Institutionalization of a Latinx Campus Cultural Center: Exploring a Case of Racialized Administrative Burdens Faced by Latinx Staff and Students

Abstract

This teaching case explores the racialized administrative burdens placed on Latinx staff and students as a Latinx campus cultural center becomes institutionalized or more structurally embedded within a Predominantly White Institution. This case leverages the perspective of the center’s Assistant Director to demonstrate how Latinx staff navigated racialized organizational policies and procedures while working to support and retain Latinx students. Leaders studying this case will examine how racialized administrative burdens resulting from institutionalization can influence minoritized staff and student agency and engagement. This case encourages leaders to create practical student-centered and equity-driven university policies and procedures while mitigating additional barriers.

Introduction

As the U.S. Latinx ¹ population continues to grow, Latinx students are predicted to occupy K–12 classrooms in more significant numbers, and universities have and will contend with these demographic shifts by facilitating college enrollment, transition, and completion for this growing population (Sáenz, 2020). Despite this enrollment growth, university leaders must also address trends that show Latinx students graduating at lower rates than their non-minoritized peers due to systemic barriers such as poverty and educational access along the P–12 pipeline (Cohen et al., 2023; Manzano-Sanchez et al., 2019; Valenzuela et al., 2012). These outcomes and experiences are often exacerbated within Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) as Latinx students must navigate systemic barriers in addition to the effects of unwelcoming and, at times, violent campus climates (e.g., Palmer et al., 2015).

To improve Latinx student retention and overall experiences at PWIs, scholars have found that Latinx students often rely on their ethnic identity to facilitate community, professional development, and academic success (Smith & Silva, 2011; Torres & Hernández, 2007). Senior university leaders in higher education have realized these unique experiences among Latinx students at PWIs and have supported programs and spaces, such as Latinx campus cultural centers (LCCC), to promote student success by focusing on identity-based community building (Castillo-Montoya & Verduzco Reyes, 2020; Lozano, 2019). While many of these LCCCs began as student-led and student-initiated spaces, senior university leaders have seen the value of these centers over time and have since worked to institutionalize them as formal entities of the university for funding and sustainability purposes (e.g., Patton, 2010). At times, this can create tensions between senior university leaders, staff, and student activists regarding whether diversity initiatives, like cultural centers, should be institutionalized given the potential consequences for minoritized students (e.g., Linder, 2019).

To explore this complex dilemma, this case encourages aspiring leaders to consider the benefits and shortcomings of institutionalization that can particularly affect minoritized students and staff. This case leverages the perspective of the center’s Assistant Director to demonstrate how Latinx staff navigated racialized organizational policies and procedures while working to support and retain Latinx students. Understanding this case is beneficial for future leaders as the growth in minoritized students coupled with continued campus climate impacts will, ultimately, prompt university leaders to provide more substantial and sustainable support to ensure academic success.

Case Site Context

This case study takes place within a four-year land grant public PWI on the West Coast known as West Coast University (WCU). The student demographics, student outcomes, and history of the LCCC at WCU provide context to ground the case narrative.

WCU Student Demographics and Outcomes

In 2018, WCU had 31,000 enrolled undergraduate and graduate students, with about 70% enrolled full-time. The demographic breakdown of WCU students is as follows: 61% White, 9% Latino or Hispanic, 8% Asian, 8% Nonresident alien, 8% two or more races, 3% race/ethnicity unknown, 2% Black or African American, and 1% American Indian or Alaska Native. These student enrollment demographics lag for Latino or Hispanic students when compared with the demographics of the state, which is comprised of more than 13% Latino or Hispanic residents. Moreover, in 2018, Latino/Hispanic students and Pell Grant recipients at WCU had lower 1-year retention and 6-year graduation rates when compared with White students at WCU. For Latino/Hispanic students, 80.3% enrolled at WCU the following fall 2019 semester compared with 87.3% of White students. Similarly, the 6-year graduation rate for Latino/Hispanic students was 62%, whereas for White students, it was 69%.

