Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible

Students?

Pamela Cortes-Ortiz

EL 707 Seminar in Higher Education

Prof. David R. Johnson

December 14, 2016

 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 1
 
The creation and purpose of colleges and universities began with only one image of a

standard student in mind- white men. Higher education institutions historically have not served

sub-dominant, marginalized groups of people. In addition, as different liberations of groups of

people occurred, it was realized that their exclusion from higher education was inequitable. As

an emphasis on diversity and equity has become a prominent concern in the modern day

educational society, it has become clear that there has been a major absence of particular groups-

the invisible students.

Invisible students have intentionally and systematically been denied access to higher

education to the point where it was illegal for these different groups to attend college. As the

paradigm shift occurred in the importance of diversity, these groups finally are allowed access to

the same education their white male peers have, but it is unclear if they still are receiving the true

benefits of being at higher education institution.

Diversity is one of the most popular modern ideologies that has caused an exploding

trend among higher education. This means that 20th century higher education institutions have

emphasized the need to diversify its student population while becoming inclusive of these

diverse students. What most institutions refer to as their “statement” or “commitment” to

diversity and inclusion demonstrates this what is missing foundationally in the institution’s

mission statement- that their school is a place for every student. Although the implications of

these statements may vary between schools, they usually present similar declarations the school

was founded before everyone was allowed to attend.

To name a few, Harvard University states that their “commitment to equity, diversity, and

inclusion enhances [their] mission and solidifies [their] distinctive national identity as a place of

excellence and innovation” (About). University of Nevada, Reno states that their “goal is to
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 2
 
develop a diverse campus climate and promote a safe and hospitable environment…in fulfilling

[the] responsibility to help graduates succeed in a diverse global environment” (Commitment to

Inclusion).

The objective behind these published statements is to promote the preparation of students

for life in a “complex and pluralistic society,” (Schuh, Jones, Harper et al, p.44), claiming that

diversity does matter for the development of a whole person. However, with such a published

commitment to diversity, a question arises – who does diversity truly benefit, the population of

the institution or simply the majority?

In order to understand the intentions behind these statements and the weight of

importance they have in institutions, the history of higher education in the United States must be

analyzed from its conception.

The History of American Higher Education

The American higher education system originated in the late 1600s-1700s; a time when

education was controlled by religion and the respective churches established within the colonies.

The original “schools of Reformation” included Harvard College, College of William and Mary,

and Yale College. The students at these institutions had to demonstrate knowledge in difficult

subjects such as the classic languages, philosophy, or ethics, which indicated that these students

were of the elite social class. Their traditional studies, along with formal ministerial training, and

a solid liberal education reinforced their higher position in society (Geiger, p.39). In the late

1700s, the colonial generation colleges transitioned from having a strict elite population of

students to allowing those of lower or working class background, usually from farming lands, to

receive an education that lead to the ministry and possibly law or public service (Geiger, p. 41).
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 3
 
This transformation in access to higher education albeit a significant one still only targeted one

dominant population: white, heterosexual, cis-gendered men.

Evidently, diversity was not a priority for higher education as its primary function was to

serve the elite and “[shape] the mind and character of ruling class” consisting of a homogeneous,

male dominated population (Trow, p. 7-10). The first movement towards diversity took place at

Oberlin College in Ohio in 1837. This is the year that the administration at Oberlin began

admitting women and transitioning into a coeducational institution. However grand this

transition appears, coeducation in the 1800’s was not a popular notion and was primarily limited

to the Midwest, where women had more flexible gender roles and access to education (Miller-

Bernal & Poulson, p. 1, 3).

Prior to the admittance of women at Oberlin, it was believed that women did not need any

form of schooling as their rightful place was in the home, taking care of offspring and

stimulating any form of knowledge would hinder their reproductive organs (Miller-Bernal &

Poulson, p. 2). However, the opinion of educating women changed once the male-dominated

society realized that women could serve as teachers with lower salaries. Therefore, women

needed access to some form of higher education.

