Preliminary Notes NCORE (Day3-PM)



NOTE: this is a very important topic, handled with grace and professionalism! Excellent, informative session.

1:15-2:30 (National Harbor 4/Convention Center, Level 2)
75-Minute Concurrent Session

Toward a Male Student Imperative in Higher Education: Race, Gender, and Ethnicity Revealed

T. Elon Delancy II, PhD, Assistant Professor, Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, The University of Oklahoma – Norman, Oklahoma

James Earl Davis, PhD, Professor, College of Education, Temple University – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Lorenzo L. Esters, EdD, Vice President, Office for Access and the Advancement of Public Black Universities, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities –Washington, DC

Terrell L. Strayhorn, PhD, Associate Professor and Special Assistant to the Provost; and Director, Center for Higher Education Research & Policy (CHERP), University of Tennessee – Knoxville, Tennessee


•    Scholars, researchers, leaders – discuss the American Male and higher education; get behind the hype, talk about research (what do we know); how does race and ethnicity inform the hype


•    (Esters/Presenter): Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the oldest organization in the US
•    American Male Imperative: raise retention of males –hispanic, Af AM, Native Americans
•    Obama has challenged all Americans to push higher ed to be leaders by 2020; APLGU, raise tertiary attainment of the 25-34 year old pop from 41% to 55% by 2025
•    8.7 more degrees
•    If we did nothing else, from current state, we can achieve this goal
•    Getting to 55% by 2025: need to look at particularly populations? Current state: 24-35 = 41.06%; males: 36.11% (decrease) females have increased, but there are more males in the US population btwn 24-35, but in higher ed, the reverse is true in higher ed 1 male = 1.4 females
•    Greater percentage of foreign males is greater than female
•    US. Dept of Ed, national center for education studies (source) – good data here
•    How does the US compare: we rank 20 in enrollment; projection for 2018: male 41% – female 59%
•    Why is this important: impacts competitive knowledge base of workforce; creates economic difficulties and social disparities
•    Key Questions: how might public and research U’s best promote success; is there a need for further research to optimize learning?; what measures are appropriate to monitor performance; what roles might public research U’s help transfers from community colleges where more minorities are enrolled?; what are the interventions necessary?; what impact do demography and preparation have on male/female retention
•    (Davis/Presenter) : (1) larger picture about gender gaps, drawing on the larger earlier picture; (2) smaller study Davis completed that connect to a larger issue of engagement, particularly black men; (3) institutional based practices and how we socialize organize activities in institutions
•    potential loss in skill sets; gaps create economic and social disparity; economic reinvestments in communities
•    Ambivalence to Focus on Men: history of male privilege in higher ed; fear of slowing progress made on women; limited resources – where do the come from?; displaced attention to the needs of the population
•    College Men Paradox: the “problem” of African American, Latino, and Indigenous males in higher ed: Paradox: the progress we’ve made, increased attention, and the paradox diverts attention away from problems of college men generally – retention and graduation problems; fix the problem and growing imbalance btwn gender
•    What do we know? 47% high school grad rates; 10.4% male undergraduates; 30.5% are athletes; over 65% fail to graduate within 6 years (similar data about Latino males)
•    Transition through higher education: a pipeline issue/framework
•    Socialization at the Intersection of Race and Gender: boys receive different social rewards for pronounced masculine behaviors (Adler, Klass and Adler 1991); Elementary school teachers report unique concerns that inhibit boys’ learning potential and development (Stipek, 2004); Early socialization experiences may be more rigid for Black boys; quickly understand the social rewards with exhibiting hegemonic masculine behavior (Lasan, et al, 2000); adultification of Black boys
•    Engagement in College: well-rehearsed gender roles by time of college enrollment (Connell, 1996; Reese 2004); masculine sub-culture places academics at lower position than more acceptable social alternatives (Harper, 2008); adopt gender-specific beliefs regarding study habits and social activities
•    What’s manly on campus?: Czopp and Lasane, 1998: not being concerned about academic performance; academically organized and studious are less masculine and less socially attractive than disorganized and less conscientious male students