WCU’s Latinx Campus Cultural Center History

The LCCC and many other campus cultural centers at WCU were created by senior university leaders (e.g., President, Chief Financial Officer) almost 50 years ago through pressure from a collective of student activists. Most of these student activists were affiliated with student organizations like the Black Student Union and Chicano Student Union, and they pushed WCU administration to meet the growing needs of minoritized students in material ways through curriculum, staff, and dedicated university space. Later, in the 1990s, other campus cultural centers, like the Asian American Pacific Islander Center and LGBTQ Center, were also established at WCU through student activism.

Prior to WCU senior leaders establishing a physical location in 1977, the LCCC operated unofficially via Chicano and Mexican American student organizations (e.g., Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán known as MEChA) in the basement of a campus building before student activists secured a house on the periphery of campus. Even after senior leaders provided a proper location for the center in 1977, most leaders took little interest in securing additional resources for the LCCC. To provide additional support to the LCCC moving forward, WCU senior leaders stated that they required enough students to use the space. Leaders also asked for data that showed connections between student usage and Latinx student outcomes (e.g., retention).

From 1977 to 2012, the LCCC was housed in a repurposed trailer and was in poor physical condition with little operational funding. Initially, the LCCC and other cultural centers at WCU were entirely student-run. Students did not have much oversight by senior leaders and did not receive any in-house support from full-time professional staff. Before hiring a full-time Assistant Director in 2014, students at the LCCC held various student-staff positions. Two student co-directors supervised student-staff to ensure the LCCC was attentive and meeting Latinx students’ needs at WCU. Students had full reign over the space and could be in the LCCC as late as needed for socializing, leading meetings, or attending events.

The current LCCC building is in a prime area outside WCU’s main campus. Over the years, students have heard talks of WCU senior leaders moving the LCCC to make room for more parking structures or additional buildings to support athletes. In 2005, WCU senior leaders planned to move the LCCC from its current location without initially consulting Latinx students and other Latinx campus community members. Students were outraged and staged several protests throughout the year. They had indigenous elders come to bless the land the LCCC was on to get the attention of WCU senior leaders. After multiple meetings and a formal written commitment by these senior leaders, it was agreed that the LCCC would forever remain in its original location unless Latinx students said otherwise. Students ultimately compromised with WCU senior leaders to refurbish the LCCC instead of moving it all together. Students agreed with senior leaders who believed there was a clear need to update facilities and make the building ADA-compliant, as they believed the current building was falling apart. Thus, WCU senior leaders raised capital funds to renovate the existing LCCC and the other campus cultural centers. In the meantime, the center was temporarily relocated to various buildings around campus.

Funding of Cultural Centers at WCU

Since funding for all WCU’s campus cultural centers, including funds for staff salaries, come from student fees (fees students pay every year in addition to their tuition fees), this requires students and staff from each center to present their case for additional or consistent funds every year to the Student Fees Council. This council was instituted by senior university leaders at WCU to create a process to elicit student input for funding and offset costs related to extracurricular activities and services provided by the university. The Student Fees Council was initially an extension of the Student Government at WCU and has since grown to become an independent entity, yet the collaboration with Student Government remains integral for final budget approval. The Student Fees Council specifically decides how student fees are distributed across various university spaces and services such as the campus cultural centers, student union, performing arts center, and recreational sports.

Student fees are separate from tuition fees charged to students in that they are charged by WCU every year to be solely used to fund public student spaces and services on campus as agreed upon by the Student Fees Council. This council was instituted to ensure students had input into funding student spaces and services, and the council is made up of mainly undergraduate student leaders, at least one graduate student, and one university staff member who oversees the students in their process and decision-making. The students on this committee tend to be from less diverse backgrounds, yet WCU senior leaders attempt to address this by providing bias training every year. In addition, new Student Fees Council members are chosen each year through a general campus-wide election process which could lead to increased variability of members from one year to the next and inconsistent funding of student spaces and services. While there is a WCU administrator present on the Student Fees Council, student members ultimately have all the decision-making power in determining funding for the campus cultural centers and other facilities; the university staff member merely provides oversight as a formality to ensure that students follow the rules and abide by the ethical standards set.

