![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Using a mixed methods approach, the researcher gathered a set of narrative responses from focus groups that supported the claim of underreporting campus discrimination on a survey. Multiple studies have shown that underrepresented minority students are likely to bond with same-ethnic peers in a racially tense campus climate. This mixed method is a follow-up investigation into, why, in a post-9/11 environment, Arab and Muslim American community college students demonstrated less variation in the level of perceived discrimination in relationship to the percentage of same-ethnic and/or same-faith campus friendship groups. Post hoc comparisons revealed that Arab and Muslim students exhibited significantly higher mean scores on a perceived discrimination scale than other ethnic groups.
Since 9/11, Arabs and Muslims have been almost the exclusive focus of the U.S. government’s national security surveillance program. Indeed, a series of highly charged events has taken place, such as the 2011 Park51 Islamic Center debate about erecting a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the 2011 King Congressional hearings, which sounded the alarm about homegrown radical Islam and its threat to national security. In 2013, the Boston Marathon bombing revitalized the anti-Muslim backlash (Berrett, 2013; Gray, 2013). A year later, the New York Police Department disbanded its secret surveillance program, which reportedly, since 2002, had engaged in religious profiling and what many criticize as indiscriminate and unconstitutional monitoring of Muslim American communities and Muslim student organizations without any concrete evidence of links to terrorism (Apuzzo & Goldstein, 2014; Gagne, 2012). Such events have direct ramifications for the curtailment of the civil rights of Muslim Americans, indicating, above all, that anti-Arab and Islamophobic discourse is not abating in mainstream American society.
The United States is home to approximately 3.5 million persons of Arab ancestry (1.2% of the U.S. population). Fifty percent is born in the United States or to U.S. parents abroad; the remaining half is foreign-born naturalized U.S. citizens and noncitizens (American Community Survey, 2010; Arab American Institute [AAI], 2010). In the United States, Muslims, an ethnically and racially diverse group, number about 4 million, of which 81% constitutes citizens (Pew Research Center, 2011).
For more than a century, Arabs and Muslims have lived in the United States as citizens or legal residents, but still Arab and Muslim students have received very little scholarly attention from researchers in the field of higher education. Although prior literature from the United States, Australia, and Britain (Shammas, 2009) has used quantitative and qualitative methods to examine a range of social psychological variables, such work only constitutes a handful of studies (Appleton, 2005a, 2005b; Asmar, 2003; Cole & Ahmadi, 2003, 2010; Peek, 2005; Shammas, 2009, 2015; Stubbs & Sallee, 2013). This gap in the campus diversity literature is remarkable, particularly in light of two national surveys that reported alarmingly high rates of discrimination in the school and workplace among young Arab and Muslim Americans of traditional college age: 18 to 29 years (AAI, 2007; Muslims in the American Public Square, 2004). Moreover, the most recent biennial survey by the AAI found that among a list of different ethnic and religious groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus), Arabs and Muslims earned the lowest ratings (AAI, 2014), revealing that American attitudes toward Arab and Muslims are deeply divided across political party, age, and color. These survey findings underscore the context—as well as enduring relevance—of this large-scale mixed methods study, conducted in 2007.
One key research question from the author’s 2007 quantitative study was if Arab and Muslim community college students perceive a high level of discrimination against them by other students, faculty, and/or administration: Are they more likely to establish a higher percentage of same-ethnic and/or same-faith campus friendships rather than cross-ethnic and/or cross-faith campus friendships? The underlying assumption was that the backlash of 9/11 could have a dramatic impact on Arab and Muslim students’ level of social integration and sense of belonging, which could result in the formation of ethnic and religious enclaves on campus.
The main objective of the present article is to follow up on the 2007 study regarding why there was not greater variation in the level of perceived discrimination in relation to the percentage of campus friends across the four ethnic/faith friendship groups—particularly in light of a post hoc analysis, which indicates in Table 1 that, in comparison with non-Arab and non-Muslim students—specifically African Americans, Latinos(as), Asians, and Whites—Arab American and Muslim American students exhibited significantly higher mean scores on perceived discrimination on campus. Table 2 shows the mean differences in perceived discrimination scores between Arab and Muslim students and the comparison group, non-Arab and non-Muslim. In Tables 1, 2, and 4, the Middle Eastern category refers to Muslims from the non-Arab Middle East.
|
Table 1. Mean Perceived Discrimination Scores for Arab and Muslim Students (N = 572) and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students (N = 447).
|
Table 2. Mean Differences in Perceived Discrimination Scores Between Arab and Muslim Students (N = 572) and Non-Arab and Non-Muslim Students (N = 447).
A survey was the primary source of testing the relationship between the level of perceived discrimination and the percentage of ethnoreligious friendship groups on campus among Arab American and Muslim American community college students (N = 753). Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of the four subgroups of the Arab and Muslim sample.
|
Table 3. Numbers and Percentages of Students by Arab-Descent Christian, Arab-Descent of Other Faiths, Arab-Descent Muslim, and Non-Arab-Descent Muslim (N = 753).
Table 4 presents the frequency distribution of non-Arab-descent Muslim subgroups by self-reported ethnicity.
|
Table 4. The Numbers and Percentages of Non-Arab Muslim Students by Self-Reported Ethnicity.
In view of inconsistencies and ambiguities in the survey findings, the researcher began to question whether the problem lay in the perceived discrimination measure or that students were underreporting perceived discrimination on campus. To gain direct access to different views as discussed among members of the population under study, the researcher recruited community college students to participate in focus groups to determine if they were reticent to disclose—or even denying—feelings of personal or group discrimination on campus. Swim, Cohen, and Hyers (1998) pointed out that surveys tend to address respondents’ general perceptions of discrimination, whereas a focus group setting is more likely to compel participants to reflect on specific acts of discrimination that they might have perceived as being directed toward them or their coethnic/coreligionist individuals. To gather qualitative information, focus groups (not individual interviews) were favored because the aspect of group interaction that the format offers relates to many of this study’s concerns with group identification, inclusion, and ethnoreligious social exchanges. Compared with participation observation, which provides a more natural setting, focus groups allow the researcher to cover a wide breadth of topics in a limited amount of time. Moreover, focus groups allow the researcher to be present but usually with a less active role in eliciting certain responses and directly guiding discussion than in interviews (Morgan, 1997).
