• Traditional metrics (e.g., graduation rates) may not fully capture the unique challenges faced by first-generation and minority students.

Many HSIs serve nontraditional, part-time, and transfer students, making standard benchmarks difficult to apply

• Ensures that institutional policies align with tribal sovereignty, cultural preservation, and community needs.

Strengthens institutional resilience by incorporating diverse voices into leadership

• Many HSIs have a predominantly white administration and faculty, despite serving a majority Hispanic student population.

• Faculty of color often experience marginalization in governance decisions.

• The lack of racial diversity in leadership impacts policies, mentorship opportunities, and culturally relevant curricula.

Religious values influence key decisions such as faculty hiring, student support, and institutional policies, impacting the overall campus culture and student outcomes

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that federal assessment tools, such as the College Scorecard, fail to accurately measure the impact of MSIs.

   1. The U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard provides public data on college costs, graduation rates, and salaries.

   2. However, it does not account for MSIs’ unique missions, student demographics, or socioeconomic challenges, often making them appear less effective when compared to other institutions.

2. I realize that MSIs face unfair disadvantages when accountability measures tie funding to traditional student success metrics.

   1. Proposed federal policies linking funding to graduation rates could penalize MSIs that serve first-generation, low-income, and nontraditional students, who often take longer to graduate.

   2. MSIs argue that assessment tools should use context-specific measures that recognize student progress beyond traditional metrics.

3. I understand that new ROI research challenges misconceptions about MSIs’ effectiveness.

   1. Studies using propensity score matching show that students at MSIs perform similarly to their non-MSI counterparts when socioeconomic and academic preparation are considered.

   2. Despite limited funding, MSIs still provide strong career outcomes and economic mobility for underserved students.

Quotes

“Scholars have further elucidated the ways in which the proposed rating system would have been detrimental to MSIs and critiqued how the College Scorecard falls short in portraying them. Using the Scorecard to compare institutions that predominantly serve first-generation, low-income, and racially underrepresented students with institutions that serve more privileged populations can be problematic (Collins et al., 2014). Without context about the niche that MSIs fill within the landscape of higher education, MSIs may look less favorable when compared to other schools, even for the students whom they are oriented towards serving. The graduation and retention rate metrics undermine MSIs when they are compared to other institutions because they present single percentages that do not account for variance by group (Collins et al., 2014).” (p. 48)

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that shared governance in TCUs is deeply rooted in Indigenous cultural values.

   1. Unlike mainstream institutions, where shared governance often focuses on administrative collaboration, TCUs integrate tribal traditions, values, and sovereignty into their governance structures.

   2. Decisions are community-driven, emphasizing respect, inclusivity, and consensus-building, which align with traditional Indigenous governance models.

2. I realize that shared governance in TCUs involves multiple stakeholders, but challenges remain in balancing decision-making power.

   1. Governance structures typically include faculty, students, administrators, board members, and tribal leaders, ensuring broad representation in decision-making.

   2. However, there is often tension between institutional autonomy and tribal government oversight, requiring careful negotiation to maintain a balance between academic freedom and tribal priorities.

3. I understand that TCUs must navigate political influences while maintaining transparency and accountability.

   1. While shared governance promotes collaborative leadership, political pressures within tribal communities can sometimes affect decision-making.

   2. To counteract this, TCUs emphasize open communication, structured leadership models, and active student participation to ensure that governance remains transparent, fair, and mission-driven.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that faculty governance at HSIs is shaped by racialized power structures that influence decision-making and institutional priorities.

   1. Faculty at HSIs often lack decision-making power, with institutional leadership structures mirroring PWIs.

   2. Governance structures often fail to reflect the diverse student body they serve, limiting faculty influence in shaping policies that directly impact Latinx student success.

2. I realize that the HSI designation does not always translate into institutional commitment to serving Latinx students.

   1. Some institutions use the HSI designation primarily for funding access rather than actively implementing policies that support Latinx student retention and success.

   2. Faculty governance plays a crucial role in ensuring that HSIs go beyond enrollment metrics to create meaningful learning environments for Latinx students.

3. I understand that faculty of color face cultural taxation, which affects their participation in governance and leadership roles at HSIs.

   1. Latinx faculty members are often expected to take on extra mentorship, committee work, and student advocacy, which can detract from research and tenure-track responsibilities.

   2. This imbalance limits faculty participation in governance structures, making it harder to advocate for policies that improve Latinx student outcomes.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that board governance at AME-affiliated HBCUs is shaped by institutional values, social networks, and a commitment to legacy.

   1. The study found that board members at AME-affiliated HBCUs prioritize personal connections, shared values, and commitment to Black education when making presidential selection decisions.

   2. Trustees value candidates who exhibit deep ties to the Black community, HBCUs, and AME Church culture, rather than focusing solely on traditional leadership qualifications.

2. I realize that trust plays a critical role in presidential selection, often outweighing formal qualifications.

   1. Many trustees base hiring decisions on perceived cultural fit, shared identity, and social capital, rather than just academic and administrative credentials.

   2. Candidates with prior relationships in Black institutions, AME networks, or HBCU leadership roles are more likely to be selected because they align with institutional values.

3. I understand that while this values-based approach fosters institutional cohesion, it may also limit diverse leadership perspectives.

   1. The strong emphasis on trust, networks, and cultural alignment can create barriers for highly qualified candidates from outside the AME or HBCU community.

   2. This hiring approach raises questions about confirmation bias, as trustees may overlook candidates with strong leadership skills but fewer social ties to HBCUs or the Black church.

-  While shared governance is great and certainly important, a lot of this does seem like it is putting the burden of labor on those that already hold roles/responsibilities on campus, like faculty. As someone who has served on plenty of committees, I know how hard it can be to dedicate time to these efforts when you are already swamped with your regular duties.

• While these assessments can be useful internally, it certainly looks like it’s an inequitable burden on MSIs to have to keep up with this level of data collection and reporting. This resource drain could be taking away from other needed programming. Or should be baked into the funding given.

• Centering this understanding is key to breaking down the Eurocentric way of teaching. To say PWIs don’t do this is incorrect, though. There is merely an assumption that the culture/understanding students bring with them is just in line with what the school believes.

• I feel this is the ONLY role of a president these days.

How does Critical Race Theory help us understand the challenges and opportunities within HSI governance?