Development of a Course in Chicano/Latino
Psychology: An Academic Odyssey
by Brian W. McNeill
Washington State University
Views expressed in the Occasional Papers Series are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Julian Samora Research Institute or Michigan State University.
Abstract: This paper describes the development of a course
in Chicano/Latino Psychology along with the objectives, content,
and activities associated with the course. In addition, I describe
my 2-year odyssey in encountering and negotiating the academic
politics, resistances, and barriers that were placed before me
in gaining university approval to teach this course. Based on
my experiences, I will attempt to provide recommendations for
overcoming the maze of academic politics for others who wish
to offer similar courses, as well as future trends in designing
courses in Chicano/Latino Psychology.
About the Author: Brian W. McNeill
Dr. Brian W. McNeill is currently an Associate Professor and
Director of Training/Associate Chairperson for the Department
of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology at Washington
State University. Dr. McNeill's research, teaching, and service
interests are influenced by his mixed Chicano and Anglo ethnicity
and include clinical supervision, the recruitment, retention,
and training needs of ethnic/racial minority students in graduate
psychology programs, and the role of ethnic identity in attitudes
towards counseling services. He developed the first course in
Chicano/Latino Psychology to be taught at Washington State University.
Dr. McNeill resides in Moscow, Idaho with his family.
SUGGESTED CITATION
McNeill, Brian, W. "Development of a Course in Chicano/Latino
Psychology: An Academic Odyssey." JSRI Occasional Paper #49.
The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1999.
|
Development of a Course in Chicano/Latino
Psychology: An Academic Odyssey
by Brian W. McNeill
Washington State University
Introduction
When a colleague, Dr. Daniel Estrada, from the Chicano Studies program
initially approached me regarding the development of a course in Chicano/Latino
Psychology, I was very honored and excited. At the time, we had a significant
number of Chicano/Latino students at both the undergraduate and graduate
levels in such areas as Psychology, Education, Counseling, Sociology,
Comparative American Cultures, and Political Science. Washington State
University (WSU) was espousing support for the development of courses
concerned with issues of diversity, and our College of Education, under
the leadership of Dr. Bernard Oliver made significant gains in all areas
of diversification of faculty, students and coursework. In addition, Eastern
Washington has a Latino population of 9.5% of which the majority are of
Mexican/Chicano origin. This Latino population grew by 44.6% from 1990
to 1995 compared to the overall state growth of 11.6%. WSU also has a
branch campus in the Tri-Cities area (Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick)
in which the adjoining county population of Latinos has now reached 36%.
A course in Chicano/Latino Psychology had never been previously taught
at WSU. Our intent was to offer a series of summer courses in the area
of Chicano Studies with telecommunication between our main and branch
campus as a precursor to an ongoing summer institute in honor of a recently
deceased WSU Chicano colleague, activist, and poet, Dr. Ricardo Sanchez.
Thus the purpose of this manuscript is to describe the development of
a course in Chicano/Latino Psychology along the objectives, content, and
activities associated with the course. At the same time, I would be doing
a disservice to colleagues who wish to develop similar courses if I did
not describe the academic politics, resistances, and barriers I encountered
in developing this course. While painful and frustrating, the barriers
were ultimately overcome. Thus, my 2-year odyssey through the maze of
academic politics is also described, and serves to illustrate the microcosm
of power, politics, and influence in educational institutions.
The Course
An informal assessment of course offerings in the western region of the
U.S., obtained through college catalogs and departmental descriptions,
indicated that while courses such as Minority Mental Health Issues, Counseling
Diverse Populations, Cross-Cultural Psychology, and Multicultural Counseling
are increasingly more common in graduate level Counseling and Clinical
Psychology, and Social Work programs, courses specifically addressing
the needs of specific cultural groups are less common. It appears that
in the western region, only a handful of courses in Asian American or
African American Psychology exist, specifically, only five in the psychology
or health issues of Chicano/Latino populations.
As illustrated in Appendix A, the course I developed has a number of objectives,
including examination of the current psychosocial literature related to
Chicano/Latino populations, issues of acculturation and ethnic identity,
and the relationship of these variables to underutilization of psychological
services. Culturally appropriate counseling models and strategies for
intervention are also covered. In addition, perhaps most importantly (and
usually most controversially), the current sociopolitical environment
including issues of racism, ethnocentrism, and political power are identified
and discussed. In relation to course requirements, I vary them accordingly
for undergraduate versus graduate course credit since this is the only
course on campus with this content. My intent is to offer advanced undergraduates
the experience of a graduate seminar format, while attracting graduate
students from various departments and programs. I strongly believe that
as I teach this course, it is important to identify and describe my own
biases and perceptions, or the "lenses" for which I view the
issues involved in this course.
