Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ChiefDiversityOfficer
ArianaChini,AmandaGadian,LaurenVanFossen
SeattleUniversity
SDAD5760:LeadershipandGovernance
ThaiHuyNguyen,Ph.D.
June6th,2016
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 2
Introduction
campuses across the nation, constituents are demanding the executive administrators of
institutions to make change. In response to the racial climate and tensions on four-year college
campuses, many universities have been considering the creation and implementation of Chief
Diversity Officer (CDO) positions at their institutions. Although vice presidents, provosts, and
administrators of diversity and inclusion, under a variety of different names and titles, have been
established at some institutions for quite some time (Gose, 2006), the new and emerging Chief
Diversity Officer positions are interacting with a constantly changing, more diverse student
population (Harvey, 2014; Wilson, 2013). The Chief Diversity Officer can be a valuable and
influential position to create in order to address issues of diversity and racial climate on college
campuses; however, the position must be intentionally designed within the organizational
structure and institutional context to have the power, resources, and collaboration to inspire and
make change.
response to the racial climate is most ideal. With a critical lens concerning the leadership and
governance of higher education, however, the implications and intentions of the role can be
called into question. The problem with the Chief Diversity Officer appointment concerns
whether or not the implementation of a CDO responds well to issues of racial climate and
tensions, and if the role is thoughtfully and deliberately designed to allow a CDO to address such
issues on their respective campus. Without the deliberate design of the CDO role and
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 3
responsibilities, or analysis of the governance structure, needs, and mission of the institution, the
Chief Diversity Officer might ultimately become a figurehead, incapable of influencing change
and simply a way for the institution to appear like it is responding to the needs of the campus.
Exploring the Chief Diversity Officer role is very significant, as it becomes a new
position in the governance of higher education and at institutions. As these roles are created,
there is a question of legitimacy to the role regarding both the legitimate use of funds and
resources to support the Chief Diversity Officer and whether the role is intended to actually
produce change and inundate diversity into the institution's operations and climate. Furthermore,
as the recent emergence of the CDO is in response to the racial unrest on college campuses, it is
important to understand the position so that we can further examine whether the CDO responds
or readjusting the CDO position, the potential significance to the position for the campus should
be recognized. The Chief Diversity Officer can have the ability and focus to ensure that the
institution is responding appropriately to the racial climate, engaging with the campus
community, and educating the community on diversity. Through communication and presence,
ideally the Chief Diversity Officer could influence campus climate through actions, messages,
and rituals that embrace diversity, such as the recruitment of underrepresented students faculty,
and staff, and finance diversity programs and strategies. The significance and potential of this
role on college campuses and in higher education warrants discussion and analysis.
To narrow the exploration of the emerging Chief Diversity Officer role in higher
education, this paper considers the following questions: 1) What roles and responsibilities should
CDOs serve? 2) What factors increase the effectiveness of CDOs? 3) How should the CDO be
positioned within the organization's governance structure? The purpose of this exploration is to
analyze existing literature on Chief Diversity Officers in higher education and provide
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 4
recommendations for senior administrators and presidents to implement a similar role with
position and define diversity for this context. A history and background of the emergence of
Chief Diversity Officers is given. Next, we argue through an analysis of the current literature that
administrators must be aware of the institutional context, both the campus climate and the
challenges and barriers of Chief Diversity Officers that inhibit the effectiveness of their work
will be discussed, and then we argue the specific roles and standards that Chief Diversity
Officers should adhere to so that they can effectively respond to the needs of the institution. This
literature analysis provides support for our recommendations regarding the intentional
analysis to the implications of the Chief Diversity Officer position for student affairs practice.
Diversity
Before continuing to the review of literature, it is worth noting how diversity is being
used in this context. In the simplest terms, diversity can refer to ethnic and racial identities. One
might argue that diversity embodies much more than that, which is completely true. Diversity
embodies gender variance, sexual orientation, religious and spiritual identity, differently abled
bodies, mental health, nationality, and much more (Cuyjet, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2011).
