnic, Cultural, Linguistic Diversity:  Challenges and Opportunities for Faculty, Students and Curriculum, page 211.

RESOLVED that the Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders request that the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association investigate the publication of centralized resources which would catalogue cultural and linguistic differences associated with multicultural populations.  (For = 35; against = 25; abstentions = 5)

1991

Comments – ASHA Update, Ann Carey, President-Elect, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, page 42.

The new standards for certification and accreditation, which go into effect 1993 and 1994 respectively, include requirements for course content and practicum pertaining to culturally diverse populations.  Since 1987, ASHA has conducted an annual conference on multicultural professional education in Sea Island, Georgia.  The program addressed such topics as minority student and faculty requirements, cross-cultural differences in learning styles, multi-cultural program designs and multicultural curriculum
approaches.  This program has evolved into a comprehensive training institute and there is a course-by-course description of specific content information that can be included on cultural diversity throughout the entire curriculum in communication disorders.

Beyond the topic of multicultural professional education, the ASHA Executive Board recently adopted a comprehensive plan of affirmative activity designed to build institutional diversity throughout the Association.  This document is entitled Multicultural Action Agenda 2000 and consists of six major objectives and corresponding action steps which are to be accomplished throughout the decade of the 1990s.  Multicultural Action Agenda 2000 marks renewed commitment and a greater resolve to more effectively address the challenges that we will face in the increasingly diverse environment of the next millennium.

Workshop Presentation – Recruitment and Retention of Minority Students:  From the Perspective of an American Indian Clinical Training Program, Lucy E. Weeks, University of Arizona, page 96.
Conclusion:  Various ideas have been presented here today concerning how to recruit and retain minority students.  There has been an emphasis on using strategies which recognize and respect cultural differences.  This is certainly very important; however, first and foremost, we must realize that we are all human beings and share common human roles.
1994

Comments – President’s Remarks, Nancy A. Creaghead, University of Cincinnati, page 3.

There is continuing concern that the number of minority students is not increasing. The National Survey documents a constant figure of approximately 7% during  the life of the survey.
Small Group Discussions – Issue III:  Legal Issues in Academia, Attorney Stuart Bompey, Summary, Elaine M. McNiece (based on summaries provided by Bob Augustine and Lisa O’Connor), page 112.
Can a program have different criteria for under-represented groups?  The Bakke case determined that programs cannot use quotas as a means of improving admissions of under-represented groups.  Avoid documentation that says “X” number of admission slots are for minorities.  The Clinton administration may make it easier to admit more minorities by simply allowing a program to admit more if the program has not been able to meet a good admission rate for minorities in the past.  A case of reverse discrimination was cited that an invalid admission decision was made because an informal  interview was used to make the decision.  The lack of valid criteria applied consistently to all applicants makes the use of information interviewing invalid.
1996

Comments – The Crisis in Doctoral Education:  What does the National Survey Tell Us?  Interpretation and Recommendations Based on 1994-1995  Data, Jack R. Mills, Nova Southeastern University, page 107.

Table 6:  Status of Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity.  The Overall percent of students from ethnic minority groups has remained relatively constant during the thirteen years of the survey.

Ethnic minority students comprised 12.4% of the doctoral level population in the 1994-95 survey.

Master’s & Doctoral graduates fluent in a language other than English comprised 11.4% of that population (1994-95)

Issue III:  Restructure II:  Recruiting and Retaining the Best Students – Issues Related to Diversity in Student Recruitment and Retention, Aquiles Iglesias.  Note:  Listed in program on page ix, text not included in Proceedings.

1997

Workshop Presentation – Dialogue for Diversity,

Elaine McNiece, University of Central Arkansas, page 60.  Summary:  A beginning point may be recognition at a personal level of attitudes and behaviors related to diversity.  Unless individuals recognize their own biases such as homophobia or racism they will not be able to change.  Change must occur at a personal level before we can expect change on the institutional level or societal level.

What are the practical strategies for changing the faculty and students in your program into a community that is more aware of the causes of bias that separate us and one which resists barriers to equal opportunity?  What would need to change in policies, curriculum, clinical practicum requirements, faculty and student recruitment and retention efforts?  What programs would need to be put in place?  What must you do to create an environment where no one is advantaged or disadvantaged, an where “we is everyone?”  The panel participants will address these issues and questions from their perspectives.