Thus, at the beginning of the course, I spend a few minutes talking about
myself, my ethnic background, and the effects of my sense of identity
on my perceptions of the world and the way these viewpoints affect the
issues covered in the course. As a product of an Anglo father of Scottish/Irish
descent and a Chicana mother, I have viewed the issues of racism, discrimination,
and prejudice from "both sides" so to speak. Since I have an
Anglo surname, many times in my life others around me have no idea in
regards to my Chicano ethnic background and I have often been exposed
to the negative aspects of Anglo culture where ethnic slurs, jokes, comments,
etc. are disclosed on an everyday basis without a second thought regarding
their offensiveness. At the same time, when I enter a Mexican Market to
buy some supplies, I am often addressed in Spanish, and not fully understanding,
encountered with looks and reactions to the effect of "what is wrong
with you?" My grandmother was an immigrant from Baja California Sur
in Mexico who was clearly more comfortable speaking Spanish than English,
despite living in the United States for most of her life. My grandfather
was a Chicano from Arizona who spoke both Spanish and English with a Mexican
accent. My mother was punished for speaking Spanish when she first went
to school. She encountered and married my father in the great mix of cultures
in Los Angeles in the 1940's and 1950's. We had large extended families
on both my maternal and paternal sides and the emphasis on familia was
common to both sides as we led our very middle class existence. My Mexican
familia faced many of the issues confronting Latinos during this period
of time in Los Angeles including discrimination, loss of Spanish language
skills, self-consciousness over skin color, and identification as "Spanish"
versus "Mexican." Thus, my sense of identity and perspective
is formed around these experiences, growing up in the Los Angeles area,
and may be very different from a first generation Chicano from the barrio
in Chicago or southwest Washington.
My "lenses" or perceptions also extend to the sociopolitical
context of the course in that in my view, racism directed towards Latinos
is still alive and well. The variety of anti-immigration, anti-bilingual,
and English only legislation originating in California, as well as other
states serve as my evidence which I introduce to the class. Unfortunately,
I am never lacking for examples of racism directed towards Chicanos/Latinos
on both the individual and institutional level. I also emphasize that
these are my perceptions as well as others, and that while others may
disagree, what we most often deal with in psychology are peoples' perceptions,
beliefs, and viewpoints, along with their effects on behavior, as opposed
to concrete realities. This conception of reality is often difficult to
initially grasp for students as they are seeking a single truth to explain
complex phenomena. Many times, the initial reaction on behalf of the students
is to argue that introducing a sociopolitical context is inappropriate
and that psychologists should strive to be objective and neutral. Thus,
I introduce a number of past genetic and environmental deficit theories
and models from the history of psychology and the negative views of minorities
that represent anything except objectivity and neutrality (e.g., Jensen,
1973, Glaser and Moynihan, 1963). At this point, the concept of cultural
relativism is also introduced along with the ecological paradigm as espoused
through the Community Psychology of Julian Rappaport (1977), whose values
include respect for human diversity, the right to be different, and the
belief that human problems are those of person-environment fit, rather
than of incompetent people or inferior psychological and cultural environments.
The History section of the recent Chicano! series (Galán, 1996)
shown by the Public Broadcasting System also sets the stage for the sociopolitical
context.
The history of Chicano Psychology is then covered including both Hispanic
and Indigenous origins and practices. The elders associated with Chicano
Psychology are also introduced, and of course my lectures draw primarily
from the classic text, Chicano Psychology by Martinez and Mendoza (1984).
At this point, it is usually necessary to talk a bit about terminology
and self-identification. Consequently, I introduce concepts of race, ethnicity,
and power as precursors to the usage of such terms as Hispanic, Latino,
Chicano, La Raza, and Mestizo. Since this is a course in Chicano/Latino
Psychology, I spend some time discussing the historical background demographics
of the four main Latino groups within the United States. This includes
Chicanos/Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Central Americans, and Puerto
Ricans. However, given the current demographics in the state of Washington
and neighboring western states, the emphasis on this course is on Chicano/Mexican
American populations. A similar course located in the northeast or southeast
might emphasize Puerto Rican or Cuban American populations respectively.
My coverage of demographic information includes population distribution,
geography, educational attainment, employment, earnings, and poverty,
generational immigration, family type, size, and income, language status,
educational attainment, and socioeconomic status.
