ATTACHMENT A
Report of the Committee on the Educational Effect of “Chief Illiniwek”[1]
to the Chancellor and the Faculty Senate
of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
November 28, 2005
In August, 2004, UIUC received a report from the North Central Association evaluation team resulting from a “focused visit” to the campus that spring. The report concluded that “the Chief issue and surrounding controversy is harmful to the educational effectiveness in a variety of areas.” On March 21, 2005, the Committee on the Educational Effect of “Chief Illiniwek” was created and charged with designing a study to examine the educational effects of the mascot. According to the charge, the study was intended to be scientifically rigorous, systematic, unbiased and constructive.
Committee members included Tim Futing Liao, Professor and Head of Sociology, Elaine Shpungin, Director, Psychological Services Center, William Trent, Professor, Educational Policy Studies and Sociology, and Reginald Alston (ex officio), Professor and Associate Department Head, Community Health. The Committee was chaired by Lizanne DeStefano, Professor of Educational Psychology and Associate Dean for Research, College of Education. Joseph Podlasek, Executive Director, American Indian Center of Chicago, served as a consultant to the committee. In response to concerns that the original committee did not include a Native American representative from the campus community, Wanda Pillow, Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Director of the Native American House was asked to join the Committee in late spring semester. She declined. The Committee believes that it is important solicit feedback on the study plan from Dr. Pillow and other campus leaders prior to implementation. If the study is implemented, we recommend that a representative from the campus Native American community be added to the oversight committee.
The Committee has met four times since its inception. We reviewed the August 2004 NCA evaluation report and an extensive collection of documents related to the history and educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy on the UIUC campus, the presence or discontinuation of Native American mascots on other campuses, NCAA rulings and related events. We examined empirical research and policy documents regarding Native American mascots. Since the Committee’s creation and charge was made public in Spring 2005, some stakeholders have contacted the chair and/or individual members to give input or comment on the charge. We considered this input in our discussion and planning.
A central consideration for the Committee was, “should such a study be done at all?” Strong feelings were expressed by some members of the campus community that the effects of “Chief Illiniwek” had already been well documented and that calling for such a study could be seen as discounting the testimony and public statements of those who had already come forward to express their views on the mascot. Others felt that the benefits of “Chief Illiniwek” to the educational climate of the campus were evident and that systematic efforts to assess them were unwarranted. Still others questioned whether a study of this kind would be meaningful, unbiased and feasible.
Members of the Committee considered the role that the study might play in the controversy surrounding “Chief Illiniwek”. We discussed its methodological challenges. We considered resource and feasibility issues. In the end, it is the belief of the committee that such a study, well designed and carefully implemented, could help our campus community and others come to understand the educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy. It represents the first systematic empirical study of the educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek” on our campus. Through the use of systematic sampling, it offers an opportunity to involve a broad and representative segment of campus community. The results of the study could complement and extend the testimony and other evidence presented to date. As an institution committed to scholarship and learning, we believe that it is appropriate to engage in and learn from a planned investigation of the ways in which “Chief Illiniwek” affects the educational experiences of different stakeholder groups including students, faculty, alumni and the community at large. Through a systematic process of data collection, analysis, interpretation and discussion, we hope that this study can provide a mechanism for communication among key stakeholders, promote meaningful dialogue, enhance understanding of diverse points of view, and contribute to an informed resolution of the controversy surrounding “Chief Illiniwek”.The Study Plan
The proposed study seeks to answer the question, “What are the educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek”?” To provide the rich data needed to address this complex issue, the study should employ multiple and complementary methods, should engage a variety of stakeholders and should utilize a broad definition of educational effects. For example, in the plan that follows, we suggest the use of surveys, individual and group interviews, secondary analysis of existing data, and historical analysis. Stakeholder groups include: current, prospective and former faculty, current and prospective undergraduate and graduate students, campus leaders and staff, alumni, community members, and peer institutions. For planning purposes, the Committee identified several domains of educational effects including recruitment, retention, educational climate, productivity, public image and funding. Table 1 provides a cross-tabulation of stakeholders, issues and methods as a framework for the study.
