Vertical Transfer for Black and Latinx Community College Students: The Prevalence and Perpetuation of Color-Evasive Racism within Advising and Counseling Departments

Abstract

While over 80% of community college students want to earn a bachelor’s degree, less than one-third do so. From an equity perspective, not only do Black and Latinx students enroll in community college at higher rates than white and Asian peers, but they transfer to four-year institutions at lower rates. I investigated whether color-evasiveness was present within two community colleges, looking specifically at advisors and counselors, as it relates to Black and Latinx student transfer. Areas of inquiry included the kinds of messages advisors and counselors receive about Black and Latinx students, whether and how these messages perpetuate color-evasiveness, how advisors and counselors understand the barriers that Black and Latinx students face regarding vertical transfer, and how advisors’ and counselors’ feelings or beliefs about these barriers shape their practice when working with Black and Latinx students. I employed a multiple case study approach and collected data from two community colleges within one midwestern state. I selected these sites given that they were associate’s degree institutions focused on transfer, that they had a large minoritized student population relative to other two-year institutions in the state, and that one (ACC) had a low rate of transfer (bottom quartile) and one (BCC) had a high rate of transfer (top quartile) relative to other institutions in the state. I collected web pages, institutional documents, and conducted one-on-one and focus group interviews. At site ACC, I found that some student messaging did not specifically mention Black and Latinx students. When these students were implicated in some messaging, advisors and counselors were not made aware of the needs of Black and Latinx students regarding transfer or fully informed of Black and Latinx student transfer initiatives. Whiteness was perpetuated within ACC due to structures allowing certain advisors and counselors to avoid engagement with Black and Latinx students’ race and ethnicity in their work. Advisors and counselors cited economic and systemic reasons for Black and Latinx students’ transfer disparities, with economic reasons promoting both abstract liberalism and the minimization of racism within ACC. Finally, most advisors at site ACC cited color-evasive practices when working with Black and Latinx student populations. At site BCC, Black and Latinx students were implicated in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice messaging and messaging regarding frequently asked questions for four-year transfer representatives. However, one counselor also mentioned that Black and Latinx students were not the focus of BCC given that resources have been taken away. Advisors and counselors cited systemic racism, economic reasons, and cultural reasons for Black and Latinx students’ lower transfer rates, with cultural reasons aligning with the color-evasive concept of cultural racism. Finally, and promising, several BCC counselors engaged with students’ racial and ethnic identities as seen with their attention to Black and Latinx students’ sense of belonging and language barriers when providing transfer services, yet some still claim to treat all students the same. The findings have implications for higher education research and practice. Implications for administrators include anti-deficit DEI/J initiatives within their institution and the provision of institutional resources for Black and Latinx students. Implications for advisors include intentional self-reflection on color-evasive ideologies and practices when facilitating transfer