Diversity can be seen as identities that are different from the prescribed norm. For instance, in an
institution that is predominantly white, ethnic and racial differences constitute diversity. If a
cisgender (indicating that someone identifies with the gender that they were assigned at birth) is
the perceived norm, people who have different sexual orientations and/or are transgender
constitute diversity. If traditional-aged college students are the norm (18-22 years old) on a
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 5
college campus, non-traditional aged students constitute diversity. Some might include that
diversity also embodies peoples experiences, not just identities that people cannot
choose (Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, & Shuford, 1998). These arguments are completely
demographic makeup, climate, and so forth. To complicate interpretations even further, every
staff member, faculty, and student affairs administrators and practitioners have their own
definitions and preconceived notions of diversity, which are shaped by their cultural narrative.
One more diversity point to note: in alignment with Harpers (2008) work, this paper will
use the term minoritized identities rather than minority identities. This is to acknowledge
that the U.S. society will perceive some identities to be minorities, such as people of color or
women. However, those identities form half or more of the population. Therefore,
society minoritizes those identities; they are not innately minorities (Harper, 2008). An action is
being done. Similarly, this paper will also interchangeably use the term marginalized identities
for a similar reason: a societal action is being done to keep certain identities on the periphery.
Background
The Chief Diversity Officer is a relatively new and rapidly growing executive leadership
position in higher education administration; literature documenting the positions growth are
few and far between (Williams, 2013; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). A common grappling of
their rise seems to be this: Are universities making a serious new commitment to diversifying
the faculty, curriculum, and student body, or are these high profile appointments a way for
university presidents to appease [minoritized] students and professors who have been clamoring
for a stronger voice on campuses? (Gose, 2006). Gose (2006) argues that it appears to be both.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 6
When interrogating the history of the CDO, the first question might be, where did the
idea for the position stem from? Many college and university diversity experts believe that
universities are following the lead of the corporate world, where the Chief Diversity Officer
position has been a comprehensive part of the organizational structure since the 1990s (Gose,
2006). In the context of higher education, they came about in response to a variety of reasons:
changes in student populations with the help of college access and equity initiatives, racial
Worthington, Stanley, & Lewis (2014), their rise might be associated with the following trends:
1) diversified students, staff, and faculty in higher education (Turner, Gonzales, & Wood, 2008),
2) assessment and dedication to the improvement of campus climate (Hart & Fellabaum), 3)
2004), 4) development of intergroup dialogues (Gurin, Nadga, & Zuniga, 2013), and 5) campus-
wide diversity plans integrated into institutional strategic planning (Harvey, 2014).
Now, Chief Diversity Officers are becoming better known in the world of leadership and
governance in higher education, and yet despite their newness and discrepancies, it becomes
clear that their positions are still in the early formative years. Eyes are cast on them to see what is
to become of their roles and what may come as a result of their implementation.
Analysis of the Literature
increasing racial tensions and diversity issues, it is essential to understand institutional context as
a factor that would influence the effectiveness of the role. The institutional context, both climate
and organizational structure, must be analyzed in order to create and implement a vision for the
Chief Diversity Officer position. Institutional rank, organizational structure, and campus climate
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 7
are factors that have been discussed throughout the literature and can influence the institutional
high institutional rank increases the interactions of other executive-level positions, which allow
for a higher probability of collaborations across campus (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). The
positional capital that comes with a high institutional rank and title includes social capital with
other administrators and financial capital, such as institution and community resources and
funding (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). Leon (2014) argues that a high institutional rank
allows the Chief Diversity Officer to align the diversity goals of the institution, especially in a
more decentralized institution. Furthermore, intentionally placing the Chief Diversity Officer
with high positional authority symbolizes the seriousness and legitimacy of addressing and
can accomplish, the organizational and reporting structure of the Chief Diversity Officer is a
factor affecting the position. Williams & Wade-Golden (2007) explored the different types of
models that currently exist at institutions through interviews and site visits. Limited resources
and staff characterize a Collaborative Officer model, and the individual may rely on charismatic
leadership and negotiating financial resources (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). On the other
hand, a Chief Diversity Officer in a Unit-Based model has a central administrative staff
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). The Portfolio Divisional model includes the characteristics of
the other models, and is distinguished by several direct reporting structures (Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2007). In a comparative study of CDO models, Leon (2014) found that Unit-Based and
Portfolio Divisional models were accomplishing more strategies than the Collaborative Officer
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 8
model. Employing a particular model may depend on financial resources, the needs of the
Chief Diversity Officer. In studies analyzing the emergence of Chief Diversity Officers in higher
education, the need to address issues surrounding diversity at their respective institutions was
recognized from the results of a campus climate survey (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012;
Wilson, 2013). Understanding the context of the institution and of the campus climate
the current needs of the students, staff, and faculty climate at the beginning stages of CDO
implementation, in creating standards for Chief Diversity Officers, Worthington and Stanley
(2014) argue that the needs of an institution and, consequently the role of the Chief Diversity
Officer, are always changing. Furthermore, what works for a CDO at one institution may not
work at another institution (Stanley, 2014). Therefore, an understanding and awareness of the
institutions changing climate influences the design and creation of a Chief Diversity Officer.