Course coverage then moves to cultural characteristics and descriptors
including gender roles (e.g., machismo, marianismo), Chicana Feminist
theory, interpersonal/communication styles (e.g., personalismo, confianza,
simpatía), family dynamics (e.g., la familia, compadrazco, respeto,
fatalismo), religion/ folk beliefs (e.g., catholicism, curanderismo).
The popular movie Mi Familia serves to illustrate many cultural/ethnic
aspects within a sociohistorical framework, and also demonstrates various
levels of acculturation and ethnic identity in the variety of characters,
thus setting the stage for a discussion of these concepts. Chicano students
enrolled in the class and I also find it necessary, and a little fun,
to translate some of the dialogue and Chicano slang used throughout the
film for other students in the class (e.g., cabron, carnal, pachuco, gabacho,
etc.). We then turn to coverage of models of Chicano/Latino ethnic identity
development while introducing and operationalizing concepts of ethnic
identity, enculturation, and acculturation. Specific models of Chicano/Latino
identity development by Cuellar, Arnold, and Maldonado (1995), Bernal
and Knight (1993), Ruiz, (1990), and Marín, (1992), as well as
more generic identity development models by Atkinson, Morton, and Sue
(1982), and Phinney (1993) are covered in-depth. As the anthropologist
Michael Fischer (cited in Sanchez, 1993) states in regard to ethnicity:
Ethnicity is not something that is simply passed on from generation to
generation, taught and learned; it is something dynamic, often unsuccessfully
repressed or avoided. It can be potent even when not consciously taught;
it is something that institutionalized teaching easily makes chauvinist,
sterile, and superficial, something that emerges in full - often liberating
- flower only through struggle.
The writings of Roberto Rodriguez (1997) and Richard Rodriquez (1982)
illustrate Fischer's point of view perhaps better than the usual academic
theorizing on ethnicity, and hence, are required reading for the course.
The X in La Raza represents a call for the reaffirmation of Chicano or
Xicano identity which includes resistance, defiance, and reclaiming indigenous
roots.
In Hunger of Memory, author Richard Rodriquez struggles with his Mexican
identity and alienation from his family, while striving for middle class
assimilation which results in strong opinions against affirmative action
and bilingual education. The videos Mi Familia, Challenging Hispanic Stereotypes
(Moyers, 1994) and Biculturalism and Acculturation among Latinos (Cuellar,
1991) are also used to illustrate the complexity of ethnicity and ethnic
identity, and serve to provide real first person accounts on issues facing
Chicano/Latino people, and affecting students on an emotional level sometimes
missing from academic readings. The next section of the course deals with
issues of education and higher education. The article included in the
reference section by Padilla et al. (1991) serves as an excellent single
reference summary of these issues of bilingual education as related to
the political motivations of the English only movement. For these discussions,
I draw upon the dialogue between Baker (1987) and Willig (1985, 1987)
and the work of Kenji Hakuta (1986) in reference to bilingual education,
and Darder, Torres, and Gutiérrez (1997) for issues relevant to
higher education, e.g., recruitment, retention, academic climate, etc.
The educational portion of the Chicano! film series, along with the film
English Only in America (Diack, 1997) supplements readings and lectures
in this area.
Because I am a Counseling Psychologist, the next section of the course
focuses on more applied and practice issues associated with the field
of Chicano Psychology including general health care issues, e.g., psychological
wellbeing, and underutilization of services, including cultural, geographical,
and language barriers. We also cover various clinical issues specific
to Chicano/Latino populations (e.g., ataques de nervious, susto, mal ojo,
interventions for gang members, etc.) along with culturally appropriate
models of intervention and assessment for a variety of culture specific,
as well as general clinical disorders. In addition to the required readings
for the course, my lecture is supplemented by the writings of Comas-Díaz
(1989), Casas and Vasquez (1996), and Velásquez and Callahan (1992).
Drawing from the work of Torrey (1983), I also cover many of the common
factors across approaches to psychotherapy (e.g., the therapeutic relationship,
a shared world view, a ritual or procedure, client expectations, etc.)
and make the case that perhaps curanderos and counselors are not so different
in their intervention strategies. In addition, the moderating effects
of acculturation and/or ethnic identity and its assessment in relation
to clinical intervention are continually stressed, especially in regards
to intelligence and personality assessment. Lecture and readings are supplemented
by videos by Arredondo (1994) on Specifics of Practice for Counseling
with Latinos and Comas-Díaz (APA, 1996) on Ethnocultural Psychotherapy.
