Final REDI Report 2021, Lecture notes of Database Management Systems (DBMS)

Download Final REDI Report 2021 and more Lecture notes Database Management Systems (DBMS) in PDF only on Docsity!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................
• INTRODUCTION
• CONTEXT FOR THE REPORT
  • Framing Equity
  • The Charge and Process of the Task Force
  • Considering Our History, Contemplating Our Future
• RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Recruitment and Retention
  • Programs and Curriculum
  • Research and Evaluation
  • Culture and Values
  • Support and Resources
• CONCLUSION
• APPENDIX. MEMBERSHIP OF THE REDI TASK FORCE

While we have numerous details throughout the report, we have organized them into ten overall recommendations:

1. Set ambitious and bold REDI goals : The Task Force believes that this is a moment to make

significant progress and that this will require noteworthy but realistic goals. For example, we recommend a multi-year campaign to hire 100 faculty of color – pointing out how that builds on a previous USC faculty hiring initiative and can be accomplished because of our strategic advantages in attraction.

2. Create systems of transparency and accountability with regard to DEI : There is a concern about

accountability with regard to achieving DEI goals and a sense that Deans and departments should have resource flows partially dependent on their success in achieving these goals. The REDI Task Force calls for new methods of disaggregated data collection and analysis to measure progress, and better training and more transparent processes for Search Committees. We also suggest a Trojan Council for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion that can analyze confidential de- identified data and offer annual reports on progress.

3. Value the leadership potential of all, including students, staff, and faculty : One of the reasons

to train and upskill our community on core competencies of DEI is to teach leaders how to demonstrate equity and inclusion in all work settings. As leadership can come from every sector, the Task Force was particularly interested in encouraging faculty, students, and staff to all be seen and developed as leaders in racial equity.

4. Provide anti-racist training up and down the ladder : We are all inculcated in the habits of a

society that has deeply embedded practices of white supremacy. Anti-racist training to facilitate the daily challenge of both practices and structures should go beyond anti-bias skills and include proactive capabilities for conflict identification and resolution, and such training should be made available at every level in the organization.

5. Provide cutting-edge, equity-oriented pedagogy at all levels : With an extraordinary group of

available faculty, we can be a model of anti-racist education. The REDI Task Force recommends reinstituting a more focused General Education (GE) requirement, creating incentives to develop new courses on racial equity and diversity, and providing cutting-edge instruction to graduate students.

6. Value the whole person, understanding hurt, healing, and health : Structural racism has

material consequences and it affects the psyche in deep ways. Too many approaches to transformation seek to sweep away a past that has caused pain; we need to understand the whole person and provide trauma-informed support to students, staff, and faculty.

7. Examine systems that are barriers of DEI : Changing systems (and the practices within them)

that may not overtly discriminate could make a big difference. For example, multiple-year hiring horizons could help departments defer hires if they are not meeting diversity goals or accelerate hiring in order to take advantage of opportunities. We should reevaluate merit, better support junior faculty of color, and rethink programs of housing support. We should also consider

overhauling the staff performance management process and emphasize the need for supervisors and managers to be culturally competent and upskilled to lead and support their teams.

8. Leverage strengths to become the nation’s leading institution on DEI : While it is important to

expand our faculty ranks, USC boasts leading-edge scholars in the area of racial equity. These scholars could assist in the recruitment of new faculty and be retained as a partial result. Existing research strengths should also guide the establishment of new research enterprises and we call for making “moon shot” investments in several key research areas.

9. Create multiple pipelines to equity : While blaming an inadequate “pipeline” for not producing

next generation of students and scholars is too often used as an excuse for current outcomes, training the next generation of scholars and staff is a critical need. USC should enhance undergraduate research opportunities to promote future faculty diversity and should increase postdoctoral opportunities, perhaps in collaboration with other universities. We should also clarify the review process for faculty and create a better performance management process for staff.

10. Launch a new USC “Campaign for Equity” : All these steps will require significant investments,

particularly to bring in new faculty, develop major new research centers, and hire the staff to run them. The REDI Task Force recommends that USC take advantage of the current national acknowledgement of racial trauma and emerging philanthropic interest in racial justice, and both invest its own resources and launch a fundraising campaign to support these efforts.

