More Rivers To Cross: A Report On The Status of African American Professors at Penn State University

“No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters
and
righteousness like a might stream.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963
Preface
On April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated.
Commemoratively, on Tuesday, April 4, 2019 more than a half-century later, a group exceeding
50 Black Penn State professors along with others convened on the University Park campus for a
forum entitled, “An Afternoon With African American Faculty at Penn State: More Rivers to
Cross.” The primary aim of this gathering was to discuss issues and concerns related to their
status and equitable representation in the academy (Appendix A).1 This conclave represented a
broad cross-section of faculty by discipline, rank, and tenure. The meeting was also attended by
the State Conference President, Dr. Joan Duvall Flynn, of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the oldest and most prominent civil rights
organization in the nation. A major presentation focused on the number of Black professors at
Penn State and the lack of diversity among its faculty. Other salient issues discussed included
the cultural climate, student evaluation of teaching, promotion and tenure issues, and
additionally, the experiences, mentorship, retention, and acceptance of Black undergraduate and
graduate students.
Prior to this meeting, appearing in the student newspaper, The Daily Collegian, were three
editorials written by Black professors focusing on the paucity and plight of African American
faculty at Penn State (Appendix B). Additionally, individual groups of African American faculty
were meeting informally to discuss various topics related to their presence and status on campus.
The history of African American faculty at Penn State is fairly recent. Although the first Black
student, Calvin Waller, entered Penn State in 1899 more than 40 years after it was founded, the
first full-time African American professor, Mary E. Godfrey, was not hired until 1956 as an
assistant professor of art education.2 Charles T. Davis began service in 1961 as an associate
professor and became the first Black professor promoted with tenure to full professor in 1963.3
The progress beyond these inaugural achievements has been exceedingly slow and devoid of a
sustained commitment across departments and colleges. While Dr. King’s tragic death in 1968
ushered in an era of increased enrollment of Black students in most predominately White
universities and colleges across the nation, Penn State was among those institutions that failed to
live up to the dream. In 1976, 35 African Americans held faculty positions at Penn State
representing less than 1% of the entire faculty. By 1982, this number had increase to 38 Black
faculty or 1.16%, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page “special report” entitled “Not No.
1” in February of 1983 citing the low number of African American students (2.5%) and faculty
1
The terms African American and Black are used interchangeably throughout this report.
2
http://blackhistory.psu.edu/timeline/mary_e._godfrey_first_negro_full-time_faculty_member
3
http://blackhistory.psu.edu/timeline/charles_t._davis_joins_the_faculty_as_associate_professor_of_english
2
(1.2%) at Penn State.4 Shortly thereafter the publishers strongly rebuked the University in an
editorial noting that it was “woefully behind” and “far below state and national averages” and
that numbers of black faculty have even fallen “over the past six years” (Appendix C).5
In 1969, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was “found to be one of 10 states operating a

racially segregated system in higher education”.6 In response to the 1969 court order to
desegregate and to fulfill the mandates of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the university
was included in the “Pennsylvania’s 1983-1988 Desegregation Plan” to increase the enrollment
of Black students and faculty. Some 10 years post the 1988 Plan, the “Framework to Foster
Diversity 1998-2003” was introduced as part of the university’s strategic plan with a similar
purpose. For all practical purposes this report assesses what has transpired since the 1998-2003
strategic plan to hire and maintain Black faculty at the UP campus.
It must be also be noted that Black students have also played an important role in advocating for
increased representation of African Americans in the classrooms and research labs of Penn State.
In fact, their documented concerns date back as far as 1948 and there has been a cyclical pattern
of Black student protests (1968, 1979, 1988 and 2001).7 Almost 20 years ago, members of the
Black Caucus, along with their supporters held a number of meetings and demonstrations that
evolved into a ten day campus occupation of the Hub-Robeson Center, known as “The Village”,
during the spring semester of 2001. These actions were a pivotal set of events receiving
widespread local, state, and national attention and culminating in a negotiated University
endorsed agreement called, A Plan to Enhance Diversity at Penn State. The bold and
courageous activism of these students still resonates with many faculty and staff who supported
their cause.
Approximately 7 years ago, the Forum on Black Affairs (FOBA), an organization of black
faculty and staff, published a report entitled the, 2013 Status of Black Faculty and Staff at the
Pennsylvania State University (Appendix D). As noted, this document was an extension of
previous reports written in 1981, 1999, and 2000 on the “status of Black People at Penn State”
and presented “four challenges that Black faculty, staff, and administrators at Penn State face”:
4
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Special Report by Barbara White Stack, p.1, February 23, 1983
5
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial, p. 6. March 1, 1983
6
The Effects of Public Policy Conflicts and Resource Allocation Decisions on Higher-Education Desegregation
Outcomes in Pennsylvania by James B. Stewart (2001). In “The Quest for Equity in Higher Education: Toward New
Paradigms in an Evolving Affirmative Action Era” by Lindsay, Beverly, Justiz, Manuel J., Editors, State University of
New York Press pp. 63-98.
7
In 2002, Robin E. Hoecker, a former student in the Department of African and African American Studies wrote an
honors thesis surveying the history of black faculty, staff, and students entitled, The Black And White Behind The
Blue And White: A History Of Black Student Protests At Penn State. This work is a valuable chronology of the
journey of African Americans at Penn State and from “whence we came”.
3
Challenge 1 - Overcoming Stagnation; Authors found that the growth of Black faculty at
Penn State has been less than 1 percent in over 30 years in relation to the growth in the
total number of faculty.
Challenge 2 - Increasing Representation of Blacks in Senior Leadership Roles: Without a

constant increase and retention of Black faculty and staff at Penn State, there is no clear
mechanism for career advancement, and for promoting faculty and staff to senior-
administrative positions.
Challenge 3 - Reporting and Implications: More transparency is needed in reporting data

regarding promotion and tenure of Black faculty as well as reporting the promotion of
Black staff.
Challenge 4 - Changing the Reality of the Black Experience at Penn State: Numerous
faculty and staff indicated experiences of racial/ethnic bias, which were obstacles to
career advancement opportunities. The most consistent challenge was a feeling of
isolation, due to the small number of Black faculty and staff, and the constant need to re-
educate non-ethnically diverse groups about racial issues.
A number of recommendations to address these specific issues were submitted as part of their
report. It is not known if or how the University responded.
With respect to these important matters, African American professors at Penn State are not alone
in addressing and bringing them to the attention of those within and without the university. For
example, a recent document produced by an independent group of Latino faulty at the University
of Texas at Austin entitled, Hispanic Equity Report, is instructive and aptly resonates.8
The present report is an extension of the longstanding concerns of African American faculty,
students, and others at Penn State and beyond regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion and
evolves directly from the forum of “An Afternoon with African American Faculty at Penn State”
of 2019. As such, it is yet another clarion call to the University administration to review
seriously and to respond affirmatively and manifestly to these issues. While some notable
progress has been achieved, it is far short of the principled “All In” declaration of President Eric
Barron and his predecessors and reinforces the evidence-based assessment that there are still,
More Rivers to Cross.
8
https://www.academia.edu/40680567/HISPANIC_EQUITY_REPORT-_UNIVERSITY_OF_TEXAS_AT_AUSTIN
4
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the many Penn State faculty for the generous
support and contributions to this report. Their collective ideas, suggestions, and comments are
embodied in this work. Also, we are particularly indebted to the students, Maia Hill and Myles
Brower, for their valuable assistance in the preparation of this document. We also thank the Penn
State Office of Planning and Assessment for providing requested information.
Authors: Gary King, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health ([email protected]);

Darryl Thomas, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of African American Studies,
([email protected]).
5
Introduction
African Americans represent 10.6% of the 12,813,969 persons residing in the state of
Pennsylvania.9 According to the Penn State Factbook of 2019, 4.1% of the student body at the
UP campus enrolling 46,723 individuals were African American.10 An accurate enumeration of
Black professors at the UP campus requires an analysis based on their status, tenure,
administrative roles, and distribution across campuses over a 15 year period between 2004-2018.
Additionally, the cultural climate and challenges that African American as well as other faculty
of color face at Penn State with respect to bias and systemic obstacles deserves a robust and
candid discussion. Each of these aims is related to the “All In at Penn State: A Commitment to
Diversity and Inclusion” declaration recognizing “ the value of having a diverse faculty” of
which we fully subscribe.11 As exemplified by this report, we are also committed to the principle
of equity in the pursuit of knowledge, pedagogy, and service to students and the Commonwealth.
This report attempts to advance these aims using both official University and non-University
sources and is presented in two separate editions. The present edition (Part 1) includes three
separate sections. Section 1.0 presents an overview of some general issues and dynamics of race
and racism that Black scholars encounter in the academy at all levels, disciplines, and phases of
tenure. This contextual discussion is based on the literature and has clear and direct relevance to
black professors at the University Park (UP) campus and beyond.
Section 2.0 of this report provides an in-depth analysis of the number and distribution of African
American professors on the UP campus between 2004-2018 according to professorial rank and
tenure status, gender.
Section 3.0 presents an analysis of the enumeration of faculty in UP colleges. In addition, a

separate analysis of African American professors who appeared on departmental websites
provides a current representation prior to the Fall Semester of 2019.
Section 4.0 presents two major statements about the shortcomings and biases of student
evaluation of teaching affecting Black and other faculty of color by two academic bodies: 1) the
Penn State University Faculty Senate; and 2) the American Sociological Association and more
than 15 other professional academic organizations. This section also includes a detailed review
of the literature on the use of student evaluation of teaching and the intrinsic biases affecting
Black professors.
Though the present analysis is limited to the University Park campus we surmise that the
findings are not dissimilar from the satellite Penn State campuses especially as it relates to the
9
Source: The American Community Survey, 2019
10
Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment, Penn State Factbook.
11
Source: “What is All?” http://allin.psu.edu/faq.html
6
lack of Black faculty and related challenges. An additional report (Part 2) is forthcoming based
on the input of Black faculty and students and in consultations with organizations and others.
1.0 Black Faculty at Predominately White Institutions (PWI) of Higher Learning
"I insist on bearing witness to Black pain and suffering at PWIs because the deniers are out there. We are told
that what we know in our very bodies to be true isn't credible. This is a different kind of violence, the epistemic
kind" (Yancy, 2019).
Increasing the diversity of US college and university faculty has been the subject of longstanding
national discussions and debates. Since the civil rights movement, several national and local
programs have been launched to advance the diversity of faculty. However, the percentage of
African American faculty has remained disappointingly low. According to the Chronicle of
Education’s analysis of the demographics of more than 400,000 professors at institutions across
all Carnegie classifications, 75 out of every 100 full-time faculty members at four-year colleges
are White, 10 are Asian, 5 are Black, 4 are Hispanic, and .4 are Native American (Myers,
2016b).
At large flagship state universities, in particular, the diversity of faculty is far lower than that of
the student body (Myers, 2016a). Wilson (2016) and Brown (2016a) report that as student
populations are growing more diverse, students are pressing universities to hire more minority
faculty members. Flaherty (2015) notes, however, that increasing the representation of African
American faculty is challenging because few Black students are pursuing doctoral degrees given
climate concerns and the attractive jobs in corporate businesses and industry. Moreover, some
argue that the reason most academic departments lack faculty of color is not that they cannot find
any, but rather because they lack the will to hire any (De La Torre, 2018; Gasman, 2016).
Gasman (2016) maintains that faculty search committees are a major part of the problem because
they are not trained in recruitment, are rarely diverse in makeup, and are often more interested in
hiring people who look and act just like them rather than expanding the diversity of their
department: "They reach out to those they know for recommendations and rely on ads in national
publications. And, even when they do receive a diverse group of applicants, often those
applicants ‘aren’t the right fit’ for the institution." Often, the search committee points to the
Black candidates' lack of "quality" because they did not obtain a Ph.D. from an elite institution or
were not mentored by a prominent person in the field. Moreover, when faculty from under-
represented groups are hired, it is frequently the case that retention is low and career
advancement and promotion are stymied. Faculty from under-represented groups find that on top
of the usual demands on research, service, and teaching, they have to work to fit in culturally
(Brown, 2016a).
In the following sections, we describe some of the significant challenges experienced by Black
faculty that reduce their representation in the academy and their progression through the tenure
ranks. Professorial status is a challenging vocation. Although all faculty regardless of race,
ethnicity or gender are expected to excel professionally, an unwritten rule is that Black
7
professors should do so without complaining about racism, discrimination or systematic bias.
The experiences of African American men and women as professors bear considerable notice as
it contrasts substantially with those of their non-Black peers. Research shows that teaching,
research, service, and even presenting at conferences are a different experience for Black faculty.
For example, during the tenure process, senior faculty members do not have the expertise to
assess the interdisciplinary research upon which minority scholars often focus on (Brown,
2016a). Also, the tenure process usually does not account for the extra service and mentoring
work that Black professors shoulder (Brown, 2016a; 2016b). In this section, we intend to foster a
more vigorous dialogue around institutional racism and exclusionary practices.
Being Twice as Good

African American professors feel that they cannot be “average” if they want to earn tenure and
promotion. An anecdote repeated by African American elders is that they have to be “twice as
good as Whites” to get the jobs that Whites did not even want. Nothing should be handed to you
and using external forces like racism to explain away your underachievement is not acceptable.
This belief of Black faculty and an implied demand by others that they have to work harder and
achieve more than their majority peers is burdensome and stressful. It places them under constant
pressure to be exceedingly productive and heightens the visibility of color, especially when there
is only one Black faculty member in the department. Underachievement can become a stand-in
for the limitations of the entire race and the bearer of this burden must continuously prove that
they are worthy of their faculty appointment and not merely an “opportunity hire.” Being twice
as good also means that Black professors must take responsibility and persist, even in the face of
perceived racism and the feelings of isolation that go along with being the only person or one of
a few of your “race” on the faculty (Brown, 2016a).
Being “twice as good,” however, does little to protect against race-based exclusion and its
associated mental toll. Black faculty report being ignored, treated with contempt and disinterest,
and being excluded from research and leadership roles at their respective universities (Brown,
2016a; Jackson, 2015). African American faculty are often excluded from the informal social
networks and decision-making process that their white peers are often privy. They receive fewer
opportunities for collaborative research, which diminishes their rate of publications and research
grants (National Science Foundation, 2015). Research also shows that Black professors at PWIs
endure additional challenges such as isolation from colleagues, biased critiques and lower
evaluations of their classroom effectiveness, lower pay than their White counterparts,
marginalization of their research, and less mentoring (Guillory, 2015). In academe, Black
scholars work in a context where they are consistently made aware of their status as an under-
represented and undervalued scholar and the marginalization that this engenders. One often has
to act as if these differences do not matter. Many Black faculty at Penn State feel unsupported
and blocked in their careers. Some cited heads of departments and deans who actively
discouraged them from applying for promotions. Others describe an exclusive system in which
White colleagues “co-sign each other’s applications, share each other’s teaching content, and
support one another” (Sian, 2019).
8
Performing While Black
In a study of faculty experiences of present research at scholarly venues, McGee and Kazembe
(2016) found that Black faculty were racially stereotyped at work and were expected to entertain
and perform for colleagues in ways that were not expected of their White counterparts. Black
faculty reported that audiences critiqued or questioned their research as not being sufficiently
objective and rigorous, their appearance as being unprofessional or “ethnic”. Such experiences
have made a majority of respondents sacrifice vital parts of their identity to avoid criticism or to
avoid being called upon to entertain White colleagues. This hostile environment not only blocks
talented and gifted Black faculty from rising through the ranks, but it is mentally taxing and
forces many of these faculty to leave the profession altogether.
Invisible Labor and Cultural Taxation

