jjj3

Latinos in Higher Education

Running Head: LATINOS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Latinos in higher education: the past, present and future.

Wendy Alemán

Oregon State University

1


According to the latest census, Latinos (also referred to as Hispanics) are

now the largest minority group in the United States, representing thirteen percent

of the population (Schmidt, 2003). Latinos, as a whole, are a very diverse group

that includes individuals from any race with Spanish origins. According to the

Chronicle (2003), "Although the term [Hispanic] is mainly applied to people from

Latin American countries with linguistic and cultural ties to Spain, it also is used

by the U.S. government to refer to Spaniards themselves, as well people from

Portuguese-speaking Brazil." (pg A9). In the United States, Mexicans (58.5%),

Puerto Ricans (9.6%), and Cubans (3.5%) compose the largest segments of this

population (U.S. Census 2001). While more recent Latino immigrants of the U.S.

prefer to identify themselves by nationality-based labels (Schmidt, 2003), the

identity of Latino or Hispanic has been generally used in the United States to

unite this group for political or social reasons.

Given that Latinos are one of the largest growing minority groups, this

paper examines the challenges Latinos have faced in gaining access to higher

education and examines the make-up of this collective group to better

understand their trends in higher education. Moreover, one cannot truly

understand the current status of Latinos in higher education without first

examining the history of Latinos in the United States.

The Past

To accurately portray the challenges faced by Latinos pursuing an

education (K-12 and post-secondary) in the United States, an examination of the

2


history of oppression and racism encountered by Mexican and Mexican

Americans is essential. In studying the history of Mexicans in the United States,

it is perhaps best to begin with the Treaty of Gaudalupe-Hildago of 1848.

Signed by the United States and Mexico at the conclusion of the U.S.-

Mexican War, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo called for Mexico to give up

almost half of its territory which included California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas

and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. According to PBS (n.d.) website on

the history of the Treaty of Guadalupe,

At the time of the treaty, approximately 80,000 Mexicans lived in

the ceded territory, which comprised only about 4 percent of Mexico’s

population. Only a few people chose to remain Mexican citizens compared

to the many that became United States citizens. Most of the 80,000

residents continued to live in the Southwest, believing in the guarantee

that their property and civil rights would be protected. Sadly, this would not

always be the case. By the end of the 19th century, most Mexicans had

lost their land, either through force or fraud.

From the beginning, access to education and rights granted to other citizens

were denied to Mexicans. According to a recent journal article on the impact of

the Brown v. the Board of Education on the education of Latinos (Contreras &

Valverde, 2004):

3


Prior to Brown, the educational conditions and treatment of Latino and

African Americans were much alike. Members of both groups were

disenfranchised. Most Latino children, like their African American

counterparts, were denied access to formal schooling. The few [Latinos]

who received instruction attend segregated schools, commonly referred to

in the Southwest as “Mexican Schools” that were clearly not equal to

schools for Whites.

Mexican schools were often staffed by student teachers from local colleges and

children were often reprimanded for conversing in Spanish (Ruiz, 2001).

According to Ruiz (2001), “Mexican schools, which emphasized vocational

education, served to funnel youth into the factories and building trades.” The

first state to formalize legislation to segregate Mexicans was the state of Arizona

in 1899. In 1899, the state passed a bill that stipulated English as the language

of instruction in public schools. This same bill was later used by school districts

to segregate Spanish-speaking children using “Language deficiency” as an

excuse to separate children based on their surnames, regardless of their

proficiency in English (Contreras & Valverde, 2004).

In the onset of the depression, segregation of Mexican’s children into

“Mexican only” schools boomed just as the Mexican population saw an explosion

of growth. Even in towns where Mexican children had quietly attended school

with white children, towns were suddenly building schools to keep the Mexican

students segregated. One of the first cases against Latino segregation was that

4


of Alvarez v. Lemon Grove School District (Ruiz, 2001). Until the town of Lemon

Grove decided to build a separate school for Mexican children, Mexican and

white students had attended school together. Parents boycotted the decision of

having a separate school for their children and took the district to court with the

help of the Mexican consult (Ruiz, 2001). Under the auspice of providing a facility

for non-English speaking children the district attempted to defend its case,

whereas the Mexican-American students “took the stand to prove their

knowledge of English.” (Ruiz, 2001). The judge presiding the case ordered the

“immediate reinstatement” of Mexican children to their old school (Ruiz, 2001).