Like the United States, USC has a complex history with regard to racial equity. We can boast of impressive programs to develop and attract students of color and also feel pained by the incidents of racial profiling on our campuses and in our classrooms. We can be proud of receiving some of the most significant gifts to a university by Black donors and be chagrined by the absence of a Black Studies Center.

The past must be acknowledged but the future is ours to determine. Between the pain of yesterday and the promise of tomorrow, there is the possibility of meaningful action today and in the years to come. In a moment in which the entire nation is coming to terms with white supremacy and the structural and actual violence it has wrought, there is an opportunity for USC to lead.

When asked to chair this effort, the co-chairs deliberately requested it be called the Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Task Force, both because we wanted to center racial equity in this moment and because we think our students, staff, faculty, and leadership are all ready for action.

Positioned in one of the most diverse cities in the world – and one that has been wracked by inequality and violence as it has come to terms with its multicultural realities – USC can show what a premier private university can contribute to a more inclusive and welcoming America. We hope this report contributes to making that goal a reality for our campus community.

USC is rightly known for its local community engagement, including a Neighborhood Achievement Initiative that includes a multi-year college preparatory program for more than 1,000 young people from South and East Los Angeles. Partly because of that, Foshay Learning Center – a school that is more than 99 percent student of color – is always one of the top high schools sending new Trojans even as USC has gotten increasingly competitive.^4 And a remarkable fact few recognize or appreciate: with a $35 million gift from Andre Young (Dr. Dre) and $30 million gift from Dr. Verna Dauterive, USC has received among the top donations to any American university from Black donors.

At the same time, USC also has a troubled history with neighbors deeply concerned about displacement from gentrification and upset with the University for the dragged-out negotiations about community benefits from the USC Village project.^5 Meanwhile, both off-campus visitors and our own students report experiences of racial profiling by on-campus security as well as discriminatory enforcement by the Los Angeles Police Department.^6 And the pain of both structural racism and micro-aggressions was deeply etched into the wider campus community by the words of students and alumni on the Instagram site, @black_at_usc, an effort that emerged in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the broader reckoning with structural racism that has emerged in our nation.^7 ,^8

It was also that historical reckoning that prompted President Carol Folt on June 11, 2020 to announce six initiatives to “confront anti-Blackness and systemic racism, and unite as a diverse, equal, and inclusive community. These included the renaming of the Von KleinSmid building, rebooting a Community Advisory Board for the Department of Public Safety (DPS), searching for a new Chief Diversity, Equity,

(^4) Howard Blume, “A Small Distance, but a Great Feat: Foshay Learning Center Sends More Students to USC than

Any Other High School,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la- me-edu-foshay-has-most-usc-freshmen- 20160926 - snap-story.html. (^5) Manuel Pastor et al., “Planning, Power, and Possibilities: How UNIDAD Is Shaping Equitable Development in South Central L.A.” (Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, September 2015), http://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/shaping-equitable-development-south-central/. (^6) Sofia James, “‘They Watch Us Closely’: Black Students Describe Patterns Of Racial Profiling By USC Police,” LAist,

accessed January 9, 2021, https://laist.com/2020/11/17/_they_watch_us_closely_black_students_describe_patterns_of_racial_profiling_a t_the_hands_of_uscs_pol.php; Shereen Marisol Meraji, “USC Students Allege Racial Profiling By LAPD,” NPR.org, May 8, 2013, https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/09/182175917/L-A-s-Police-Department- Faces-Allegations-Of-Racism. (^7) The Shaylee Navarro, “A Digital Movement: Creating a Safe Space for Black Trojans Seeking Institutional Change,”

Daily Trojan, July 7, 2020, https://dailytrojan.com/2020/07/06/a-digital-movement-creating-a-safe-space-for- black-trojans-seeking-institutional-change/. The anecdotes shared on @black_at_usc seem to reflect a more pervasive problem: USC participated in the Consortium on Financing Higher Education 2018 Student Enrollment Survey and less than half (49%) of underrepresented minority (Black, Latino, and Native American) students at USC agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Students of my race/ethnicity are respected on this campus” versus 72% of students who agreed who are not considered underrepresented minorities. This information is taken from USC’s 2021 accreditation report available at https://accreditation.usc.edu/2021- reaccreditation/reports/ (^8) These efforts to grapple with experiences of racism on- and off-campus also gave rise to the United Black