Case Narrative

After the LCCC was rebuilt and reopened in 2014, WCU senior leaders decided to further invest in the sustainability and growth of the LCCC by hiring a full-time Assistant Director to work within the building and run the center. These leaders believed that by hiring a full-time staff member to run the LCCC, WCU would see an increase in Latinx student enrollment and, ultimately, a more welcoming campus climate. Elisandra, a Latina who received her master’s degree from WCU, was the first person hired to serve in that role. As a Latina and WCU alumna, Elisandra felt uniquely positioned to authentically connect with and advocate for Latinx students at the LCCC and WCU more broadly. As a full-time staff member, Elisandra also believed that her role would alleviate the burden for Latinx students at WCU from having to run an entire cultural center on top of their coursework and other responsibilities (e.g., jobs and family). Many students were excited by the new investment in personnel. At the same time, LCCC student-staff like Solia worried that this new power structure would create barriers that deprioritize student input and decision-making.

Solia, a Latina undergraduate student-staff, feared that Latinx students would be deterred from speaking or acting as freely because having a full-time Assistant Director who reports to other WCU administrators meant they were somewhat being policed. Solia believed that a full-time staff member could lead to a loss in Latinx student agency and ownership within the space. Ultimately, Elisandra found herself in a difficult position right from the start. She was trying to build genuine relationships with Latinx student-staff like Solia to demonstrate her commitment to keeping the LCCC a student-led space. At the same time, Elisandra was also navigating additional rules, policies, and procedures that Latinx students and LCCC student-staff must now abide by when engaging with the center. These new rules, policies, and procedures came about as part of the renovation as now the LCCC operated within Facilities Management at WCU. WCU senior leaders wanted to ensure all students at the university could access the new LCCC to promote cross-cultural understanding on campus, especially for White students.

New LCCC Rules, Policies, and Procedures

Elisandra heard many concerns from Latinx students about these new organizational changes. Joseph, a Latinx undergraduate student-staff member, was disheartened to hear that now because of new rules placed by Facilities Management, no food was allowed to be prepared by students on the premises unless they received prior administrative approval within a certain time frame. Joseph missed how the LCCC was before, where Latinx students would come together and reminisce about home and family over community meals. Joseph felt the new LCCC was not as inviting, comfortable, and home-like.

Elisandra also had to address student complaints regarding changes to LCCC building hours and space reservation policies. Aurelio, a Latinx undergraduate student-staff member, was frustrated that he now had to reserve rooms in the LCCC for programming/events through an online reservation system. This reservation system was open to all WCU students. This change frustrated Aurelio, and he told Elisandra that he did not want to ask to reserve space in a building created for and by students like him. Sophia, a Latina full-time staff at WCU, also shared concerns about the new reservation system, as it had already impacted her ability to easily access the LCCC. Sophia is a Latina staff member at WCU who leads a specialized student support initiative serving migrant (mostly Latinx) students, and she told Elisandra that she could no longer easily plan study hours at the LCCC for her students because of the new space reservation policies. Sophia has had no choice but to use one of the local churches on the same street as the LCCC as they have more accommodating availability and reservation procedures.