The specific mixed methods design used for the study is illustrated in Figure 10 under the Method section. Figure 10 demonstrates the step-by-step procedure which begins with the quantitative phase of the study, measuring the level of perceived discrimination on campus and the percentage of ethnoreligious friendship groups on campus. In preparation of any unexpected survey results, the researcher set out to recruit focus groups after administration of the survey. Inferences drawn from the focus group narratives supported most of the survey findings, but more important, furnished compelling evidence for why Arab and Muslim students are likely to be unsure or underreport perceived discrimination on campus (refer to Figure 11).
In Table 5, frequency distributions showed that close to 75% of Arab and Muslim students’ campus friends fell collectively into three of the four friendship groups: same ethnicity and same religion, same ethnicity and different religion, and same religion and different ethnicity—with only 27% representing campus friendships of a different ethnicity and different religion. Yet, given the sample size of Arab and Muslim students, a bivariate correlation did not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between perceived discrimination and the four ethnoreligious friendship groups. This finding suggests little variation in the level of perceived discrimination in relation to the percentage of campus friends across the four ethnoreligious friendship groups.
|
Table 5. Mean Percentage Scores for the Four Ethnic/Faith Friendship Group Scales.
The perceived discrimination scale consisted of two parts, perceived discrimination (six items) and campus climate (three items). These nine items are described under the Method section. The responses to six of the nine items on the perceived discrimination scale showed that Arab and Muslim students were two to four times more likely to agree with the statements that they felt discriminated against by other students, faculty, and administration because of their ethnicity and religion. Conversely, non-Arab and non-Muslim students were, on average, 17 % more likely to strongly disagree with these six statements (see Figures 1 to 6). Figures 7 and 8 refer specifically to group discrimination by the administration.
Figures 7, 8, and 9 indicate that there were no significant differences between the two groups on perceptions of campus climate. However, both groups had a relatively high percentage of “not sure” responses—as high as almost 40% for Arab and Muslims and 45% for the non-Arab and non-Muslim group consisting of African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Whites (see Figure 7)—which suggests evidence of students’ uncertainties about racial, ethnic, and religious tensions on campus (Howard Community College, 1998; W. E. Maxwell & Shammas, 2007; San Diego Community College District, 1994). The following literature review and conceptual framework provide the context for the focus group questions, which emerged from the survey findings on the hypothesized relationship between high levels of perceived discrimination on campus and the formation of same-ethnic and same-faith campus friendships.
Literature Review
The educational benefits of diverse peer interaction fuel the argument of many who continually press for campus diversity as an administrative priority (Astin, 1993; Gurin, Gurin, Dey, & Hurtado, 2002; Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, & Landreman, 2002). Antonio (2001a) observed that students who normally engaged in racially homogenized friendship groups benefited significantly from interracial interaction. Antonio (2001b) reasoned that such bonds encouraged students to step out of their “culture zone” of same-race campus friendships and participate in intellectual challenges.
The value placed on diverse peer interaction derives theoretical support from the contact hypothesis. Popularized by Gordon Allport (1954), the contact hypothesis posits that contact between groups—that is racial and ethnic groups—reduces prejudice. The contact hypothesis has received wide acceptance among social research on cross-group or cross-race friendships (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). The competing discourse of group conflict theories looks at the relationship between perceived hostile racial climate and the likelihood of choosing a higher number of same-ethnic and/or same-faith campus friendships (e.g., Levin, Van Laar, & Foote, 2006; Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, & Sinclair, 2004). The problem with the contact theory is that, unlike group conflict theories, it does not entertain predictor variables—that is, perceived threat and structural inequalities, which might prevent or decrease the likelihood of contact between ethnic and religious groups. These theoretical differences provide the rationale for why Arab American and Muslim American students might establish homophilic friendships on campus.
Integrated Threat and Social Dominance Theories
The integrated threat theory posits that cross-ethnic contact might not reduce discrimination if negative conditions (i.e., one ethnic group’s anxiety toward, or ignorance about, another) constrain both from interacting with each other (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). The main tenet of social dominance theory is that hegemony exists particularly to ensure the maintenance of one social group over another in connection with the “realistic competition for scarce material resources,” access to high-level jobs, and entry into high-ranking universities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, p. 181). Stephan and Stephan have also alluded to “symbolic threat,” which is a threat to the worldview of the in-group (dominant), such as group differences in morals, values, norms, standards, beliefs, and attitudes (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998).
Social dominance theorists also tend to associate threat as something that the dominant group inflicts on the subordinate group, which they refer to as “institutional terror.” “Institutional terror” generally has meant the wrongful incarceration and unfair legal sentencing of ethnic minorities, and so forth (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). Sidanius and Pratto’s (1993) concept of institutional terror, however, can also apply to the experience of an even greater number of Arabs and Muslims in the United States—an experience Naber (2006) has described as an “internment of the psyche,” which signifies a state of consciousness whereby one feels in imminent danger of harassment, intimidation, assault, detention, surveillance, or disappearances, even if the event does not happen.
For purposes of this study, integrated threat theory and social dominance theory served as the most relevant theoretical lenses, as both theories, when applied to campus intergroup processes, emphasize potential conflict and tension between ethnic groups that are institutionally rooted in the dominant structures of society. Social dominance theory’s focus on structural discrimination and alienation provides a purposeful rationale for why Arab and Muslim students who perceive discrimination on campus might retreat into ethnic and religious enclaves on campus.
Finally, minority stress theory may also shed light on why Arab and Muslim students tend to cluster in religious and ethnic enclaves on campus. According to Meyer (1995), minorities may experience increased pressures and strains from being singled out and subjected to discrimination and sociocultural prejudice (Holder & Vaux, 1998; Meyer, 1995, 2003).
The Relationship Between Perceived Discrimination and Same-Ethnic Campus Friendships
Very few higher education studies have scrutinized the bidirectional relationship between perceived discrimination and same-ethnic or same-faith campus friendships (Levin et al., 2006; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003). An early study by Loo and Rolison (1986) signaled the importance of “ethnic clustering” (in-group peer interaction) among Black college students in gaining cultural support and a sense of belonging in an otherwise largely unsupportive campus environment. Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Hagedorn (1999) also observed that Black students’ support from same-ethnic significant others seemed to offset the negative effects of discrimination on their adjustment to the college.