Joe A. Melcher, Xavier University, page 66.  Summary:  As program directors it is our responsibility to help educate university administrators, faculty, staff, and students about these issues.  There are numerous ways for each of us as individuals to make a difference.  It could be by stating your objections to a “fag” joke; it could be by changing the wording of you social function invitation from “you and your spouse” to “you and your guest,” it could be by having a local LesBiGay speaker address your students on these issues; it could be by changing the wording on your patient history form.  I’m sure that you can probably think of many ways to address these issues in courses and in daily activities.  However, be prepared to be challenged, and even threatened. Just remember that as long as one person is demeaned for being different we are all lessened.

Maurice I. Mendel, The University of Memphis, page 70.  Summary:  As I indicated at the beginning of this session, I have been dealing with diversity issues at my current university for about nine years.  I think the important message with which I would like to close is the fact that, while we have had some areas of success and some areas of less than total success, one of the things that I have learned is that none of this happens quickly.  Some issues with which we began dealing nine years ago have been resolved in the intervening years, while some are still unresolved.  I believe the unresolved issues continue to present challenges for the future.  A paramount factor remains perseverance.

H. Donnell Lewis, North Carolina Central University, page 72.  Summary:  My suggestion is  that the Council create a task force much like what ASHA did in the 1980s to address issues of diversity.  The goal of this group should encompass a revisit of the barriers which continue to prevent greater participation by minorities in this profession. We are collectively the single most powerful group for effecting change in this arena. We shape the collective policies and attitudes in communication sciences and disorders departments across the country.  Let’s move beyond dialogue to action before we enter the next millennium.  Our goal should and has to be to provide leadership to this profession on this ultimately important issue.

Diversity Survey Results – pages 74-81 (N=46)

Part E.  Background Information

Age: 20-29 1(2%); 30-39 1(2%); 40-49 9(20%); 50-59 22(48%); 60 1(2%); NR 2(4%)

Sex: Female  33(72%)  Male 12(26%)  NR 1(2%)

Racial/Ethnic Group:   African American/Black/African Heritage 3 (7%) American Native 0(0%); Asian/Pacific Islander 0(0%)
    Chicano/Latino/Hispanic 1(2%)  White/Caucasian 39(85%); Middle Easter 1(2%); Other 0(0%); NR 2(4%).

Religious Affiliation: Buddhist 0(0%; Catholic/Christian 9(20%); Hindu 0(2%); Jewish 6(13%); Muslim 1(2%); Protestant/Christian 22(48%); None 6(13%); Other 0(0%); NR 2(4%)

Sexual Orientation: Gay 1(2%); Lesbian 1(2%); Bisexual 0(0%); Heterosexual 41(89%); Transgender/Transexual 1(2%); NR 2(4%).

Disability:  Yes 3(7%); No 0(0%); NR 2(4%) [No=41 (89%)???]

Type of Disability:  Visual impairment 1(2%); Coordination impairment 1(2%);
NR 1(2%).

Resolution 97-14 (as amended), page 147

RESOLVED – That the CGPCSD create a working group to address issues of diversity.  The goals of the working group will include revisiting the barriers which continue to prevent greater participation by minorities in academe, and to make recommendations for removing these barriers.  (Yes = 49; no = 0; abstentions = 4)

1998

Recommendation – Issue I:  In a Climate of Change:  CSD Professoriate for the 21st Century, Replacing the Professorate:  Perspectives from a Doctoral Program, Kim A. Wilcox, University of Kansas, page 16.

Recommendation:  Adjust admissions criteria at every academic level to prioritize diversity and research interests.
Recommendations – Report of the Working Group on Doctoral and Postdoctoral Education, Robert Fox, Ohio State University; Fred Minifie, University of Washington; Ann Smit, Kansas State University;  Irving Hochberg, City University of New York, page 114.
Recommendations –

The Council should survey the various intra-university and extra-mural funding programs that currently provide support for undergraduate and graduate minority students in communication sciences and disorders.  Directors of member programs of the Council should facilitate obtaining this information from their respective administrators.  The Council should subsequently distribute this information to the membership.