The text currently used for the course also includes excellent chapters
covering those issues.
The final part of the course covers research issues with Chicano/Latino
populations in general (e.g., sample definitions, moderating variables),
especially in regards to treatment outcome or preference for ethnically
similar counselors as reflected in the readings by Lopez, Lopez, and Fong
(1991), Lopez and Lopez (1993), and Atkinson and Wampold (1993). Since
the methodological issue in these writings deals with how preferences
are assessed, I ask class members to place themselves in the role of a
client in the setting of a first intake interview in order to assess the
external validity of the methods that are advocated by the respective
authors. Interestingly, the class variations often mirror the researchers'
viewpoints, especially in terms of ethnicity or ethnic identification.
Class Response and Reactions
The initial offering of Chicano/Latino Psychology at WSU was taught in
the summer of 1996. The composition of the class included myself, my Cuban-American
Latina teaching assistant, four Chicanas, five Anglo males, and four Anglo
females. Three students were graduate students in the areas of educational
psychology, educational administration, and political science. The undergraduate
students reflected a variety of majors including sociology, criminal justice,
psychology, and general studies, as well as a considerable age range as
most were returning part time students. Most had previous introductory
coursework in general psychology, but at times it was necessary to assess
peoples' knowledge of models of psychotherapy or assessment, and provide
a general introduction to the issues.
However, with such a diverse class, "in vivo" examples of the
variety of issues covered, played themselves out in the social microcosm
of our small, intimate class. The Chicanas in class shared a variety of
personal experiences with racism, pride or denial of ethnicity, changing
gender roles, problems in education, interracial marriage, etc. Some of
the Anglo students exhibited great difficulty in understanding some of
these experiences and related topics in the course, and were never able
to let go of previous ethnocentric biases in relation to stereotypes,
affirmative action, and bilingual education. The majority, however, exhibited
a motivation and readiness to learn, and expressed over and over their
desire to know and be sensitive to a population they were currently serving
or planned to serve in the future. At one point, during a highly charged
discussion, an Anglo female strongly defended the artistic merit of graffiti
to the rest of the class! At this point in the development of the class,
I required the undergraduates to read and report on a book dealing with
Chicano/Latino populations in lieu of a research literature review. Their
choices reflected the depth of their commitment to learn as they sought
more information regarding the plight of migrant workers, racism towards
immigrants through first person accounts, and issues surrounding unequal
education.
The next offering of the class occurred the following summer, but did
not contain enough students to "make" because of a political
refusal to allow students to register for the course, which I will discuss
in the next section. The third offering of the course included seven committed
students reflective of the ethnicity and viewpoints of the previous class,
despite the low enrollment. These problems, as well as others, became
part of my odyssey in developing this course.
Mi Odisea
At WSU, once a course is taught on a temporary basis, it must be submitted
through the various channels throughout the university system to gain
approval as a permanent course which can then be listed in the university
catalog and taught on a regular basis. Thus, I dutifully set out to complete
the necessary administrative channels in order to gain approval for my
Chicano/Latino Psychology course. This process starts with the "major
curriculum change form" which is accompanied by the syllabus and
a rationale for the course. My chairperson and dean were highly supportive
of the course as it passed through the departmental and college curriculum
committees. Had I only listed the course as offered by the college of
education at the graduate level at this point, I would have experienced
no further problems. However, WSU had no undergraduate or graduate offering
of this type. Again, the majority of students in the initial offering
of Chicano/Latino Psychology were undergraduates from a variety of majors.
The course was crosslisted at the undergraduate level with support of
Dr. Paul Wong, the chairperson of the Department of Comparative American
Cultures (CAC) and again supported by my CAC colleagues. The only remaining
hurdle before proceeding on the university-wide committees was a signoff
by the Dean of Liberal Arts who oversees the Department of Comparative
American Cultures.
Early in November, 1996, I received a copy of a memo from Dr. Wong from
the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts from the Chairperson of the Department
of Psychology urging the Dean to deny my course as it was basically a
duplication of a graduate course offered by the Psychology Department
titled "Cross-Cultural Issues in Psychology." The memo also
went on to describe substantial overlap with this Psychology course. I
also received a copy of the syllabus for this course in which it appeared
that half of a 3-hour class period was devoted to Issues of "Hispanic
Americans" with four brief readings. Other sections of the course
covered general issues of assessment, acculturation, ethics, etc. I could
find no specific coverage of models of Chicano/Latino ethnic identity,
bilingual education, and other issues which pertain specifically to Chicano/Latino
populations. There must be a mistake or misperception here, as the overlap
was not even close to substantial and miles away from duplication. In
fact, the "Cross-Cultural Issues in Psychology" course curiously
resembled my own "Counseling Diverse Populations" course which
is barely able to provide an introduction to the issues and culturally
relevant counseling models for Latino, African, Asian, and Native American
peoples, and which no one is trying to kill at the present time due to
substantial overlap or duplication.