Relevant to the target population under study, Asmar (2003) revealed that Muslim “communities on campus” helped shield Muslim students from a discriminatory campus (and even the less benign off-campus environment)—a finding consistent with the literature on the relationship between strong ethnic group identification and the attribution of higher levels of perceived discrimination (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997; Ethier & Deaux, 1994; Klandermans, 1997; Oyserman & Harrison, 1998, Swim et al., 1998).
In general, most higher education studies associate positive interracial campus experiences with openness to interracial interaction (Lee & Davis, 2000; Steward, Jackson, & Jackson, 1990). However, a small but noteworthy body of educational research posits same-ethnic friendships as a manifestation of self-preservation rather than of self-segregation (Alemán & Martinez, 1998; Ethier & Deaux, 1990; Shaw & Coleman, 2000; Tatum, 1999; Villalpano, 2003).
Method
This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed methods design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) in which a quantitative data analysis preceded the qualitative data collection. The qualitative findings served to support and make meaning of the quantitative results. Figure 10 maps out the stages of the mixed methods design that generates two sets of findings, quantitative and qualitative, which together formulate an overall conclusion, that is, a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative inferences, referred to as a meta-inference (see Figure 11, Mixed Methods Conclusions [Area c] of the sequential explanatory model; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
The quantitative portion of the study focuses on the findings from the perceived discrimination measure as elaborated on earlier (refer to Figures 1 to 9). A description of the perceived discrimination scale is provided below. The explanation of the qualitative phase, that is, the focus group recruitment, procedure, and the set of focus group questions, which are framed within the context of the survey findings, follows after.
Construction of the Perceived Discrimination Scale
Perceived discrimination was measured by nine items: four asked direct statements about feeling personally discriminated against by students and faculty because of one’s ethnicity and religion; the fifth and sixth items corresponded to discrimination by the administration because of one’s ethnic group and religious group. The last three items referred to positive statements about the campus climate. The perceived discrimination scale was borrowed from a heavily funded, large-scale community college study conducted by the author’s doctoral advisor. A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation showed that the six discrimination-worded items and three campus climate items loaded on Factors 1 and 2, respectively. Factors 1 and 2 accounted for 47% and 19%, respectively, of the total variance explained (eigenvalues > 1 at 4.21 and 1.69). Cronbach’s alpha reliability statistic fell within an acceptable range (σ = .83).
Focus Group Recruitment
For the qualitative component of this study, the researcher recruited 16 community college students to participate in three focus groups. Using community colleges as the locus of this study provided the researcher access to first-generation and 1.5-generation students, who were more likely to be the most vulnerable targets of post-9/11 discrimination. The two focus groups were four students each from an advanced English as second language (ESL) writing course and Arabic language class at two community colleges in southeastern Michigan. The first group of four students was two first-generation immigrants and two internationals: a female Iraqi Muslim, Ibtisam; a female Bosnian Muslim, Ajna; a female from Japan, Aiko; and a male from Angola, Roland. The second group comprised two female second-generation Arab American Christians, Deborah and Janet; a male Arab American Muslim, Mahmoud; and Elana, a female who was a first-generation Rumanian Christian. The three non-Arab and non-Muslim students were included in the first and second focus groups, because they asked to join the discussion. Two of these three participants offered comments meaningful to the research questions under discussion.
The third focus group was recruited from a contact at a social service organization in Southern California, whose clientele was predominantly Arab American or Muslim American. The eight students in the third group were second-generation Arab American Muslims, four females, Myriam, Rania, Assil, and Rhonda; and four males, Maher, Ali, Sami, and Imad. Ten of the 16 focus group participants had previously taken the survey in general studies courses at their respective community colleges. The focus group lasted between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours. Most of the focus group time was spent probing students’ perceptions of discrimination on their campus, possible reasons for denying or underreporting discrimination on campus, and whether same-ethnic and/or same-faith friendship contributed to feelings of comfort and connection with the college. Four Muslim Student Association (MSA) members, Ahmed, Amira, Mona, and Rami were not able to attend the focus groups but were asked the same set of focus group questions in an interview setting and via the Internet. Comments from these four interviews are included because they lend support to the focus group narratives or offer additional perceptions of the campus climate.
Focus groups allowed the researcher to delve into the responses to the survey questions, and gather further insight about students feeling discrimination on campus, perceptions of the campus climate, and establishing campus friendships of the same ethnicity and/or same faith to foster a sense of belonging within the larger campus community. Thus, rationale for the mixed methods format is as follows: The researcher anticipated that either the perceived discrimination scale did not adequately measure a broad range of racial and religious biases on campus or that the post-9/11 campus climate might have inhibited students from disclosing feelings of discrimination and alienation on campus. As such, the following set of questions guided the focus group sessions. The researcher provided a lead-in to Research Questions 1 through 5 (i.e., informing focus group participants of specific survey results, so that they could use them as a reference point to offer their explanations). It is noteworthy to mention that if the focus group script appears as wanting to elicit a desired answer, it was on the recommendation of colleagues who specialize in mixed methods research that the researcher be forthright in questioning the focus group participants, because of the unexpected survey results that indicated a modest level of perceived discrimination amid a highly charged, post-9/11 climate.
Between 11% and 18% of community college students surveyed responded that they felt discriminated against by other students, faculty, or administration because of either their ethnicity or religion. On the average, students’ comments were favorable about the campus climate.
Research Question 1: Has anyone on campus ever made direct or indirect comments to you relating to your ethnicity or religion that have made you feel uncomfortable?
Research Question 2: Has anyone on campus ever treated you aggressively, through either words or gestures, because of your ethnicity or religion?
Research Question 3: In the classroom or on the campus, have you heard any racist remarks or seen any hateful actions directed toward another student or students who are of your same ancestry or religion?
Close to 30% of students responded that they were “unsure” about the campus climate, particularly as it related to whether the campus administration supports ethnic and religious diversity, or is supportive of student minority organizations.
Research Question 4: Why might students feel reluctant to report that other students, faculty, or administration treated them unfairly, because of their ethnicity or religion?
Research Question 5: Why might students hesitate to criticize if the campus did not encourage open discussion on racial and religious issues facing Arab and Muslim students?