Institutional rank, organizational structure, and a changing campus climate are all factors that
from being effective leaders of diversity-related efforts. Identifying and understanding these
challenges is critical to the development and implementation of a CDO position, as doing so can
help to inform what institutions should do to try to remove or limit barriers that may hinder a
CDO's success. Across existing literature, commonly identified challenges include establishing
legitimacy, working with limited resources, and effectively balancing and prioritizing needs as
symbolic legitimacy. Without the institutional capital that typically comes with rank, CDOs then
invited to sit, but not necessarily actively participate, at the table with other institutional leaders.
In other words, they are offered a place amongst campus leaders, but are not given the power or
opportunity to effectively engage in decision-making. Often, there are those in the institution that
deem the CDO role as unnecessary. In some cases, this may be due to the observation that, in
context, they have little power and resources to instigate change anyway; in other cases, it may
be due to a "belief that we are in a post-racial America" (Anonymous, 2010, p. 5). A lack of
legitimacy can also leave CDOs open to the risk of becoming an institution's scapegoat with the
title of responsibility, but no ability or support to take action with (Harvey, 2014).
Resources such as appropriate funding, staff, and opportunity to collaborate and
coordinate across campus would be helpful for CDOs in establishing legitimacy, but
unfortunately, a lack of such resources also falls under common challenges that CDOs face. Even
amongst CDOs that have an executive-level rank, there are few that "possess the staff and
support necessary to meet the demands of diversity work" (Leon, 2014, p. 83). These resources,
especially staff and opportunities to connect campus wide, are significant, as collaboration with
individuals and groups is vital to the CDO role (Leon, 2014). An institution that is seeking to do
more than just appease those who have been advocating for a Chief Diversity Officer will need
to find ways of offering a title and resources, as Gose (2006) suggests in his analysis of CDO
Michael J. Tate's role at Washington State University. Providing less than adequate resources
hurts both the CDO's legitimacy and implies that the institution is not ready to commit to
Another on-going challenge that CDOs endure is that of balancing and prioritizing tasks
and responsibilities as identified by the institution and members of the institutional community.
Aforementioned factors such as institutional rank, structure, and resources can limit what CDOs
are able to do to respond to diversity and equity related issues. In an interview (Anonymous,
2010, p. 5), Vice President of Inclusion and Equity at Grand Valley State University, Dr. Jeanne
J. Arnold, reports that one of the most frustrating parts of her role as a CDO is "not being able to
directly address individual situations of racism," as the structure is such that taking certain
actions requires permission and acting outside of given parameters can often put individuals at
greater risk. In addition, it can be difficult to prioritize tasks when the expectations or priorities
of individuals and the institution do not align. However, as difficult as finding a best fit balance
may be, remaining open to widely varying criticism and voices across campus can also help
demonstrate that efforts towards diversity and inclusion are for everyone (Gose, 2006).
Existing literature continues to grapple with and explore what, exactly, CDOs are doing
at their institutions. William and Wade-Golden (2013) share that generally, the CDO provides
institutional diversity efforts. The scope of their administrative leadership varies by institution
depending on the administrative authority that the institution gives the CDO, the level of fiscal
resources, and their qualifications. The work that they do and the support they provide
encompasses a wide range of identities (e.g. race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, income level, documentation status, religious and spiritual identity), focal groups (e.g.
students, staff, and faculty), and core areas applicable across focal groups and social identities
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 11
(e.g. recruitment and retention, campus climate, curriculum and instruction) (Worthington,
changing (Worthington, et al. 2014). Worthington (2014) provides standards by the National
change, which CDOs must take into consideration while in their roles. The standards include
keeping the institutions diversity mission in mind, having a broad and inclusive definition of
enhance the diversity mission, having knowledge of current events related to issues of social
justice and equity, and having an understanding of how to apply campus climate research results
in the development and advancement of a positive and inclusive campus climate (Worthington, et
al. 2014).
