Findings
State-level DEI policies construct a discourse of intersectional diversity, particularly an intersectional consideration of Latinx students, within the institutional DEI plans at HSIs. This analysis foregrounds three primary themes: (1) the institutional discourse defining diversity and demographic data can be traced from the state policy through implementation guidance, (2) state-level policy framing informs how Latinx students are considered within institutional programing, and (3) in the absence of state-level discourse, institutions limitedly engage with the HSI designation. These three themes inform how an intersectional framework for diversity is considered and how the discourse within the institution-level DEI plans constructs a narrative of intersectionality among Latinx students.
Policy and Implementation Guidance Define Diversity
Tracing a thread from the state-level policy through the implementation guidance to the institution-level DEI plans produced as a result of the state-level policy can begin by looking at how the state policy serves to frame a definition of diversity. Each state-level policy provides some indication of how diversity is defined (see Table 6). The Florida Education Equity Act enumerates a set of social identities, in contrast with the SUNY DEI Policy, which speaks to a broader umbrella of diversity. In tracing the discourse, FCS institutions either fail to define diversity or, as FCS 8 suggests, "strategies developed to address racioethnic, gender, limited English proficiency, and disability"—mirroring the identities noted in the Florida Educational Equity Act (p. 14). Conversely, drawing from the broad definition of the SUNY DEI policy, SUNY 3 notes, "Embracing and fostering diversity encompasses a level of tolerance and respect, without judgment, for a multiplicity of traditions and cultures" (p. 3). SUNY 3 enumerates race and gender alongside military status and political affiliation, thus muddying the focus on racial equity. In echoing the state-level policy, the discursive technique of insinuation, obscuring the minimization of racial equity, as well as topicalization, producing a slant that suggests racial equity is addressed through its enumeration, bracket the institutional discourse. The discursive fibers originating in the state-level policies build a definition of diversity, resulting in the decentering of racial equity and a lack of explicit focus on intersectional identity. This discourse then permeates through the institution-level DEI plans.
Continuing the thread, state-level policies are operationalized through the implementation guidance, either within the policy or standalone. Notably, the implementation guidance for the FCS and CCCS provides formulas regarding the tabulation and presentation of racial and gender diversity/inequity data (see Table 6). This demographic data becomes central to the structure of institution-level DEI plans. The data prepared by FCS looks at four racial categories—Black, Hispanic, White, other—contrasted with the CCCS which considers 16 disproportionately impacted groups, including the intersection of race and gender (CCCS, 2017). The SUNY DEI Policy does not prescribe data, instead noting a value on data—opening institutions to engage demographic data in meaningful ways. Tracing the discourse from the implementation guidance through to the institutional plans captures institutional statements, such as—"Using data generated based on the Chancellor's Equity reporting template (outlined in the Student Equity Plan instructions)" (CCCS 6, p. 10), which employs discursive techniques of tone and power relations—positioning the certainty of the data and distancing the institution from culpability regarding these data choices. Engaging insinuation, institutional discourse at CCCS 9 notes, "In addition to our disproportionately impacted populations identified through campus-based research, the institution understand that exceptionally vulnerable populations exist outside of our research findings" (p. 18). In a more modest acknowledgment of the role of demographic data, as suggested by the state-policy, SUNY 4 suggests "a closer look at the enrollment trends shows that, over time, the percentage of minority students attending [Local] College has steadily increased" (p. 9). Doing so activates insinuation, articulating the required ongoing commitment to considering inequities, regardless of action.
State policy and the resulting implementation guidelines define diversity and the demographic data that make their way into the institution-level DEI plans. While a tacit acknowledgment of the differentiated impacts based on race and gender (CCCS, 2017) is acknowledged, the complexities of the Latinx community go largely unaddressed; notably the inattention to the intersection of race and ethnicity, despite national data which indicates a growing number of people identify as Afro-Latinx (Tamir, 2021). As a key stakeholder, David observed, "What that [state-level funding strategy] did was it didn't realize that a person can be Hispanic, LGBTQ+, and a Veteran." As a result, institution-level DEI plans suggest students do not embody multiple salient and oppressed identities. For Latinx students, this reductionist framing of ethnicity, originating in the state-level discourse, and making its way into the institution-level DEI plans, fails to contend with the racialized nature of the Latinx experience.
Programmatic Consideration of Intersectionality Among Latinx Students
Programming to address inequity is central to the institution-level DEI plans. Here too, the state-level DEI policies, and resulting implementation guidance, inform the institutional discourse related to DEI programs. The state-level policies present a direct call to address inequities through programs (see Table 6), yet how these institutions center Latinx students and an intersectional framework, is at the institution's discretion. The relatively broad call for programming within the state-level policy results in institution-level DEI plans that present a range of programming focused toward Latinx students, a small amount of which takes an intersectional framing. In considering intersecting identities, institutional references such as "The college engaged in two outreach efforts in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 relating to DACA students, who are mainly of Hispanic ethnicity" (FCS 6, p. 9) and "Leveraged funding and a focus on females and Latino students have helped to address transfer gaps for these populations" (CCCS 10, p. 9) contend with the complexity of Latinx identity. Programmatic efforts targeted toward teaching and learning also nod to a more complex consideration of Latinx students. Many, like SUNY 3, relied on existing programming, "Building on our past as the first community college in the country to require all degree-seeking students take a course on the pluralism and diversity of America" (p. 21). Others drew into focus Latinx students through faculty who "Collaborated with African-American and Latino FIG [faculty interest group] hosted by faculty members [name] and [name] to develop through research, experience, and creativity" (CCCS 2, p. 9). Thus, the state-level implementation guidance calls on institutions to identify programming to remedy inequity. However, the institutional discourse does not center Latinx students or an intersectional view of Latinx students.