Student-Athletes Association (UBSAA) at USC. See Ryan Kartje, “USC Student-Athletes Form Organization to ‘Combat Racial Inequality,’” Los Angeles Times , June 17, 2020, sec. USC Sports, https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2020- 06 - 17/usc-black-lives-matter-student-athlete-group-ubsaa.

and Inclusion Officer, more space and programming for underserved students, mandatory training on unconscious bias, and creating a Task Force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).^9

The President and the Provost asked that the Task Force be chaired by Manuel Pastor, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and holder of the Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change, and Felicia Washington, USC’s senior vice president of human resources. Both enthusiastically agreed but they also asked that the group be renamed to the Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Task Force, a shift that also gave the group the convenient acronym of REDI.

The naming was important for several reasons. First, it had been the co-chairs’ experience that some DEI efforts can inadvertently use “diversity” as a way to divert attention and not focus on structural racism. Putting “racial equity” first in the name signaled something different and that “confronting anti- Blackness and systemic racism” – as President Folt noted in her June 11, 2020 letter – was indeed central to this enterprise.^10 It also explains why this report mostly focuses on racial diversity even as it acknowledges that other forms of diversity – by gender identity, socioeconomic background, disability experience, and so much more – are also important.

A second reason for the name REDI: there have been many reports issued in the past and there is a sense on the part of many on the campus that we have a lot of knowledge about what to do but less action on doing it. The name thus also signaled that we were “ready” for action – and part of that meant that we tried to generate findings and recommendations on a highly accelerated schedule. Many such efforts take a full academic year; we wanted to hit early 2021 with recommendations in hand.

This report summarizes the activities of the REDI Task Force. We offer a brief outline of the guiding principles, processes, and personnel used to generate this report. We then cover five areas for action: recruitment and retention, programs and curriculum, research and evaluation, culture and values, and support and resources. We conclude with a list of ten overarching recommendations that we think can inform the work going forward and help to position USC as a leader in the arena of racial equity, diversity, and inclusion.

As usual, a few caveats are in order for the readers of this report.

First, as we noted above and will describe more below, we generated this work at a rapid pace and in a time of the COVID-19 pandemic. While we hope that we are comprehensive, we are also sure that we have let a few good ideas, including ones generated in our own deliberations, slip away in the spirit of parsimony and focus.

Second, while we tried to ensure that our recommendations are doable, we have also set some bold goals – including a significant increase in hiring, a thorough shift in campus structure, and a major fundraising campaign – that we understand are stretches. They should be pursued, even if some aspects need to unfold over time.

Third, we have not fully worked out implementation pathways for each of our recommendations; we thought it was more important to be timely so that planning could begin this spring for changes in the

(^9) Carol Folt, “A Message to the USC Community from President Folt,” Office of the President, June 11, 2020, https://www.president.usc.edu/a-message-to-the-usc-community-from-president-folt/. (^10) Ibid.

CONTEXT FOR THE REPORT

The Task Force was comprised of a highly engaged group of staff, faculty, and students from both the University Park Campus (UPC) and the Health Sciences Campus (HSC), who all brought their energy and ideas to every conversation. A full list of the members is available in Appendix A; as one will be able to see from a glance at that list, there was a diversity of representation in terms of schools, fields, and positions. Members of the Task Force represented their communities and constituencies – and tried to bring to this important work the voices of many more, as well as to try to find common ground. While we would have hoped for even more voices in the group and a longer process, we were also trying to insure timely delivery of this report and our recommendations.

We will describe the work organization and work flow below – which also sets up the structure of this report – but we think it is important to begin by providing elements of the framework that guided us.

Framing Equity

First, we all shared a commitment to justice as a rationale for embracing equity, diversity, and inclusion as educational and institutional goals. Historical harms and disadvantages have created situations where students of color and low-income students frequently have less access to higher education. USC has helped our society make progress on addressing this challenge: we can boast of having one of the largest flows of students from community college of any private school.^12 We can do even more to

(^12) Rosanna Xia, “Most Private Colleges Take Very Few Transfers. At USC, about 1,500 Get a Spot Each Year,” Los

Angeles Times , June 5, 2017, sec. California, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-usc-transfers- 20170605 - story.html; Nick Anderson, “At the University of Southern California, a Rare Open Door for Transfer Students,” Washington Post , accessed January 9, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade- point/wp/2016/05/12/at-the-university-of-southern-california-a-rare-open-door-for-transfer-students/.

diversify our students – from undergraduates to graduates – and this will assist in correcting or remedying an unfair past and pointing to a more inclusive future.