•    Tension btwn important academic activities and more traditional masculine behaviors (Skelton, 2002); beliefs and behaviors are inconsistent with norms of academic engagement (Davis, 2006); masculine scripts and performance to show detachment, invulnerability and indifference (Major & Billison, 1992; Young, 2003)
•    Transition to Higher Ed: Increase high school completion rates; Alternative high school experiences – Second Chance High Schools, for instance
•    College Choice: 2 yr vs 4 years, minority serving institutions, cost and debt
•    Men in College: academic: lower gpa, high level of probation, disengagement around activities, especially in campus leadership, decline in important programming, such as study abroad; higher level of engagement around athletics, drugs, drinking, fraternities
•    Higher Ed Outcomes: constructed as behaviors because this leaves room for intervention
•    Mastery Competitiveness – why has traditional behavior not translated to academics?  Vs Antisocial Competitiveness – taking credit for other people’s work; Hypermasculinity – exaggerated, stereotypically masculine, risk seeking behavior
•    Higher level of masculinity, lower levels of positive engagement; men on Black campuses tend to express more anti social, hypermasculine behavior (this is also supported by Black females); normative pressure to adjust to normative masculinity
•    Intervention: gender know-how, particularly for Black men; who is responsible for Masculine pedagogy?
•    Teaching and learning: can pedagogy be male sensitive?; lecture, direct instruction; group work, peer; multi media; Need to promote diverse teaching experiences; need to highlight themes attractive to males; creating men’s spaces on campus; leadership development; more residential opportunities
•    (Dancy/Presenter): theory, research and the latest implications for policy and practice in the literature
•    gender gaps exist across student’s racial groups: trends point to increase research
•    white men dominate college and university leadership, particularly at the presidential level; historically, Am higher ed has sought to preserve white male interests
•    Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory: 4 systems – roles, norms, and rules
•    Identity: Bandura’s Social Learning, Eagly’s Social Role Theory, Intersdisciplinary and Double-consciousness – the “but” condition, “American but oppressed”
•    Heteronormativity (Rich, 1994)—systemic pressure is placed on people to form heterosexual relationships; heternormativity as marginalizing women, LGBT, and other groups of men students (Dancy, in press; Dilley, 2002; Rhoads, 1994) – shaping “the closet”
•    How might policy and practice need to change and evolve in higher ed?
•    Identify spaces where men of all races may more readily befriend women; men students can use women’s and gender affairs offices and centers – befriend rather than objectify; break across the stigmas, encouraging men to see the welfare provided by these programs and centers
•    Create in-class and out of class opportunities to learn about their own diverse narratives; disrupt norms and behaviors that threaten gender relations – conversations about “male” crimes, must involve conversations about gender issues
•    Counseling, tutoring or related educational programs are not signs of weakness – recruit men’s groups and advisors to participate; include narratives of men’s culture and men’s narratives
•    Establishing talks across race; make sure we’re not culturally taxing one group
•    Mentoring programs are essential – men’s sessions and workshops; hiring and promoting practices must not privilege men of any race over women counterparts
•    Women participate in how men are defined
•    Men understand diversity through friendships, shaping their world view; research needed on identity intersections ( — source for articles)
•    (Strayhorn/Encapsulating) General comments: reflect on the data: what is the ultimate goal of higher education? Are we envisioning a place that promotes academic success, where college men are free to be themselves and are encouraged to do so? Are we willing to transform the system overall; policies and programs that force men to engage; disruption of current policies so we can better define a successful student; the role that women play, particularly men of color: consistent evidence that college women want a masculine male, who prescribes to male hegemonic behavior (traditional) – how can we foster alternatives to the norm; what’s the problem? Who is responsible?  We all have to work with the problem that men face.
•    Book source (two presenters have chapters here): Managing Diversity: (Re)Visioning Equity On College Campuses. New York: Peter Lang (2010)

4 thoughts on “Preliminary Notes NCORE (Day3-PM)

  1. Pingback: La Vendrama — Blog — Preliminary Notes Ncore (Day3-Pm) the Uncanny

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s