Given resource limitations, it is unlikely that all groups and all issues will be able to be addressed in the initial study. The Committee views this plan as a multi-phase investigation of the educational effects of a Native American mascot on our campus. We concur with the recommendations of the NCA report that faculty and campus leadership are “the constituents most capable of addressing educational effects” (NCA Report, p. 5) and must be included in the initial phase of data collection. Likewise, because our effectiveness at educating students is a central consideration in all that we do, data collection involving students is also of high priority. Comparative information from peer institutions provides important contest and a basis for interpreting other findings. Because of the time critical nature of this study, the Committee recommends that research with these groups begin as soon as possible. The perspectives of alumni, staff, community members, and funders are relevant and valuable, but were viewed as somewhat less essential to the study of educational effects of the “Chief”. These stakeholder groups should be included in the initial stage of the study, if time and other resources permit, or could be addressed in a second phase.
We propose that the initial phase of the study consist of web-based surveys conducted with random samples of current faculty, campus leaders (e.g., Deans, Directors, Department Heads, and campus administrators), and graduate and undergraduate students. Since educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek” is likely to vary across subgroups and many of the groups are low incidence in the campus population, we recommend oversampling of key subgroups such as faculty and students of color and student athletes to insure that they are adequately represented in the sample and that their results are able to be disaggregated without jeopardizing anonymity and confidentiality. Preliminary analyses of survey data should be followed up with individual interviews or focus groups to gain additional information on key survey findings. Focus groups can also be used to solicit interpretations of the survey findings and promoting dialogue within and across various stakeholder groups.
Table 2 presents a set of issues to be addressed in data collection by area and stakeholder group. To promote comparability, parallel issues are identified across groups. For each issue, the nature and intensity of the effects should be assessed using Likert scale ratings (e.g., Negative Effect, No Effect, Positive Effect). In order to reduce bias, it is critical that the survey items and interview questions be structured to account for both positive and negative effects. In addition to items addressing the issues listed in Table 2, the Committee recommends that the surveys collect demographic data (e.g., gender, race, language, etc.) and include a scale to assess knowledge and perceptions of Native American culture. Studies by Native researchers at University of Arizona and University of New Mexico may provide useful scales and methods for this aspect of the study.
In addition to obtaining information from current students and faculty, we recommend that the study also seek the perspectives of prospective faculty and students as well as those who have left UIUC. There are several extant data sources for those exiting the campus that might be used or adapted for this purpose. For example, each year exit surveys are conducted with faculty who are leaving the university. Results of past surveys should be analyzed to determine the extent to which “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy was mentioned as a reason for leaving and future surveys, those to be done in Spring 2006 in particular, could include a question specifically addressing the effects of the mascot, if any, upon leavers. The annual survey of graduating students could include a similar question. With regard to prospective students, follow-up interviews/surveys could be done with a sample of students (including an oversample of Native students and other students of color) who were admitted but did not enroll to determine the extent to which “Chief Illiniwek” was a factor in their decision. To obtain a sense of those students who chose not to apply, we recommend conducting focus groups with high school students in selected communities about their perceptions of UIUC and the affect of “Chief Illiniwek” on their likelihood to enroll there. Prospective faculty, especially Native faculty and other faculty of color) who have been made offers and not chosen UIUC could be similarly sampled and interviewed or surveyed.
National comparisons with peer institutions should be conducted to provide a meaningful context and guide interpretation of the survey and interview data. The Committee recommends conducting secondary analysis and benchmarking on data on five year trends in recruitment and retention of students of color and other relevant variables with a group of peer institutions. Historical analysis of recruitment, retention, funding, rankings, and other indicators from peer institutions who have retained and retired ethnic mascots could aid in interpreting UIUC findings.
