Diversity Challenges in the CSU: One Union's Response
These documents and conference proceedings were presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Academic Bargaining in an Era of Constraint, held April 19-21, 2009 in New York City.
The Education of Latino Lawyers: An Essay on Crop Cultivation
I am regularly asked why Latinos do not fare better in school and society, usually by well-meaning colleagues who are genuinely troubled by the problem. Having spent eight years in the Catholic seminary studying for the priesthood, I tend to be an optimist and put the best gloss on any problem. So, for all the years I have been writing about the education of Latinos, I have always taken the high road; I have variously relied upon the reservoir of goodwill in the majority, counted upon colleagues to follow their own institutional self-interest in seeking and graduating Hispanic students, and encouraged need-based aid programs because in any need-based aid program, Latinos, who constitute one of the most impoverished communities, will more likely participate. I have delivered dozens of lectures, usually during Hispanic Awareness Weeks or Cinco de Mayo celebrations, exhorting my people to do well and encouraging institutional leaders to help my people. But, like Reverend Leon Sullivan, who finally gave up on white South Africans, I have come to believe, reluctantly, that the majority of individuals in higher education and legal education do not think a problem exists, do not act as if a problem exists, or do not care about minority achievement. I say this knowing how sharply critical and pessimistic this will seem to many readers. However, I have come to believe that Anglo ra-
Faculty Members' Morale and Their Intention to Leave
Faculty members are rarely satisfied with their own institutions. They see administrators as incompetent, communica- tion as poor, and their influence as declining (Boyer, Altbach, & Whit- law, 1994). This discontent with their institutions is in stark contrast to their satisfaction with their intellectual lives, the courses they teach, and their collegial relationships (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, Altbach, & Whitlaw, 1994). Faculty members are dedicated to their work and they love what they do, but they often wonder if they would not be hap- pier doing it somewhere else. The extent to which faculty members actu- ally act on their discontent and leave their institutions is an empirical question, but institutions would benefit from a clearer understanding of what contributes to faculty decisions to leave. Turnover is both a bless- ing and a curse for institutions. Turnover brings in fresh, new hires, often at a lower cost. On the other hand, searches are costly, and too often the faculty who leave are those the institution would prefer to retain. Concerns about retention have generated a number of studies directed toward understanding why faculty members leave or intend to leave their institutions or academia (Barnes, Agago, & Coombs, 1998; John- srud & Heck, 1994; Manger & Eikeland, 1990; Matier, 1990; Smart,