Addressing New Latinx Student Needs

In addition to addressing concerns over new rules, policies, and procedures, Elisandra was also getting pressured by several WCU students to make the most of the new space by creating additional programming and events that would serve all Latinx students. Students like Beatriz, a Central American undergraduate student at WCU, believed the old LCCC building never quite felt like home for her since the space had historically supported Mexican and Mexican American students. Most of the old programming and events focused on Mexican culture, leaving others within the Latin American diaspora to think that the LCCC was not for them. With the new building and new Assistant Director, Beatriz felt it was the perfect time to push for change within the LCCC to diversify representation and programming while still honoring the historical legacy of the space. Elisandra felt it was almost impossible to address new student needs with her limited resources. Despite the new and existing challenges faced by Elisandra, she did her best to balance following the new rules, policies, and procedures and addressing Latinx student and staff concerns.

Need for More Funding

Elisandra was also instrumental in trying to secure additional funding for the LCCC to hire more student staff, diversify and increase programming, account for additional costs of the new building, and better address the growing Latinx student population at WCU. Every year, WCU cultural center staff, like Elisandra, develop and present a proposed budget and rationale presentation before the Student Fees Council to ask for additional funds as all the cultural centers remain underfunded, limiting their reach and impact for minoritized students on campus. While other university units and student centers go through a similar process with the Student Fees Council, Elisandra assumed additional labor to advocate for the LCCC while navigating Council member biases and pushback with disparate results.

This year, Elisandra and LCCC student-staff like Solia and Aurelio mobilized to gather as many WCU Latinx students as possible to be present and show support during open meetings of the Student Fees Council. During these open meetings, Elisandra, Solia, Aurelio, and other student-staff came prepared with research and evidence to support proposed increases in the LCCC budget. Solia and Aurelio shared their vulnerable and personal experiences of the LCCC to persuade Student Fees Council members. Many of these council members have shared that most WCU students do not use the campus cultural centers, and funds should, thus, be allotted according to general campus use. Although Elisandra had assessment data to demonstrate increased student use, the council members remained hesitant to provide the LCCC with more funding than the other cultural centers. Most of the Student Fees Council members believed that all minoritized student communities are equally important and, thus, in fairness, should be provided the same level of funding. Elisandra took issue with how the Student Fees Council was rationalizing their decision-making, so she contacted Edgar, WCU’s Vice Provost for Student Affairs, to share her concerns. Ultimately, Edgar agreed with the council members and noted that Elisandra should seek additional support from the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO), whom they recently hired to help increase minoritized student enrollment. Elisandra felt discouraged as she left that meeting. She believed that senior leaders at WCU, like Edgar, do not have a genuine interest in the LCCC, but instead, they want to tout the LCCC in the same way that Edgar just touted their new CDO.

Elisandra’s Breaking Point

Despite the overwhelming show of support this year, Elisandra and the students were unsuccessful in securing additional funding for next year, although WCU is predicted to enroll several hundred more Latinx students this upcoming fall. These funding challenges, among others, create an environment where it is a constant laborious battle for Elisandra to do her job successfully and support the LCCC and WCU’s Latinx students. As a result, Elisandra is unsure if she wants to stay as the LCCC Assistant Director and is considering leaving WCU. She feels there is a systematic lack of access to resources for Latinx staff and students at WCU and that she is being set up for failure. Elisandra has reached her breaking point and believes WCU senior leaders, like Edgar, are not taking her concerns or feedback seriously. If Elisandra were to leave her role, students would likely assume most of the labor involved with managing the LCCC before hiring a new Assistant Director. In addition, without a full-time staff member, LCCC student-staff might struggle to keep up with the level of programming, initiatives, and events they had this past year with Elisandra. However, if Elisandra stays at WCU, there is potential to build coalitions with the other campus cultural centers and the new Chief Diversity Officer to put more pressure on senior university leaders.

Teaching Notes

Campus Cultural Centers: Past, Present, and Future

Leaders must understand the history of campus cultural centers to contextualize this case as it situates these centers on the margins of Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). Most campus cultural centers were initially run by students instead of legitimized as formal university entities by senior leaders. Well before the creation of cultural centers, higher education was previously only accessible to affluent, White, elite men. As desegregation and the civil rights movements forced senior university leaders to increase access to universities, more students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds were able to enroll and hold institutions accountable for creating a campus climate that was responsive to their needs on campus (e.g., Quaye & Lange, 2022). Racially and ethnically minoritized students were experiencing continued violence and discrimination on college campuses, and because of that, students demanded that senior university leaders establish ethnic studies programs and diversify their faculty to mitigate these negative campus climate impacts (Linder, 2019; Linder et al., 2019).