Many faculty of color experience an additional service burden as universities seek to diversify
their student bodies, staff, faculty, and administration. Deans may unintentionally place higher
service burdens on their faculty when they assign Black faculty to committee work that requires
a plurality of perspectives. In this setting, Black faculty share the burden of educating their
colleagues and students about systems of inequality. This labor is largely under-appreciated and
unrecognized during annual performance evaluations and in the tenure and promotion process.
African American faculty also do a disproportionate amount of service work such as mentoring
and advising students and junior faculty, serving as a faculty advisor for campus clubs along with
service on committees. The few Black faculty on campus engage in the hidden work of
protecting Black students. This is an immense responsibility for Black faculty that White
colleagues do not shoulder (Perry, 2016). While pressing and necessary, service work presents a
significant obstacle to the promotion and retention of Black faculty. This obligation is
particularly troublesome for the Black women, the “maids of academe”, who are often
overextended and undervalued (Harley, 2008). Harley (2008) notes that Black women report
being repeatedly overlooked for promotion, regularly confused for administrative staff, and
unsupported by other colleagues, including other women. While Baez (2000) contends that
faculty of color can use service work as a site for social justice efforts that promote the success
of racial minorities in the academy, this leaves precious little time for the research that will earn
promotion and tenure.
Grollman (2015) argues that the invisible labor of African American faculty reflects a cultural
taxation: “the pressure faculty members of color feel to serve as role models, mentors, even
surrogate parents to minority students, and to meet every institutional need for ethnic
representation.” Students of color face a constellation of issues such as economic pressures; they
are often intergenerationally the first in their families to attend college; and racially hostile
classrooms and unwelcoming environments for learning and living. The institution does not
value the mentoring that goes into supporting these students, but Black students actively seek out
same-raced professors to listen and to offer advice.
9
Racial Battle Fatigue
The minuscule number of African American faculty serving as life coaches, surrogate parents,
and financial planners to Black students have many negative impacts on their mental health and
wellbeing. There are few tenured African American faculty who might serve as role models and
mentors to Black junior faculty and students. Black students studying at predominantly White
institutions may not have a single Black professor during their undergraduate experience due to
the dearth of Black faculty. When negative racialized experiences occur on campus, these
students often seek out African American faculty for comforting and counseling and reassurance.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2019), for instance, tracks campus racial incidents
ranging from racially themed parties, name calling, racial slurs on social media, and physical
attacks. These incidents take an emotional toll on Black faculty and contribute to feelings of
social isolation and emotional pain.
In 1970, the distinguished psychiatrist Chester Pierce coined the term microaggressions to refer
to the subtle and less obvious forms of offensive behavior, either directly or indirectly, intended
to subordinate or denigrate members of racial and ethnic minority groups. Microaggressions
have been described by others as brief and commonplace daily verbal behavioral or
environmental indignities (whether intentional or unintentional). These subtle actions
communicate hostility, insensitivity and negativity to an individual or group (Sue, 2010; Sue et
al., 2008). Smith (2004) employed the term “racial battle fatigue” to describe the physical and
psychological toll taken due to perceptions of unceasing discrimination and microaggressions.
While studying how racialized microaggressions affected Black students at PWIs, he (2004)
found that experiences with chronically unsafe and hostile campus environments can trigger
severe mental health disorders.
Further microaggressions, though quite real, are by their very nature evidential to the recipients;
they are not always verifiable as official complaints of bias and discrimination. Racial battle
fatigue sets in as Black faculty struggle to navigate majority White institutions, anticipate and
avoid cultural clashes to fit in, and maintain scholarly productivity while at the same time they
are called upon to mentor African American students who are protesting issues that they perceive
as dangerous, widespread, and often ignored. Such stress goes beyond the confines of the
campus, crippling a Black professor’s ability to hold together their work, family, and social lives.
Wingfield (2015) argues that being a Black professor at a PWI can be more miserable than being
a Black student at one because faculty remain with the institution for a longer time and are more
vested in efforts to improve campus climate. Black faculty bottle up personal and professional
attacks on them and their scholarship, which leads to stress and attrition (Perry, 2016).
Summary: Penn State, as with many other predominately White institutions of higher learning,
is severely challenged to address the issues of racism and equity within the academy. The
experiences documented in this report by African American professors are similar to those
encountered by Black faculty at Penn State and demonstrate that racialized encounters are
10
systemic and must not be cast off as “one-off” incidents. African American faculty are
particularly impacted by the history of institutional intransigence and a culture of “benign
neglect”, which influences their professional satisfaction and emotional well-being as well as
advancement and retention. One of the ancillary consequences is the negative effect on Black
students and African American communities within Pennsylvania as well as their perceptions
and views about Penn State as a welcoming and wholesome environment.
References
Baez, B. (2000). Race-Related Service and Faculty of Color: Conceptualizing Critical Agency in
Academe, Higher Education, 39(3), 363-391.
Chronicle of Higher Education (2019, April 29). No One Escapes Without Scars: Being a Black
Academic in America. Available at https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190418-Black-academic;
last accessed July 14, 2019.
Brown, S. (2016b). Student Activists Tell Colleges: To Improve Racial Climate Look Hard at Tenure,
The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 09. Available at http://www.chronicle.com/article/Student-
Activists-Tell/236402; last accessed November 4, 2016.
Brown, S. (2016a). Tenure Denials Set off Bells, and a Book, About Obstacles for Minority Faculty, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, October 19. Available at http://www.chronicle.com/article/Tenure-
Denials-Set-Off-Alarm/238100?cid=rclink; last accessed November 14, 2016.
De La Torre, M. (2018). Academic Racism: The Repression of Marginalized Voices in Academia, The
Activists History Review. Available at https://activisthistory.com/2018/08/29/academic-racism-the-
repression-of-marginalized-voices-in-academia/; last accessed July 14, 2019.
Flaherty, C. (2015). Demanding 10 Percent, Inside Higher Education, November 30. Available at
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/30/student-activists-want-more-Black-faculty-members-
how-realistic-are-some-their-goals; last accessed November 14, 2016.
Gasman, M. (2016). An Ivy League professor on why colleges don’t hire more faculty of color: ‘We don’t
want them’, The Washington Post. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-
point/wp/2016/09/26/an-ivy-league-professor-on-why-colleges-dont-hire-more-faculty-of-color-we-dont-
want-them; last accessed July 14, 2019.
Grollman, E.A. (2015). Invisible Labor, Inside Higher Education, December 15. Available at
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2015/12/15/column-about-exploitation-minority-scholars-
academe; last accessed November 14, 2016.
Guillory, E. (2001). The Black Professoriate: Explaining the Salary Gap for African American Female
Professors. Race, Ethnicity, Education, 4(3): 129-48.
Harley, M. (2008). Maids of Academe: African American Women Faculty at Predominately White
Institutions, Journal of African American Studies, 12(1), 19-36.
11
Jackson, J. (2015, January 26) What it Feels Like to be a Black Professor, Chronicle of Higher Education.
Available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-It-Feels-Like-to-Be-a/151323; last accessed July 14,
2019.
Jones, A. (2015, November 8). The Invisible Labor of Minority Professors, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, November 8. Available at http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Invisible-Labor-of/234098;
last accessed November 14, 2016.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (2019). Campus racial incidents. Retrieved from
https://www.jbhe.com/incidents/; last accessed July 14, 2019.
McGee, E.O., and Kazembe, L. (2015). Entertainers or education researchers? The challenges associated with
presenting while Black, Race Ethnicity and Education, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2015.1069263
Myers, B. (2016a). Where are the Minority Professors? The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 14. Available
at http://chronicle.com/interactives/where-are-the-minority-professors?cid=rclink; last accessed November 14, 2016.
Myers, B. (2016b). The Flagship Diversity Divide, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5. Available at
http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/flagship-diversity; last accessed November 14, 2016.
National Science Foundation (2015). Report to the National Science Board on the National Science
Foundation’s Merit Review Process: Fiscal Year 2014. Available at
https://nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201514.pdf; last accessed November 14, 2016.
Perry, A. (2016, November 11). After Trump victory, Black professors speak out about the routine racism of
academia, Heching Report. Availabe at https://hechingerreport.org/Black-professors-speak-routine-racism-
academia-trump-victory/; last accessed July 14, 2019.
Sian, K. (2019, July 10). Racism in UK universities is blocking BAME academics from the top, The Guardian.
Available at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jul/10/racism-in-uk-universities-is-blocking-bame-
academics-from-the-top; last accessed July 14, 2019.
Smith, W. A. (2004). Black faculty coping with racial battle fatigue: The campus racial climate in a post-civil
rights era. In Cleveland, D. (Ed.), A long way to go: Conversations about race by African American faculty
and graduate students, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 171-190.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley &
Sons.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, A. (2008). Racial microaggressions in the life experience of Black
Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3), 329.
Wilson, R. (2016). A New Front on Activism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 06. Available at
http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-New-Front-of-Activism/238319; last accessed November 14, 2016.
Wingfield, A. (2015). The Plight of the Black Academic, Available at

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/the-plight-of-the-Black-academic/420237/; last accessed
November 14, 2015.
12
Yancy, G. (2018, April 29). The Ugly Truth of Being a Black Professor in America. Chronicle of Higher
Education.
2.0 Census of African American Professors at Penn State University (UP)

This section of the report presents an analysis of data from multiple sources of the patterns and
trends of African American professors at Penn State University Park (UP) campus over a 15-year
period between 2004-2018.12 The Penn State University Factbook reports that in 2004, there
were 2,608 full-time faculty employed on the UP campus and by 2018 this figure had increased
by one-third to 3,474. An enumeration provided by the Penn State Office of Planning and
Assessment states that in 2004 there were 2,977 UP professors and 3,822 in 2018 representing an
increase of 28.4%.13
Accurate data on the trends and the absolute number of Black faculty is critical as their
representation indicates the degree of adherence to the University principles of diversity, equity,
and inclusion and attainment of goals espoused by the administration. Included in this section
are the most current available data on the number, tenure and rank, and distribution of Black
professors at UP and is divided into 4 components: 1) Pattern and Trends of Black Professors; 2)
Tenure and Rank; 3) Professorial Rank and Gender; and 4) African American Representation in
Specific College Faculty.
According to data from the Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment, it would appear that
there were 109 professors at UP in 2004 who were classified as Black or African American.
Fifteen years later, in 2018 the number of Black faculty had seemingly increased to 112
representing a net increase of just 3 professors or 2.8% (Table 1). In actuality however, the
actual count of Black faculty is artificially inflated and misleading because according to the
Office of Planning and Assessment, “For 2018, with the implementation of a new human
resource information system, post-doctoral scholars and fellows were reclassified from
part-time to full-time.” It is not clear how many of the 2018 post-doctoral scholars and fellows
were African American. This administrative adjustment has a greater effect, both statistically
and pragmatically, on smaller groups of faculty and thus misrepresents the number of Black
professors on the UP campus in 2018. Further, post-doctoral scholars and fellows are temporal
and unlikely to have a major impact on classroom teaching, mentoring or be substantively
involved in departmental affairs and service to the university.
Table 1
Number of African American Professors at UP: 2004-2018
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
12
The sources include: data from the Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment; Penn State Fact Books 2004-2018;
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the National Center for Education Statistics collects data
annually from colleges and university on faculty, student, and institutional characteristics. Penn State University Park information
on faculty by race and ethnicity is accessible via this database.
13
The faculty in the Penn State Law School, which is located on the University Park campus, are not included in these
tabulations or the analysis in this Report.
13
Professors 109 115 102 106 102 103 101 106 98 101 101 108 116 110 112
Source: Modified numbers from the Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment: 2004-2018
Table 2 presents data on the number of African American faculty based on the Penn State
Factbook, 2004-2018. For each year the number of Black professors is lower than the data from
the Office of Planning and Assessment. In particular, there is a difference of 9 faculty (8.7%) in
2018. Taking the unadjusted and more accurate institutional figure of 103, the percentage of
African American professors actually decreased from 105 in 2004 to 103 in 2018 representing a
net loss of 2 professors or a negative percentage difference of -1.9%.
Table 2
Number of African American Professors at UP: 2004-2018
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Professors 105 110 100 101 97 98 97 102 93 94 93 102 109 101 103
Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018
Differences between the two sources of data on the enumeration of African American professors
are illustrated in Graph 1. The patterns in the line graph are similar over the 2004-2018 time
period showing a slightly higher census from the Office of Planning and Assessment. However,
the numbers diverge appreciably beginning in 2012 resulting in distinct differences through 2018
or over the last 5 years.
Graph 1
Planning and Assessment and Factbook Numbers of
African American Professors (UP): 2004-2018
120
115 Office of Planning

Number of Black Faculty
and Assessment
110
105
100
95
Penn State Factbook
90
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Office of Planning and Assessment and Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018
14
Tenure and Rank
Faculty status at Penn State is differentiated by tenure and rank and a serious analysis of the
representation of Black professors must take this fact into account. The number of Black,
Latinx, Asian, and International tenured or tenure-tracked professors is presented in Graph 2.
These data show that the number of African American professors at UP who were either tenured
or held a tenure-track position decreased from 83 in 2004 to 68 in 2018. A negative percentage
change of -22.1% or a loss of 15 tenured or tenured track faculty positions.14 In 2004, African
American tenured or tenure-track professors represented 4.8% of all tenured or tenure-track UP
professors (N=1719) compared to 3.9% in 2018 (N=1847). Interestingly, tenured and tenure-
track African American faculty comprised 76.1% of all Black professors in 2004, however by
2018 this proportion had decreased to 60.7%.
Graph 2
Number of Black, Latinx, Asian, and International Tenured
or Tenure-Track Professors at Penn State (UP): 2004-2018
250
200
NUMBER OF PROFESSORS
150
100 93
83 83
74 75 76 73 74 74 74
67 68 70 68
65
50
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
African American/Black Latinx Asian International
Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment
14
Tenure and rank data were obtained from the Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment, which despite valid questions about the census
count, has the most accurate and current data on faculty tenure and rank.
15
As shown in Graph 3, the number of tenured or tenure-track positions among all UP faculty
increased about 6.9% during this time period. Further revealed in this graph is the percentage
change in the racial and ethnic composition of faculty holding tenured or tenured-track positions
between 2004-2018. While other UP minority groups increased proportionally (namely Latinx,
45.5% and Asians, 24.7% and international professors, 32.4%), this was not the case for African
American professors.15 The decrease of 22.1% among Black professors represented the greatest
percentage change among all tenured or tenure-track professors by race and ethnicity. The 15-
year percentage change among White tenured or tenure-track professors is also negative (20.4%).
Graph 3
Percentage Change in Tenured and Tenure-Track Professors
by Race and Ethnicity (UP): 2004-2018
45.5%
32.4%
24.7%
6.9%
Black Latinx Asian International White Total Faculty

(2010-2018)
-20.4%
-22.1%
15 The comparison with Latinx tenured or tenure-track faculty must take into account that the large percentage increase is essentially due to
their smaller absolute number in 2004 (i.e., n=36).
16
Graph 4
Annual Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Professors
by Race and Ethnicity (UP):2004-2018
13.0% Asian
11.0%
PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY
9.0% African American
7.0%
5.4%
4.8% 4.8%
5.0% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.0%
3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
3.0%
1.0% Latinx Interna,onal

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 4 reveals the relative proportion of tenured and tenure-track professors among different
racial and ethnic groups including international faculty at the UP campus between 2004-2018.
African American tenured and tenured track professors continued to decline from the high point
of 5.4% of all tenured and tenure-tracked UP faculty in 2005 and eventually converged with
Latinx faculty by 2018 comprising 3.9%.
Table 3 presents the distribution of African American faculty by academic rank. It is assumed
that most full, associate or assistant professors are either tenured or in a tenure-track position.
The distribution by rank and the trends across the 15-year period is shown in Graph 5. The
number of full professors, which is the smallest group of Black professors, has remained fairly
consistent between 2004-2018 (𝑥=23.6, SD=2.64, See Table 3). The percentage difference from
2004-2018 of African American full professors represented an increase of 21.1%.
17
In contrast, the percentage difference in the number of African American associate professors is
negative, -18.9%. As shown in Table 3, the number of associate professors (𝑥=29.1, SD=3.67)
decreased after 2005 and for a period of about 7 years remained below 30. Their presence began
to increase after 2014 but never reached the 2004 pinnacle of 37 Black associate professors.
Most notably, the decline in the number (𝑥=25.8, SD=5.99) of Black assistant professors is far
steeper and enduring (from 38 in 2005 to 19 in 2018) than either their associate or full professor
colleagues. In fact, as a group they have experienced the greatest percentage decrease (-36.7%)
in the number of African American faculty at Penn State.
Table 3
Number of African American Faculty by Rank: 2004-2018
Year/Rank 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average % Difference St. Deviation
Full Professors 19 22 21 20 23 24 26 29 25 26 26 25 23 22 23 23.6 21.1% 2.64
Associate Professor 37 36 31 28 28 27 26 24 26 28 25 29 31 30 30 29.1 -18.9% 3.67
Assistant Professor 30 38 35 32 26 27 25 27 19 17 21 23 25 23 19 25.8 -36.7% 5.99
Other 23 19 15 26 25 25 24 26 28 30 29 31 37 35 40 27.5 73.9% 6.56
Total Black Faculty 109 115 102 106 102 103 101 106 98 101 101 108 116 110 112 106.0 2.8% 5.52
Total Faculty 2977 2976 3000 3071 3137 3187 3192 3196 3209 3298 3354 3409 3429 3393 3822 3243.3 28.4% 221.40
Graph 5
Number of African American Professors by Rank (UP) 2004-2018
18
45
Associate Professors
Number of Black Faculty by Rank 40
Other Professors
35
30
25
20
Assistant Professors
15
Full Professors
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Professorial Rank and Gender