Emerging Diversity in Higher Education

It was 100 years after the transitions into mass higher education, around the 1850s-1890s,

that the emergence of women’s institutions began to get recognized as credible places of

learning. Predominantly in the northeast and southeast regions, these colleges were meant to

have the same standards as men’s colleges (Geiger, p. 51). Yet, in 1890, most of the single sex

colleges that female students attended were seen as inferior institutions to the contemporary

colleges (Geiger, p. 53). At women’s institutions the curriculum could be modified to women’s
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 4
 
talents relating to binary gender roles. Women’s colleges gained popularity and were favored by

many as easier access to higher education, especially when they were aligned to a woman’s

conservative religious and ethnic affiliations. But due to the suspicion and claims that women’s

colleges were not intellectually challenging, “most nineteenth century women’s rights advocates

[favored] coeducational institutions” (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, p. 3). The stigma that emerged

for women receiving education did not stop the influx of female students in higher education,

and as more institutions became coeducational, the proportion of women to men students

increased even more.

In contrast to the debate regarding white single-sex and coeducational institutions, black

colleges and universities were almost all coeducational from conception. Historically Black

Colleges and Universities (HBCU) were founded with the purpose to educate people who

escaped slavery before the Civil War and had limited educational opportunities due to racial

discrimination (Encyclopedia Britannica). The institutions that were established before this

period, including Cheyney University, Lincoln University, and Wilberforce University (Fort, p.

47), deviated from traditional liberal arts education standardized by higher education and focused

mainly on vocational-industrial education (Fleming, Gill, & Swinton, p. 19).

Even after the Emancipation Proclamation passed in 1863, black people were denied

admission to white institutions, and most recently freed men were denied the opportunity to

become literate due to the deeply ingrained system of racism present in the United States

(Fleming, Gill, & Swinton, p. 15-18). At this time, it was still believed by most white people that

black and African Americans belonged to the low caste system, and providing any form of

education would increase their chances of upward mobility.

 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 5
 
The persistence of the black community to become educated and practice their rights as

citizens played a key role in establishing systems of education for this population. The black

community’s demand of education propelled the federal government, religious communities, and

philanthropists to establish private black colleges (Fort, p. 47). Most of the black colleges and

universities were established in the South. These schools were founded as vocational-industrial

institutions, and this left people in this region with no alternative due to the segregation and

exclusion policies (i.e. federal and state policy of “separate but equal”). Very few black people

were admitted into white institutions in the north - even after gaining exceptional credentials,

they were denied teaching jobs in white institutions, such as W. E. B. DuBois (Fleming, Gill, &

Swinton, p. 21).

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched an

attack on segregated education in the 1930s, transitioning schools from policies of exclusion to

those of experimentation in the 1940s (Fleming, Gill, & Swinton, p. 27). The battle of

educational integration continued until the late 1970s with the establishment of

antidiscrimination laws. At this point, the timelines of the two marginalized groups from higher

education met. Women were became a visible sub-dominant group in predominantly white-male

institutions and African American black students’ attendance rates were increasing.

These populations launched the beginning of equal opportunity in education, and to this day

are still fighting for appropriate representation and treatment in predominantly white institutions.

But while these groups have an extensive history and visible fight for inclusion, there is still a

large group of students left behind. The invisible students.

 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 6
 
Who Are the Invisible Students?

Invisible students in higher education does include women and black students, but the current

increased awareness of identity development has brought to light other types of students such as

those that belong to the LGBTQ+ community, Latinx/Hispanics, First Generation, Veterans,

Undocumented immigrants, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Disability and Low Social Economic Class

to name a prominent few. This by no means indicates that these types of students were not

present in the history of higher education in the United States, but their recognition came very

late in the years.

In order to fully understand these different types of populations, three things must be taken

into consideration regarding their relationship with American Higher Education. One must

understand the historical accounts that depict the importance of this population in higher

education, what the current status of this populations experience in colleges are, and what type of

environment do these populations thrive the most.