Campus cultural centers were also part of student activists’ demands, and many of these campus cultural centers were first created to develop a unified voice where minoritized students from specific racial and ethnic groups could clearly express their concerns and demands to leaders at the institution (Hefner, 2002; Patton, 2010). Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, Black students at PWIs demanded more resources, programs, and facilities for Black students, staff, and faculty (Lucas, 2006). With this increased desire for activism, there bore the need for a physical space, a counterspace, to organize the Black campus community (Patton, 2010).

The Black student movement of the 1960s paved the way for other racially and ethnically minoritized college students to fight for cultural centers on campuses (Lucas, 2006; Patton, 2010). Thus, LCCCs were also a product of civil rights activism and provided a physical space where Latinx students, predominantly Mexican and Mexican American students in connection with the Chicano movement, could gather safely to organize (Aguilar-Hernández et al., 2021). As seen with Black cultural centers, when LCCCs were finally created on campuses, many university leaders and White students did not understand the significance and need for these spaces. Nevertheless, through persistent organizing, university leaders were forced to relent and provide these spaces for students (Aguilar-Hernández et al., 2021; Patton, 2010). Ultimately, campus cultural centers would not exist today without the tireless activism of minoritized students, staff, faculty, and community members.

Campus cultural centers improve minoritized student academic success and overall well-being by fostering a community of support (e.g., Lozano, 2019), affirming and empowering students (e.g., Patton, 2010), and motivating students toward graduation (e.g., Cisneros & Valdivia, 2020). Despite these crucial benefits, research on cultural centers is still limited. Most peer-reviewed publications explore micro-level or individual experiences (e.g., Lozano, 2019) rather than meso-level or organizational changes that influence those experiences. Thus, leaders must think about campus cultural centers in systemic ways that account for how organizational structures and processes could impact individual student and staff experiences within these spaces.

Although many of these LCCCs began as student-led and student-initiated spaces, senior university leaders have seen the value of these centers over time and have since worked to institutionalize them as formal entities of the university for funding and sustainability purposes as seen within this case (e.g., Patton, 2010). Literature focused on institutionalization within higher education highlights tensions over whether student activism and diversity initiatives, like campus cultural centers, should be institutionalized and how best to institutionalize them (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2023).

When diversity initiatives are institutionalized, university leaders can sometimes coopt student efforts or leverage initiatives for institutional gain (e.g., prestige, recruitment, and donors), losing their intended transformative purpose and impact for minoritized campus communities (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2023). However, when considering longevity and momentum for initiatives, it can be beneficial for diversity initiatives to be institutionalized because student leaders are constantly changing, and a more formalized structure could support long-term resource allocation (e.g., Reger, 2018). For instance, if university leaders did not institutionalize specific diversity initiatives (e.g., ethnic studies programs), student movements would likely not have the momentum and power they have today (e.g., Anderson, 2019). Likewise, if university leaders were to institutionalize campus cultural centers, the workload and responsibilities would likely transfer to the full-time professional staff rather than solely falling on the students (e.g., Linder et al., 2019).

Thus, as seen through this case, tensions exist among university staff like Elisandra who manage these campus cultural centers. Senior university leaders must better understand the challenges these center staff (e.g., directors and student-staff) face when simultaneously working to best support minoritized students while having to abide by organizational policies and procedures that could stifle that support. This case allows leaders to reflect on this real-world scenario to create practical university policies and procedures to move these spaces forward in a student-centered and equity-driven way while mitigating additional barriers and increasing the agency of full-time university staff who direct or work with campus cultural centers.