Table 4 shows the gender distribution of UP African American faculty by rank over the last 15
years. The largest gender disparity is among full professors. Male full professors have clearly
predominated as evidenced by the overall average ratio of 3.16 men to every 1 woman professor
and the closest it has come to parity has been 2.6 men for every 1 woman. In contrast, a
crossover pattern is evident in the gender ratio of associate professors. Beginning in 2004, the
male dominated group of associate professors gradually decreased and reached gender parity in
2011. Since that year, there has been a consistent and inverse ratio in which Black women have
comprised the largest group of associate professors and ratios ranging from 1.31 to 1.54 females
for every 1 male associate professor. The overall average ratio from 2004-2018 of men to
women associate professors is equal (1.03). The rank of assistant professors is far less variable
as women have consistently represented the preferred gender on the tenure-track entry level. In
fact, among assistant professors the gender ratio has never reached parity in any single year and
the overall mean ratio is .063 or 1.58 females for every Black male assistant professor. The data
for “Other” professors reflect a pattern in which the overall mean male to female ratio is almost
the same (1.08). Graphs 6-9 illustrate the gender distribution for each faculty group using wave
chart diagrams.
19
Table 4
Number and Ratios of African American Professors by
Rank and Gender: 2004-2018
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total/Mean Ratio
Full Professors 19 22 21 20 23 24 26 29 25 26 26 25 23 22 23 354
Female 4 4 3 3 5 6 7 8 7 7 7 7 5 6 6 85
Male 15 18 18 17 18 18 19 21 18 19 19 18 18 16 17 269
Full Professor Gender Ratio 3.75 4.50 6.00 5.67 3.60 3.00 2.71 2.63 2.57 2.71 2.71 2.57 3.60 2.67 2.83 3.16
Associate Professor 37 36 31 28 28 27 26 24 26 28 25 29 31 30 30 436
Female 12 12 12 11 13 13 12 12 15 17 15 18 18 17 18 215
Male 25 24 19 17 15 14 14 12 11 11 10 11 13 13 12 221
Associate Professor Gender Ratio 2.08 2.00 1.58 1.55 1.15 1.08 1.17 1.00 0.73 0.65 0.67 0.61 0.72 0.76 0.67 1.03
Assistant Professor 30 38 35 32 26 27 25 27 19 17 21 23 25 23 19 387
Female 20 21 18 20 16 18 15 16 10 10 13 15 16 16 13 237
Male 10 17 17 12 10 9 10 11 9 7 8 8 9 7 6 150
Assistant Professor Gender Ratio 0.50 0.81 0.94 0.60 0.63 0.50 0.67 0.69 0.90 0.70 0.62 0.53 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.63
Other Professor Gender Ratio 23 19 15 26 25 25 24 26 28 30 29 31 37 35 40 413
Female 14 11 7 13 11 11 11 8 11 14 13 16 20 18 21 199
Male 9 8 8 13 14 14 13 18 17 16 16 15 17 17 19 214
Other Professor Gender Ratio 0.64 0.73 1.14 1.00 1.27 1.27 1.18 2.25 1.55 1.14 1.23 0.94 0.85 0.94 0.90 1.08
Grand Total 109 115 102 106 102 103 101 106 98 101 101 108 116 110 112 1590
Graph 6
Black Full Professors by Gender (UP): 2004-2018
70
60
50
21
NUMBER OF FACULTY
19 18 19 19 18
40 18
18 18 16 17
18
18 17 8
30 15 7 7 7 7 7
5 6 5 6
4 6
3 3
20 4
26 29 26 26
22 23 24 25 25 23 22 23
10 19 21 20
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Full Professors Women Men
20
Graph 7
Black Associate Professors by Gender (UP): 2004-2019
80
70
60 25 24
13 12
19 11 13
50 11
17 15 14 11
14 10
12
NUMBER OF FACULTY
40 12 12
18 17 18
12 17 18
11 13 13 15
12 15
30 12
20
37 36
31 28 28 28 29 31 30 30
27 26 24 26 25
10
0
19 22 21 20 23 24 26 29 25 26 26 25 23 22 23
Associate Professor Women Men

Graph 8
Black Assistant Professors by Gender (UP): 2004-2018
80
70
17
60 17
12
10
50 21 9 11
10 9
18 10
20 8 7
40 20
8
18 16 6
16 15 9 16
30 7 15 16
NUMBER OF FACULTY
13 13
10
20 10
38 35
30 32
26 27 25 27 23 25 23
10 19 21 19
17
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Assistant Professor Women Men
21
Graph 9
Black "Other" Professors by Gender (UP): 2004-2018
90
80
70 19
17
17
NUMBER OF FACULTY
60
15
50 16 16 21
13 17 20
14 14 18 18
40 9 13
16
14 13
8 13 11
30 14 11 11 11 8
11 8
20 7 37 40
31 35
26 26 28 30 29
25 25 24
10 23 19 15
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
"Other" Professor Gender Female Male
Summary: Although the two primary sources of data for this report are somewhat discrepant,
that show a similar pattern indicating that the total number of Black professors at Penn State has
not increased substantially over a 15-year period between 2004-2018. In fact, the more accurate
assessment reveals that their numbers have actually decreased. Moreover, with respect to tenure
and tenure-track positions, African American professors experienced the greatest decline in their
absolute numbers and relative proportions compared to Latinx, Asian, and international faculty
whose numbers did not decrease. The number of African American professors who were tenured
or on a tenure-track decreased by -22.1% and this group represented a smaller proportion of the
all Black professors. Among this group of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the ranks of
associate and assistant professors had fewer members as their numbers decreased over the 15-
year period by -18.9% and -36.7%, respectively. A smaller number of tenured and tenure-track
African American professors has major implications for the ability to influence institutional
change, academic productivity and research, and relations with undergraduate and graduate
students. The analysis of professorial rank and gender revealed that African American women
professors were far less likely to be represented at the full professor level than their male
counterparts whereas African American men were underrepresented as assistant professors. In a
separate analysis using “cosmetic diversity” methodology, we analyzed descriptive data for
2018-2019. The results revealed fewer Black professors on the UP campus in 2018 than either
of the two official figures (Appendix E).
22
3.0 College Specific Patterns and Trends
As previously noted, it is also important to assess the distribution of African American faculty
throughout the 13 UP colleges and various departments. Data from the annual Penn State
Factbooks from 2004-2018 were analyzed to complete this section of the report. For purposes of
clarity, the trends and patterns referred to in this section include Black and non-Black professors
(i.e., White, Asian, Hispanic, Native American or the “Other” category).
College of Liberal Arts

The College of Liberal Arts consists of the largest number of UP faculty (n=771) and represented
20.4% of all PSU faculty in 2018. Graph 10 illustrates the trends in the number of Black (blue
bars) and non-Black professors in the college between 2004-2018. Since 2004, the number of
non-Black faculty rose by 63% in contrast to the pattern of Black faculty, which increased by
12.5%. The correlation between Black and non-Black faculty is r=.59 and is statistically
significant (p=.02) indicating that over this period there was a corresponding pattern of increase
in Black and non-Black faculty. That is, as the number of non-Black faculty increased between
2004-2018, the number of Black faculty also increased but not as consistently or proportionally.
For example, the greatest increases (from 28 to 42, 50%) in the number of Black faculty in the
college occurred between 2012-2016, which also corresponds to a period in which the number of
non-Black faculty (598 to 680, 13.7%) also increased but not at the same rate. By 2018,
however, Black faculty had declined to 36 professors.
Graph 10
Black and Non-Black Faculty in the
College of Liberal Arts: 2004-2018
23
45 800
Non-Black Faculty
Black Faculty 750
40
NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

700
NUMBER OF BLACK FACULTY
650
35
600
30
550
500
25
450
r=.59, p=.02
20 400
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Data presented in Graph 11 reveal that after the peak period of 2005 (6.9%), the percent of
African American faculty in the College of Liberal Arts decreased to 4.5% in 2012. In 2018, the
percentage of Black professors in the college was (4.7%). The mean percent of Black faculty
was 5.3% over the entire period and 5.2% for the last five years.
An important point of consideration in assessing the number and percent of Black professors in
the College of Liberal Arts is the number of African American scholars in the Department of
African American Studies. As might be expected, this department consists mainly of African
Americans and thus is responsible for the largest proportion of the Black faculty in the College
as well as the university. While highly laudable, the recent hiring in 2019 of 7 Black professors
in the college with major or cluster appointments in the Department of African American Studies
or Diaspora Studies increases the number of Black faculty, it does little to address the systemic
problem of “academic segregation”. This phenomenon referred to as the “Harlem Protocol”,
raises critical questions about diversity, equity, and inclusion across all UP departments and
colleges.
Graph 11
Percent of Black Faculty in the
24
College of Liberal Arts: 2004-2018
7.5%
6.9%
7.0%
6.6%
6.5%
PERCENT OF BLACK FACULTY
6.0% 5.8% 5.8%
5.4% 5.4%
5.5% 5.3%
5.1%
5.0% 5.0%
5.0% 4.9%
4.8%
4.7% 4.7%
4.5%
4.5%
483 595 771

4.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
College of Education
In 2018, the UP College of Education faculty totaled 202 professors and 12 were classified as
African American. Between 2004-2018, the mean number of Black professors in the college was
10.9 and the percentage increase was 25%. The number of Black professors rose parallel to the
rise of all faculty in the college between 2004-2011 but declined markedly from 2012-2014. The
correlation between the number of Black faculty and non-Black faculty in the college is r=.46
(p=.09) for the entire period indicating that there is a moderate though non-statistically
significant association between the two groups. Over the last five years, the average percent of
Black faculty in the college was 5.5%, which is slightly below the average for the entire period
of 5.9% (Graph 13).
Graph 12
Number of Black and Non-Black Faculty in the
25
College of Education: 2004-2018
14 220
Black Faculty Non-Black

13 210

12 200
11 190
10 180
9 170
8 160
7 150
r=.46, p=.09
6 140
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 13
Percent of Black Faculty in the College of Education: 2004-2018
7.5%
7.0% 7.0%
6.5% 6.5% 6.5%

6.2% 6.3%
6.0% 6.1%
6.0% 5.9%
5.7% 5.8%
5.7%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.0%
3.9%
3.5% 3.6%
3.0%
157 225 202
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

College of Arts and Architecture
26
As shown in Graph 14, the number of African American professors in the College of Arts and
Architecture is strongly and significantly correlated (r=.65, p=.009) with the number of non-
Black professors. The increases in both groups appear consistent across the period. Of the 217
faculty in the college in 2018, 6.0% (n=13) were African American. The percentage increase in
the number of Black and non-Black faculty between 2004-2018 was fairly similar: respectively,
18.2% and 22.2%.
Graph 15 reveals the proportion of Black faculty in the college for each year. In 2004, Black
professors represented 6.2% of all faculty in the college, which contrasted with the peak year of
7.8% in 2011. The average proportion of Black faculty over this 15-year period was 6.9%.
Graph 14
Number of Black and Non-Black Faculty in College of
Arts and Architecture:2004-2018
16 Black Faculty Non-Black Faculty 210
15
200
NUMBER OF NON-BLACK. FACULTY

14
190
13
12 180
11
170
10
160
9
r=.65, p=.009
8 150
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 15
27
Percent of African American Faculty in the College of
Arts and Architecture (2004-2018)
8.0%
7.8%
7.5% 7.4%
7.2% 7.2%
7.1%
7.0% 7.1%
6.9% 7.0% 6.9%
7.0% 6.9%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
6.2%
6.0%
6.0%
5.5%
5.0%
178 193 217
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Smeal College of Business

In 2018, the Smeal College of Business reported 2 African Americans on faculty representing
1.3% of professors. Between 2004-2010 there were 3 Black professors in the college. This
number increased to 4 African American faculty in 2011 and to 5 in 2012 and as shown in Graph
16 the number remained at 4 until 2016. The percentage change in the number of Black faculty
between 2004-2018 declined by 50% compared to corresponding percentage change of a 22%
increase in non-Black faculty (r=.20, p=.49). The trend line in Graph 17 indicates the
proportional representation of Black faculty in the college over the 15 year period. The peak
percentage of Black professors in the college was 3.3% in 2012 (n=5) and continued to decline
after 2012 to 1.3% (n=2) in 2018.
28
Graph 16
Smeal College of Business:2004-2018
6 180
Black Faculty Non-Black Faculty

160
5
140
4 120
100
3
80
2 60
40
1
20
0 r=.20, p=.49 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 17
Percent of African American Faculty in the
Smeal College of Business: 2004-2018
4.0%
3.5% 3.3%
2.9%
3.0%
2.7% 2.6%
2.5% 2.5%
2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
2.5% 2.3%
2.1% 2.2% 2.2%
2.0% 1.9%
1.5% 1.3%
1.0% 124 138 158

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
29
College of Health and Human Development/Nursing
Graph 18 present data on African American faculty between 2004-2018 in the College of Health
and Human Development. The College of Nursing (formerly the School of Nursing) was
originally established as a part of the College of Health and Human Development and included
until 2008. The data presented in Graph 19 includes the School of Nursing between 2004-2007.
As shown, non-Black faculty decreased after 2007 due to the establishment of the School of
Nursing as a separate college in 2008. However, this decline was artificial and not due to actual
attrition. Thus, the trend line in Graph 18 of non-Black professors does not represent an accurate
picture of either the College of Nursing or the College of Health and Human Development
during this period. A more accurate representation would be to combine the joint faculties over
the entire period as was the case between 2004-2007. Consequently, the combined data for Black
and non-Black faculty from both colleges are presented in Graph 19.
Graph 18
College of Health and Human Development: 2004-2018
18 300
Black Faculty
16
Non-Black Faculty 290

NUMBER OF BLACK. FACULTY
14 280
12 270
10 260
8 250
r=.24, p=.39
6 240
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
As shown in Graph 19, the number of African American professors of HHD faculty (including
the College of Nursing) declined, almost uninterruptedly, since the high point of 2004 (n=17).
Black faculty averaged 9.9 professors over the 15-year period. The percentage change in the
number of professors between 2004-2018 decreased by -47% for Black faculty compared to a
30
25% increase for non-Black faculty. The correlation between Black and non-Black faculty was
r=-.59 (p=.02) was statistically significant indicating that Black faculty as a group declined in
direct proportion to the increase in the number of non-Black faculty in the college. In 2018,
there were 9 Black faculty in the representing 2.7% of 341 faculty.16 The trend line for the
proportion of African American faculty over this period is presented in Graph 20 showing the
continuous decline in the representation of African American faculty in both colleges combined
since 2004. Since the College of Nursing became an autonomous unit in 2008, it has employed
either 1 or 2 African American professors. Between 2016-2018, the Penn State Factbook
indicated that it had no Black professors on faculty.
Graph 19
Colleges of Health and Human Development/Nursing:2004-2018
18 340
17
Black Faculty 330
16
Non-Black Faculty 320

15
310
14
13 300
12 290
11
280
10
r=.-69, p=.
270
9
8
r=-.59, p=.02 260
7 250
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018;
16
In actually, this number of 9 African American professors in the College of Health and Human Development/Nursing (as with other colleges)
can be quite misleading since faculty status is accorded to many administrators and research staff who have little or no teaching
responsibilities or academic departmental affiliation and participation. See Appendix B, editorial, “Walk the Walk”.
31
Graph 20
Percent of African American Faculty in the College of Health and Human
Development/Nursing: 2004-2018
6.5%
6.0%
6.0%
5.5%
5.0%
4.6%
4.5%
4.0%
3.9%
4.0% 3.7%
3.4%
3.5% 3.3%
3.1% 3.1%
3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7%

2.6% 2.5%
2.4%
2.5%
282 296 341
2.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
College of Engineering
The data shown in Graph 21 and Graph 22 indicate the small number of African American
professors and their proportion in the College of Engineering between 2004-2018. In any given
year, Black professors have never exceeded a total of 8 and the average is 6.9, and for the last 5
years the mean is 7. The correlation between Black and non-Black faculty is negative (r=-.15,
p=.59) and is not statistically significant, suggesting that the hiring and retention of Black faculty
in the department was independent of that which occurred among non-Black faculty. In 2018,
there were 6 African American professors representing 1.4% of all faculty in the college (n=428)
which is similar to the lowest percentage in 2007. Despite the gradient increase between 2007
and 2013 to the highest level of 2.2%, the relative proportion of Black faculty in the college has
been decreasing fairly steadily since 2015 (Graph 22).
Graph 21
32
Number of Black and Non-Black Faculty
in the College of Engineering: 2004-2018
9 440
420

8
400
7
380
360
6
340
5
320
r=-.15, p=.59
4 300
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Graph 22
College of Engineering: 2004-2018
2.4%
2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2.0% 1.9% 1.9%
1.9%
1.8% 1.7% 1.7%

1.7%
1.6%
1.4% 1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0% 369 350 428

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Eberly College of Science
33
The Eberly College of Science is the second largest college on the UP campus consisting of 615
faculty in 2018. As shown in Graph 23 in 2004 there were 8 Black faculty in the college and 15
years later the number increased to 12. However, as previously noted, the data for 2018
represents a definitional change in who is actually counted as a faculty member: “For 2018, with
the implementation of a new human resource information system, post-doctoral scholars and
fellows were reclassified from part-time to full-time.” Thus, the increase of 4 African American
faculty between 2017 and 2018 in the college may be misleading and the accurate number may
be closer to 8 as opposed to 12, which would not be appreciably different from the number of
Black faculty in 2004. The correlation (r=.24, p=.39) between the number of Black and non-
Black faculty over the 15-year period is neither large nor statistically significant indicating that
as the number of non-Black professors increased in the college, there was no substantive
corresponding increase in the number of Black professors.
Graph 24 shows the annual proportion of Black professors in the college between 2004-2018.
The basic pattern of African American professors in the college varies and shows a steep decline
after 2011. Between 2011 and 2016 the mean proportion of African American professors
declined to 1.2%. The mean proportion of African American professors is 2.0%, which is
greater than the average over the past 5 years (1.6%).
Graph 23
Number of Black and Non-Black Faculty
in the Eberly College of Science
13 650
12 600

11
550
10
500
9
450
8
400
7
6 350
r=24, p=.39
5 300
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Penn State Factbooks:2004-2018
Graph 24
34
Percent of Black Faculty in the Eberly College of Science
3.0%
2.6%
2.4%
2.5% 2.3% 2.3%
2.1% 2.2%
2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1%
2.0%
2.0% 1.9%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5% 1.2%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% 381 421 615

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: Penn State Factbooks:2004-2018
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

In the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, the number of Black faculty has varied from 3 to 6
individuals over the course of the 15-year period of this report and there is no consistent pattern.
As displayed in Graph 25 the fluctuation or pattern in the number of Black faculty is unrelated
(r=.06, p=.83) to non-Black faculty between 2004-2018. The mean number of African American
professors was 4.5 and 4.2 over the last 5 years. Over this period, the proportion of Black faculty
ranged from 1.2.% to 2.7% and in 2018 represented 1.9% (n=5) of 265 total faculty (Graph 26).
Graph 25
7 270

6 260
5 250
4 240
3 230
2 220
1 210
r=.06, p=.83
0 200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 26
35
3.0% 2.7% 2.7%

2.5%
2.5%
2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2%
1.9%
2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8%
1.7%
1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3%
1.0%
Total College Faculty
0.5%
0.0% 234 265