Native American Indigenous

The most arduous battle fought between a minority group and education continues to take

place to this day. Native people have been stripped of their land, their people, and their education

is still not a right they have direct access to. When Western European settlers first came to the

North American continent, they sought to conquer the indigenous people of the land by

removing the “savage in them, and saving the man,” referring to their conversion of Native

Americans to Christianity (Beyond the Asterisk). The purpose of higher education from the

1600s was to eradicate these people of their cultural identities and assimilate them into the white

dominated society. It wasn’t until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 that the federal

government allowed tribal nations to sovereignty and self-determination to control their own
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 7
 
government and education system (Beyond the Asterisk). Between 1968-1978, Tribal Colleges

and Universities (TCU) emerged as part of this movement, with the focus of preserving the

culture and pride of indigenous people, and the hope of improving poverty conditions in

reservations (Schuh, Jones, Harper et. al, p.32). TCU’s play a large role in the growth of Native

Americans attending higher education, but only 8% attend these institutions, while the rest attend

Non Native American Colleges and Universities. Yet this group continues to be

underrepresented in higher education due to lack of resources, preparation, and financial status.

Latino/Hispanic & First Generation Students

After the 1970s and Civil Rights Movement, the Latino/Hispanic population increased

dramatically, but their presence in higher education was fluctuating between this time and the

late 1990s. This is a population that intersects with other invisible identities encompassing

members from the low/working social economic class, first generation students, and

undocumented students. For Latinos in a Low Social Economic Status, their struggle derives

from choosing to immediately support the survival of family by working right out of high school

versus attending college in hopes to gain future aid to the family. In both scenarios the student is

at loss; in one case they can immediately help the family but lack advanced skills gained

through higher education to access better opportunities, and in the other case, the family and the

student suffer financially without the help of another family member.

First generation students that are within the Latino population have no knowledge of how to

get admitted into college because they do not have a role model that has been through the

procedure themselves. Those who do enter college face the issue of navigating through the

system alone as they do not know where to find support socially, academically, and financially.
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 8
 
Undocumented Students

Undocumented students are usually fabricated from both of the previous identities

mentioned, but the gravity of their situation is much heavier. These students are given the

opportunity to a K-12 education, but for higher education, they do not qualify for a large

amounts of financial aid. Therefore, they need substantial support, which is not available, in

order to get admitted into colleges and becoming a part of the campus community without being

persecuted for their alien status.

In order for Latino/Hispanic students to succeed under these conditions, programs must exist

to aid students through the process of college and institutions must somehow be more affordable

(Leon, p. 128). In 1992, Hispanic Serving Institutions were formally recognized by the federal

government and encouraged to support the progress of Hispanic students. Schools under this title

must serve at least 25% full-time students of the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and at least 50%

low income students must represent the student body (Schuh, Jones, Harper et. al, p.37). In

addition to these qualifications, the schools must have present a five-year plan that is meant to

address the needs of students from Hispanic or low-income backgrounds.

Asian and Pacific American Students

Asian and Pacific Americans (APA) gained true recognition in higher education in the late

1960s, when the federal government tried to promote cultural pluralism in schools to reflect the

“reality of society” (Nakanishi, p. 24). The amount of APA students in institutions continues to

grow on campuses, but schools do not have enough programs available to meet the social,

psychological, and academic support of all APA students. Most recruited APA students are

admitted based on racial stereotypes and, once in the school, are ill-equipped to be successful.

Ultimately, they do not receive the appropriate assistance to guarantee their success (Nakanishi,
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 9
 
p. 10). In 2002, an amendment was proposed to establish institutions that would address the

needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander students due to the misunderstanding and unequal

educational attainment for this population. In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act was

expanded to include Asian American –Pacific Islander Serving Institutions that needed to

develop programs and initiatives to meet the needs of these students (Schuh, Jones, Harper et. al,

p. 38).

Students with Disabilities

Higher education for people with disabilities originally did not encompass all people with

differently abled. The first school dedicated for this type of population was specifically geared

towards deaf and blind students. In 1817, Gallaudet University initiated as a for-grant college

(Schuh, Jones, Harper et al, p.38), meant to address the needs of blind and deaf students, but it

wasn’t until 1864 when the school became an accredited higher education institution. While the

United States endured a multitude of historical moments, such as the Civil War, the students at

Gallaudet University were safe and encouraged to propel its deaf students for success. Currently,

there are 3 other non-profit institutions dedicated to the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing-

students.