The above studies are viewed as essential in promoting campus dialogue and furthering understanding of the educational effects of “Chief Illiniwek”. The remaining studies would be beneficial and should be conducted if resources permit. These are:
· Focus groups and surveys with purposive sample of community members in the Champaign-Urbana area and Chicago could provide insight into the effects of “Chief Illiniwek” on retention, recruitment and the public image of UIUC within those communities. · Web-based surveys with a stratified random sample of academic professionals, civil service and other staff to investigate effects on recruitment, retention, and productivity. · Web-based surveys with a stratified random sample of alumni, oversampling alumni of color, and funders to investigate effects on public image and development.Timeline and Responsibilities
The Committee recommends that the initial phase of data collection be undertaken in early spring semester with a summary report due at semester end. The objectivity, credibility and efficiency of the study would be increased with the use of an external contractor to carry out instrument design and field testing, data collection and analysis and we recommend that one be hired for this study. It would be desirable to have Native researchers or consultants as part of the external team to aid in survey construction, interviews and data analysis. The Committee believes that an oversight committee, composed of current members of this committee and additional representatives of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, the Native campus community and campus leadership, should be appointed to assist in contractor selection, oversee the work of the contractor, assist with data interpretation, author the final report, and plan and participate in dissemination and dialogue regarding the findings. A proposed timeline with responsible parties designated follows:
November 2005 Report submitted to the Chancellor and Faculty Senate (Committee chair)
Input solicited from Native American House and other stakeholders (Chancellor and Faculty Senate)
Decision to implement the study (Chancellor)
December 2005 Appointment of oversight committee and staff (Chancellor and Faculty Senate)
Potential contractors identified and proposals solicited (Oversight Committee and staff)
January 2006 Contractor selected and instrument development begun (Oversight Committee and staff; contractor)
February 2006 Pilot testing of survey and interview protocols (Contractor)
Peer benchmarking and trend analysis begins (Contractor)
Survey sample created (Contractor)
March 2006 Survey administration (Contractor)
Focus group and interviews begun (Contractor)
April 2006 Survey data analysis (Contractor)
Focus group and interviews continue (Contractor)
Special Spring 2006 student and faculty exit surveys/interviews (Campus)
Secondary analysis of extant student and faculty exit data (Contractor)
May 2006 Focus group and interview data analysis (Contractor)
Draft report preparation (Contractor and Oversight Committee)
Submission of report (Oversight Committee)
June 2006 Dissemination and dialogue activities begun (Chancellor’s Office, Faculty Senate, Oversight Committee, campus leaders)
Bibliography
Banks, D. (1993). Tribal names and mascots in sports. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17(1), 5-8.
Connolly, M.R. (2000). What’s in a name? A historical look at Native American related nicknames and symbols at three U.S. universities. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 515-547.
Davis, L. (1993). Protest against the use of Native American mascots: A challenge to traditional, American identity. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 17(1), 9-22.
Dolley, J. (2003). The four r’s: Use of Indian mascots in educational facilities. Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 21-35.
Gone, J.P. (2002). Chief Illiniwek: Dignified or damaging? In T. Straus, (Ed.), Native Chicago, 2nd edition, Chicago, IL: Albatross, 274-286.
King, C.R. & Springwood, C. F. (2001) Beyond the cheers: Race as a spectacle in college sports. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Springwood, C.F. & King, C.R. (2000) Race, power and representation in contemporary American sport. In P. Kivisto & G. Rundblad (Eds.) The color line at the dawn of the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Valley Press, 61-174.
Staurowsky, E. (1998). An Act of Honor or Exploitation?: The Cleveland Indian’s Use of the Louis Francis Socalexis Story. Sociology of Sports Journal, 15, 299-316.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (April 13, 2001). Statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the use of Native American images and nicknames as sports mascots. [Available on-line: http://www.aics.org/mascot/civilrights.asp].
Vanderford, H. (1996). What’s in a name? Heritage or hatred: The school mascot controversy. Journal of Law and Education, 25, 381-388.