A main aspect of their role is that CDOs are instruments of change (Wilson, 2013).
Persons in their role tend to be agents of change by being skilled at framing issues, building
coalitions, and establishing a climate where group members can seek a common solution
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). However, creating change in support of students, staff, and faculty who
hold marginalized and minoritized identities isas Williams (2008) articulated itquite hard.
Institutional stakeholders might be resistant to change as the power structure they were
accustomed to is now getting threatened: there might be a sense of fear that someone with power,
such as the CDO, is recognizing systems that benefit those with power and privilege, and wants
to make it equitable for those who the systems are not built for (Wilson, 2013). Regardless of
these harsh realities, being an agent of change is still an aspect of the CDOs role, and they must
Through being instruments of change, the literature indicates another main role that
CDOs embody: creating a campus climate that is receptive to diversity. As Williams and Wade-
Golden (2007) explain, CDOs are not hired to maintain the status quo but to improve the campus
climate, diversify the campus community, and enhance the diversity capabilities of the institution
through their leadership, projects, initiatives, relationships, and presence. CDOs, however,
cannot be expected to do this on their own. They are looking for collaboration opportunities
within the institutional community and the outside community as well (Wilson, 2013). For
instance, they can seek collaboration through admissions, or academic outlets to ensure
curriculum includes more than just a Eurocentric narrative (Harvey, 2014). They can seek
collaboration with student development divisions for a plethora of issues, such as ensuring
diversity assessment practices are current and accurate, or that sexual health and assault/violence
Recommendations
Institutional Needs
values, and roles. Literature suggests that for a CDO to be successful at an institution, the
institution must uphold a deeply introspective assessment of campus climate and need (Wilson,
2013). A vast number of institutions hired a Chief Diversity Officer by recommendation of the
president after the need was seen through the results of a campus climate assessment (Wilson,
2013).
Through campus climate assessments, a common find that would lead to the hiring of a
Chief Diversity Officer is that the campus community recognizes the importance of diversity
(Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012). There is the implication that increased diversity numbers
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 13
enhances the academic learning environment for students; however, the tension remains on
which students this actually benefits: students of color or white students with the desire to be
global citizensor perhaps both (Duderstadt, 2000; Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012). This
After the likely first step to the hiring of a CDO, which is assessing the institutions
campus climate and recognizing the need for diversity efforts in the plethora of ways that it may
look like, a recommended next step would be to determine what the CDOs position would look
like. As stated before, no two CDO positions are identical because they are unique to their
institutions climate, culture, and needs (Wilson, 2013). And if not, it is highly recommended that
they should be. If a CDO position is created rashly and reactionary to, for example, a single
instance of cultural incompetency on a college campus as a quick fix to a much larger and
systematic issue, the position will likely have harsh growing pains as it adjusts to a campus that
A final point administrators should keep in mind when going through these steps is that
Pope, Reynolds, and Muellers (2004) multicultural competence model should be used as an
approach. Pope and others (2004) model of multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills can
and should be used in all aspects of higher education, but it is particularly relevant to the creation
and search of the CDO position. Administrators who are trying to formulate a CDO position
should consider 1) their multicultural awareness, a basic understanding of their students, staff,
and facultys identities; 2) their multicultural knowledge, knowing enough about diverse cultures
to effectively use or critique the appropriateness of the CDO position, and 3) their multicultural
skills, their ability to critique the CDO position and effectively utilize it to benefit their diverse
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 14
campus community (Pope et al., 2004). Once a CDO is hired, they should also be critically aware
the institution's commitment to integrating multicultural competency into the institution and
addressing issues across campus. It also shows legitimacy and that the vision and purpose of the
Chief Diversity Officer are supported by the president and from the top down. This symbolic
impact is incredibly important for the campus community, especially if the creation of the Chief
response to the results of a campus climate survey, both of which have been contributing to the
emergence of the Chief Diversity Officer (Arnold & Kowalski-Braun, 2012; Wilson, 2013).