Recognizing the inequities of the past and the present is also important for understanding the experience for professors of color at USC. Too often, they feel looked at as a rarity and sometimes find their credentials doubted by colleagues and students. As we explore below, the patterns of the racial wealth and income gap also mean that newly minted professors of color are often carrying more student debt, more family obligations, and less financial wherewithal than their counterparts – and attraction packages need to be designed accordingly. Similar challenges can face staff and students at all levels.

A focus on equity and diversity will also help to create a more complete curriculum so that we learn the full history of our society and our peoples. While the cry of #BlackLivesMatter has been thought to apply to policing, it also has salience with regard to whose life experiences get taught and which get erased in our teaching – and then require a television show like HBO’s “Watchmen” to sear an important event like the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that destroyed the so-called “Black Wall Street” into the public consciousness.^13

But while racial equity, diversity, and inclusion matter for reasons of justice and remedy, they matter for two other reasons as well. The first has to do with the cultivation of leadership. USC is proud of its Trojan graduates’ positions in civic life and the public and private service they provide. But they are doing so in a nation and a world which is undergoing significant rapid demographic change.

By the mid-2040s, the United States will have a population that is majority people of color; California passed that demographic threshold back in 1998. Having a diverse set of classmates and workmates is crucial to preparing for that future. Developing both hard skills and the soft skills of cultural competency are important for those who are preparing to be a doctor, dentist, lawyer, filmmaker, journalist, artist, musician, urban planner, or any of the other professions for which we educate.

This does not mean that students of color should become building blocks or learning vehicles for elite preparation; the point is to not burden those already feeling macro- and micro-aggressions but rather to build better bridges between communities and learn from each other.^14 Preparing leaders for the future also requires a diverse faculty at all levels – not just in the junior ranks – who can help set the standards for what is taught and researched. The exact same can be said for our staff. A diverse faculty and staff at all levels – not just in the junior ranks – can help set the standards for what is taught and researched, as well as how people are embraced and treated.

Supporting educational justice and cultivating civic leadership would seem to be worthy enough rationales for this work but our Task Force was insistent on a third: strategic advantage. We share the

(^13) Jennifer Vineyard, “The Tulsa Race Massacre Happened 99 Years Ago. Here’s What to Read About It. (Published 2019),” The New York Times , October 21, 2019, sec. Arts, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/arts/television/watchmen-tulsa-race-riot.html. (^14) Kevin Nadal defines microaggressions as the “everyday, subtle, intentional – and oftentimes unintentional –

interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups.” See Andrew Limbong, “Microaggressions Are A Big Deal: How To Talk Them Out And When To Walk Away : Life Kit,” NPR.org, June 9, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872371063/microaggressions-are-a-big-deal-how-to- talk-them-out-and-when-to-walk-away.

The leadership team organized the work with a group of two co-chairs, twenty-seven regular members, and five ex oficio members, and sought to implement the charge along five main strands of university activity in the DEI realm: (1) Recruitment and retention, (2) Programs and curriculum, (3) Research and evaluation, (4) Culture and values, and (5) Support and resources. This allowed us to assign two broad charges to each area, slightly modified after initial discussion with the Task Force, and then form five working groups that would explore the general area and make recommendations.

With that set-up in mind, our charge emerged as follows:

 Recruitment and Retention o Identify/develop strategies to hire and retain diverse faculty (including research faculty), Masters, Doctoral, and Postdoctoral students.

o Identify/develop strategies for recruitment, retention, and promotion of diverse staff.

 Programs and Curriculum o Identify/categorize current infrastructure and all existing diversity programs and initiatives.

o Identify/categorize curricular and pedagogical concerns, including GE requirements and the possibility of new courses.

 Research and Evaluation o Identify/categorize research on issues of racial equity, diversity, and inclusion, as well as new research topics and initiatives if needed. o Identify/categorize evidence-based metrics to measure outcomes.