Beyond these modest references to intersectional Latinx student programming, across these data, the characterizations of Latinx students rely overwhelmingly on a myopic focus on linguistic access. Institutions position their effort to support Latinx students as one of expanding access to linguistically relevant staff and program materials; a nearly singular narrative of supporting Latinx students as one of bilingual programming or discussing the translation of materials. Many institutions like SUNY 2 take this up through discussion of admission materials—"Produce Spanish language admissions and registration forms and marketing copy. Expand the number of languages to include the most common second languages spoken in [local] County" (p. 10). Alternatively, one institution suggests, "Improve print and web information to students and develop information in other languages such as Spanish through collaboration with [organization]" (CCCS 4, p. 21). The presupposition of this text discursively foregrounds the elimination of language barriers as central to supporting Latinx students. This is reinforced by narratives, such as those presented by Tim, "In the admissions office there is one, one Latino in the office, one Spanish speaking person." While linguistic access is important, it is also central to a broader institutional obscuring of interventions that contend with an intersectional Latinx identity and greater systemic change to support Latinx students. While there is merit in broadening linguistic access through more robust institutional materials and staffing, two thirds of Latinxs identify that they speak English (Taylor et al., 2012). This race-neutral narrative limits thinking about the complex racial, ethnic, and lived experiences of Latinx students.
Positioning Latinx Students Through the HSI Designation
The state-level policies are silent regarding institutional differences, none mention any MSI status. Drawing from CDA, the analysis considers both what is said and unsaid related to the HSI designation. In constructing a narrative regarding Latinx students, institution-level DEI plans liminality engaged with a discussion of how the HSI designation served as an institutional mechanism for foregrounding intersectional Latinx student supports. Across the DEI plans, one of the primary references to the HSI designation is one of funding. Examples such as that from SUNY 4,
our status as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) allows us to compete for federal funding via Title V of the Higher Education Act to bring faculty, staff, and students together to design new programs or enhance current programs focused on student engagement, retention, and graduation ..."
begin this framing. Some complicate this slightly by suggesting, "The long-term benefits [of the HSI designation] for the College is increased in external funding, and the overall goal is to achieve higher student success rates." Institution-level plans thus engage within connotation and topicalization to produce a slant related to the importance of the HSI designation, and it becomes one of funding. This was augmented by one stakeholder who noted, "I could approach it [HSI designation] through the money. . . . Then, it became a question of trying to go into the other areas of the conversation about embracing the designation and what it meant" (Tim [interview participant], 2019). Thus, while funding may be an entry point, it also becomes a tool for amplifying efforts to support Latinx students. However, the extent to which that shift is made has been heavily critiqued (Vargas, 2018; Vargas & Villa-Palomino, 2018).
Beyond funding, institution-level plans also reflect how HSI efforts thread across the institution—considering how HSI staff or coordinators are central to their institution-level DEI plans. This includes examples such as CCCS 10, "[a] Committee was formed . . . Chair for the SSSP Committee, Chair of the SEP and BSI committees, Vice-President of Student Affairs, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, and Director of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) Initiatives" (p. 4) which engages a narrative of power relations, positioning the embeddedness of the HSI staff, and thus programming. FCS 7 suggests, "With the HSI STEM grant entering its second year, advances are being made to increase the number of Hispanic and low-income students who enter and complete STEM certificates and degrees" (p. 25). Faculty and staff efforts related to the HSI designation are also highlighted by FCS 8, "The Faculty mentor serves as a discipline-based guide for students in developing their educational pathway and personal connections, as they prepare for graduation, transfer, and careers" (p. 21) as well as supplemental data from CCCS 2 which captures Summer Retreat for HSI Faculty—for faculty to earn a certificate in College Teaching & Learning in HSIs. Thus, a dualing narrative emerges. The HSI designation discourse produces a position of Latinx students as a path toward financial resources while at the same time, some institutions appear to expand this conversation to HSI designation as central to the institution. Missing from this framing is a complex narrative of the Latinx students that the HSI designation could advance, whether through the intentional integration of HSI efforts or the foregrounding of intersectional Latinx students in their HSI programming.
Discussion
By centering HSIs, given their essential role in educating Latinx students, this research provides a space to extend the analysis of institution-level DEI discourse at HSIs. The discourse at HSIs is located within the sociopolitical landscape of federal HSI policy and state-level DEI policy, which shape institutional rhetoric. At the federal level, the establishment of the HSI designation represents federal policy positioned as advancing equity for Latinx students yet with little attention to what that might mean (Garcia, 2016; Valdez, 2015). While institutions are required to meet enrollment designations, to access the federal dollars made available through the designation, are not coupled with a centering of Latinx students—speaking to the race neutrality of the policy (Vargas, 2018; Vargas & Villa-Palomino, 2018). Drawing down to the state policy level, across these three public higher education contexts, state-level DEI policies distanced themselves from racial equity both in the state policy and through implementation guidance, underscoring the importance of this policy juncture (J. Harris et al., 2015; Jayakumar et al., 2018).