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
250
College of Communications
As shown in Graphs 27 and 28 in 2018 there were 2 African American professors in the College
of Communications representing 3.1% of all faculty. For most (2007-2016) of the 15-year
period there was only 1 African American professor in the college and in 2013, the college did
not have any on faculty. In 2004 and 2005, Black faculty comprised about 5% (n=3) of all
faculty. There was a negative correlation (r=-.49, p=.06) between the number of Black and non-
Black faculty.
Graph 27
Number of Black and Non-Black Faculty in the College of Communications
4 Black Faculty 64
Non-Black Faculty
NUMBER OF NON-BLACK. FACULTY
3.5 62
3 60
2.5 58
2 56
1.5 54
1 52
0.5 50
r=-.49, p=.06
0 48
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Graph 28
36
Percent of African American Faculty in the College of Communications
6.0%
5.4%
5.0%
5.0%
PERCENT OF FACULTY
4.0% 3.6%
3.5%
3.1%
3.0%
x̄=2.4%, x̄=2.3% for last 5 years
1.7%
2.0% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%
1.0%
60 61 0.0% 64
0.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
College of Agricultural Sciences

Graph 29 presents the pattern of African American faculty inclusion in the College of
Agricultural Sciences on the UP campus between 2004-2018. During the first 6 years of this
period, they occupied 7 or 8 faculty positions annually but after 2009 their numbers began to
decrease precipitously and from 2012 to 2018 there were 50% or more fewer black faculty (n=4)
in the college. In fact, African American faculty represented 2.3% of all professors in the College
but by 2018, this percentage had plummeted to 1.1%, (Graph 30). The trend of non-Black
faculty has also decreased over this period. There was no statistically significant correlation
(r=.22, p=.43) between Black and non-Black faculty in the college. The number of non-Black
faculty spiked upward rather strikingly from 2017-2018, which probably reflects the Office of
Data and Assessment definitional modification as to who they define as a faculty member.
Notwithstanding, it did not result in an increase in the number of African American faculty,
artificially or otherwise.
37
Graph 29
College of Agricultural Sciences: 2004-2018
9 370
Black Faculty
8 350

7 Non-Black Faculty
r=.22, p= 330
6
310
5
290
4
3 270
2 250
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 30 r=.22, p=.43
College of Agricultural Sciences: 2004-2018
3.0%
2.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.3% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%
2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

1.4% 1.4%
1.1% 1.1%
309 297
1.0% 366
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
38
College of Information Sciences
The data on the number of Black and non-Black Faculty in the College of Information Sciences
as presented in Graph 31 reveal a contrasting pattern. The number of African American
professors remained constant for 11 of the 15 years averaging 2.1 professors annually. The trend
of non-Black professors continued to increase in numbers almost doubling from 36 in 2004 to 65
in 2018, a percentage increase of 81%. What is also apparent in Graph 32 is that the percent of
Black faculty in the college has continued to decrease, from 5.3% in 2004 to 3% in 2018.
Graph 31
College of Information Sciences: 2004-2018
4 70
65
NUMBER OF NO-BLACK FACULTY

Black Faculty
3 60
Non- Black Faculty 55
2 50
45
1 40
r=-47, p=.08 35
0 30
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Graph 32
College of Information Sciences: 2004-2018
8.0% 7.3%
6.8%
7.0% 6.4%
6.0% 5.3%
5.0%
5.0% 4.4%
4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.6%
4.0% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7%
3.0%
3.0%
1.8%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0% 38 45 67
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
39
Summary: Although it would be possible to rank each of the above colleges according to an
index of inclusion of African American faculty, both historically and currently, it is clear that
there are major barriers to the equitable and continuous representation of Black faculty in most
of the colleges at Penn State. Albeit there are multifaced societal problems affecting our
institutions of higher learning, this report suggests strongly that there is endemic systemic
reluctance to increasing and maintaining faculty diversity within a considerable number of
departments and colleges at the University Park campus.
4.0 African American Faculty and Student Evaluation of Teaching
There is an extensive literature dating back more than 30 years about the experiences of African
American faculty in predominately White institutions of higher learning. This literature consists
of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical works. According to Smith and Hawkins (2011), “The
most noted and unexplored adverse situations are problems associated with teaching evaluations
and diverse faculty, particularly Black faculty.” These “situations” with their myriad challenges
are neither new nor limited to Penn State but reflect a deeply-rooted, pervasive, and extant
societal and cultural dilemma.
Over the past few decades, colleges and universities have undertaken major changes in their
curriculum to improve teaching. Not incidentally, these changes have been motivated and
influenced by the costs of tuition, textbooks, and other college related expenses along with a
consumer-oriented approach aiming “to please the client” and the assumption that “the customer
is always right”. Given the important role of student evaluations of faculty in hiring, tenure and
promotion, awards, and annual salary increases as well as determining university policy (Basow
and Martin, 2012), it is critical to assess the fairness of these measures particularly pertaining to
African American faculty. One scholar (Nast, 1999) aptly notes that:
Evaluative instruments are ostensibly designed to judge the performance and

knowledge of faculty, a judgement that assumes that students possess a breadth of
knowledge about the subject matter about which the faculty member teaches. Thus, a
faculty member teaching an introductory geography course is judged in part by first-
year students as to the scholarly knowledge that they possess.
Many, if not most, students at predominately White universities have life experiences that “are
marked by cultural homogeneity from birth to adulthood” having never had contact with a Black
person in a position of authority such as a professor. Jackson and Dangerfield (2004) explain
that, “Consequently, when a White student who grows up in a racially homogenous environment
meets a Black person for the first time face-to-face, it can be shocking… and in the classroom
these students “are struggling with the process of reconciling what they have been taught socially
at home and in their communities with what they are being asked to intellectually ponder in
academia.” Within this context, students as well as African American and other faculty of color
40
are engaged in a set of challenging and frequently uncomfortable interpersonal dynamics that
extend beyond mere pedagogy.
The use of student evaluations of teaching (SETs) or SRTEs of faculty raises critically important
questions that have continued to present a major barrier to the success, satisfaction, and
retention, of Black faculty at Penn State and the successful recruitment and retention of others.
This section presents two important statements on faculty evaluations by the Penn State Faculty
Senate Committee and more than 15 academic professional organizations led by the American
Sociological Association. In addition, a review of the literature related to Black faculty and the
biases of student evaluation of teaching is also provided.
Penn State University Committee on Faculty Affairs Report
Student evaluations of faculty instruction have been a part of the Penn State University system
since 1985. In March of 2017, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs of the Penn State
Faculty Senate released a 28-page report entitled, Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness
(SRTE) Evaluations: Effective Use of SRTE Data. As stated in the report, the purpose was “to
provide guidance about some of the most common misuses of student ratings data in the faculty
evaluation process, and to set forth guidelines for best practices in the use and evaluations of
SRTEs.” The Committee decided that it was necessary to clarify “what student ratings are and
are not” prior to addressing the primary aims of the report. In this regarding they highlighted the
following points.
• Student ratings are student perception data

• Student ratings are not measures of student learning
• Student ratings are not faculty evaluations
• Student ratings are here to stay
The Senate Committee Report on Faculty Affairs is an important statement as it relates directly
to issues and experiences of African American faculty at Penn State and is consistent with the
existing literature on student biases in their teaching evaluation of “non-traditional faculty”. As
noted in the report:
“The faculty who are most likely to be negatively impacted by faculty-faculty

comparisons are those who do not fit common stereotypes about the professoriate—
typically women and faculty of color. Biases, even unconscious biases, against non-
majority faculty are well known in the academy (Gutgold & Linse, 2016), especially in
White-male-dominated fields such as business and the STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering & Math) disciplines (National Academies, 2006; Street et al., 1996).
However, such bias can also negatively impact any faculty member who is seen as
different by students and faculty evaluators.”
Student ratings instruments are designed to reflect the collective views of a sample of
41
students. They are best at capturing the modal perceptions of respondents, but they are not the
best instruments for capturing rare views, i.e., the views of students represented by the tail of the
distribution. While students with outlier views are not unimportant, they should not be given
more weight than the views of most students. This is particularly crucial when evaluating the
ratings of non-majority faculty because we often see students with biased views represented in
the tails of the distribution.
Students, like all human beings are biased. But students, like other members of society, are not
monolithic in their views. In other words, not all students are biased in the same ways. The
real question here is whether student bias against some attribute of a faculty member is
widespread and strong enough to overwhelm the students’ ratings of the faculty member’s
teaching or course environment and solely reflect students’ bias.
The research on gender bias has a longer history than does the research on racial, ethnic,
or cultural bias, in part because minority faculty still constitute a relatively small percentage of
the faculty. The number of studies is increasing and evidence is mounting that such biases exist
among students and may impact student ratings (Anderson & Smith, 2005; Davis, 2010;
Galguera, 1998; Gilroy, 2007; Hendrix, 1998; Lazos, 2011; Reid, 2010; Smith, 2007, 2009;
Smith & Hawkins, 2011; Smith & Johnson-Bailey, 2011/12). However, at this point the bias is
not sufficiently strong or widespread to explain consistently low ratings across all courses for a
faculty member.
Faculty who do not fit students’ perceptions of what a professor should look or act like
can experience bias from the students. Student ratings researchers have identified among
students the same biases that exist in society (gender, sexual orientation, political, religious, etc.).
While these biases definitely exist, the research indicates that the biases rarely, if ever, fully
explain ratings that cluster at the low end of the ratings scale.
The fact that student ratings instruments are not designed to capture rare student views is one
reason why we hear contradictory information about whether or not student ratings are biased
against women faculty, faculty of color, and other non-majority attributes of faculty. For many
years, studies that analyzed large samples of courses from a variety of disciplines consistently
showed no significant difference in ratings due to systematic gender bias (Feldman,1992, 1993;
Franklin & Theall, 1994). Yet, women faculty, particularly in male-dominated fields in the
STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math) continued to suggest that these
studies did not represent their experiences. Given the relatively small numbers of women faculty
in these fields, ratings that reflect bias will be represented in the tails of the distribution, not in
the peak of the distribution. As a result, these biases are more difficult to detect.
Although institutions such as Penn State have adopted mechanisms [such as “All In”, the
Multicultural Resource Center and Office of Educational Equity] “to acknowledge multiple
cultures through celebratory events, this cannot and should not be used as an indicator of true
cultural understanding” (Jackson and Crawley, 2003). These approaches though quite necessary
42
should not and cannot be conceived of either implicitly or explicitly as sufficient categorical
approaches and remedies to address the biases of SRTEs affecting Black faculty. In this regard,
the university’s responsibility is not currently being met.
American Sociological Association (ASA) Statement
In September of 2019, the ASA along with more than 15 other academic professional
organizations (including the American Anthropological Association, American Political Science
Association, and the American Historical Association) issued a policy statement of student
evaluations of teaching (SETs). Their statement emanated primarily from the clamor among a
diverse group of social scientists and others teaching at university and colleges to address the
intrinsic biases associated with (SET) or SRTEs. In addition to the methodological issues, the
statement highlights the significant problems with respect to certain demographically defined
faculty. It reads in part:
…in both observational studies and experiments, SETs have been found to be biased
against women and people of color (for recent reviews of the literature, see Basow and
Martin 2012 and Spooren, Brockx, and Mortelmans 2015). For example, students rate
women instructors lower than they rate men, even when they exhibit the same teaching
behaviors (Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark 2016; MacNell, Driscol, and Hunt 2015), and
students use stereotypically gendered language in how they evaluate their instructors
(Mitchell and Martin 2018). The instrument design can also affect gender bias in
evaluations; in an article in American Sociological Review, Rivera and Tilcsik (2019)
find that the range of the rating scale (e.g., a 6-point scale versus a 10-point scale) can
affect how women are evaluated relative to men in male-dominated fields. Further, Black
and Asian faculty members are evaluated less positively than White faculty (Bavishi,
Madera, and Hebl 2010; Reid 2010; Smith and Hawkins 2011), especially by students
who are White men. Faculty ethnicity and gender also mediate how students rate
instructor characteristics like leniency and warmth (Anderson and Smith 2005).
The consensus and recommendations of the ASA and other professional organizations are
presented below:
1) Questions on SETs should focus on student experiences, and the instruments should
be framed as an opportunity for student feedback, rather than an opportunity for
formal ratings of teaching effectiveness.
2) SETs should not be used as the only evidence of teaching effectiveness. Rather,
when they are used, they should be part of a holistic assessment that includes peer
observations, reviews of teaching materials, and instructor self-reflections. This
holistic approach has been in wide use at teaching-focused institutions for many years
and is becoming more common at research institutions as well.
43
3) SETs should not be used to compare individual faculty members to each other or to a
department average. As part of a holistic assessment, they can appropriately be used
to document patterns in an instructor’s feedback over time.
4) If quantitative scores are reported, they should include distributions, sample sizes, and
response rates for each question on the instrument (Stark and Freishtat 2014). This
provides an interpretative context for the scores (e.g., items with low response rates
should be given little weight).
5) Evaluators (e.g., chairs, deans, hiring committees, tenure and promotion committees)
should be trained in how to interpret and use SETs as part of a holistic assessment of
teaching effectiveness (see Linse 2017 for specific guidance).
The two statements by the Faculty Senate and the American Sociological Association are
indicative of the general and strong concern of academics about the shortcomings and biases of
SETs such as the SRTEs. The conclusions of highly reputable professional organizations
represent an acknowledgement of the long-standing problems and challenges of student
evaluations of teaching such as the SRTEs and the specific difficulties facing Black faculty and
others. As such they are supportive of concerns expressed by faculty at Penn State about racial
and ethnic bias of SRTEs.
Literature Review of Studies of Teaching and Black Faculty
Studies (Fortson & Brown, 1998; Babad, Darley, & Kaplowitz, 1999; Ogier, 2005; Smith 2007;
McPherson & Jewell,2007; Basow and Martin, 2012; Boatright-Horowitz & Soeung, 2009; Reid
2010; Smith and Hawkins, 2011;Yan et al. 2019) on the effects of race and ethnicity of college
and university faculty and students on SET yields results showing statistically significant
differences. Reid (2010) states that the “preponderance of studies utilizing actual SETs found
that racial minority faculty are evaluated more negatively than White faculty.” The collective
literature suggests some broad thematic patterns pertaining to Black faculty with clear relevance
to African American professors at Penn State. A quite recent study of students in Australia The
lack of a critical mass at most universities and the reluctance of many institutions to delve into
this “minefield” is another reason why there are so few studies. Even so, universities such as
Penn State could conduct reliable and valid studies by compiling the information on SRTEs by
racial and ethnic classifications across years to ascertain results.
Occupational Stereotyping: White Men as the Standard
According to Lipton and colleagues (1991), occupational stereotyping is a theory of “a

preconceived attitude about a particular occupation, about people who are employed in that
occupation, or about one’s suitability for that occupation.” On college campuses because of the
historical imbalance, discriminatory practices, and certain traditions, White men represent the
archetypical college professor and the standard of occupational stereotyping by which all other
44
groups are judged. Basow and Martin (2012) argue that occupational stereotyping places an
additional burden on women and minorities who “often must work harder to be perceived as
equally competent as White men (the normative group)” Biernat, Fuegen, & Kobrynowicz,
2010; Foschi, 2000). In other words, if a White male professor does it, then it more likely to be
considered acceptable and normal. Class assignments, attendance, use of cells and computers,
tardiness, class discipline might be perceived as negative, and overly stringent if the professor is
African American, Hispanic and/or a woman compared to White male professors. In fact,
Bavishi, Madera, and Hebl (2010) in one of the few studies of its kind found that even before
students enter the classroom or engage with a faculty member, racial stereotypes and prejudices
govern their assessments of Black professors. In their study, of White, Asian, and Black
professors they “manipulated hypothetical CVs on the measures of competence, legitimacy, and
interpersonal skills” and examined if “perceived legitimacy of the professors will mediate the
relationships between race and perceptions of interpersonal skills and competence”. Their
results revealed that the sample of incoming college students stereotypically viewed African
American professors as less legitimate and competent than Caucasian and Asian American
professors. Other scholars have noted that when Black professors are few in number,
occupational stereotyping is likely to be even more prevalent among White students and thus
more likely to be “driven by stereotypes more than by objective qualifications” (Fiske & Taylor,
1991; Huffcut & Roth, 1998; Reid, 2010).
Reid (2010) conducted a study of 3,717 faculty who were evaluated by students using the online
site “Rate My Professor” and analyzed the ratings by race and gender. He found
“support for the idea that racial minority faculty, particularly Black faculty, were evaluated more
negatively than White faculty in terms of Overall Quality, Helpfulness, and Clarity, but were
rated higher in Easiness.” Based on his study of the race effect on SET, he characterized
occupational stereotyping as “a double violation of stereotype-based expectancies.” He argues
that:
The first violation is that faculty of color deviate from the stereotypical expectation that
professors are bearded, bespectacled, White men (Messner, 2000). This violation of
stereotype- based expectancies may create psychological discomfort (Lepore & Brown,
1997; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). This discomfort could then be associated with
racial minority faculty members in ways that could negatively affect student perceptions
of teaching.
The second violation is related to what some racial minority faculty are. The mere
presence of racial minority professor in the classroom is sufficient to activate the negative
racial stereotypes directly implicated in the perception of quality instruction like
intellectual competence (Brigham, 1993; Devine, 1989; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004;
Greenwald & Banaji, 1994; Steele, 1997) because race is one of the dimensions that
humans use to instantly, automatically categorize others (Lepore & Brown, 1997; Zarate
& Smith, 1990).
45
In sum, the literature generally supports the view that the modal category of White male
professors as the standard by which Black and other faculty of color are judged is a major
problem of bias that is reflected in student evaluations of instruction by African American
faculty.
The ”Diversity Trap”
Over the past two decades, colleges and universities have been increasingly offering “diversity”
courses and requiring students to take them to fulfill major and graduate requirements
Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2000). Many African American professors
at predominately White universities are often inclined to teach courses across disciplines related
to the Black diaspora as part of their commitment to providing students with broad understanding
of the historical and contemporary theories, ideas, social forces and factors that have sanctioned
and institutionalized racial subjugation in American society. Others, particularly younger
faculty, are frequently “recruited” by heads of departments to fulfill an unmet need for
“diversity, equity, and inclusion” in their curriculum. Regardless of the noble rationale and the
importance of these kind of courses, they do not come without a cost to Black faculty teaching
them. In fact, Nast (1999) has described the task of teaching antiracism courses as “the kiss of
death”. Presentations and discussions about racism, White supremacy, White privilege or even
critical remarks about the racism of the Trump Administration are often perceived by many
White students as offensive, inflammatory, subjective, and accusatory. This is even the case
when only a component of the course or a few lectures are devoted to “diversity” related topics.
In their review of the literature on this subject, Basow and Williams stated that:
In race-focused diversity courses, most likely to be taught by minority faculty, students