 Culture and Values o Identify/categorize work of the USC Culture Commission and incorporate it to change behaviors around transparency and trust to align with DEI mission.

o Shape our collective vision of a racially-just campus community, including adopting an anti- racist mission and culture.

 Support and Resources o Identify/categorize wellness, mental health, and community care opportunities for students, staff, and faculty. o Identify resources needed to support staff, students and faculty, including scholarship support for students and student recruitment.

In order to generate recommendations in each area, we asked the members of each of the five workgroups to gather information on previous racial equity and diversity efforts on the campus, as well as to bring and share their own experiences with these issues. Each workgroup met several times on their own, considered a series of discussion questions to guide their conversation, and then developed their ideas and presented them over the course of ongoing biweekly full-group meetings during Fall

Feedback from those virtual meetings were then incorporated into each area’s offerings. Finally, in late November, we held a virtual half-day retreat in which each group was asked to first meet separately to

prioritize recommendations, consider whether recommendations were overlapping and should stay in another area of work, and to offer some tentative implementation steps. After report-backs, the overall group looked for common themes and synthesized.

This report seeks to be a faithful reflection of that process. Of course, not every thought or concern expressed by Task Force members made it to the final list and some ideas may be more developed than others. We looked for where there was significant agreement and energy and try to highlight those below.

Considering Our History, Contemplating Our Future

Within each of the working groups, we asked members to consider three key questions: (1) What historical context or harm can we name and acknowledge?; (2) What current work is already happening that can be built on?; and (3) What are concrete and specific recommendations for the future?

The bulk of this report focuses on the recommendations for the future – and that is sensible since this is a guide for action and not just reflection. But we would be remiss if we did not point out the necessity of acknowledging the past. Too often in discussions of race and racism, as well as other forms of discrimination and exclusion, there is a sense that we should quickly move on from any grief or grievance and quickly move to wiping the slate clean for the next steps.

But the past lingers in important ways. When a department or a school has a reputation of exclusion, that steers away faculty, staff, and students, and makes it more difficult to achieve diversity and inclusion. When certain types of academic work on identity get labeled “me-search” versus “research”, it not only stings for newer scholars, it conveniently forgets that the traditional cannon was generally also oriented around one particular identity.

When we do not think about the ways the hard sciences have pushed aside women and people of color, we do not come up with the creative approaches – like our very own Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE) – that can break down barriers. When we forget about the way the racial wealth gap affects the fortunes and livelihoods of younger scholars, we can devise housing support programs that are aimed at full professors rather than more economically insecure assistant professors.

So we asked each work group to identify harms and hurts in our history – and recounting all that we heard could make this report a far longer length. But while we encourage every unit to not be afraid of reexamining what has gone wrong in search of what could go right, what we want to do here is lift up three key areas of our history that guided our thinking and should be shared beyond the Task Force.

The first is a general sense of a lack of accountability for DEI at the institutional, school, and unit levels. While there are diversity liaisons at a school level, there is a sense that they are not well-coordinated and have limited authority. Whether true or not, there is a sense that Deans are not being held accountable to diversity goals and that departments and administrative units are not denied search authority even if they are consistently coming up short in terms of diverse candidates.

This sense led to an interesting dynamic within the Task Force: a call for centralization. In general, faculty, staff, undergraduate, and graduate students feel like devolving power to the most local level is a good approach for most areas of decision-making. But, in this arena, there were calls for centralized

many socioeconomically disadvantaged AANHPI groups, particularly Southeast Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, are masked, hidden, and underrepresented in higher education.

Ultimately, we must grow past the mentality that one group’s gains come at the expense of others. As we have articulated, the university as a whole will benefit – it will be more just, it will develop stronger leadership, and it will gain strategic advantage – by tackling structural racism and the impediments to success. We have seen a recognition of this spread across the faculty, the students, and the staff – and senior leadership has called us to study and act. What follows next are a specific set of recommendations for the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS

So what should USC do going forward? We organized our recommendations – just as we organized the charge into five areas of work: (1) Recruitment and retention, (2) Programs and curriculum, (3) Research and evaluation, (4) Culture and values, and (5) Support and resources. We go through each of these areas below. For each general area, we provide a bit of context to the issues, offer a chart highlighting a few recommendations, and then offer some discussion of those recommendations. We occasionally close each section with some thoughts that summarize the challenge and opportunity in the area and may not have been reflected in the specific recommendations.