Only five years earlier, in the case of Independent School District v. Salvatierra,

the school district of Del Rio Independent in Texas was “…charged with

separating the Mexican American children merely because of their race. In

Salvatierra, the district successfully contended that the students’ language

deficiency warranted their separate schooling.” (Contreras et. al., pp. 471).

However, the first major victory against segregation came with the case of

Mendez v. Westminster School District. According to Contreras et. al. (2004):

The first federal court decision on the segregation of Mexican American

students was handed down in California in the Mendez v. Westminster

School District (1946). In that case, the trial court ruled that separate

schools with the same technical facilities did not satisfy the equal

protection provisions of the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed

the decision, finding that segregation of Mexican Americans denied them

5


due process and equal protection. Despite this ruling, however, de facto

segregation continued throughout California.

Following the Mendez case was that of Delago v. Bastrop Independent School

District (1948) that ruled that the districts actions of segregation were in violation

of the 14th amendment. Contreas et. al. (2004) summarizes the oppression of

the time in the following paragraph:

…despite the rulings of Mendez, Delago, and Brown [vs. the Board of

Education](1954), school officials continued to segregating Latinos from

White students. This evasion was based on the technicality that Mexicans

and other Latinos were also classified as “White” for desegregation

purposes. As a result, in tri-ethnic settings, the post-Brown generation

saw the desegregation of predominately African American school settings

with Latino students while White students continued to be assigned to all-

White schools.

For many school districts, the classification of Mexicans as White provided them

with a loophole around Brown and allowed them to continue segregating Latino

and African American students. It would not be for another 16 years before this

loophole in the law was challenged. In the case of Cisneros v. Corpus Christi

Independent School District (1970) the “…court declared Mexican Americans to

be an identifiable ethnic minority group for the purposes of public school

segregation. Further, it was the first circuit court case to hold that the principles

enunciated in Brown apply to Latinos as well as African Americans.” (Contreras

6


et. al. pp. 472). With the Cisneros decision, and the loophole closed, access to

an equal education was a possibility, the year 1970. While it took many more

legislative acts to initiate desegregation plans throughout the country, it was the

civil rights movement of the 1960s that made great strides in opening equal

access to education for Latinos.

The Present

Unfortunately, current trends of Latinos in higher education are grim. As a

title of a recent Pew Hispanic Research Center report (Fry, 2002) indicates

“Latinos in higher education: many enroll, too few graduate.” Overall, there is a

large gap among traditional aged (age 18-24) Latinos enrolling in college

compared to all other groups. According to The road to a college diploma: the

complex reality of raising education achievements for Hispanics in the United

States (2002), “in 2000, 10 percent of Hispanics ages 25 to 29 had completed a

bachelor’s degree or higher. In comparison, 34 percent of Whites and 18 percent

of Blacks in this young adult age group had completed a bachelor’s degree.”

According to Fry (2002), in the 18-to-24 year old age range “…only 35 percent of

Latino high school graduates in this age group are enrolled in college compared

to 46 percent of whites.” While many Latinos are enrolling, many more Latinos

are failing to persist through degree attainment compared to other groups. To

understand the condition and current trends of Latinos in higher education it is

important to look at the demographic that make up Latinos in the U.S.

7


Trends of Latinos in higher education can be understood by examining the

following demographic characteristics: generational status, nationality of origin,

type of college enrollment, and institution type. First and foremost, when

discussing Latinos generational statuses it is important to understand the

terminology used to describe immigrant status in the U.S. First generation status

refers to newly arrived immigrants, while the term second generation is used to

describe the U.S. born children of these immigrants. Following this logic, third

generation Latinos are those individuals born to second generation Latinos (i.e.

third generation Latinos are born to “U.S. born Latinos”). Key findings of the

Pew Hispanic Research Report reveals several interesting trends in Latino

enrollment and degree attainment. Key findings of the report include the

following:

1) Native-born Latino high school graduate are enrolling in college at a

higher rate than their foreign-born counterparts, and that [this] is

especially true of the second generation, the U.S.-born children of

immigrants. About 42 percent of second-generation Latinos in the 18-

to-24 age range are enrolling in college, which is comparable to the

enrollment rate for white students (46 %). The college enrollment rate

is lower for first-generation Latino (26%) and for those with U.S.-born

parents (third generation and later) enroll at about 36 percent.