appear to view African American faculty as more biased and subjective, although more
knowledgeable, than White faculty teaching the same course (Anderson & Smith, 2005;
Littleford, Ong, Tseng, Milliken, & Humy, 2010). In general, faculty teaching about
White privilege to White students often receive lower student evaluations in those
courses than in their other courses (Boatright-Horowitz & Soeung, 2009), a finding that
may contribute to the lower ratings of African American and Hispanic faculty frequently
found.
To assuage their discomfort with being challenged or introduced to thought provoking ideas,
historical patterns of discrimination and racism, and social inequality in American society, Nast
(1999) observes, “That students use evaluations to register anger and disapproval at having to
negotiate topics and issues in a scholarly way which conflict with heretofore learned social
values and assumptions…” These actions have major consequences for Black professors. In
an article entitled, Teaching White Privilege to White Students Can Mean Saying Good-Bye to
Positive Student Evaluations, Boatright-Horowitz & Soeung (2009), commented that:
The published literature abounds with anecdotes about negative student reactions to
antiracism teaching, particularly when it involves teaching White students about White
46
privilege (McIntosh, 1988). Some scholars have reported that their classroom teaching
experiences were negatively impacted, and their professional legitimacy questioned,
because they discussed racism. White students need to be encouraged to confront their
own racist tendencies and acknowledge their privileged statuses, an important first step as
they begin to understand diverse viewpoints. But as instructors, we face a serious
dilemma. This form of antiracism teaching is potentially harmful to faculty careers.
Further, they stated that “deciding whether to teach such courses becomes a personal ethical
issue. Are you willing to accept the negative consequences of this form of teaching? Are your
faculty colleagues and university administrators willing to support you in these efforts?” Under
some circumstances, Black faculty may not have a choice as heads and administrators employ
“cosmetic diversity” strategies to increase multiculturalism and in response to the demands of
Black students and others. Faculty teaching courses in diversity, equity and inclusion studies or
those addressing issues of White supremacy and inequality must continuously be mindful that
promotion, tenure decisions, annual salary increases, and awards are increasingly based on
measures such as SRTEs.
Intersection between Race and Gender
A key concern of bias in SETs and SRTEs is the dual impact of racial and gender bias among
students and their effects on the student teaching ratings. Gender, irrespective of race and
ethnicity, independently impacts SETs. This is particularly the case for women who teach in
disciplines that have traditionally employed few women such as the basic sciences. Mitchel and
Martin (2018) examined the hypotheses “that women are evaluated based on different criteria
than men, including personality, appearance, and perceptions of intelligence and competency and
that women are rated more poorly than men even in identical courses and when all personality,
appearance, and other factors are held constant.” Their findings based on both qualitative and
quantitative analyses revealed that women are evaluated differently and compared “more poorly”
to men. In a paper that received a good deal of media attention, Boring and her fellow
researchers (2016) from France and the U.S. analyzed data of over 23,000 students based on
natural and classical experimental designs found that SET are biased against female instructors
by a substantial and statistically significant amount. Laube et al (2007) point out that students
often “expect a female teacher to engage in a different set of behaviors to satisfy a particular
standard than they would expect of her male counterparts.” Basow and Martin (2012) in their
review stated that women are often expected to assume traditional maternal roles in the
classroom such as being “more available and more nurturing” than their male colleagues. Their
evaluations of students are based more on these qualities than others, which result in comparable
scores but not necessarily higher ones as male professors. Thus “comparable ratings of male and
female faculty may mask a differential set of student expectations for faculty behavior.”
Similarly, other studies (Reid 2010) have shown an inconsistent effect on gender on SETs as it
interacts with other factors.
47
With respect to Black women professors, the study by Bavishi et al. (2010) found that African
American women professors “were rated the lowest on the Competence, Interpersonal Skills, and
Legitimacy scales, compared to all other groups.” A “double stigma” and “double jeopardy”
exists as students assess their competence and legitimacy through both gendered and racial
lenses. In fact, some Black women professors may adjust their approaches and styles of teaching
so as to accommodate White students who are culturally conditioned to view teaching as the sole
domain and privilege of White male professors and thereby protect themselves from negative
evaluations and student complaints (Laube et al. 2007).
Additionally, this is also a concern of African American men who as Reid (2010) pointed out
may have to contend with the additional burden of fear responses from students who implicitly
associate men of color with violence, hostility, and crime. He found that the SETs of minority
men were lower than of other groups and after controlling for other factors observed that
“Black male faculty were rated more negatively than others”. In an article entitled, White
Student Confessions About A Black Male Professor: A Cultural Contracts Theory Approach To
Intimate Conversations About Race and worldview written by a former Penn State professor,
Ronald Jackson and a colleague Rex Crowley (2003), the views of Whites toward a Black
professor’s “presence and pedagogy” were examined. The fact that Black male faculty constitute
an even smaller proportion than Black female professors on campuses and at Penn State (is
another important reason to address issues of race and gender biases at predominately White
universities.
For example, Jackson & Dangerfield (2004) note that there are several popular and public
projections about Black males including, but not limited to, Black masculine persons as violent,
criminal, non-intellectual, and lazy/inferior. These popular cultural projections serve as the basis
from which prejudices may be formed when individuals do not have direct contact and/or
relational experiences with Black males. Consequently, when a White student who grows up in a
racially homogenous environment meets a Black person for the first time face-to-face, it can be
shocking. Moreover, when the Black person is the White student’s professor, racial projections
about that professor may become exacerbated by issues of power, authority, and credibility.
Intellectual Competence
The belief that African Americans are innately less intelligent and less intellectually qualified
than Whites to understand and employ complex systems and processes is deeply rooted in the
history of American society and its institutions of higher learning and it is embraced by a wide
spectrum of the American public. One scholar (Jean-Daniels, 2019) concluded that “for those of
us who have decided to enter academia as faculty members and have varying shades of Black
skin, the experience can parallel the practice of ‘driving while Black.’ There is an ongoing
questioning of your right to be in the space; challenges from students who question your
authority; and questioning by administrative staff who ultimately see you as an interloper in their
space…”
48
Students entering and attending college have been exposed to and socialized within these beliefs
systems by way of the media, personal experiences, family and communities, political leaders,
etc., and thus do not view the race of professors in a social vacuum and thus are not inured to the
ideology of racial superiority. Based on the premise that “the pervasiveness of the low-
intelligence stereotype may bias student evaluations of African American professors…” Ho,
Thomsen, and Sidanius (2009) investigated how Black and White college instructors were
assessed via the “evaluative dimension of intellectual competence, a central component of racial
stereotypes concerning Blacks and Whites.” Their results revealed that there were no differences
in assessments of overall performance, however, both African American and European American
students placed more emphasis on the dimension of academic competence of Black professors
than their White counterparts in making overall evaluations. Basow and Martin (2012) maintain
that these attitudes and racial and ethnic stereotypes may require efforts by some Black and
Hispanic professors to demonstrate and “prove” their “knowledge and competence in ways that
White professors do not”. In a qualitative study of how a small group of Black and White
professors establish credibility in the classroom, Hendrix found that Black professors believed
that White students used a different set of criteria for “judging their classroom credibility” and
applied a more stringent standard overall than did Black students. Unlike like their White
colleagues, Black professors expected White students to doubt their credibility based on their
race and adopted verbal and non-verbal messages to establish their credibility.
Topical areas that were not ethnically or culturally linked to “being Black” (e.g., engineering,
dentistry, medicine) presented a greater challenge with respect to establishing credibility. Black
professors reported employing a multiple set of “strategies” for establishing credibility including:
associating themselves with the stature of departmental colleagues and other professors and the
institution itself and thereby implying that “he would not have been hired had he not also
“possessed extraordinary credentials”; stating or demonstrating their personal credentials or
skills.
Summary: This review of the literature on student evaluation of teaching presents the empirical
evidence refuting their validity and reliability and denoting the intrinsic racial bias. Major
professional scientific organizations, as well as the Penn State Faculty Senate, have also weighed
in on the discussion concluding that student evaluations of teaching “have been found to be
biased against women and people of color.” Further, these organizations argue against the use of
student evaluation of teaching as a measure of teaching effectiveness or quality. The use of the
existing system of SRTEs at Penn State contributes to this of form of institutional racism and has
serious consequences for Black faculty including others. In a follow-up to this report, these
topics will be explored further with specific reference to African American faculty at Penn State.
49
References
Anderson, Kristin J., and Gabriel Smith. 2005. “Students’ Preconceptions of Professors: Benefits
and Barriers According to Ethnicity and Gender.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
27(2):184-20.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2000). AAC&U survey on diversity

requirements: Overview of survey data. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/divsurvey/irvineoverview.cfm
Babad, E., Darley, J. M., & Kaplowitz, H. (1999). Developmental aspects in students’ course
selection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 157–168.
Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. The psychology of
prejudice: The Ontario symposium, 7, 55–76.
Basow, S. A., & Martin, J. L. (2012). Bias in student evaluations. In M. E. Kite (Ed.), Effective
evaluation of teaching: A guide for faculty and administrators (pp. 40-49). Washington, DC, US:
Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
Bavishi, A., Madera, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2010, November 1). The Effect of Professor
Ethnicity and Gender on Student Evaluations: Judged Before Met. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education.
Biernat, Fuegen, & Kobrynowicz, 2010 Shifting Standards and the Inference of Incompetence:
Effects of Formal and Informal Evaluation Tools. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
36(7) 855–868.
Boatright-Horowitz, S., & Soeung, S. (2009). Teaching white privilege to white students can
mean saying good-bye to positive student evaluations. American Psychologist, 64, 574–575.
Boring, Anne, Kellie Ottoboni, and Philip B. Stark. 2016. “Student Evaluations of Teaching
(Mostly) Do Not Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” Science Open Research
Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
23, 1933–1967.
Devine, P. D. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudices: Their automated and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
50
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive Racism. Advances in experimental social
psychology, 36, 1–52.
Feldman, K. A. (1992). College students' views of male and female college teachers: Part I—
Evidence from the social laboratory and experiments. Research in Higher Education,
33(3), 317–375.
Feldman, K. A. (1993). College students' views of male and female college teachers, Part II--
Evidence from students' evaluations of their classroom teachers. Research in Higher
Education, 34(2), 151–211.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fortson, S. B., & Brown, W. E. (1998). Best and worst university instructors: The opinions of
graduate students. College Student Journal, 32, 572– 576.
Ford, K. S., & Patterson, A. N. (2019). “Cosmetic diversity”: University websites and the
transformation of race categories. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(2), 99–114.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of
Sociology, 26, 21-42.
Huffcutt, A. & Roth, P. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 179-189.
Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (1994). “Student ratings of instruction and sex differences revisited.”
Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans. April 7, 1994.
Galguera, T. (1998). Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ ethnicity, bilinguality, and gender.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20(4), 411–429.
Gilroy, M. (2007) Bias in Student Evaluations of Faculty? The Hispanic Outlook in Higher
Education 17(19), July 2, 2007, 26–27.Gilroy, 2007
Gutgold, N. D., & Linse, A. R. 2016 Women in the academy: Learning from our diverse career
pathways. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington.
Hendrix, K. G. (1998). Student perceptions of the influence of race on professor credibility.

Journal of Black Studies, 28, 738–763.
51
Ho, A. K., Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2009). Perceived academic competence and overall job
evaluations: Students’ evaluations of African American and European American professors.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 389–406.
Jackson, R., & Crawley, R. (2003). White student confessions about a black male professor: A
cultural contracts theory approach to intimate conversations about race and worldview. The
Journal of Men’s Studies, 12, 25–41.
Jackson RL II and Dangerfield CL (2004) Defining Black masculinity as cultural property:

Toward an identity negotiation paradigm. In: Jackson RL II (ed.) African American
Communication and Identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 197–208.
Jean-Daniels, B. (2019) Teaching while Black: racial dynamics, evaluations, and the role of
White females in the Canadian academy in carrying the racism torch. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 22:1, 21-37.
Laube, Heather, et al. "The Impact of Gender on the Evaluation of Teaching: What We Know
and What We Can Do." NWSA Journal, vol. 19 no. 3, 2007, p. 87-104. Project
MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/224753.
Lazos, S. R. (2011) Are student teaching evaluations holding back women and minorities? The
perils of “doing” gender and race in the classroom. In, Presumed Incompetent: The
Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia, edited by G. y M. Gabriella et
al., Chapter 12. Boulder, Colorado: Utah State University Press, an imprint of Colorado
University Press.
Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275–287.
Lipton, J.P., O’Connor, M., Terry, C., & Bellamy, E. (1991). Neutral job titles and occupational
stereotypes: When legal and psychological realities conflict. Journal of Psychology, 125(2), 129–
151.
Linse, Angela R. 2017. “Interpreting and Using Student Ratings Data: Guidance for Faculty
Serving as Administrators and on Evaluation Committees.” Students in Educational Evaluation
54:94-106.
Littleford, L. N., Ong, K. S., Tseng, A., Milliken, J. C., & Humy, S. L. (2010). Perceptions of
European American and African American instructors teaching race-focused courses, Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 3(4), 230-244.
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in
student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 291–303.
52
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about
others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.
Messner, M. A. (2000). White guy habitus in the classroom: Challenging the reproduction of
privilege. Men and Masculinities, 2, 457–469.
McPherson, M. A., & Jewell, R. T. (2007). Leveling the playing field: Should student evaluation
scores be adjusted? Social Science Quarterly, 88, 868–881.
Mitchell, K., & Martin, J. (2018) Gender Bias in Student Evaluations. Political Science &
Politics,51 (3), 648-652.
Nast, H. J. (1999). ‘Sex,’ ‘race,’ and multiculturalism: Critical consumption and the politics of
course evaluations. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23, 102–115.
National Academies (2006) Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in
academic science and engineering. Committee on maximizing the potential of women in
academic science and engineering and Committee on science, engineering and public
policy. Washington, DC: National Academies.
Ogier, J. (2005). Evaluating the effect of a lecturer’s language background on a student rating of
teaching form. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 477–488.
Reid, L. D. (2010) The role of perceived race and gender in the evaluation of college teaching
on RateMyProfessors.com. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3), 137–152.
Rivera and Tilcsik 2019
Smith B. P. (2007) Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: An analysis of end-of-course

faculty evaluations. College Student Journal, 41(4), 788–800.
Smith, B. P., (2009), Student ratings of teaching effectiveness for faculty groups based on race
and gender. Education 129(4), 615–624.
Smith, Bettye P., and Billy Hawkins. 2011. “Examining Student Evaluations of Black College
Faculty: Does Race Matter?” The Journal of Negro Education 80(2):149-162.
Smith, B. P., & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2011/2012). Implications for non-white women in the
academy. The Negro Educational Review, 62 & 63 (1–4), 115–140.
Spooren, Pieter, Bert Brockx, and Dimitri Mortelmans. 2013. “On the Validity of Student
Evaluation of Teaching: The State of the Art.” Review of Educational Research 83(4):598–642.
53
Stark, Philip B., and Richard Freishtat. 2014. “An Evaluation of Course Evaluations.” Science
Open Research
Steele, 1997
Street, S., Kimmel, E., & Kromrey, J.D. (1996). Gender role preferences and perceptions of
university students, faculty, and administrators. Research in Higher Education 37(5),
615–632.
Sherri L. Wallace, Angela K. Lewis & Marcus D. Allen (2018): The State of the Literature on
Student Evaluations of Teaching and an Exploratory Analysis of Written Comments: Who
Benefits Most?, College Teaching 67(1), 1-11, January 2019.
Yan Y, Shepherd LJ, Slavich E, Waters D, Stone M, Abel R, et al. (2019) Gender and cultural
bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0209749.
Zarate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition,
8, 161–185.
Summary: The above review of the literature on student evaluation of teaching presents the
empirical evidence refuting their validity and reliability and denoting the intrinsic racial bias.
Major professional scientific organizations, as well as the Penn State Faculty Senate, have also
weighed in on the discussion concluding that they “have been found to be biased against women
and people of color.” Further, these organizations argue against the use of student evaluation of
teaching as a measure of teaching effectiveness or quality. The use of the existing system of
SRTEs at Penn State contributes to institutional racism and has serious consequences for Black
faculty including others. In a follow-up to this report, these topics, along with recommendations,
will be explored further with specific reference to African American faculty at Penn State.
54
APPENDIX A
55
An Afternoon with African American Faculty at Penn State:
More Rivers to Cross
AGENDA
(125 Smeal Business Building, Penn State University Park)
1:00-1:30 pm Black National Anthem & Introduction—Dr. Gary King, Professor of