Research Question 6: Do you think having friends of your same ancestry or same religion helps you feel more comfortable and connected to the campus?
The first three research questions were constructed to improve on the nine survey items corresponding to perceived discrimination and the campus climate (refer to Figures 1-9) by sharpening the focus on the verbal and nonverbal behavior of discrimination exhibited by anyone on campus, that is, other students, faculty, and administration. Research Questions 4 and 5 solicited answers for why students might not acknowledge bias against their ethnicity and religion on a survey, or report a discriminatory incident. Research Question 6 revisited and probed the relationship between feelings of alienation and discrimination on campus and the likelihood of choosing students of the same ethnicity and/or same faith.
Ensuring Reflexivity and Credibility
In qualitative research, “the researcher is the instrument” through which data are collected and interpreted (Patton, 2002, p. 12). As Charlotte Davies (1999) has asserted, “Reflexivity means a turning back on oneself, a process of self-reference” (p. 4). As a third-generation Lebanese American, the researcher has spent considerable time in Lebanese and Arab American communities and has volunteered her services to teach English to refugees and immigrants from the Middle East as well as in Latin America and East Asia. She has also been a university lecturer at an urban private university in Los Angeles and the Gaza Strip, where two thirds of the inhabitants are Palestinian refugees. She is involved in advocacy groups that endeavor to combat racial profiling, media stereotyping, and governmental policies that discriminate against Arab American and Muslim Americans. In this regard, she is personally engaged in the daily and educational experiences of Arabs and Muslims in the United States and in the Middle East. Nonetheless, throughout the study, the researcher made a conscious effort to keep a reflective journal in order to account for her own biases, beliefs, perceptions, and experiences.
To ensure the credibility of the research findings, the researcher and a graduate student checked all focus group transcripts by carefully listening to the audio recordings at least twice to help ensure accuracy of transcription (J. A. Maxwell, 2005). Second, because most of the focus group participants had taken the survey, the researcher asked them to review the perceived discrimination items for the purpose of both content and construct validity before they answered related questions in the focus group session. Member checking not only served to validate the interpretation of survey findings but also allowed for gathering new perspectives and critiques in the event that the study is replicated.
After the focus group sessions were completed, the first stage of the process was to formulate themes from the transcripts collected. The researcher and graduate assistant reviewed all responses corresponding to each of the six questions. They reached an agreement on the interpretation of the responses to the first three questions, which contained key phrases that fit the general theme of disrespect for one’s ethnicity or religion by students or faculty and a specific theme of discrimination against Muslim names, Islamic dress, and Islamic practices. Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 elicited responses that conformed to a priori themes, based on previous literature, regarding underreporting discrimination on a survey.
Limitations
This study was limited to community colleges—institutions with a particular set of demographics that make them quite distinct from other entities of higher education. Community colleges are feeder institutions to 4-year colleges and universities and have a disproportionately high number of ethnic minorities and first-generation immigrants. Additionally, community colleges are commuter campuses, unlike 4-year resident universities and colleges. Borglum and Kubala (2000) found that close to 40% of community college students spend between 1 and 4 hours on campus, with two thirds of them having less than a half hour between classes.
As such, community college students might encounter discriminatory acts less frequently than if they attended a 4-year resident university, where their schedules keep them on campus for more extended periods of unscheduled time. A few studies have argued that in community colleges, peer interactions occur at different sites than they do in 4-year colleges (e.g., W. E. Maxwell, 2000a, 2000b; Shammas, 2009; Tinto, 1997)—that is, often taking place in classrooms, study groups, and informal gatherings on campus, where there is higher student clustering rather than in student clubs, organizations, and extracurricular activities.
Second, unlike the survey sample, the focus groups had less representation of Arab Christians and no non-Arab Muslims. Focus group participation was dependent on convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher. Two of the focus groups were conducted in two community colleges in southeastern Michigan in which there is a densely populated Arab community who are predominantly Muslim. The third focus group consisted of student participants who attended community colleges surrounding the greater North Orange County area in Southern California, which is dubbed as “Little Arabia.” The largest number of Arab Americans resides in the state of California (AAI, 2010).
Focus Group Results
The following are the six emergent themes from the three focus group sessions. Table 6 summarizes the six themes along with the name and number of the participants who provided narratives corresponding to each of the six themes. Figure 11 presents the key quantitative and qualitative findings (Areas a and b) and demonstrates how the qualitative portion of the study, focus group narratives supported and explain the survey findings. Moreover, it illustrates how the incorporation of both methodologies (Area c) served to formulate conclusions as to why there was only a moderate level of discrimination surveyed on campus in a post-9/11 era, which as a result did not yield a statistically significant correlation with the high percentage of same ethnic and/or same faith campus friendships, as reported in previous research on college students of color (e.g., Levin et al., 2003; Levin et al., 2006).
|
Table 6. Number of Respondents by Theme (N = 20).
Disrespect for One’s Ethnicity and Religion
In the beginning of the first and third focus group sessions, several students responded indifferently to questions concerning verbal and nonverbal forms of perceived discrimination on campus. Only after a little prodding in the second half of the sessions, students began to offer concrete answers as to why some students might be reluctant to report discrimination on the survey. A few students lacked enthusiasm in talking about discrimination issues, because they have grown accustomed to the media driven vilification of Arabs and Muslims in the United States.
In informal conversations, a few MSA members were quite candid about their experiences of discrimination on campus. One male MSA member, Ahmed, who was in the same MSA as Amira and Mona, recounted how during a club rush week, one student approached him and yelled out, “Your prophet is a molester” (referring to Aisha, who was 9 years old at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Mohammed). Myriam denied that she had personally experienced ethnic or religious discrimination. But, when other participants chimed in during the middle of the session, she recalled that there were incidences of teachers maligning Muslims on her campus. Studies cited later will show that ethnic and religious minorities are more likely to admit discrimination against their group than personal discrimination.
Rami, an MSA member from Michigan, recalled that during Ramadan, a few Muslims broke the fast during a play rehearsal, and the non-Muslim cast members chastised them for taking a dinner break. Again, a recurring theme emerged about disrespect for one’s religion whether the discriminatory comments were expressed openly or in the form of a “racial micro-aggression” (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue et al., 2007).