2) There is no substantial difference across generations in the percentage

of Latino high school graduates ages 18 to 24 who attend community

college.

8


3) Enrollment in two-year colleges varies by national origin.

Approximately 36 percent of Mexican college students in the 18-to-24-

year-old old group attend two-year institutions compared to about 31

percent of Puerto Ricans and Cubans.

4) Cubans have by far the highest rate of college attendance of any

Latino national origin group with nearly 45 percent of 18-to 24 year old

high school graduates enrolled. For Mexicans, the comparable figure

is 33 percent and for Puerto Ricans, 30 percent.

What this means is that first generation and third generational students are

enrolling in lower numbers than those born in the U.S. to immigrant parents

(second generation Latinos). Overall, the trends reveal big differences in

national origin and its influence in enrollment. Student affairs professional should

understand the differences among nationalities and their trends in enrollment.

Hence, we cannot make generalizations about Latinos as a group, and instead

we need to look at the Latino subgroups. In addition to understanding

generational status and nationality differences in enrollment, it is important to

look at how and where Latinos are enrolling in college. Other key findings of the

Pew Hispanic Report reveal the following:

1) Latinos are far more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges than

any other group.

9


2) About 40 percent of Latinos 18-to-24-year old college students

attend two year institutions compared to about 25 percent of white

and black students in that age group.

3) Latinos are fare more likely to be part-time students.

Overall, a synthesis of Latino enrollment data reveals that Latinos (not including

Cubans) are more likely to drop out of college when enrolled part time (Fry,

2002). The reason for this trend seems to be that Latino students are enrolling in

community college near their home, staying at home with family while enrolling

part time, and are more likely to be working full time. Fry (2001) states the

reason for this as a “function of economic need” due to the following:

“Among low-skilled Latino immigrants, household incomes are often built

to acceptable levels by combining the earnings of several workers who

each might be taking home poverty-level wages. Thus, there is intense

pressure on young people, especially males, to contribute to the family

welfare as soon as they are old enough to work.” (pp. 5).

In recent research I conducted for student development theory with other

classmates, I found this to be the case in one out of five males we interviewed.

The big difference in familial pressure was generational status. The male student

who had little support from family was a first generation student at OSU who

immigrated to the U.S. with his dad to work. Hence, when this student indicated

that he wanted to pursue higher education full time, his family could not

completely understand or accept his decision. According to Fry (2001), “U.S.

10


born Latinos 16 to 19 years old are four time more likely to be in school and not

working at all than their immigrant peers who came to the United States as

adolescents.” When studying enrollment trends by nationality, almost half of all

Mexicans enrolled in college are attending two-year colleges (Fry, 2002).

Another reason for this high enrollment rate of Latinos at community college is

the lower cost of tuition. While Latinos overall are enrolling in higher numbers,

Latinos are more likely to drop out of college when enrolled at a community

college (National Center on Educational Statistics, 2000).

A discussion of current trends of Latinos in higher education cannot go

without exploring the role of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), which currently

enrolls 50% of all Latinos enrolled in higher education (Dayton, Gonzalez-

Vasquez, Martinez, and Plum, 2004). Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) can be

defined in one of two ways. The federal government defines this institution type

as those college or universities with at least 25% Latino full-time equivalent

enrollment and also having 50% or more low-income students. Whereas, the

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), the organization that

helped HSIs establish its federal recognition, acknowledges institutions with at

least 25% head count of Latino enrollment as “Hispanic Serving.” As opposed to

Historically Black Colleges that were established to serve African-Americans,

HSIs were established to serve the majority, but through shifts in population

demographics (i.e. by default of location), now serve a growing number of

Latinos (Benitez & DeAro, 2004). According to Benitez, et. al.

11


There are approximately 242 HSIs located in fourteen states and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 128 of these are community colleges.