While deaf and hard-of-hearing students were being nurtured assisted, people with other

disabilities did not have easy rights to higher education until the 1970s. At this time, the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Disabilities Education Act of 1975 were passed to provide

free and appropriate education to every person with a disability (Oslund. P. 55). Students with

disabilities were fighting for access to colleges and universities, and they were not ready at the

time to adjust to the needs of these students. Since the inception of the Association on Higher

Education and Disability in 1977, professionals have been designated to meet and discuss every
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 10
 
year, with the tasks of generating academic support and disability services (Oslund, p.59).

Currently, many schools have to abide to the 1990 American with Disabilities Act civil rights

law, therefore have created resources like this and continue to expand services to better students

with disabilities.

LGBTQ+ Students

Prior to the 1970s, homosexuality was considered to be like a disease, contagious, and

dangerous. When a person was presumed to be homosexual or participate in same-sex relations,

colleges and universities would expel students or they would be sent to psychological services to

be cured of the disease (Renn, p. 133). Years after homosexuality was removed from the

American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Disorders in 1973, riots

and open activism conducted by people from the LGBT community inspired college students to

come out and openly stir commotions on campuses. With growth of the visibility of students of

color came the visibility of students with LGBT identities. And as well as discrimination against

them mainly in the 1990s and increased suicide rates for these students. They became more

visible through self-expression and the emergence of the Internet, and thus higher education

expanded to aid in the development of identity of these students and finally accepting them as

“normal people” (Renn, p.136). However, this was not reflected in all institutions, resulting in

unsafe campus climates for students who identify with LGBT. In 2007, the Pride Index was

developed in efforts to promote institutions that assess LGBTQ-friendly policies, programs and

practices (Pride Index Web).

Veteran Students

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or the GI Bill, from 1945 dramatically changed the

types of students by making federal scholarships accessible to veterans (Schuh, Jones, Harper et.
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 11
 
al, p. 13). Even though veteran students have resources to attain higher education, some

institutions do not have services that meet the level of support they require. 1 out of 3 persons

deployed experience posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or a major depressive

disorder/symptoms, which have negative effects on academic adjustment (Barry, p.415).

Thus, institutions need to have prepared services for these students with specialized

counseling services that address the high prevalence of suicidal thoughts and self-harm in this

population. Additionally, veteran services centers that provide resources, and connect veterans

with others veterans, as “perceived support” from someone with a military background positively

influences adjustments to school (Barry, p. 415). Similar to the Pride Index, efforts have been

made recently to provide information about higher education institutions and organizations that

attract and support veteran students. The website Military Friendly, published in 2003, adds and

rates institutions based on their recruitment and retention of military students (Military Friendly

Web), highlighting efforts developed by schools to transition as a non-traditional student.

Do These Groups Belong Together?

Each of these identities has been explicitly encouraged to attend institutions of higher

education, promoting the illusion that the United States is a “melting pot” of different types of

people and that higher education here is equitable. This is the image that colleges and

universities want to portray, and can be significantly observed through institutions’ commitment

to diversity and inclusion mentioned earlier. Eric L. Dey highlighted the idea presented at the

beginning of this paper that diversity prepares students to become more “active participants in a

pluralistic, democratic society” (Schuh, Jones, Harper et al, p.44). This research was extensive,

and presented convincing evidence that proved to the federal government that the benefits were

not “not theoretical, but real” (Schuh, Jones, Harper et al, p. 45). He proposed that student’s
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 12
 
values and attitudes can change based on the interactions they have with people different from

them and the diverse campus climate.

In the article “Defending Diversity,” it has been further understood that the quality of these

interactions is what matters the most, especially among non-white racial and ethnic backgrounds

benefit from interactions with same-group and intergroup contact. By sharing experiences from

different backgrounds through conversations, students are capable of understanding perspectives

of others (Gurin, p. 111). There is an advantage in having different types of people together

based on this research then, but there are also flaws in this environment.