When Amira was asked whether anyone on campus ever made direct or indirect comments that made her feel uncomfortable with respect to her ethnicity or religion, she replied, “Any comments showed interest in my culture, not offense”; however, she recalled how one student “told her that she was “too prideful of being Egyptian” because she “was wearing an Egyptian patch on her pants,” but that teachers “had been respectful toward her religion.” Amira also alluded to one student who disrespected her nationality, but not necessarily her ethnic or religious group. In contrast to the responses from the Iraqi immigrant student in the first focus group, comments from Amira and Mona, both Egyptian American and MSA members, reflected a positive campus climate toward Arabs and Muslims.
Imad, a Lebanese American male from the third focus group, also remarked that none of his teachers discriminated against his ethnicity or religion. Both Imad and Amira’s statements that teachers had treated respectfully their ethnicity or religion aligns with student survey responses, indicating a relatively lower level of perceived discrimination toward their ethnicity or religion by faculty than by other students.
One possible reason for Amira’s and Mona’s favorable views of the campus climate is that, based on the researcher’s observations, MSA members seemed more empowered than their nonmember Muslim counterparts because they appeared secure in their religion and made a dedicated effort to educate non-Muslims about Islam. For example, MSA members reached out to non-Muslims by inviting them to iftars (Ramadan dinners), sponsoring lectures on Islam, and holding campus talks on global issues in the Middle East and charitable drives. Because many MSA members had been targets of religious profiling, they became more knowledgeable in responding to issues of discrimination on campus (Gagne, 2012; Nasir & Al-Amin, 2006). In this regard, stigmatized groups often resort to esteem protective strategies as a means of neutralizing any potential effects of stereotypic threat (Crocker & Major, 1989; Steele, 1997).
Stereotypic Threat: Muslim Names, Islamic Dress, and Islamic Practices
Many students started to open up about personal discrimination or discrimination against their ethnic and religious groups; a few referred to incidences outside of school. One female Iraqi Muslim spoke about how Muslim names generated suspicion and weird looks when she visited the Social Security Office and the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles. Although she did not wear a hijab, she referred to the experiences of women who wore headscarves (hijab) at the governmental offices. About a third of the all focus group members cited Muslim names and dress as major sources of discrimination.
When I get my license [,] Social Security or ID and they look at my Muslim name, they tell me you have to do this and that. They just looked weird for the attitude, wearing the hijab they go crazy. (Ibtisam, female, Iraqi Muslim, ESL student at a Michigan community college, age: 20+)
Ibtisam expressed fear and apprehension when someone asked her directly—whether or not via questions on a survey—about being mistreated by students, administration, and faculty, because of her ethnicity or religion: “Sometimes when I answer I feel afraid of their reaction, what they might say, some of them think we are bad people, because of the war in my country . . . sometimes I feel uncomfortable.” Roland, a 25-year-old Angolan student, characterized “this threat in the air” (Steele, 1997, p. 614), referring to a negative stereotype of a Black man applying for a job, “When I applied for a job I couldn’t escape this negative feeling.”
Imperviousness and Suppression of Feelings of Discrimination
Based on comments in the focus group sessions, there is evidence of discrimination against Arab and Muslim students on the community college campuses in California and Michigan, whether expressed overtly or covertly by other students. With the exception of Myriam, who mentioned that she had heard about instructors on campus refer to Muslims as the “devil,” two students cited fellow students who discriminated against Islam. Three participants maintained that there was little to no discrimination on their California community campuses, because as Maher averred, “California is an ethnically diverse” state. According to Maher, feelings of discrimination depend on the person: Some people are bothered by racist comments and others appear more stoic, and “have a strong character [so] they don’t really care.”
Evidence also has shown that ethnic minorities might deny or minimize personal and individual discrimination while more readily acknowledging incidences of group discrimination (Allport, 1954; Crosby, 1984; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Taylor, Ruggiero, & Louis, 1996; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). Although focus group members were asked if they witnessed racist remarks or hateful actions directed toward Arab or Muslim students on campus, only three focus group narratives (Myriam, Rami, and Ahmed) contained references to blatant discrimination against their own religious group.
Similar to the moderate levels of perceived discrimination reported by survey respondents, as measured by the average mean score on the perceived discrimination scale, over half of the focus group participants did not cite examples of overt racism on campus against Arab and Muslim students. Yet 6 of the 15 participants make statements that are indicative of suppressing or denying feelings of discrimination. To this point, Ibtisam mentioned a fear of responding to questions about discrimination on a survey. In the following account, Mona suggested that some people might underreport discriminatory acts or incidences because, without concrete evidence or witnesses, they were “making a big deal” out of something: “Discrimination is a very tough conviction, it is often difficult to be persuaded that someone has committed it, without evidence and there usually isn’t evidence besides the victim’s testimony” (Mona, MSA member). Elana, a Rumanian student from the Arabic language class, suggested an alternative explanation—that students might not acknowledge discrimination on a survey because “they feel like writing it on paper has no power, but by telling you (meaning the collective ‘you’), someone with power, it may make a difference.” This remark underscores the benefits of a mixed method approach to this subject: Where some students feel more comfortable expressing their feelings on a survey, others find that the direct communication allowed by the focus group to be more responsive to their concerns.
Not Quite White
Myriam acknowledged that she might not have personally experienced discrimination, because she does not wear the headscarf, but emphasized that she could pass as Hispanic or White, thus melding into the ethnically diverse campus community. “Not a lot of Arabs look Arab. I don’t consider myself looking Arab, I can be mistaken for Spanish or Mexican, I could be mistaken for White, you know what I mean.” Myriam’s comment that others might perceive her as either Hispanic or White echo what Arab American scholars reference as the racially liminal status of Arabs and Arab Americans, not being quite White (Abdulrahim, 2008; Gualtieri, 2004; Shryock, 2008).
Ali, an Arab Muslim male in this focus group, countered Myriam’s claim by affirming, “I look 100% Arab, what do you mean?” He argued that the target of the discrimination goes beyond being Arab to anyone who is Muslim, particularly those who wear conspicuous Islamic symbols. He alluded to the fact that “the American public” often conflates Muslims with Arabs, because they do not realize that Muslims are not all Arab, but represent a broad range of ethnicities.