Although HSIs make up only 7 percent of all nonprofit colleges and

universities in the United States, they account for 54 percent of the total

Latino student enrollment in higher education.

In addition to enrolling over half of all Latinos, a majority of HSIs are 2-year

colleges. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), excluding the

forty-four four-year institutions in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, community

colleges make up 65 percent of HSIs in the continental United States.

Considering the numbers of Latinos enrolled in community colleges nation wide

(60 percent Latinos compared to only 36 percent of white students), it is not

surprising that 65 percent of HSIs are community colleges. Knowing that most

Latinos are enrolling in community colleges and that over half of all Latinos are

enrolling in HSIs, what can we do to improve the success of these students in

higher education?

The Future

Since the last census in 1990 to the 2000 census, the Latino population

has increased by 57.9 percent. In view of this explosive growth, how will the

growth of Latinos look in the future? The U.S. Census (Bergman, 2004) predicts

the following:

12


Nearly 67 million people of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race)

would be added to the nation’s population between 2000 and 2050. Their

numbers are projected to grow from 35.6 million to 102.6 million, an

increase of 188 percent. Their share of the nation’s population would

nearly double, from 12.6 percent to 24.4 percent.

Taken as a whole, it is predicted that this population growth will be reflected in

Latino college enrollment. Since most Latinos enroll in community colleges due

to their proximity to family and their lower price tags (compared to four-year

colleges), it is likely that the future will see a greater number of 2-year Hispanic

Serving Institutions. Since it takes 25 percent head count to obtain this title from

HACU, we will likely see a growth in HSIs in areas with large Latino populations.

According to the U.S. Census (2001), the largest areas with Latino populations of

one million or more include California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona,

and New Jersey; these states account for 76.8 of the entire U.S. Latino

population. Moreover, it is likely that many more Historically Black Colleges will

gain the additional title of a Hispanic Serving Institution considering their

proximity to large Latino populations.

While it easy to predict an increase in Latino enrollment, it is difficult to

predict whether the gap in enrollment and degree attainment will change. This

gap between enrollment and degree attainment can only change with the

commitment of administrators at two-year and four-year colleges.

Conclusions

13


Considering the Latino population is now the largest minority group in the

United States and its population is expected to continue its tremendous growth

trend, we cannot ignore issues influencing Latino enrollment and their ultimate

success in college. In my opinion, the high number of Latinos enrolling in

community colleges coupled by those Latinos enrolling part-time indicates that

there is a greater need for financial aid. Community college tuition is attractive to

many low-income Latinos (especially Mexicans) because of its low cost in

comparison to a four-year college. Because Latinos that work part-time have a

greater drop-out risk, student affairs official need to make greater efforts to

encourage Latinos to enroll full time as well as provide them the financial

assistance to do so. Overall, initiatives to keep students enrolled at the

community colleges are needed. This includes policies that make transferring to

a four-year college easy.

To increase overall bachelor’s degree attainment, Latinos are more likely

to persist at a four-year college. Knowing this, outreach programs that

encourage Latinos to attend college should make greater efforts to promote four-

year schools as the path for successful bachelor’s degree attainment. Moreover,

because Latinos from low-socioeconomic status are likely to shy away from the

larger price tag of a university, more financial aid is need to encourage Latinos to

choose four-year schools over two-year community colleges. Until changes are

made in financial aid, enrollment of Latinos at four-year colleges will continue to

remain low. At Oregon State University (OSU) for example, Diversity

Scholarships offered by the Admissions office have statistically been awarded to

14


many more white students than minorities. OSU needs to make more of an

effort to identify the students who these scholarships were originally intended for.

How can OSU do this without getting into conflict with equal protection? OSU

needs to lower the GPA of the diversity scholarship so that more minority

students qualify. Here are the current minimum requirements according to the

OSU financial aid website:

3.65 GPA AND 1200 SAT/26 ACT for high school [OR], 3.65 GPA and 36

or more college credits for transfers [OR], 3.25 GPA. In addition

Applicants must meet AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria: Member of

an ethnic minority community OR Low income status (federal guidelines)

OR Documented Disability.