However, Dey’s definition of diversity in his 1996 study focused exclusively on race (Schuh,

Jones, Harper et. al, p.45) and gender, therefore this excludes the broader term that includes

sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, disability, status, and so on. Gurin, from

“Defending Diversity” also states her origin from a “homogeneously white” background (p.101),

suggesting that her experience most of her interactions were with students of racial and ethnic

diversity. This amplifies the fact that Dey’s research, the basis of many schools reason for

diversity, looks mainly at integrated white institutions, which have a legacy of exclusion more

than inclusion.

This in turn has shaped a white-based curriculum, system of governing and student

interaction dynamics on campuses. Campus climates have been harmful to students from sub-

dominant, marginalized groups as discriminatory acts towards these groups are prevalent despite

progress from the civil rights era. Sexual offenses targeted towards women continue to take place

across the country (Miller-Bernal & Poulson, p. 10). With this in mind, and the history that

precedes colleges and universities, it is evident that higher education was not designed for the

success of these invisible students.

 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 13
 
Underrepresented and marginalized students have low retentions rates due to the lack of

individualized support that exists in predominantly white institutions, especially to those who

face great adversity. For this reason, specific population serving institutions were created. There

are roughly around 70 women’s colleges, 103 HBCUs, 268 HSIs, 6 Asian American –serving

institutions, 37 tribal colleges, and 3 institutions serving the differently abled (Schuh, Jones,

Harper et. al, p. 34-33) with the purpose of prioritizing the needs and success of these students.

Not only do these schools have established programs geared towards aiding marginalized

students through financial and educational needs, they also consist of a larger amount of faculty

and administrators with marginalized identities than in predominantly white institutions.

Do Marginalized Students Thrive in Specialized Institutions?

Due to the fact that most specialized schools were established in recent years, there is

little data to suggest that sub-dominant, marginalized students thrive most in specialized kinds of

institutions. As of now, there is research that does demonstrate great benefits for black students

who attend HBUs and female students that attend women’s colleges because of their long

standing history.

Research based on black students who attended HBCUs indicates that black students are

significantly more likely to have felt supported and to be thriving afterwards than are their black

peers who graduated from predominantly white institutions (Seymour & Ray, 2015). These

students are more likely to report involvement in internships, long-term projects and activities

outside of the classroom. Moreover, students in HBCUs develop a stronger and more meaningful

racial identity. Women interviewed and studied from women’s colleges and coeducational

institutions demonstrated significantly different experiences. At women’s colleges, it was noted

that the students were more engaged in their academics and social activities than their
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 14
 
counterparts at coeducational institutions due to the easy access to mentors, role models and

greater opportunities in leadership (Umbach, et al, p. 9). Women are the center of attention in

women’s colleges, therefore they develop better understanding and interrelations with peers,

resulting in a high-quality and equitable college experience (Umbach, et al, p. 11).

The research that does exist on students from specialized schools indicates that they do

thrive. It can thus be inferred that other specialized institutions, including HSIs, Asian and

Pacific American - serving institutions tribal colleges, can produce thriving students in the

future. Furthermore, institutions that have become friendly campuses for veterans, students with

disabilities, and LGBTQ+ identities could develop into specialized institutions serving the needs

of these students.

Action for Predominantly White Institutions

In 1995, the Association of American Colleges and Universities began to express the

importance of inequities in access and achievement for traditionally undeserved students, holding

institutions accountable for their efforts in increasing and maintaining diversity and inclusion.

Whether it is publically displaying their diversity message or creating new specialized offices, it

is up to the universities and colleges to create a framework that generates a safe and welcoming

environment for interactions across all diverse groups. Once colleges and universities all buy into

the importance of supporting sub-dominant marginalized groups, then the administrators who are

ignoring the pleas of these students can become accountable for not upholding an inclusive

educational environment.