Racialized Administrative Burdens

Leaders studying this case will examine how racialized administrative burdens are rationalized, persist, and sometimes exacerbated as campus cultural centers, like the LCCC, become institutionalized or more formally and structurally embedded within the university. In this case, racialized administrative burdens are conceptualized as practices, policies, and structures that have been rationalized and perpetuated by university leadership to promote “fairness” and “efficiency.” However, it is evident through narratives presented within this case that there are disproportionate impacts for minoritized students and staff.

The concept of racialized administrative burdens (Ray et al., 2020) stems from Herd and Moynihan’s (2018) notion of administrative burdens and Victor Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations. By using Ray’s (2019) theory and related concepts of racialized administrative burdens, university leaders can better understand how seemingly neutral, everyday organizational structures, policies, culture, and practices can disproportionally impact racially and ethnically minoritized university populations. By exploring the meso-level or organizational-level experiences within higher education, scholars and university leaders can better understand how to create positive, sustainable change at a broader scale. Furthermore, by only focusing on micro- or individual-level interactions, such as student experiences within campus cultural centers, university leaders often miss the structural, political, and systemic barriers at play (Ray, 2019). Most organizational theories used within higher education have focused on strategic models to operationalize and maximize function rather than increase equity (Bastedo, 2012; Ray, 2019). For this reason, Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations is an appropriate lens for leaders who want to focus on mitigating systemic inequities within their universities.

Ray’s (2019) theory uses an equity-focused approach to critiquing organizations yet remains underutilized to examine organizational changes and university leadership actions in practice. Ray’s (2019) theory consists of four fundamental tenets to explain how organizations are racial structures: (a) Racialized organizations impact minoritized experiences at the micro-level; (b) Racialized organizations permit and perpetuate inequitable resource distribution; (c) There are tangible benefits to Whiteness, and it can be considered a credential; (d) There is a racialized disconnect between what organizations do and how they are formally run. For example, using Ray’s (2019) theory, university leaders can more clearly see how institutional diversity-related policies often serve as a symbolic public relations practice yet do little to change the racial distribution of organizational power within the university. Similarly, as university leaders institutionalize or further invest in diversity initiatives and spaces, changes could be symbolic or counterproductive rather than beneficial for minoritized communities on campus.

Discussion Questions

• 1. How did WCU’s senior university leaders’ decision-making and understanding of the LCCC impact Latinx staff like Elisandra and student-staff?

• 2. How would WCU senior leaders rationalize administrative policies and processes presented within this case? How would you outline the costs versus benefits of these policies and processes?

• 3. If you were a WCU staff member overseeing the Student Fees Council in this case, what steps would you take to address some of the inequities present when funding WCU spaces and services, especially those meant for specific racial and ethnic groups?

• 4. What evidence do you see of racialized administrative burdens in this case?

Class Activities

1. Racialized Administrative Burdens. Based on your own professional experience, what other administrative policies, processes, or structures have been rationalized as “fair” and “neutral” by senior university leaders? How might they create racialized administrative burdens? In groups of 3–4, outline the costs and benefits of at least two administrative policies, processes, or structures based on your background and experiences. Specifically address the potential for them to be racialized administrative burdens for different minoritized populations (e.g., students, staff, faculty) on campus.

2. Institutionalization. The Chicano Student Union at your university has historically coordinated its own summer bridge program called Pa’lante to prepare incoming Latinx college students for this big life transition. You, as the Vice President for Student Affairs, see value in institutionalizing this initiative as you can hire a full-time staff member to specifically oversee and grow the program. Before presenting a proposal, you must consider the tradeoffs and potential challenges of institutionalizing Pa’lante. In groups of two, you will debate the institutionalization of Pa’lante by exploring the pros and cons of institutionalization for staff and students. In addition, as a future leader, how might you go about institutionalizing Pa’lante in a sustainable, equitable, and student-centered way?