Biobehavioral Health—Trends and Patterns of African American Faculty at Penn State:
2004-2018
1:30-2:00 pm Keynote—Dr. Errol Henderson, Associate Professor of Political Science—Being Black

at Penn State #BBPSU…and other Unhappy Truths
2:00-3:00 pm Faculty Panel: Voices from the Front Lines—Moderated by Dr. Gregory Jenkins,
Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Wanda B. Knight, Associate Professor of Art Education, African
American Studies, and Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies
• Mr. Marc L. Miller, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture
• Dr. Darryl Thomas, Associate Professor of African American Studies and
Political Science
• Dr. Lynette M. Yarger, Associate Professor of Information Sciences and
Technology
3:00-3:15 pm Break
3:15-4:00 pm State Conference President, Dr. Joan Duvall-Flynn, of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People Pennsylvania State Conference (NAACP-PA)
and Penn State Student Panel—Moderated by Dr. Gary King and Dr. Joan Duvall-
Flynn
4:00-4:45 pm Interactive Session—Facilitated by Dr. Wanda B. Knight
4:45-5:00 pm Closing
56
APPENDIX B
57
1/20/2020 LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Walk the walk | Letters to the Editor | Opinion | Daily Collegian | collegian.psu.edu
https://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_a167470c-0b90-11e8-ba9d-
a3e566ba4bda.html
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Walk the walk

Gary King | For the Collegian
Feb 7, 2018
In 1969, African Americans were just beginning to integrate predominately white universities
and colleges after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the turbulence of the civil rights
movement.
The next year, Daniel Patrick Moynihan the former senator and advisor on urban problems to
President Richard Nixon wrote, "The time may have come when the issue of race could bene t
from a period of 'benign neglect.’ ” Much progress has been made since.
Unfortunately, in the case of Penn State and particularly the College of Health and Human
Development (CHHD), the recent history of hiring black and other underrepresented faculty is
still mired in a period of “benign neglect.”
58
https://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_a167470c-0b90-11e8-ba9d-a3e566ba4bda.html
Despite the platitudes and homage to liberalism misnomered as diversity, equity and inclusion,
the present CHHD administration’s record has been atrocious in retaining or recruiting African
American and Latino faculty.
Over the last 10 years black and Latino faculty have left CHHD (the fourth largest student
college on campus) as if they were subject to a staggered and irreplaceable eviction decree.
Were it not for the commendable e orts of two previous heads of the Department of
Biobehavioral Health (three black faculty), of which I have been a member for 20 years, the
absolutely abysmal proportion of generously de ned black faculty in CHHD would be 1.8
percent (5 of 271).
Moreover, the 2.9 percent total (8 of 274, which is below the university average of 3.2 percent)
would be further reduced if only tenured or tenured-track instructors were counted.
In actuality, I am the only African American male faculty and the only black full professor in the
entire College, a singular distinction exceeded appreciably in previous years.
Some departments in the College have seldom invited black and minority faculty to present at
colloquia and have few if any graduate or undergraduate students from underrepresented
minorities.
Further, through policy machinations such as spousal hires, creation of unconventional

positions, failure to hold departments fully accountable, lack of courage and commitment, and
di erential preferences, CHHD has subverted institutional policy.
59
Consequently, it has not lived up to the university’s mission, strategic plans or promise to
recruit and retain African American or Latino faculty.
The implications of this form of “benign neglect” are considerable for all students and faculty,
but especially for those of color.
For one, the important scienti c contributions to the health disciplines nurtured by a
supportive and multicultural environment are missed.
Secondly, students are inadequately prepared to attend to patients, conduct research, or

administer health policy or promotion in increasingly diverse settings.
Third, a policy of “benign neglect” becomes a self-ful lling prophecy and the pattern of
exclusion becomes widely acknowledged among black and Latino academicians and students.
And this “cultural grapevine” can be very di cult to overcome.
Finally, this state of a airs is insulting to the status of Penn State as a great university excelling
in research and teaching.
Most students who arrive at Penn State have never seen or interacted scholastically with a
black or Latino instructor, and there is little likelihood that by the time many leave CHHD, that
this unenviable record will be broken.
Perhaps instead of “All In,” a modi cation of the NFL’s “Rooney Rule” is needed for colleges such
as CHHD based on a one-to-one recruitment of black athletes corresponding with the
recruitment and retention of black and other underrepresented faculty, students, and sta of
color.
Above all, Penn State should not be an oasis of “benign neglect” and excuses.
Martin, among many others, would not be pleased.
Gary King is a professor in the Department of Biobehavioral Health.
60
1/20/2020 Teaching while Black at Penn State | Letter to the Editor | Letters to the Editor | Opinion | Daily Collegian | collegian.psu.edu
https://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_de7f77f4-f389-11e8-8c47-f39a42ca198d.html
Teaching while Black at Penn State | Letter to the Editor

Letter by Gary King
Nov 29, 2018
Editor's Note: Another letter to the editor that discussed additional negative e ects of SRTEs
can be found here. It was written by Professor David P. Baker and was published on Nov. 28.
Not too long ago, I met a newly hired administrator and raised the question of faculty hiring
and diversity. Without batting an eye, he responded with the anointed arrogance of
professional supremacy and ippantly replied, “Yea, if they’re quali ed”.
Unfortunately, this is the same atavistic attitude that prevails among too many students and
some faculty and administrators here at Penn State when it comes to their encounters with and
prejudgments of Black, Latinx, and other minority faculty.
And this is nowhere more apparent than in student evaluations of teachers or the notoriously
misused SRTEs, which heads of departments, promotion committees and faculty search
committees rely on sensationally and uncritically in their assessments.
In the Spring of 2017, a Faculty Senate report advanced the discussion and issued a robust and
incisive analysis entitled: Student Rating of Teaching E ectiveness (SRTE) Evaluations: E ective
Use of SRTE Data.
61
This document challenged the general view that SRTEs are either complete measures of
student learning or faculty evaluations and noted they are fraught with erroneous assumptions
and consequential shortcomings. Speci c reference highlighted “Bias due to gender, race,
ethnicity, or culture” though the cited studies of faculty of color were limited.
While all faculty are subject to the vagaries of student opinions and perceptions, for Black
professors this takes on a quality that entails the uncomfortably personal and institutional
experiences of race and racism that we have come to expect and de ect.
As practically any Black prof at Penn State can tell you, these experiences leave an occasionally
bitter and indelible impression of the student body and the administration. Many of us have
had to endure the demeaning task of proving we are “quali ed."
And this is acutely the case of Black male professors regardless of rank or tenure status. To
lecture in a culturally anglicized dialect is a clear sign of not being “quali ed”; to employ a
pedagogy that is di erent is yet another sign of not being “quali ed”; to make by happenstance
a mistake in class is surely an indication of not being “quali ed”; and perhaps most of all, to
look, think or act in any way “Black” is certin sign of not being “quali ed”.
So, what is a Black prof to do? Should we avoid any topic remotely related to race, sexism, and
inequality or current issues such as gun control and violence or the racism of President Trump?
Should we not discuss history and exhort students to see the present through the past and by
extension a possible future? Should we take the “ease and appease” approach and not require
too much rigor or reading for exams or quizzes or even class decorum especially if we are
about to “come up”? Should we smile more often, modulate the voix, and/or tell jokes to appear
“nonthreatening” in an e ort to assuage White students? Or should one just “Get Out”?
Studies have been remarkably consistent in their results regarding racial and ethnic bias and
the unfairness of student evaluation of faculty. In a recent literature review and an empirical
study, Wallace and colleagues (2018), noted a number of personal characteristics associated
with student faculty evaluations pertaining to both race and gender of the instructor including
culturally perceived mannerisms, physical attractiveness or appearance, accents, and perceived
sexuality.
62
Littleford et al. (2010) demonstrated that challenging a student’s worldview of (e.g., about
racism, structural inequality, White privilege) can be dangerous to one’s SRTEs. In his research,
Reid (2010) studied data from over 3,000 student evaluations of professors revealing that
African American and Asian teachers were ranked the lowest and Black males received the
lowest scores of any racial/gender group. These studies are among the many works on this
important topic and are keenly instructive.
Realistically however, why should we expect this situation to be any di erent considering that it
re ects in part the state of black faculty and “benign neglect” at Penn State? More broadly
con gured, it is essentially no di erent than what other African Americans such as police and
remen, medical practitioners, and journalists face (save perhaps traditional domains
encompassing athletes, artists of syncopation, chau eurs, and preachers).
I might also add that the bias against Black faculty is not limited to White students as many
Black, Asian, and Latinx students also endorse racist stereotypes by avoiding our courses,
expecting and doing less, and evaluating more stringently.
College instruction is not as easy a vocation as it may seem and we as professionals do not
always meet or exceed our expectations. Everyone bene ts when teaching is improved but no
one bene ts when teaching assessment is poorly conceived, weaponized by students, and
detonated by administrators.
Given the cogent research and the Faculty Senate report as well as the experiences of Black,
Latinx and women faculty at Penn State, the current use of SRTEs by administrators is
unavoidably and undeniably discriminatory.
Students cannot change the SRTE system. Only the administration working with faculty can do
so. This venerable institution should assume the responsibility of addressing this issue as a
matter of equity.
One approach to changing the SRTE system is to assemble a body of fair minded faculty and
administrators to examine racial and gender di erences in SRTE survey scores across an array
of factors such class size, course level of di culty, elective versus required courses, for
example, and develop a new system. If in fact student evaluations of faculty are here to stay,
they should not remain in their present form nor be the sole means by which administrators
63
and promotion and recruitment committees assess teaching. As other colleges and universities
have changed their student evaluation systems in the interest of fairness and validity, so should
Penn State.
Gary King is a professor in the department of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State.
64
APPENDIX C
65
66
67
68
APPENDIX D
69
April 1, 2013
THE FORUM ON BLACK AFFAIRS
WORKING PAPER:
2013 STATUS OF BLACK FACULTY AND STAFF AT
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Submitted to: Leslie Laing, FOBA President
By The Special Committee on

Status of Black Faculty and Staff at Penn State
Members:
Grace Hampton, Chair
Joyce Hopson-King
Wanda Knight
James Stewart
Beverly Vandiver
09/04/2013
70
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview: FOBA has written major reports in 1981, 1999, and 2000 on the status of Black
People at Penn State. This 2013 report is a continuation of FOBA’s efforts to support the
University in making this institution a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all. We
highlight four challenges that Black faculty, staff, and administrators at Penn State face, and we
provide recommendations to meet these challenges in maintaining and establishing even more
proactive strategies toward diversifying the University across all of these positions.
Challenge 1: Overcoming Stagnation: The data indicate that the growth of Black faculty at
Penn State has been less than 1 percent in over 30 years in relation to the growth in the total
number of faculty. The number of staff in relation to the total number of staff for each staff
category has ranged from 1.3 to 4.4 percent over the past 10 years. The representation of faculty
(3%) and staff (5.9%) at the Commonwealth campuses are worse than at University Park, as
these individuals are located at 19 different locations.
Challenge 2: Increasing Representation of Blacks in Senior Leadership Roles: Currently,
there are only 3 Black senior administrators at University Park and 2 Black chancellors at the
Commonwealth campuses. Without a constant increase and retention of Black faculty and staff
at Penn State, there is no clear mechanism for career advancement, and for promoting faculty
and staff to senior-administrative positions.
Challenge 3: Reporting and Implications: More transparency is needed in reporting data
regarding promotion and tenure of Black faculty as well as reporting the promotion of Black
staff. Both sets of information need to take into account gender.
Challenge 4: Changing the Reality of the Black Experience Penn State: The views of Black
faculty and staff were mixed and layered. Positive experiences were based on the support of
non-Black faculty or outside sources. Numerous faculty and staff indicated experiences of
racial/ethnic bias, which were obstacles to career advancement opportunities. The most
consistent challenge was a feeling of isolation, due to the small number of Black faculty and
staff, and the constant need to re-educate non-ethnically diverse groups about racial issues.
Recommendations
1. Increase Efforts to Diversify University Administration and Other Positions: Central
administration needs to be the model for the rest of the University by reflecting what
diversity can and should be at the University. There needs to be an increased institutional
commitment to equity in recruitment, hiring, retention, and career advancement, especially at
the Commonwealth campuses, where there is an underrepresentation of diverse faculty and
staff in relation to the number of diverse students on the campuses.
2. Strengthen and Require Regular Diversity Training and Accountability: FOBA
recommends that the University revise its diversity policies at Penn State or create additional
ones. Diversity training should be routinely required of all University employees, including
graduate assistants.
3. Increase Oversight and Accountability of the Diversity Strategic Plan: FOBA
recommends that the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity be provided with
additional authority to hold units accountable for weak diversity plans and poor
implementation and follow through.
71
4. Increase Accountability for the Retention of Black Faculty and Staff: FOBA
recommends sharing the oversight between the Office of the Provost and the Office of the
Vice Provost for Educational Equity. We strongly recommend revisiting the scope and role
of the current Senior Faculty Mentor, which was established as a part-time position. We
believe a Staff Mentorship Program for Blacks and other underrepresented groups would be
helpful in creating a pipeline for diverse staff to successfully move into administrative
positions.
5. Expand the Vision of Scholarship: Efforts need to be increased to educate program
coordinators, department heads, members of promotion and tenure committees, and other
evaluators about expanding their vision of teaching, research, and scholarship to include
issues of diversity.
72
WORKING PAPER:
2013 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF BLACK FACULTY AND STAFF
AT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Introduction
The Forum on Black Affairs (FOBA)1 has monitored and made concrete suggestions regarding
the recruitment, development, and retention of Black2 faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate
students for more than thirty years. Moreover, FOBA has written major reports in 1981, 1999,
and 2000 on the status of Black People at Penn State. This 2013 report is a continuation of
FOBA’s efforts to support the University in making this institution a more welcoming and
inclusive environment for all. With the aforementioned objective in mind, this working paper
highlights four challenges that Penn State faces and provides recommendations to meet these
challenges in maintaining and establishing even more proactive strategies toward diversifying
the administration, faculty, and staff at Penn State.
Through the four challenges, we will present what has transpired regarding efforts to diversify
administration, faculty, and staff since the first report in 1981, and we will provide perspectives
from currently employed Black faculty, staff, and administrators, who shared their views and
experiences during monthly FOBA meetings and two town hall gatherings at University Park
campus. This report will also offer a list of recommendations that, if implemented, FOBA
believes will (a) improve the campus climate, (b) successfully diversify the University, and (c)
strengthen the economic growth and stability of the University while enhancing its scholarly
reputation.
Challenge 1: Overcoming Stagnation

In the last three decades, the overall numbers of full-time Black employees at Penn State show
only a slight increase. In 1981, FOBA presented to President John W. Oswald our report titled
“Bucking the Trend” – Toward the Development of a Program to Stabilize and Expand the
number of Black Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students at the Pennsylvania State University. The
report acknowledged the increase in the number of Black full-time employees at Penn State
between 1975 and 1980. Black full-time employees increased by 58.1 percent, even though
Blacks constituted only 2 percent of the full-time employees in 1980 in comparison to 1.4
percent in 1975. While this increase over a 5-year span was impressive and provided optimism
about the future of diversity at Penn State, the numbers for Black faculty and staff have not
continued to be this impressive.
1
Periodically, the term “we” will be used to denote FOBA, not the views of the authors of the paper.
2
In keeping with the name of our organization and to ensure inclusiveness, the term Black will be used throughout
the report and will refer to individuals of African descent.
73
Table 1 chronicles the number and percentage of Black faculty from 1988 to 2012. In the 24-
year span, Black faculty members have almost tripled. However, these numbers are not
impressive when examined against the growth of the number of total faculty at Penn State, which
includes the Commonwealth Campuses, Dickinson School of Law, and Hershey College of
Medicine.
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Black Faculty in Relation to Total Faculty (1988-2012)
1988 1993 1998 2003* 2008 2012
N N N N N N
% % % % % %
Black Faculty 60 74 99 152 165 169

1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Faculty 3,333 3,700 3,960 5,045 5,473 5,762
Note. The number of total faculty for 1988, 1993, and 1998 were not immediately available and thus are
estimated values based on the number and percentage of Black faculty.
*Dickinson Law School joined Penn State in 2000.
The state of Black faculty at Penn State appears to be reflective of a nation wide trend. In
commenting about Black faculty in California’s higher education, Marquez (2010) noted that
there has been no substantial change in Blacks’ presence in higher education. We are in
agreement with this assessment. Affirmative action policies that were previously successful in
improving representation of Blacks and other disadvantaged students are now either dismantled
or greatly restricted. This process has been set in motion by several decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, with another major ruling on Affirmative Action in higher education expected
during spring 2013 (Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin).
We also agree with Marquez’s (2010) assessment that the lack of Black faculty will have an
effect on the educational opportunities of Black students and other underrepresented students. In
turn, the failure to provide equitable educational opportunities for these students will have long-
term disastrous consequences for economic competitiveness. Research has shown that bringing
together workers with different qualifications, backgrounds, and experiences improves problem-
solving and spurs innovation and creativity (Forbes Insight, 2011). Increasing diversity in
faculty will lead to increasing great opportunity for the United States to become more
competitive in the global economy by capitalizing on the unique talents and contributions that
diverse communities bring to the table.
Equally important is the presence of Blacks in non-faculty positions. In regard to Black staff at
Penn State, which includes non-faculty professionals, clerical, technical, skilled crafts workers,
and maintenance/service personnel, the numbers are equally stagnant. Table 2 shows the number
74
and percentage of Black staff based on the available data from 2003-2012 in 2-year increments.
The largest percentage of Black staff at Penn State was in 2003, where 4 percent were
professional (non-faculty), 3.9 percent were technical, and 4.4 percent were in
maintenance/service. However, 2003 was the lowest percentage of Blacks in clerical positions
(1.5%). The largest growth in these positions have been in 2012 (2.1%), an increase of 0.6% in
an 8-year span. In contrast, 2012 has been the year with a reduction of staff as a whole at Penn
State. In turn, this downturn is reflected in the reduction of Black staff employed at Penn State.
Table 2: Number and Percentage of Black Staff at Penn State from 2003-2012
2003 2005 2007 2009 2012