The Council should consider sponsoring a panel discussion at one of its annual meetings to address minority recruitment for doctoral study by inviting representatives of federal and private funding agencies that include programs that support minority students.


Recommendation – Report of the Working Group on Diversity, Joel Stark (Chair), City University of New York, Barbara Johnson, University of Texas-Pan American; Harriette Gregg, South Carolina State University, page 120.

Recommendation:  The dialogue for diversity must continue.  We recommend that the 1999 Program Committee plan a series of group discussions with facilitators and recorders on removing barriers to diversity.
Resolution 98-6, page 145.

RESOLVED – That the Council encourage member programs and Related Professional Organizations to develop additional recruitment plans targeting high school and undergraduate students who are members of under represented groups.  (Yes = 85; no = 0; abstentions = 11.)

1999

Comments – Issue II:  Innovative Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Science, Clinical Theory, and Multiculturalism in a Revamped Master of Arts Program, Peter J. Alfonso, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pages 73, 74.

The third major issue addressed by curriculum reform is that of multiculturalism in the discipline.  This is a well known discipline issue because while the proportion of minority professionals providing service delivery has not increased over the decade, and in fact remains under represented at about six percent,  the proportion of persons representing minority populations served by the discipline has risen dramatically.  The approach here was twofold:  first, to enhance the presentation of multicultural issues throughout the curriculum and clinical practicum, and second, to create a critical mass of minority students within the Master’s program.

In regard to the second approach, that of increasing the minority student population in the student body, we targeted 20 percent minority enrollment in the Master’s program.  This proportion is in agreement with research that shows that it is necessary to develop a critical mass of at least 15-20 percent in order to provide an appropriate cultural context for students of under-represented populations to thrive and succeed.  While there is much to be said on the issue of minority representation in our academic institutions, I have the time to mention only one:  There exist currently a relatively small but successful and diverse number of programs that have nurtured, grown, and sustained appropriate levels of under represented students.  It is beyond the time that we create a mechanism to model these programs so that others can benefit from their experiences.  I encourage the Council to consider such an initiative, perhaps in collaboration with ASHA.

Workshop Presentation – Establishing Admissions Criteria That Go Beyond the Numbers,
Noma Anderson, Howard University, pages 146-149.  We are being challenged. What can we do?  First, we must re-commit ourselves to wanting and desiring diversity within our disciplines.  Secondly, we can develop admissions policies that consider more than the GRE and the GPA.  “Merit” needs to be defined by our programs.  The most important way to do this is to develop a student profile that addresses or that matches the mission and vision of your institution.  Thirdly, we must voice opposition to the dismantling of affirmative action.  It is clear that culturally and linguistically diverse-sensitive admission procedures help, not harm
our disciplines.
Maurice I. Mendel, The University of Memphis, page 151.  A recent article by Forrest and Naremore (1998) summarizes the arguments about why GPA and GRE scores have received criticism as predictors of graduate school success.  In spite of these issues, we continue to use a ranking system based on GPA and GRE scores that implies that those who are ranked at the top are the Best, and decreasing scores lead us down into the Better and then Good categories.  Students from underprivileged and underrepresented groups spend two years in our master’s program proving that they are better than the rankings would lead us to believe. I believe there has to be an admissions system that is better than this.  Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to develop it so far.  Perhaps audience members can help with this problem.
Edmund L. Thile, San Diego State University, page 165.  The Communication Sciences and Disorders field continues to fall behind in its efforts to provide  multiethnic health care professionals.  Non-Anglo members of ASHA represent only 7.5% of the more the 96,000 certified members in contrast to the 28% average estimated non-Anglo population nation-wide.  Most recent national surveys show that university programs in communication sciences and disorders average 11/1% non-Anglo undergraduate and 8.2% underrepresented ethnic graduate students.  While showing some gains, traditional models of recruitment and retention have simply not closed the gap.  Limitations in these  models include 1) targeting too few students too late in their academic  careers; 2) several professional preparation programs recruiting the same students (“fishing from the same pool”); and 3) working in isolation both as a profession and as university entities.

NOTE:  A series of tables summarizing minority statistics from the National Survey can be found in the online version.  (The CAPCSD Web site  is  www.capcsd.org)