In examining the research that exists for all sub-dominant, marginalized groups in higher

education, the environment in which they thrive the most is one where they have great support,

resources, and enough student, faculty, and staff representation on campus. Most predominantly
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 15
 
white institutions do not sufficiently supply this need, even though they are committed to

creating diverse and inclusive campuses. Because there are a higher number of predominantly

white institutions in the nation, actions need to take place to focus on these students. Diversity in

colleges and universities only starts to serve and benefit the students when they have an equitable

opportunity to succeed like their counterparts. It is evident that institutions are beginning to get

this message as specialty offices are growing in popularity to serve the specific needs of a

students. Offices such as disability resource centers or veteran and women centers zone on what

the students actually need to successful in the overwhelming college environment. Looking

toward the future, more students who are seemingly unseen are going to show up on campus and

in the classroom demanding their right to be present. Higher education institutions will hopefully

continue to develop and have the foresight to see these students before they even need to call for

assistance. And if they cannot serve them with authentic holistic resources, then hopefully they

will recommend an institution that can and not just retain them to pad their diversity numbers.
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 16
 
References

About. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://diversity.college.harvard.edu/about

Barry, A. E. (2015). Student Service Members/Veterans Participating in Higher Education: What

We Know to Date. Journal of American College Health,63(7), 415-417.

doi:10.1080/07448481.2015.1072777

Commitment to Inclusion. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://www.unr.edu/student-services/resources-and-downloads/comittment-to-inclusion

Fitzpatrick, K. R., Henninger, J. C., & Taylor, D. M. (2014). Access and Retention of

Marginalized Populations Within Undergraduate Music Education Degree

Programs. Journal of Research in Music Education,62(2), 105-127.

doi:10.1177/0022429414530760

Fleming, J., Gill, G. R., & Swinton, D. H. (1978). The case for affirmative action for Blacks in

higher education. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Educational Policy,

Howard University.

Garibaldi, A. M. (1991). The Role of Historically Black Colleges in Facilitating Resilience

among African-American Students. Education and Urban Society,24(1), 103-112.

doi:10.1177/0013124591024001008

Geiger, R. L. (2005). The Ten Generations of American Higher Education. In R. O. Berdahl & P.

J. Gumport (Authors) & P. G. Altbach (Ed.), American higher education in the twenty-

first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Greene, R. R., Galambos, C., & Lee, Y. (2008, September 25). Resilience Theory. Journal of

Human Behavior in the Social Environment,8(4), 75-91. doi:10.1300/J137v08n04_05

 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 17
 
León, D. J. (2003). Latinos in Higher Education. Amsterdam: JAI.

Mccluskey, K. W., Baker, P. A., & Mccluskey, A. L. (2005). Creative Problem Solving With

Marginalized Populations: Reclaiming Lost Prizes Through In-the-Trenches

Interventions. Gifted Child Quarterly,49(4), 330-341. doi:10.1177/001698620504900406

Nakanishi, D. T., & Hirano-Nakanishi, M. (1983). The Education of Asian and Pacific

Americans: Historical perspectives and prescriptions for the future. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx

Press.

Oslund, C. M. (2015). Disability Services and Higher Education. Disability Services and

Disability Studies in Higher Education,52-69. doi:10.1057/9781137502445_5

Poulson, S. L., & Miller-Bernal, L. (2006). Challenged by coeducation: Women's colleges since

the 1960s. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and Queer Research in Higher Education: The State and Status of the

Field. Educational Researcher,39(2), 132-141. doi:10.3102/0013189x10362579

Scourfield, J., Roen, K., & Mcdermott, L. (2008). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young

people's experiences of distress: Resilience, ambivalence and self-destructive

behaviour. Health & Social Care in the Community,16(3), 329-336. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2524.2008.00769.x

Shetgiri, R., Kataoka, S. H., Ryan, G. W., Miller Askew, L., Chung, P. J., & Schuster, M. A.

(2009, August). Risk and Resilience in Latinos A Community-Based Participatory

Research Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,37(6), s1, 217-224.

Shotton, H. J., Waterman, S. J., & Lowe, S. C. (2013). Beyond the asterisk: Understanding

Native students in higher education. Choice Reviews Online,51(01).

doi:10.5860/choice.51-0402
 Higher Education’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion: Are Institutions Serving Invisible
Students?| 18
 
Trow, M. (n.d.). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Higher Education. Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education.

Umbach, P. D., Thomas, A. D., Palmer, M. M., Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2007). Women

Students at Coeducational and Women's Colleges: How Do Their Experiences

Compare? Journal of College Student Development,48(2), 145-165.

doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0015

Historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/571386