Recruitment and Retention

If we are to live our stated values, USC must respect and promote a multicultural, diverse community of staff, students, and faculty. Our administrators and leadership should also reflect our commitment to diversity. We clearly have more to do. For example, with data provided to us by the Provost’s Office, one sees that there has been some modest progress in terms of Latino representation between 2010 and 2020 at the tenured and tenure-track levels, but almost no progress for Black faculty.^16

There was some decline in the percentage of white faculty at the tenure-track level but that decrease is essentially matched by a rise in those declining to state. There may be reasons why the willingness to self-identify is declining over time and it is also the case that racial and ethnic definitions themselves evolve. For example, research suggests that some groups (such as individuals from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)) do not see themselves as white but are not offered what they view as appropriate options in the Census or other demographic questionnaires. In the run-up to the 2020 Census, the

(^16) As noted in the text, the data on faculty diversity come from the Office of the Provost. Subsequent data on staff come from University Human Resources and the data on students come from the Office of Institutional Research.

77.1%

46.6%

61.5%

2.3% 2.7% 4.4%^ 4.4%^ 2.7%4.7%

13.7% 15.3%

19.3%

1.0%

15.6%

3.4%^ 4.5%

12.2% 7.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tenured Tenure-Track RTPC

Faculty by Rank and Race/Ethnicity, 2010

White Black Latino Asian Native American Two or more races Non-Resident Decline to state

71.7%

37.1%

54.6%

2.8% 4.7%^ 4.1%^ 4.0%

5.7% 7.0%

16.6% 18.1%

22.8%

0.2% 1.8%^ 0.3%^ 1.6% 0.3%

3.8% 1.1%

12.1%

4.5% 1.2%

21.0%

3.0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tenured Tenure-Track RTPC

Faculty by Rank and Race/Ethnicity, 2020

White Black Latinx Asian Native American Two or more races Non-Resident Decline to state

Task Force members also suggested that there is rich diversity among staff who work in our essential services positions – and that there is also diversity among staff in senior leadership. This leaves an opportunity to focus on staff diversity at the director, manager, and supervisor levels. We heard from Task Force members that there are not uniform university-wide efforts to ensure that staff are selected from diverse pools of candidates and some lamented a lack of focus on recruiting diverse staff. In a parallel to the issues of retention raised for faculty, staff members recounted the reasons for some early departures of newly-employed staff as the lack of professionalism of their managers/supervisors, lack of professional development, and a feeling a lack of care about career projection.

0.1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.8%

1.0%

1.5%

3.2%

4.3%

5.1%

8.8%

16.2%

27.4%

30.2%

4.2%

0.2%

2.6%

11.5%

20.0%

30.4%

31.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Non-US Citizen immigrant status

North African

Indigenous (North, South, or Central…

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific…

American Indian or Alaska Native

Southeast Asian

Decline to Answer

Middle Eastern

India, Pakistan, or other Indian…

Unknown

Two or More

Filipino or Malaysian

Black/African American

Asian

White

Hispanic or Latino

USC Staff Race and Ethnicity Totals, 2010 and 2020

2010 2020

Finally, our student data from 2010 to 2020 for undergraduate and graduate students show some interesting patterns of progress toward diversity and remaining challenges. For undergraduates, note that the share of student who identify as white has fallen by 12 percentage points. There have been corresponding increases in other groups but it is noteworthy that the increases in the share of Black and Latino undergraduate students is quite modest in a time period in which the share of Black 18 year-olds in the U.S. fell from 15.6 percent to 14.4 percent of the overall 18 year-old population and Latinos rose from 20.5 percent to 23.1 percent of the 18 year-old U.S. population. There has been virtually no change in Native American and Pacific Islander undergraduate shares. We do see a slight rise in those designating two or more and students who decline to state. 18

(^18) Calculations for the U.S. 18 year old population derived from the American Community Survey for 2010 and 2019, with data drawn from Steven Ruggles et al., “IPUMS USA: Version 11.0” (Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2021), https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V11.0.