Furthermore, it is recommended that the title and position encompass inclusion and equity so that
the work and vision of the Chief Diversity Officer focuses on inclusion of all identities and
However, the symbolic title without the power and resources to be able to bring about
change is worthless. Placement in a formal administrative team or cabinet with the provost or the
president can provide access for the Chief Diversity Officer to focus discussions on the campus'
issues or what decisions mean for the diverse community (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007).
the work and power of the Chief Diversity Officer, because the power of the Chief Diversity
Officer lies with the collaboration connections and symbolic status (Williams & Wade-Golden,
support for the work of the Chief Diversity Officer. A single person cannot be solely responsible
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 15
for focusing on issues related to diversity, but rather it takes multiple people from the top down
to integrate the centralization of diversity to all aspects of the institution (Arnold & Kowalski-
Braun, 2012). Not only does a high rank provide symbolic status and legitimacy for the campus
community, but a high rank and title with social capital and access to other executive-level
In addition to a high rank title, and access and position with other executive-level
administrators, it is recommended that the Chief Diversity Officer have an administrative team of
their own. Leon (2014) found that CDO governance models with support staff, such as the Unit-
Based model and Portfolio Divisional model, allows the Chief Diversity Officer to have a
broader range of responsibilities and to take the time to make and build the connections and
relationships required to be an effective CDO. Reporting structures and support staff depends on
the resources that are allocated for the CDO and towards the success of the CDO. Support staff
and reporting aligned with the institution's existing organizational structure is recommended,
therefore, institutions that are creating a CDO must consider the resource allocation necessary to
support an effective CDO. The Chief Diversity Officer must have a high institutional rank and a
robust supportive structure to use symbolic status and collaboration for a broad spectrum of
diversity initiatives.
Finally, based on the limited amount of existing literature on the position of CDOs in
higher education, it is clear that further empirical research is needed to gain a better
increasingly diverse student populations (Wilson, 2013). Since there is no precedence for the
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 16
CDO role in higher education (Wilson, 2013), empirical research can provide evidence to help
inform decisions related to the aforementioned institutional needs, as well as the organizational
placement, leadership responsibilities, and assessment of CDOs all of which we have identified
as relevant and significant to a CDO's success. Further research can also contribute to
legitimizing the Chief Diversity Officer role in the realm of higher education, as there are likely
still "people who might think [this] job is irrelevant" (Anonymous, 2010, p. 5). More research
and contributions to literature will demonstrate an identified need for attention to how CDOs can
effectively function in institutions of higher education, and may also encourage hesitant higher
education leaders to give the Chief Diversity Officer role more consideration on their respective
campuses.
In addition, it is important that research take place at both the national and institutional
levels. Nationwide research can be used to identify overarching patterns and trends, and could
potentially offer a wide range of promising practices that institutions can consider for
implementation on their own campuses. As diversity issues and racial tensions exist nationwide
and are related to identities which society not just the community of higher education has
minoritized, nationwide research can help to offer a more well-rounded perspective of needs and
institutions to determine how to adapt existing models and practices, or develop new models and
practices that will best respond to their context and needs. As previously mentioned, there is no
model or practice that will suit CDOs at all institutions; however, further research can help to
inform institutional leaders on what is working and what factors impact or support a given model
or practice. In turn, this can help institutions better understand what they need to consider and
assess as they begin to set a precedent for Chief Diversity Officers on their own campuses.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 17
(Espinosa, Chessman, & Wayt, 2016), a majority of college presidents at both private and public
institutions reported that when seeking assistance in addressing racial diversity issues on campus,
they would be most likely to rely on a vice president of student affairs or dean of students,
and/or a chief diversity officer or other full-time designated person. This indicates that in matters
of diversity and inclusion of marginalized and minoritized identities on campus, student affairs
professionals can and should expect to assist institutional leadership in assessing diversity-
For institutions that do not yet have a Chief Diversity Officer, assessing the need for a
CDO and creating space for the implementation of one may be an appropriate, even sought after,
response. In order to do so in a way that actually addresses the diversity-related needs of the
navigating through the necessary considerations. Student affairs practitioners should not
underestimate the significance of any existing data on the campus climate and should
additionally be prepared to collect further data as needed. Such evidence is needed to determine
where the CDO needs to focus and how progress can later be measured (Stevensen, 2014). As
frequently emphasized throughout this paper, consideration for the CDO's place in the
organizational structure, as well as the power and resources designated for the role, is also key.