N % N % N % N % N %
Professional
(non-faculty) 163 4.0 152 3.5 151 3.2 164 3.2 135 3.0
Total 4,074 4,295 4,783 5,145 4,390
Clerical 36 1.5 38 1.7 42 1.9 42 1.9 53 2.1

Total 2,353 2,250 2,169 2,234 2,554
Technical 41 3.9 27 3.0 26 3.0 28 2.9 14 1.7

Total 1,039 897 913 954 843
Skilled Crafts 8 1.3 8 1.2 7 1.0 8 1.1 10 1.3

Total 607 656 698 708 757
Service 82 4.4 81 4.3 74 4.0 75 3.9 60 3.3

Total 1,851 1,878 1,870 1,918 1,793
Total
Employees 15,867 16,190 16,807 17,693 17,541
Note. Data obtained from Penn State’s Affirmative Action Office include the Dickinson School of
Law and the College of Medicine, but not the PA College of Technology or the Hershey Medical Center.
Each total under a category represents the total number of Black employees for that category.
Sadly, thirty-two years later, the fall 2012 data indicate that there are 495 Black people employed
at Penn State. This number represents only 2.8 percent of 17,619 of all faculty and staff
employed at all locations, excluding PA College of Technology, throughout the Penn State
System (see Figure 1 below). Thus since 1980, 30 plus years later, the growth of Black full-time
employees at Penn State is less than 1 percent (0.8). Surely this negligible increase is not
reflective of the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion; however, this finding does
underscore the fact that the institution needs to make significant improvement in diversity hiring.
75
Figure 1: Total Number of Black Faculty and Staff at Penn State in Fall 2012
Black Faculty &

Staff
3% (495)
Other Faculty &

Staff
97% (17,124)
Note. Data obtained from Penn State’s online Fact Book. To be consistent with prior data
reported, total number of faculty and staff (17,619) excludes the PA College of Technology
and the Hershey Medical Center, but includes the Dickinson School of Law and the College
of Medicine.3
In examining the number of Black employees at the Commonwealth campuses, excluding Great
Valley, the figures, on the surface, look better than the figures at University Park. Out of 3,622
workers, approximately 4 percent of the employees are Black. See Figure 2 below.
Disaggregating the data by staff and faculty indicates that 5.9 percent (123/2,077) of the staff
employees are Blacks, whereas the Black faculty at the campuses is 3 percent (47/1,545), which
is similar to the number of Black faculty at University Park. However, the number of Black
faculty and staff at the Commonwealth Campuses is extremely disconcerting given the fact that
the 4 percent represents the distribution across 19 locations. For example, 26 of the 47 Black
faculty members are located on only 3 campuses (Harrisburg, Greater Allegheny, and Abington).
Furthermore, 5 of the 19 campuses have zero (0) Black faculty and another 5 have only 1 Black
faculty. The numbers are particularly disconcerting given that on several of the campuses, there
are a significant number of Black students. For example, in Fall 2012, almost 30% of the
students at Schuylkill were Black (242/867). These findings clearly underscore our concern
noted on page 3: The absence of a critical mass of Black faculty and staff on any of the
Commonwealth Campuses will have an adverse impact on the educational opportunities of Black
students.
3 At this time, it is unknown why the total number of Penn State employees obtained from the Affirmative Action
Office is different from the numbers provided online at Penn State’s Fact Book, when PA College of Technology is
excluded from the analyses.
76
Figure 2: Total Number of Black Faculty and Staff at Penn State’s
Commonwealth Campuses in Fall 2012
Blacks
4% (170)
Non Blacks
96% (3,452
Note. Data obtained from Penn State’s online Fact Book. Total number of faculty is 3,662,
excluding PA College of Technology.
An even more alarming concern is that it has been informally reported, but not officially
confirmed, that a significant number of Blacks (staff, faculty, and administrators) will have left
Penn State at the end of the 2012-13 academic year. These departures may be for various
reasons, including retirement, new employment opportunities, non-renewal of contracts, and
failure to receive tenure. A loss of this magnitude would be detrimental to the Black community
and to the institution in general, particularly when we consider the fact that the University has a
documented low hiring rate of Blacks in the past decade. If this statistic is true, then this should
be a sufficient factor for the University Administration to investigate current practices and
implement new ones regarding the recruitment and retention of Black faculty, staff, and
administrators at Penn State.
Challenge 2: Increasing the Representation of Blacks in Senior Leadership Roles

In 1980, there were 9 Blacks at Penn State classified as administrators and managerial
employees, an increase in almost 5 times the original number in 2007 (N = 42), and 6 times the
original number in 2012 (N = 56). While these numbers indicate that Blacks have made progress
in leadership roles at Penn State, many of these positions are not central or clearly visible.
Furthermore, close examination of the data reveals that there is an absence of Black
administrators in key positions. In fact, there are no Black deans of the colleges at University
Park and there are only two Black Chancellors in the Commonwealth Education System, one at
the Fayette campus, and the other at the Greater Allegheny campus. The last Black University
Park dean was Rodney Reed, who served from 1990-1997. Currently, there is only 1 Black
female in a senior level position at the University (the chancellor at Fayette), and 3 visible
positions are held by Black males: Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Vice Provost for
77
Educational Equity and the Vice Provost for Global Programs are the highest executive positions
held by Blacks at Penn State. The last Black female central administrator was Grace Hampton,
who served as vice provost from 1988-1995.
Below, Figure 2 provides a breakdown of Penn State’s administration by race and gender.
The University’s current website lists 19 individuals4 under “Our Administration,” as the
“President’s Council” and 19 chancellors for the Commonwealth campuses, excluding Great
Valley, per the presentation of the information in Penn State’s Fact Book. The patterns are
slightly different for the President’s Council and the Commonwealth chancellors.
Approximately 85-90% of the administrators are White and about 11-15% are Black, and 37% of
the chancellors are women, but approximately 25% are on the President’s Council.
Figure 2: Percentage of Penn State Administrators By Race and Gender
Percent of PSU Percent of PSU

Administrators Administrators
Based on Race Based on Gender
(2012) (2012)
100 89.5 80 75
85
63.2
80 60
60 36.8
White 40 Male
40 25
15 10.5 Black 20 Female
20
0 0
President's Chancellors President's Chancellors
Council Council
These statistics are representative of the 2010 U.S. Census for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and for the United States based on the prevalence of Whites (PA = 83.8%; U.S. =
78.1%), but are way below average for all racial/ethnic minorities or underrepresented groups
(PA = 20.5%; U.S. = 38.5%), and for women (PA = 51.2%; U.S. = 50.8%).
While the representation of Blacks is higher at the administrative level at Penn State than in other
classifications (faculty and staff), efforts are still needed to maintain and increase the
representation of racial/ethnic minorities at this administrative level. Increasing the diversity of
central administrators might likely have a positive effect on increasing Black faculty and staff as
well as retaining them at Penn State.
4
The Vice Provost for Global Programs is not part of the President’s Council, however, because of his importance
as a senior administrator, he is included in the statistics . As a result, the calculations were based on 20 individuals
for race and gender, not 19.
78
In 1981, FOBA cited Florence Ladd from an article published in the Chronicle of Higher
Education titled, Getting Minority –Group Members in Top College Jobs. Ladd (1981) noted,
“When predominantly [W]hite institutions conduct searches for senior-level administrators,
minority-group candidates often emerge, are interviewed, and then, with few exceptions, are
quietly ignored or cordially rejected.” FOBA maintains that this statement may still be
applicable today, when we consider the trends in Black faculty and staff representation at Penn
State.
To date, there appears to have been less than a dozen Blacks who have been appointed to central
administrative positions at University Park and chancellor at one of the Commonwealth
Campuses: Francis Achampong, Michael Adewumi, William Asbury, Blannie Bowen, Grace
Hampton, Beverly Lindsey, Curtiss Porter, Rodney Reed, and James Stewart.5 While there are
several university programs, such as the Administrative Fellows Program and the Mentoring
Program sponsored by the Commission for Women, to date, these programs have not led to the
appointment of Blacks in key administrative positions at Penn State. More effort should be made
to include Blacks in both programs, along with increased efforts to place Blacks that complete
the program into administrative positions within the University. Given the low number of Black
faculty and staff, the University reduces its opportunity to achieve greater diversity in its future
leadership cohorts. So naturally, increasing faculty and staff diversity enhances the opportunities
for future career advancement and the diversity of leadership at Penn State.
Challenge 3: Reporting and Implications

On March 12, 2013, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs presented the annual report on
Faculty Tenure Flow Rates for 2012-13. This report has been compiled for the past 16 years.
Tenure rate is provided separately by gender and minority status, but not conjointly. Faculty
Affairs reports, “tenure rates for minority faculty have been lower than for non-minority faculty
(54 percent and 59 percent).”6 Furthermore, “tenure rates for females have been lower than for
males (52 and 61 percent).”7 While few faculty do not receive tenure, it is not clear whether a
systematic disparity exists by gender or race/ethnicity. The Faculty Affairs Committee claims
that, “apparent disparities in tenure rates by gender and race/ethnicity probably reflect
substantive differences across academic fields as much as or more than differences by
demographic groups…” However, FOBA contends that the University has the ability to provide
more accurate numbers and increased transparency regarding the success rate of tenure-track
faculty.
While the explanations provided are reasonable regarding the distribution of women across
disciplines, Faculty Affairs provide no evidence that what has occurred at Penn State is true in all
cases of non-tenure for racial/ethnic faculty. This lack of evidence is where anecdotal
information exists to challenge Faculty Affairs’ conclusion. A number of tenured racial/ethnic
minority faculty members report witnessing unfairness in the support and evaluation of
racial/ethnic minority faculty on tenure-track. Lack of support includes tactics such as giving
5 There may have been other Black chancellors at the commonwealth campuses in the past, but the
current information is not readily available.
6
The 54% is the tenure rate for minority faculty and 59% is the tenure rate for non-minority faculty.
7
The 52% is the tenure rate for females and 61% is the tenure rate for male faculty.
79
tenure-track racial/ethnic minority faculty additional administrative tasks of running academic
programs or assigning large advising loads thereby reducing time spent on research.
No information is readily available about how staff members fare in the process of promotion,
particularly Black staff. We recommend that information regarding this process be made public
and that procedures be established to increase the candidate pool for Black applicants for staff
positions at the University.
The data presented in this working paper illustrate a disparity between the stated university
mantra that declares, “Fostering diversity must be recognized as being at the heart of our
institutional viability and vitality and that the diversity should be a core value of the academic
mission, and a priority of the institution.” (A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State,
preface)
Challenge 4: Changing the Reality of the Black Experience at Penn State

FOBA’s monthly membership meetings and two Town Hall gatherings provided an opportunity
for individuals to share their experiences as employees of Penn State. Current faculty, staff, and
graduate students attended the meetings. The ideas discussed and feelings expressed are offered
below:
What has been your experience as a Black person at Penn State?

Ø Many expressed a more positive experience in recent years associated with the increased
hiring of additional Black faculty and staff.
Ø Some Black faculty and staff stated that there is a “constant need to re-educate” the larger
Penn State community about issues related to Blacks at the University. With each new
administration or strategic plan, “We have to start over, rather than build upon a solid
foundation of past experiences.”
Ø There is a continuous discussion regarding how or why the lack of diversity is normative
at Penn State and why the lack does not seem to register in the minds of decision makers.
Ø Several individuals described their Penn State experience as mixed and layered. One
individual reported that his/her experiences over the past ten or fifteen years have
covered the full gamut of both positive and negative experiences from significant racial
prejudice, which included having items thrown at the individual, to the hurling of racial
epithets as the individual moved about campus. However, the individual’s experiences
became more positive after moving into an administrative position at the University.
Ø Moreover, testimonials from numerous Black faculty and staff indicate that racial and
ethnic bias does, indeed, exist at Penn State. Such bias pollutes career advancement
opportunities as well as promotion and tenure opportunities.
Ø There were accounts of overt racist actions such as the denial of crucial resources to
covert spread of malicious rumors that create suspicion and perceptions of inadequacy of
Black faculty. Consequently, some Black faculty mentioned that they feel obligated to
80
illuminate issues of diversity in their scholarly work to bring about change for social
justice.
Ø Informants acknowledged that institutionalized racism exists in some aspects of Penn
State and many feel pressured to “prove” their value within the department.
Ø Some noted that being Black often leads to the burden of diversity. “Disproportionately,
we are involved in taking up tasks because we want change and to ensure that our voices
are heard. Yet in the end, there is little change and these efforts do nothing to enhance our
careers.”
Ø The most consistent comment was regarding isolation; it remains problematic at both the
personal and professional levels. Some acknowledged that there is a support structure
available, but many individuals noted “isolation always confronts us in what we do.”
Many of our Black faculty and staff are forced to work alone, have no staff support, or
are the only person of color in their units.
Ø Many staff members indicated that Blacks are overtaxed, dealing with disappointment
and isolation constantly in addition to juggling multiple responsibilities without
acknowledgment or reward. Additional responsibilities do not yield promotion or raises.
Ø Various individuals noted that White colleagues were supportive, but they really did not
understand the nature of what it means to be a “minority” at a predominantly White
institution.
Ø Some noted that efforts to collaborate or partner on projects and research were not
advantageous and that they were often discouraged when seeking inclusion.
Ø Some find support through organizations like FOBA, but they felt little support on the
job.
Ø Several individuals reported a constant battle to obtain needed support and resources.
The relentless stress associated with these battles impinges on the productivity of Black
faculty and staff.
Ø One faculty member indicated that there was an inequitable distribution of resources,
exclusion from communications received by other faculty members and the assignment
of a heavy teaching load.
Ø Black administrators also complained frequently about a lack of support, consistently

reduced budgets or funding, and reduced resources. An inequitable distribution of
graduate assistantships was also identified as an ongoing problem.
Ø Undermining decisions of Black administrators and staff was also a constant theme.
Ø Faculty concerns were expressed that some departments are still “ingrained” and “it’s
difficult for people of color to gain tenure.” In addition, there are missed opportunities to
81
increase the number of Blacks at Penn State. Thus, the Colleges and Departments do not
always make good use of the opportunity to hire additional Black faculty from the ranks
of those individuals receiving Penn State fellowships and residencies.
Ø Other participants reported that their research and service that seek to amplify social
justice and/or support people of color, gay, lesbian, and transgendered populations is
marginalized in the academy. Additionally, Black junior faculty reported that their
mentors, colleagues, and/or supervisors advised them to avoid conducting “too much”
research on issues of diversity or research on specific racial or ethnic topics.
Ø Some reported that their mentors, colleagues, and/or supervisors advised them to abandon
their race- and/or gender-related research agendas altogether for fear that promotion and
tenure evaluators or well-regarded mainstream venues for scholarly publication would
not value their work.
Ø Black faculty and staff, like other underrepresented groups, bring diverse themes to their
scholarship, research, service, and teaching, increasing diversity in the curriculum, and
introducing different forms of pedagogy, which have the potential to increase
engagement of students within the campus community.
Ø Likewise, many agreed that the absence of diversity and dwindling diversity among
Black faculty and staff sends a strong message regarding the lack of opportunities and
possibilities for those representing diverse groups.
Ø Some indicated that it would be nice if there were a diverse pool of mentors at the
University as the couple of programs providing this service lack cultural diversity.
Ø Many Black faculty and staff expressed concern over Town and Gown issues, quality of
life, and educational concerns for their children.
Ø Participants indicated that failure to address community diversity issues reinforces

practices that work against retention of people of color.
Ø Concerns were also expressed regarding the support given to Black administrators at all
levels. It was noted that White individuals under the supervision of Black administrators
are able to by-pass them and have their issues addressed by a White administrator. This
situation undermines the Black administrator and weakens his or her position as a leader.
Why do Black Faculty and Staff Stay at Penn State?