A recent panel discussion hosted by OSU Student Affairs on Latinos in Higher

Education echoed the need for access to financial aid. At least one student from

a migrant worker background who served on the panel indicated that she was

originally accepted into OSU without a scholarship. As a result, she dropped her

plans to attend OSU and decided to attend the local community college.

However, much to her luck, the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)

was reinstated this fall (3 days before school started she was informed she was

accepted into the CAMP program) and she was able to enroll at OSU. While

some students are finding resources/assistance to pay for college, many others

are not. Many more, like the student on the panel, are opting for the cheaper

tuition of community colleges.

15


An important issue for Latinos overall is access to information. Many

Latinos currently enrolling in college are first-generation college students. These

students do not have family members that know the ropes of applying for

financial aid or searching for scholarships. Without any assistance from school

officials (either at the high school or college level), students are losing

opportunities to compete for scholarships.

Overall, four-year colleges need to recognize the role they can play in the

overall success of Latino degree attainment. While recognizing this role, four-

year colleges need to make an explicit effort to attract Latino students to these

schools and offer the resources for them to attend. Outreach initiatives by four-

year colleges may be the only way to change the trend of Latinos choosing to

enroll part-time at community colleges. As a society, we should strive for an

educated workforce. Knowing that Latinos have a better chance at success

when enrolled full-time at a four-year institution, we need to do better job at

increasing Latino enrollment at these schools. At OSU for example, current

enrollment of Latinos hovers around 3 percent. While overall enrollment of

Latinos at Oregon community colleges is at about 6.76 percent (OCCWD, 2003).

The following recommendations for action are made by Brown, Santiago, and

Lopez (2003):

1) Foster a K-16 strategy to education. 2) Increase awareness through the

educational pipeline about the challenges facing Latinos, 3) Close the

information gap by widely disseminating accurate information about

16


paying for college, and more effectively targeting outreach to Latino

communities.

To change the gap between enrollment and degree attainment, four-year

colleges need to make a commitment to these recommendations. Overall, four-

year colleges must be actively involved in recruiting Latinos and closing the gap

of degree attainment.

References

Bergman, M. (2004). Census Bureau Projects Tripling of Hispanic and Asian
Populations in 50 Years: Non-Hispanic Whites may drop to half of total
population. (Online). Retrieved: December 8, 2004. U.S. Census Bureau
News, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. Website:
http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html
Brown, S.E., Santiago, D., & Lopez, E. (2003). Latinos in higher education:
today and tomorrow. Change, 35 (2), 40-45.
Contreras, A.R. & Valverde (1994). The impact of Brown on the Education of
Latinos. Journal of Negro Education, 63, (3), 470-481.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: many enroll, too few graduate. Pew
Hispanic Center: Washington, DC.
Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-Serving Institutions: myths and realities. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76 (1), 73-92.
U.S. Census Bureau (2001). The Hispanic Population, Census 2000 brief. U.S.
Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995-
96. Beginning Postsecondary Students: 3 Years Later. NCES 2000-154.
97. Washington, DC: NCES.
Oregon Community Colleges and Workforce Development (OCCWD) (2003).
Oregon Community College 2002-2003 profile. State of Oregon publication.
PBS (n.d.), Treaty of Guadalupe (online). Retrieved November 23, 2004.
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/6.html
President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans. (2002). The road to a college diploma: the complex reality of
raising educational achievement for Hispanics in the United States.
Washington, D.C.
Ruiz, V. L. (2001). South by Southwest: Mexican Americans and segregated
schooling, 1900-1950. OAH Magazine, Winter, 23-27.
Schmidt (2003a). Acadme’s Hispanic Future: the nation’s largest minority group

17


faces big obstacles in higher education and colleges struggle to find the right
ways to help. Chronicle of Education, 50 (14), A8.
Schmidt (2003b). The label “Hispanic” Irks some, but also unites. Chronicle of
Education, 50 (14), A9.
Stefkovich, J.A. & Terrence, L. (1994). A legal history of desegregation in higher
education. Journal of Negro Education, 63 (3), 406-419.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). (2002).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Enrollment Survey,
Completion Survey, Financial Survey, and Institutional Survey.

18

jjj3

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to jjj3

Similar to jjj3 (19)

More from alemanw

More from alemanw (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

jjj3