This may, for example, include considering Williams and Wade Golden's (2007) proposed
Collaborative Officer, Unit-Based, or Portfolio Divisional models and assessing which model or
which elements of models fit the institutional context best; it might also include developing a
new model in finding that no existing model quite suits the campus. Practitioners must be
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 18
prepared to help ensure that this consideration is prioritized and that the CDO role is designed
with intentionality, vision, and the ability to implement and enforce diversity efforts (Wilson,
2013). Without proper preparation for a CDO, the person hired to be the Chief Diversity Officer
will enter their role with several barriers before they can even begin to tend to diversity and
inclusion at the institution. Once in place, student affairs practitioners will still likely need to
serve as resources and supporters of the Chief Diversity Officer, as the CDO settles into and
Student affairs practitioners may also find themselves in a position to serve as a Chief
Diversity Officer. In fulfilling this role, practitioners will need to be consciously aware of the
institutional context and needs, as well as of existing literature, research, and practices and how
to interpret and adapt them to best serve the institution's students. Complementary to student
affairs practitioners that support CDOs as resources and allies, the CDO must also make efforts
to collaborate across campus with various functional areas. As Wilson (2013) suggests, a CDO
must be a knowledgeable, strong, and effective leader that can encourage the campus community
to take action institution-wide in implementing and maintaining diversity and inclusion efforts.
Given that student affairs practitioners are typically in roles which demonstrate knowledge and
multicultural competence (Pope et al., 2004) related to a CDO role, it is certainly probable that
some could be asked, invited, or otherwise best prepared to serve as a Chief Diversity Officer on
their respective campus. Understanding factors which have been identified as significant to a
CDO's success can only help to support practitioners in this innovative position, which
Whether practitioners are helping their campuses advocate or prepare for a Chief
Diversity Officer, or are preparing to serve in a CDO role themselves, implications suggest that
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 19
student affairs practitioners are perhaps the best suited to guide and support collaborative efforts
Conclusion
It will take more research, assessment, and time to determine whether or not a Chief
Diversity Officer role is an effective way for institutions of higher education to respond to
racially charged tensions and needs for improved diversity efforts on campus. In the meantime, it
does seem that existing literature agrees on some of the factors which can help or hinder the
efforts and efficiency of a CDO. Organizational placement is a factor which influences the
legitimacy, authority, and abilities with which the CDO has to work with. Ideal placement will
enable the CDO to collaborate campus-wide, easily communicate with and work alongside other
campus leaders, and implement and enforce diversity initiatives. CDOs also require adequate
resources, such as funding, staff, and the support of constituents across the community, that will
help bolster the legitimacy of and continue to acknowledge the need for a Chief Diversity Officer
to lead the institution in its diversity and inclusion efforts. Providing a CDO with resources and
staff shows that an institution is serious about improving their cultural climate and also helps to
alleviate some of the common challenges faced by CDOs. Implications are arguably most
pertinent to student affairs practitioners at this time. Whether practitioners are preparing to be
CDOs or are helping to prepare their institutions to implement a Chief Diversity Officer on
campus, practitioners should be aware of existing literature, research, and practices so that they
can help their institutions make informed decisions. Again, while it is difficult to determine if
considerations for the vision, implementation, and responsibilities of the role can guide
practitioners in assessing what their respective institutions may need from a CDO and what must
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 20
be done to support the CDO in effectively serving the institution. There seems to be promise for
Chief Diversity Officers in the realm of higher education, however, their success will depend on
how their roles are shaped and supported in the context of their respective institutions.
CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 21
References
Anonymous. (2010). Ask the chief diversity officer. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 27(8),
5.
Arnold, J., & Kowalski-Braun, M. (2012). The journey to an inaugural chief diversity
27-36.
campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating
Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Espinosa, L., Chessman, H., & Wayt, L. (2016, March 8). Racial climate on campus: A survey
from https://higheredtoday.org/2016/03/08/racial-climate-on-campus-a-survey-of
-college-presidents/
Gose, B. (2006). The rise of the chief diversity officer. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
53(6), B1-B5.
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and
research on intergroup dialogues. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Administrators (NASPA).
Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: Seeking to define and
understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 222 234
Harvey, W. B. (2014). Chief diversity officers and the wonderful world of academe. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 92-100.
17.
Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 7791.
Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., & Mueller, J.A. (2004) Multicultural competence in student affairs.
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20
years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 139 168.
Williams, D., & Wade-Golden, K. (2007). The chief diversity officer. CUPA-HR Journal, 58(1),
38-48.
Williams, D., & Wade-Golden, K. (2013). The chief diversity officer. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publications.
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging Trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. S. (2014). National association of diversity