The Social Cost of Reporting Perceived Discrimination
Mona’s remark that “making a big deal out it” (reporting discrimination) coincided with findings from other studies positing that people are not likely to admit discrimination if they are not sure they have been targeted—for fear of being viewed by others as a complainer or overly sensitive (e.g., Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Swim et al., 1998). The potential for critical responses was exemplified by an anecdote from Mahmoud, an Egyptian Muslim male in the second focus group, which took place at an Arabic language class in Michigan. He maintained that some students who claim discrimination are “making up stories for sympathy,” raising the question about the legitimacy of their complaints.
Forming Ethnoreligious and Regional Enclaves on Campus
Mindful of the idea of strength in numbers, the researcher asked members of the third focus group if they felt uncomfortable with the campus climate, and if they gravitated toward students of their same ancestry or same religion to achieve a sense of connection on campus. Sami responded “same religion,” but when the author asked him if this included “same ancestry,” he also agreed. Because the third focus group was comprised of all Arab Muslims, it was possible that “same ancestry” not only signified “same ethnicity,” such as Arab American, but also reflected the blurring of ethnicity with religion (Eid, 2003).
Rhonda touched on the regional commonality found among people of the Middle East. She “liked to be around Middle Eastern (students), like Armenians, because we are the same besides culture and religion . . . we hold on to our culture.” The importance of having the same regional identity was observed among members of the Desi Club on campus, which identified as Indian Hindu, Indian Muslim, and Pakistani Muslim. Deborah, an Iraqi Chaldean Christian, opined that forming bonds on campus is not as much about sameness of ethnicity or religion as about being human: “We all have different cultures, religions, and interests, but still have the same blood flow.”
Discussion
This study’s survey data revealed that Arab and Muslim students were two to four times more likely to feel discriminated against by other students, faculty, and administration because of their ethnicity or religion, as compared with their non-Arab and non-Muslim counterparts. Their total mean score on perceived discrimination was significantly higher than that of non-Arab and non-Muslim counterparts. Yet students’ mean scores were not appreciably high enough to yield a positive significant relationship between perceived discrimination and choice of same-ethnic and/or same-faith campus friendships, a correlation shown in Levin et al.’s (2003) and Levin et al.’s (2006) works.
Qualitative findings coincided with the quantitative results on students’ perceived discrimination against Arab and Muslim students, but there were clear differences. For example, whereas 30% of the survey respondents agreed that students discriminated against them because of their ethnicity and religion, focus group narratives revealed only religious discrimination by students—the latter of which might be attributed to the predominance of Arab Muslim participants. A topic for further research might be whether Arab Christians endure ethnic discrimination as a person of Arab descent or rather religious discrimination by their Arab Muslim counterparts (Shammas, 2015).
Two focus group participants commented that there was neither ethnic discrimination nor religious discrimination on the campus. Less than 10% of survey respondents reported that the faculty and administration discriminated against their ethnicity or religion. Likewise, among the 15 focus group participants, Myriam was the only one who mentioned that faculty members uttered highly offensive language about Muslims. Additionally, when participants spoke about religious discrimination on campus, they referred to comments that they heard directly or second hand toward Muslims as a group rather than personally.
Focus groups were useful in identifying the sources of discrimination against Arabs and Muslims on campus: Arab/Muslim-sounding names, women wearing the headscarf, observing the fast during Ramadan, and the Prophet Mohammed’s child wife, and eliciting explanations for why Arab and Muslim students might be reluctant to report discrimination against their ethnicity and religion. Myriam’s and Ali’s narratives associated with the theme of “not being quite White,” indicate that Whiteness is not only determined by phenotypic appearance but also by specific religious symbols. On the surface, a student who feels that he blends into a racially diverse campus might ignore the slightest ethnic micro-aggression and respond on a survey or in a focus group that as an Arab, he is not discriminated against on the campus. Students grappling with their Whiteness might account for why there was a relatively high percentage of “not sure responses” to survey questions measuring students’ attitudes concerning racial, ethnic, and religious tensions on campus.
Other testimonies from the focus group sessions illuminated the possibility that the Arab and Muslim community college students are underreporting discrimination on campus. Ibtisam expressed that she would be apprehensive about answering to questions about discrimination, because what people (presumably Americans) might think of her as a first-generation Iraqi immigrant and her connection with the U.S.–Iraqi War. Elana incisively pointed out that students might not report discrimination on a survey, and that the power rests in discussing it directly with someone like the campus administration who exercises the authority to intervene on behalf of the student.
Mona’s statement about “making a big deal out of something” reinforces that persons are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge discrimination because of the social cost involved in signaling a false alarm (Swim et al., 1998). Several studies have demonstrated that minorities who continually label events and actions as discriminatory are viewed by nonminorities as complainers and oversensitive (Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Swim et al., 1998).
Overall, about third of the survey respondents and focus group participants acknowledged discrimination against either students’ ethnicity and/or religion on campus. Notably, most of the students in the focus groups were second-generation Muslim Americans, a population that, according to Rippy and Newman (2006), is more likely to report higher rates of perceived discrimination than immigrant and convert Muslims, because of a renewed sense of group identification with Islam since 9/11. Isolated focus group testimonies suggested that students congregated in same-ethnic and same-faith groups to safeguard against marginalization and forge a connection to the larger campus community. While quantitative and qualitative findings did not strikingly differ from each other, one notable exception was that 6 out of the 15 focus group participants produced rich narratives, corroborating research on why ethnic minorities conceal or underreport incidences of discrimination.
Both the survey and focus group results were carried out from 2006 to 2007—when the dust had settled somewhat from the 9/11 attack on the United States—and new incidents that provoked a revival of anti-Muslim sentiment had not yet occurred. Perhaps if this study were replicated in 2015, the author would find students reporting higher rates of perceived discrimination on campus. Underreporting discrimination also might lie in the sensitivity of the measures that were used on the perceived discrimination scale in the study.
Perceived Discrimination Scale
One focus group member, Janet, recommended that discrimination questions ask about specific types of incidents, perpetrators, severity, and frequency of occurrence. Indeed, when researchers have presented college students, a wide repertoire of racist behavior—on which they are instructed to report the frequency of occurrence over a given time period, respondents displayed moderate to high levels of perceived discrimination (Boughan, 1992; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Ladrine & Klonoff, 1996; Moradi & Hasan, 2004).