Submitted by:
Lizanne DeStefano (chair), Professor of Educational Psychology and Associate Dean for Research, College of Education
Tim Futing Liao, Professor and Head of Sociology
Joseph Podlasek, (consultant) Executive Director, American Indian Center of Chicago,
Elaine Shpungin, Director, Psychological Services Center,William Trent, Professor, Educational Policy Studies and Sociology
Reginald Alston, (ex officio) Professor and Associate Department Head, Community Health
Robert C. Damrau, (staff) UIUC Faculty Senate
November 17, 2005
Table 1. Study of the
Educational Impact of “Chief lliniwek”: Crosstabulation of Issues, Stakeholders,
and Data Collection Methods (Phase 1)
Faculty
-current
-prospective
-leavers
-Native faculty and other faculty of color
Individual Interviews with purposive sample of current, prospective and former faculty
Focus groups with purposive samples of faculty of color; etc. Students
-current
-prospective
-Native students and other students of color
-student athletes
X
X
X
X
Web-based survey
of stratified random sample of undergraduates and graduates; oversampling
for students of color and student athletesFocus Groups
with purposive samples of students of color; athletes; etc.
Campus Leaders
X
X
X
X
X
X
Individual Interviews
with selected campus administrators: Provost, Graduate College Dean,
Focus groups with purposive sample of Deans, Department Heads, Unit
Directors
Nation
● Peer institutions
X
X
X
X
Secondary Analysis
of existing data on recruitment and retention of students of color and other
relevant variables
Historical Analysis of recruitment, retention, funding, rankings and
other relevant data from peer institutions who have/used to have ethnic
mascots
Table 1 (cont’d). Study
of the Educational Impact of “Chief lliniwek”: Crosstabulation of Issues,
Stakeholders, and Data Collection Methods (Phase 2)
Stakeholders
Recruitment
Retention
Educational Climate
Productivity
Public Image
Funding/
Development
Data Collection Methods
Local Community/Chicago
-particularly Native communities and other communities of color X X X Mail Survey of a purposive sample of community members (perhaps through Joe’s network in Chicago and through local community agencies) Focus groups with a purposive sample of community members (perhaps through Joe’s network in Chicago and through local community agencies) Alumni X X Web-based survey of stratified random sample of alumni; oversample alumni of color
Staff
Table 2. Study of the Educational Impact of “Chief Illiniwek”: Research Questions by Issue and Stakeholder Group Stakeholders Recruitment Retention Educational Climate Productivity Public Image Funding/ Development
Faculty
-current
-prospective
-leavers
-Native faculty and other faculty of color
-current
-prospective
-Native students and other students of color
-student athletes How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect students’ decisions to attend UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect students’ decisions to remain at UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect:-Work environment?-Classroom environment?-Campus Environment?-Interactions?:--Student/faculty--Student/Student--Faculty/Faculty ---Faculty Staff --Staff/Student How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect student productivity?Approximately how much time do students spend on average discussing/dealing with “Chief Illiniwek” issues per week? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect the public image of UIUC? Campus Leaders How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect potential campus leaders decisions to consider employment UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect campus leaders’ decisions to remain at UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect:-Work environment?-Classroom environment?-Campus Environment?-Interactions?:--Admin/Faculty--Admin/Alum--Admin/Commun. How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect campus leaders’ productivity?Approximately how much time do they spend discussing/dealing with “Chief Illiniwek” issues per week? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect the public image of UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect campus’ ability to attract external funding or other support? Nation
● Peer institutions What are the current trends in recruitment statistics for underrepresented groups among UIUC and peer institutions?What is the level of scholarships and other recruitment incentives for native students across UIUC and peers? What are the current trends in retention statistics for underrepresented groups among UIUC and peer institutions? How and to what extent has the presence or retirement of a native mascot affected the public image at other IHEs?To what extent are native people in University governance and decision-making regarding the mascot at UIUC and at peer institutions? To what extent has the presence or retirement of a native mascot affected funding? Local Community/Chicago
-particularly Native communities and other communities of color How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect students’ decisions to attend UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect students’ decisions to remain at UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect the public image of UIUC? Alumni How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect the public image of UIUC? How and to what extent does the presence of “Chief Illiniwek” and the surrounding controversy affect campus’ ability to attract external funding or other support?
Staff
[1] Some members of the committee and the campus community expressed concern about the use of the word “chief” in reference to the campus mascot because of the term’s religious and cultural significance for Native Americans. For purposes of the report, the name of the mascot, “Chief Illiniwek”” or “Chief”, will be placed in quotes.