Ø Aside from Penn State’s reputation of exemplary research, teaching and service, many
Black faculty and staff indicated that having a higher sense of purpose for their role at
Penn State and a belief that their presence alone can bring about change causes them to
remain at the university. In addition, some have found solidarity with other Black
colleagues and believe their presence alone influences change. Most felt that what they
do everyday has an impact on the lives of Black students and that is truly rewarding.
82
Ø While many of the same tensions exist and continue to challenge the Black community at
Penn State, the overall University experience has improved.
Ø Every participant suggested that the University from the top-down needs to do more to
improve and foster diversity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING DIVERSITY
The Forum on Black Affairs has been appreciative of the collaborative relationship with Penn
State’s administration as well as the support provided at various junctures. Given this backdrop,
our recommendations are provided in the spirit of continuing to support this fine University as it
seeks to become a leader in the areas of diversity and inclusion.
1. Increase Efforts to Diversify University Administration and Other Positions

1.1. It is recommended that the University take a more proactive approach to increasing
and maintaining diversity and inclusion. This recommendation requires a systemic effort
and top-down approach on the part of central administration. Central administration
needs to be the model for the rest of the University by reflecting what diversity can and
should be at the University. Our concern is evidenced in the statistics presented earlier
about the demographic make-up of the President’s Council, chancellors at the campuses,
and the deans at University Park. We want to see more visible representation of Blacks
and women in the upper levels of leadership.
1.2. For Penn State to be more proactive and inclusive, there needs to be an increased
institutional commitment to equity in recruitment, hiring, retention, and career
advancement, especially at the Commonwealth Campuses, where there is an absence of
diverse faculty and staff in relation to the number of diverse students on the campuses.
The same mechanism of recruiting diverse faculty and staff cannot continue to be used.
Additionally, success will require not approving searches to go forward without a
competitive short list of qualified female and racially/ethnically diverse candidates.
1.3. One mechanism that should be implemented is to, first, make all employee searches
transparent. All searches would be required to submit to the Office of Affirmative Action
information about how they intend to search for candidates, to report what they actually
did, and to document the number of applicants based on demographic data and
qualifications, as well as to list as much as possible similar data about the
candidates on the short-list. The demographic information about the candidate
selected should be public knowledge as well. Furthermore, this mechanism would
require that a public summary document regarding the demographics of the pool of
candidates for senior-level positions (to increase transparency and accountability) be
available. It is also important to continue to invite and include FOBA, the Commission
on Racial/Ethnic Diversity (CORED) and the other Commissions to be a part of all future
searches.
83
1.4. Increased diversity in the Office of Human Resources is needed. Similar to the
demographic make-up of central administrators, this office should model the diversity
we want to see across the University. FOBA also recommends that the University hire
an outside employment/search firm that specializes in diversity to conduct a review of
Penn State’s operations to ensure that all possible steps are being taken to foster a
diverse workforce. Without visible diversity of qualified personnel administrators,
recruiting Blacks is made more difficult. The employment/search process should be one
that generates the type of diverse workforce that is consistent with the University’s
articulated vision.
1.5. The University needs to increase its efforts in the hiring of racial/ethnic minority staff
assistants, physical plant staff, and auxiliary service staff. Such an action will also
improve Town and Gown relations, increase networking, partnerships, relationships and a
sense of belonging within the Penn State community. Greater diversity increases the
attractiveness of Penn State (for persons from diverse backgrounds as well as others who
value diversity).
1.6. Increased diversity should be routinely acknowledged and rewarded. Such
acknowledgment should be within and across departments, units, and colleges. While
the Commissions and the Office of Multicultural Resources acknowledge individuals’
diversity efforts, it is not evident that the University has a system in place that
acknowledges and rewards individuals as well as units, departments, or programs for
their efforts and best practices.
2. Strengthen and Require Regular Diversity Training and Accountability

The Forum on Black Affairs is appreciative of the President’s response to recent acts of
insensitivity or bias and the resulting public announcements, which reminded the entire
University community that these behaviors are not reflective of our beliefs and values. We
recommend the establishment and promotion of exemplars of best practice that must be
implemented for effective diversity management. In essence, Penn State needs to make
diversity initiatives more sustainable, not simply as a reaction to overt episodic events.
For example, President Erickson has sent out regular messages about the position of the
university regarding the sex abuse scandal. The two messages that stand out are (a) the
periodic emails from the President about sex abuse resources and (b) President Erickson’s
promise to the University community (http://president.psu.edu/goals), specifically (a) to
“reinforce the moral imperative of doing the right thing—the first time, every time”; and (b)
to lead by example. Part of this promise included revisiting all standards, policies, and
programs, to reorient the Penn State culture, and to ensure proper governance and oversight
across the University.
2.1. FOBA recommends that the University revises its diversity policies at Penn State or
create additional ones. Several Penn State policies exist that specifically address
intolerance (AD29) and nondiscrimination and harassment (AD41; AD42); and fair
employment/affirmative action practices (HR01 & HR11). While these policies serve as
the foundation for the healthy growth of diversity at Penn State, they do not create the
84
expectation of what must or should occur once intolerance, discrimination, and
harassment have been minimized or reduced.
2.2. Diversity training should be routinely required of all University employees, including
graduate assistants. To do so will require expanding staff in and increasing resources
through the Office of Affirmative Action and the Office of Human Resources. Funding
should be allocated to hire additional diversity trainers and initiatives for implementing
new training modules, webinars and community building. Thus, FOBA believes that
diversity standards or competencies should be included in the Staff Review and
Development Plan (SRDP) as well as for the new review process for all employees.
Having a diversity policy that specifies annual diversity training for all employees would
be a significant step in changing the climate at Penn State and make the entire
community more welcoming. The policy should also address the consequences when
employees do not follow through with training.
2.3. All University administrators need to be more visible in promoting positive efforts to
diversify the University in a sustained and systematic fashion. For example, institutional
leaders, including unit and department administrators, deans, and provosts should
actively immerse themselves in the hiring process by; evaluating the attractiveness of a
program or department regarding the hiring of diverse individuals, assessing the climate
of the unit for diversity, evaluating hiring criteria, reviewing job descriptions, creating
diverse competent search committees, selecting chairs for the search committee,
ensuring that the broader pool is diverse, monitoring outreach initiatives, and supporting
efforts to ensure that qualified diverse candidates have been encouraged to apply.
FOBA, CORED, Commission for Women, and the Commission on LGBTE have
volunteered to meet with candidates while visiting the University. Some units need to be
applauded for their efforts in this matter, but the expectation needs to be extended to
other units.
3. Increase Oversight and Accountability of the Diversity Strategic Plan

3.1. FOBA recommends that the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity be
provided with additional authority to hold units accountable for weak diversity plans and
poor implementation and follow through. In 1998, the University implemented the
initial “Framework to Foster Diversity.” FOBA agrees with the University’s premise
that “Fostering diversity must be recognized as being at the heart of our institutional
viability and vitality, a core value of the academic mission, and a priority of the
institution.” While we believe this premise has been the University’s intention, we
believe more is needed to foster and implement a sustainable level of diversity at Penn
State. Since 1998, the goal of the diversity plans has been to incorporate diversity
throughout the University’s strategic plan. We understand the rationale for doing so;
diversity should be an integral aspect of the entire University, but there is little evidence
that diversity has been fully integrated into every aspect of the University.
3.2. As a result, we recommend a two-pronged approach to the implement diversity

throughout the University. The diversity plan should be integrated into the strategic plan
of all units. But the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity should also have
85
oversight for the implementation of all diversity plans. Without such oversight, there is
no objective mechanism in place to actually track implementation—the successes and
failures —as well as expectations of accountability for lack of effort on the part of units.
3.3. The issue of accountability in regard to diversity also emerged from the
recommendations of the Core Council committee. However, what was most discerning
about the Core Council’s recommendations was the lack of input from diverse members
of the University. In fact, this lack of diversity contributed to preliminary
recommendations that would have gutted several key offices and reversed the limited
progress that has been achieved to date. For example, the multicultural coordinators in
the colleges were one of the targets of these retrenchment efforts. While a review of the
roles and responsibilities of the multicultural coordinators is important to ensure their
effectiveness, it is unacceptable that some administrators question their efficacy,
especially when there is limited support, isolation, and no obvious commitment to
diversity within these units. This concern is all the more reason for the Office of the
Vice Provost for Educational Equity to be given increased ability to make critical
decisions regarding diversity initiatives and their implementation in an effective manner.
4. Increase Accountability for the Retention of Black Faculty and Staff

4.1. Based on a combination of statistics and anecdotal evidence reported earlier, it is
recommended that there be increased oversight in the promotion and tenure process of
Black faculty as well as the promotion process of Black staff. Points 4.2 to 4.5 focus on
the faculty process, and points 4.6 to 4.8 address staff recommendations.
4.2. This expanded oversight should be in place at the time of a faculty member’s first
review, which is typically conducted in the second year of the tenure process, and
monitoring should continue until the tenure process has been completed. The rationale
for the early oversight is that Black faculty’s tenure status is often in jeopardy at an early
stage and this process cannot be reversed at the sixth-year review. By monitoring the
faculty’s progress early on, there is still time to correct unfair procedures or processes
that may be in place. Furthermore, such oversight would increase the faculty’s
knowledge about their own rights. Too often these faculty are unaware of the Senior
Faculty Mentor or they are reticent about inequity or unfairness, for fear of retaliation by
senior faculty in their units.
4.3. FOBA recommends sharing the oversight between the Office of the Provost and the
Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity. While the Senior Faculty Mentor
needs to report to the Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity, little oversight
and change can occur without the person serving in this capacity also reporting directly
to the President, which had been the original organizational format.
4.4. We strongly recommend revisiting the scope and role of the current role of the Senior
Faculty Mentor, which was established as a part-time position. It is not possible for a
single individual, without staff or assistants, to provide services and oversight of several
campuses. The position is another critical example of splitting functions and
overloading faculty and watering down support to Black faculty. Through the oversight
86
process, if it is found that a faculty member has been unfairly treated, it is recommended
that this matter be addressed immediately by central administration and not be left solely
in the hands of the academic unit. Such an oversight process will lend additional support
to faculty members that are being unfairly treated.
4.5. In addition to oversight, there needs to be some form of accountability in place for units
that show a systematic pattern of creating an unfair tenure-process for Black faculty.
Without consequences, there is no reason to believe that such units will choose to change
entrenched inequitable practices.
4.6. In regard to qualified staff and mid-level administrators, there should be increased
opportunity for both to achieve promotion. Although the Administrative Fellows
Program serves faculty and staff, we believe an additional Staff Mentorship Programs
for Blacks and other underrepresented groups would be helpful in creating a pipeline for
diverse staff to successfully move into administrative positions.
4.7. The proposed programs would include several components, including annual
professional development training and structured opportunities for career advancement.
These initiatives would increase support and reduce the sense of isolation for Black staff.
Although there are currently extensive professional development training programs for
staff, none of these programs target the distinctive concerns of Blacks, nor do they
provide avenues for career advancement.
4.8. The proposed mentoring program would provide consultations and serve as a liaison
with supervisors of other units, create additional partnerships and support, and address a
range of issues from career development and problem solving to the handling of
sensitive issues.
5. Expand the Vision of Scholarship

There is a need to assess and reward faculty achievements based on a more inclusive
definition of scholarship that includes non-traditional forms of research and new forms of
scholarly, creative, or pedagogical activities––some of which might be made possible,
primarily, through new media and digital technologies. An expanded vision of scholarship
and the structure for assessing and rewarding faculty achievements should benefit all,
including Black faculty and other underrepresented faculty. Efforts need to be increased to
educate program coordinators, department heads, members of promotion and tenure
committees, and other evaluators about expanding their vision of teaching, research, and
scholarship to include issues of diversity.
CONCLUSION
It is the intent of this working paper to highlight the challenges that Black faculty and staff
confront at Penn State, the negative impact on the daily experiences of Black faculty, staff, and
administrators at Penn State, and bring to light the inadequacies of the current diversity efforts.
With this information serving as a foundation, we have presented a series of recommendations to
enhance the overall climate at the University for all stakeholders. FOBA believes that the
implementation of these recommendations will allow Penn State to regain its status as an
87
acknowledged champion of diversity and become a more inclusive and diverse institution.
FOBA looks forward to the discussion of the report and its recommendations with university
officials and is committed to working collaboratively to facilitate their implementation.
REFERENCES
Forbes Insight. (2011). Global diversity and inclusion: Fostering innovation through a diverse
workforce. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/forbesinsights/innovation_diversity/index.html
Marquez, L. (March 8, 2010). African Americans remain underrepresented, underserved in
state’s higher education system. UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved from
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-report-reveals-african-americans-
154742.aspx
Stewart, J. B. (2000). New strategies to strengthen Penn State’s faculty diversification efforts.
University Park, PA: Author.
The Forum on Black Affairs. (1981). “Bucking the trend” – Toward the development of a
program to stabilize and expand the number of Black faculty, staff, and graduate students
at The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA: Author.
The Forum on Black Affairs. (1999). Black paper II: Report on the present situation facing
African American faculty, staff, and students at The Pennsylvania State University.
University Park, PA: Author.
88
Appendix E
89
Black Professors on the University Park Campus: 2018-2019
The following data were gathered using “cosmetic diversity” methodology to assess the visible
representation of African American/Black professors on the website of academic departments at
Penn State University during the months of June and July of 2019 (Ford and Patterson, 2019). A
database was compiled of the available professional and demographic characteristics of
individuals listed as faculty based on their imputed physical appearance of being either African
American or Black. These data, though observational, provide a current and comparable source
of recent information by which to assess the census of Black professors during the academic year
of 2018-2019 at Penn State including their gender, rank, administrative title, department, and
college. Graph 33 shows the June-July 2019 distribution of African American professors (n=98)
at Penn State by rank.
Graph 33
Black Professors By Rank at UP (2018-2019)
Instructor/Other Other/Other
4% 7%
Instructor/Teaching
1% 7
Admin Prof/Other 4
4% 1
4
Admin Prof/Tenure
6%
6
Prof/Other
5% 5
57 Prof/Tenure-Tenured
Track
58%
14
Prof/Teaching
15%
Prof/Tenure-Tenured Track Prof/Teaching Prof/Other

Admin Prof/Tenure Admin Prof/Other Instructor/Teaching
Instructor/Other Other/Other
90
This number differs appreciably from the 2018 enumeration of the Penn State Office of Planning
and Assessment: 2004-2018 (112) and is closer to the total of 103 Black professors of the 2018
Penn State Factbook.17 The largest group of African American faculty comprises non-
administrative tenured or tenure-track professors (n=57, 58%). The second largest group of
Black professors (n=14,15%) consists of teaching faculty who are non-tenured and includes
assistant teaching professors, associate teaching professors, and teaching professors.
The gender division is presented in Graphs 34 and 35 showing that 61% of African American
male professors are in tenure or tenured-track positions compared to 55% of African American
women.
Rank of Black Professors by Gender at Penn State:2018-2019

Graph 34 Graph 35
Men Women
4%
6% 9%
4% 2% 4% 4%
6% 7%
6%
4%
61% 55%
17%
11%
Prof/Tenure Prof/Teaching Prof/Tenure Prof/Teaching

Prof/Other Admin Prof/Tenure Prof/Other Admin Prof/Tenure
Admin Prof/Other Instructor/Teaching Admin Prof/Other Instructor/Teaching
Instructor/Other Other/Other Instructor/Other Other/Other
The proportional division by rank (Graph 36) of Black non-administrative tenured or tenure-
track faculty (n=57) is assistant (n=18, 32%), associate (n=24, 42%) and full professors (n=15,
26%). Among this group of non-administrative tenured or tenured-track professors, 54% (n=31)
were men and 46% (n=26) were women.
17
One reason for the difference of 14.3% in the faculty count between our tabulations and the Office of Planning
and Assessment data is that, as previously noted, “For 2018, with the implementation of a new human resource
information system, post-doctoral scholars and fellows were reclassified from part-time to full-time” and thus
counted as faculty. This administrative modification in some cases artificially inflates the number and
corresponding increase in Black professors between 2017 and 2018. As previously noted, post-doctoral scholars and
fellows are temporal and unlikely to have a major impact on classroom teaching or be substantively involved in
departmental affairs or service to the university. Also, at the time of this analysis, the 2019 Penn State Factbook data
on faculty were unavailable as well other official sources.
91
Graph 36
Tenured and Tenure-Track Professors By Rank: 2018-2019
Full
26%
Assistant
32%
15 18
24
Associate
42%
Assistant Associate Full
A smaller portion of African American women professors were tenured-track assistant professors
(n=11, 42%) than those who were tenured associate professors (n=12, 46%). However, only
12% (n=3) of Black women faculty were full professors. The comparable figures for Black men
(n=31) were 22% (n=7), 39% (n=12), and 39% (n=12), respectively (Graphs 37 and 38).
92
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – January 18, 2020
Graphs 37 & 38
Tenured and Tenure-Track Professors By Rank and Gender:
2018-2019
Female Male
Full
12% Assistant
22%
3 Full
Assistant 7
39% 12
11 42%
12
12
Associate
46%
Associate
39%
Assistant Associate Full Assistant Associate Full
93

More Rivers To Cross: A Report On The Status of African American Professors at Penn State University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Rivers To Cross: A Report On The Status of African American Professors at Penn State University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Rivers To Cross: A Report On The Status of African American Professors at Penn State University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters

In 1969, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was “found to be one of 10 states operating a

Challenge 2 - Increasing Representation of Blacks in Senior Leadership Roles: Without a

Challenge 3 - Reporting and Implications: More transparency is needed in reporting data

Authors: Gary King, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health ([email protected]);

Section 3.0 presents an analysis of the enumeration of faculty in UP colleges. In addition, a

1.0 Black Faculty at Predominately White Institutions (PWI) of Higher Learning

Being Twice as Good

Invisible Labor and Cultural Taxation

Wingfield, A. (2015). The Plight of the Black Academic, Available at

2.0 Census of African American Professors at Penn State University (UP)

115 Office of Planning

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

Black Latinx Asian International White Total Faculty

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

their smaller absolute number in 2004 (i.e., n=36).

9.0% African American

1.0% Latinx Interna,onal

Professorial Rank and Gender

Full Professors Women Men

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

Associate Professor Women Men

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

Assistant Professor Women Men

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

"Other" Professor Gender Female Male

Source: Penn State Office of Planning and Assessment

College of Liberal Arts

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

6.0% 5.8% 5.8%

483 595 771

Black Faculty Non-Black

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

6.5% 6.5% 6.5%

Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018

16 Black Faculty Non-Black Faculty 210

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK. FACULTY

Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018

Smeal College of Business

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

1.0% 124 138 158

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018;

3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7%

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018

2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

1.8% 1.7% 1.7%

1.0% 369 350 428

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

0.0% 381 421 615

College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

NUMBER OF NON-BLACK FACULTY

3.0% 2.7% 2.7%

1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3%

0.0% 234 265

Source: Penn State Factbooks: 2004-2018

College of Agricultural Sciences