The institutional and demographic realities of community colleges might account for the nuanced responses to perceived discrimination. Levin et al.’s (2003) and Levin et al.’s (2006) studies at a selective, 4-year research university found a significant relationship between perceived discrimination and the number of same-ethnic campus friends—indicating that they found a greater variation in students’ level of perceived discrimination on campus. It is noteworthy that this researcher’s and Levin’s surveys contained similarly worded discrimination items. Compared with an elite research university, community colleges are more likely to provide a critical mass that might neutralize the effects of perceived campus discrimination—suggesting that many Arab and Muslim students do not report overt ethnic and religious tensions on the campus as they might at predominantly White 4-year colleges (Arnold, 1995; Hart, Lutkemeier, & Gustafson, 2002; Howard Community College, 1998; Mattice, 1994).
Conclusion
Focus groups often are used to gather information to generate survey items. In this study, however, they served as an exploratory tool to unravel puzzling survey results, which, as Morgan (1997) has cautioned, might be a consequence of the questions that the researcher did not ask the respondents. The mixed method approach succeeded in eliciting a range of focus group responses to explain why Arab and Muslim students might underreport discrimination on campus. The focus group results showed that students expressed open and nuanced displays of religious discrimination on campus more than ethnic discrimination as reported in the survey data. Whereas most college administrations are attuned to covert discrimination against racial groups, they also should be sensitive to religious micro-aggressions that are often directed at Muslim students (Nadal, Griffin, Hamit, Leon, & Tobio, 2012).
Even in the new millennium, few higher education studies have recognized the relevance of religious identity as part of the equation in their analysis of campus climate (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010; Stubbs & Sallee, 2013). Equally important is that among first-generation and second-generation Arab and Muslim students—specifically Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, and non-Arab Muslims—ethnic identity often intersects with religious identity insofar as the latter asserts primacy over individual ethnic identities (e.g., Maila, 2004; Peek, 2005).
U.S. higher education studies also have taken scant interest in the social integration of Arab and Muslim students—even after 9/11. In this study, both survey results and focus group narratives underscored the presence of ethnic and religious discrimination on campus and Arab and Muslim students’ preference for same-ethnic and/or same-faith campus friends. Clearly, these findings undermine the central tenets of Allport’s (1954) contact theory and the premises of multiculturalism, which maintain that contact among racial, ethnic, and religious groups necessarily results in reducing prejudice and potentially fostering diverse peer relations on campus. Alternatively, integrated threat theory and social dominance theory served as more tenable theoretical frameworks for explaining why Arab and Muslim students, a highly stigmatized minority that faces continuing threats of ethnic and religious profiling at the national level, are more likely to forge homophilic friendships on campus. Yet, curiously, only 3 of the 16 focus group participants produced accounts of overt discrimination by students and faculty on campus.
The most compelling of the student narratives were those that revealed specific reasons as to why Arab and Muslim students might underreport (e.g., not sure responses) or deny on a survey if they felt discriminated against by another student, faculty, or the administration. This useful feedback will enable the researcher to recreate survey items that encompass a wide array of discriminatory situations (overt and covert) toward a person or a group as well as the severity and frequency of occurrence of such situations.
While the mixed method approach used in this study might not have amassed stronger evidence of overt forms of discrimination, it is far too easy to dismiss the campus climate as having few interethnic or interfaith conflicts, particularly if a sizable number of students is either hesitant to disclose or masks feelings of discrimination on a survey. The themes emerging from the qualitative phase of the study, for example, the feeling of being White or not quite White, the credibility of a student’s complaint of ethnic or religious discrimination, and apprehension of reporting discrimination on a survey, endeavored to arrive at a conclusion why there was not a higher rate of perceived discrimination reported in the survey results as well as more open discussion of personal and group discrimination among some focus group participants. More important, it seems unfathomable that the retreat of significant numbers of Arab and Muslim students into ethnic and religious enclaves has made them impervious to all forms of discrimination. Arguably, it is the researcher’s moral responsibility to keep restructuring the methodology to chisel away the barriers of silence, reticence, and defensiveness so that the suppressed voices of Arab and Muslim students as well as those of all minorities may be heard.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
Abdulrahim, S. (2008). “Whiteness” and the Arab immigrant experience. In Jamal, A., Naber, N. (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/22: From invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 46-80). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165-173. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Alemán, A., Martinez, M. (1998, November). Intentional communities: Do they foster integration or separation? Paper presented at the Ashe Symposium, Miami, FL. Google Scholar | |
|
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Perseus Books. Google Scholar | |
|
American Community Survey . (2010). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/american_community_survey_and_2010_census/ Google Scholar | |
|
Antonio, A. L. (2001a). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. Review of Higher Education, 25, 63-89. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Antonio, A. L. (2001b). The role of inter-racial interaction in the development of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42, 593-616. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Appleton, M. (2005a). The political attitudes of Muslims studying at British universities in post-9/11 World (Part I). Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 25, 171-191. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Appleton, M. (2005b). The political attitudes of Muslims studying at British universities in post-9/11 World (Part II). Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 25, 299-316. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Apuzzo, M., Goldstein, J. (2014, April 15). New York drops unit that spied on Muslims. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/police-unit-that-spied-on-muslims-is-disbanded.html Google Scholar | |
|
Arab American Institute . (2007). Survey, 2007. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Arab American Institute . (2010). Survey, 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Arab American Institute . (2014). Survey, 2014. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Arnold, C. L. (1995). Chabot College campus climate survey results: Fall 1994 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED402982). Hayward, CA: Chabot College Office of Institutional Research. Google Scholar | |
|
Asmar, C. (2003). A community on campus. In Saeed, A., Akbarzadeh, S. (Eds.), Muslim communities in Australia (pp. 139-160). Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of New South Wales Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Berrett, D. (2013, April 20). After Boston bombing: Fears of backlash against Muslim students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/After-Boston-Bombing-Fears-of/138713/ Google Scholar | |
|
Borglum, K., Kubala, T. (2000). Academic and social integration of community college students: A case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 567-576. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Boughan, K. (1992). Student perceptions of the racial climate at Prince George’s Community College, Spring 1992: A preliminary report (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346925). Largo, MD: Prince George’s Community College, Office of Institutional Research. Google Scholar | |
|
Branscombe, N., Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination: Individualistic versus group level-strategies. In Swim, J. K., Stangor, C. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 243-266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Brown, R., Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E., Hagedorn, L. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between White students and Black students. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 134-160. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Cole, D., Ahmadi, S. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women who veil on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 47-66. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cole, D., Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim students’ experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 81, 121-139. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Crocker, J., Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371-386. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate. Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67-81. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Davies, C. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching self and others. London, England: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Eid, P. (2003). The interplay between ethnicity, religion, and gender among second generation Christian and Muslim Arabs in Montreal. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, 35(2), 30-60. Google Scholar | |
|
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ethier, K., Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in Ivy: Assessing identity and perceived threat. Sex Roles, 22, 427-440. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ethier, K., Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243-251. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Feagin, J. R., Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Gagne, Y. (2012, February 18). NYPD monitored Columbia’s Muslim Students Association. Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved from http://columbiaspectator.com/2012/02/18/ap-nypd-monitored-columbias-muslim-students-association Google Scholar | |
|
Gray, L. (2013, April 26). Muslim bashing in the wake of Boston bombing. National Geographic Daily News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130426-boston-marathon-bombing-racism-hate-anti-arab-muslim-tamerlan-dzokhar-tsarnaev/ Google Scholar | |
|
Gualtieri, S. (2004). Strange fruit? Syrian immigrants, extralegal violence, and racial formation in the Jim Crow South. Arab Studies Quarterly, 26, 63-85. Google Scholar | |
|
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hart, K., Lutkemeier, J., Gustafson, C. (2002). Analysis of Shasta College student survey results, Fall 2002. Redding, CA: Shasta College Planning and Research Office. Google Scholar | |
|
Holder, J. C., Vaux, A. (1998). African American professionals: Coping with occupational stress in predominantly White work environments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 315-333. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Howard Community College . (1998). Student satisfaction: The 1998 YESS survey results (Report 101). Columbia, MD: Howard Community College. Google Scholar | |
|
Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., Landreman, L. (2002). Students’ precollege preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher Education, 43, 163-186. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Kaiser, C. R., Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1357-1367. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Google Scholar | |
|
Ladrine, H., Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144-168. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Lee, R. M., Davis, C.. (2000). Cultural orientation, past multi-cultural experience, and a sense of belonging on campus for Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 110-115. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Levin, S., Van Laar, C., Foote, W. (2006). Ethnic segregation and perceived discrimination in college: Mutual influences and effects on social and academic life. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1471-1501. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Levin, S., Van Laar, C., Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of in-group and out-group friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 76-82. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Loo, C. M., Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominantly White university. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 58-77. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Maila, J. (2004). The Arab Christians: From the Eastern question to the recent political situation of the minorities. In Pacini, A. (Ed.), Christian communities in the Arab Middle East (pp. 25-47). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Mattice, N. J. (1994). Campus climate survey (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374854). Santa Clarita, CA: College of the Canyons. Google Scholar | |
|
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Maxwell, W. E. (2000a). Ethnicity, friendship patterns, and student social integration (Extended Opportunity Programs and Services). Norwalk, CA: Cerritos College. Google Scholar | |
|
Maxwell, W. E. (2000b). Student peer relations at a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 207-217. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Maxwell, W. E., Shammas, D. (2007). Research on race and ethnic relations among community college students. Community College Review, 34, 344-361. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38-56. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Moradi, B., Hasan, N. (2004). Arab American persons’ reported experiences of discrimination and mental health: The mediating role of personal control. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 418-428. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Muslims in the American Public Square . (2004). Retrieved from http://www.projectmaps.com/AMP2004report.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Naber, N. (2006). The rules of forced engagement. Cultural Dynamics, 18, 235-268. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Nadal, K., Griffin, K., Hamit, S., Leon, J., Tobio, M. (2012). Subtle and overt forms of Islamophobia: Micro-aggressions towards Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 6(2), 15-37. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Nasir, S., Al-Amin, J. (2006). Creating identity-safe spaces on college campuses for Muslim students. Change, 38, 22-27. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Oyserman, D., Harrison, K. (1998). Implications of cultural context: African American identity and possible selves. In Swim, J. K., Stangor, C. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 281-300). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology of Religion, 66, 215-242. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Pew Research Center . (2011). A portrait of Muslim Americans. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/a-portrait-of-muslim-americans/ Google Scholar | |
|
Rippy, A. E., Newman, E. (2006). Perceived religious discrimination and its relationship to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 1(1), 5-20. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Ruggiero, K. M., Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 373-389. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
San Diego Community College District . (1994). Campus climate student survey, Spring 1994. San Diego, CA: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Shammas, D. (2009). Ethno-religious enclaves and perceived discrimination. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 283-308. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Shammas, D. (2015). We are not all the same: Arab and Muslim students forging their own campus communities in a post-9/11 America. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 35, 65-88. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Shaw, K. M., Coleman, A. B. (2000). Humble on Sundays: Family, friends, and faculty in the upward mobility experiences of African American Females. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31, 449-470. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Shryock, A. (2008). The moral analogies of race: Arab American identity, color politics, and the limits of racialized citizenship. In Jamal, A., Naber, N. (Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11, from invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp. 81-113). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In Sniderman, P. M., Tetlock, P. E. (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173-211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves on the college campus: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 96-110. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial micro-aggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73. Google Scholar | |
|
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 225-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice towards immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559-657. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Steward, R. J., Jackson, M. R., Jackson, J. D. (1990). Alienation and interactional styles in a predominantly White environment: A study of successful Black students. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 509-515. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Stubbs, B., Sallee, M. (2013). Muslims too: Navigating multiple identities at an American university. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 451-467. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., Esquilin, M. E. (2007). Racial micro-aggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In Swim, J. K., Stangor, C. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 38-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar | |
|
Taylor, D. M., Ruggiero, K. M., Louis, W. R. (1996). Personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Towards a two-factor explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 193-202. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S., Moghaddam, F. M., Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254-262. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of undergraduate population. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 37-91. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Villalpano, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latino/a critical theory analysis of a study of Chicano/a college students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 619-646. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Ropp, S. R. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