At first, I was dumfounded. The Chairperson of the Psychology Department
during the previous year had proposed that our program join his department
in a ubiquitous university "reconfiguration." He even stressed
a spirit of cooperation between our two departments during this time.
The Department's Clinical Psychology program had produced a number of
Chicano psychologists over the years and had been cited as a "model
program" for these efforts (Harris, 1997). Yet, the Chairperson had
not even attempted to contact me to discuss the perceived overlap in our
respective courses. His memo had been sent to the Dean of Liberal Arts,
the Chair of Comparative American Cultures, the professor of "Cross
Cultural Issues in Psychology" and the Director of Training for the
Clinical Psychology Program. I was beginning to feel left out! I also
began to feel betrayed and angry. What had happened to our sprit of cooperation?
Shouldn't I have been consulted or notified somewhere along the way? It
was my course that was the subject here! What was the smokescreen of "substantial
overlap" and "duplication." Why could they not see the
benefits and positive aspects to my course that cut across lines of politics,
individual agendas, etc.? In my view, the course might be effectively
used to help them to attract more Chicano/Latino students.
On Nov. 7, 1996 I sent a memo to the Dean of Liberal Arts addressing the
misperceptions surrounding my course. Copies of the memo were also sent
to the appropriate representatives of the Psychology Department including
the Chairperson. I stressed that it was offered at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels, provided in-depth coverage of issues specific to
Chicano/Latino populations, i.e., there is indeed a literature on the
psychological issues pertaining to Chicano/Latinos. I emphasized that
this was an elective course that did not threaten anyone's precious "FTEs"
(full time equivalent credit hours). I also expressed my puzzlement to
the opposition to a course that addresses the needs of an underserved
population, and my disappointment that representatives of the Psychology
Department had never contacted me personally to address issues of perceived
overlap between our courses.
In the meantime, Dr. Wong had arranged a meeting between Psychology department
members, myself, and a new Chicana assistant professor in CAC who also
had an interest in teaching Chicano/Latino Psychology and developing related
coursework. The meeting started out appropriately tense and confrontational
with the Psychology chairperson accusing me of "pulling the trigger"
too fast on my memo. He then expressed how offended he felt by the content
of my memo. My response: "At least, I sent you a copy of it!"
I then expressed my offense at never being contacted regarding an assessment
of the value of my own course. While I was trying to be appropriate in
the presence of my Chicana colleague, I could barely control my seething
anger. Needless to say, the meeting degenerated from that moment as neither
side seemed to understand the other. This was substantiated in the next
memo from the Psychology department proposing that Chicano/Latino Psychology
only be offered at the graduate level with an applied component such as
"the experience of counseling the designated ethnic minorities"
with "Cross-Cultural Issues in Psychology" or "Counseling
Diverse Populations" as prerequisite courses, and offering a separate
undergraduate version with no perquisites. The memo also stated that we
all agreed that there was substantial overlap in our respective courses.
At this point the issue of territoriality that exists between Departments
of Psychology in Colleges of Liberal Arts, and Counseling, School, or
Educational Psychology programs administratively housed in Colleges of
Education was becoming abundantly clear.
Next memo: Nov. 20, 1996. At this time, I had to challenge the applied
component as somewhat ill-conceived and impractical due to the lack of
a substantial Chicano/Latino population base in Pullman, Washington (1.8%),
and the requirement of clinical supervision. I also noted that we had
never discussed this applied component at our previous meeting, and that
the stated prerequisites would effectively prohibit enrollment by graduate
students outside the clinical and counseling psychology programs on our
campus. I then offered to accept the prerequisite courses with the statement
"or with the consent of the instructor" added to allow students
from such departments as political science or sociology to enroll, while
continuing to cross list the course at the undergraduate level, (strangely
with no prerequisites) to allow for flexibility, diversity within the
classroom, and opportunities for all students who have an interest in
the issues of Chicano/Latinos to gain access to the course. I also expressed
my desire to simply leave my course alone.
Dec. 4, 1996: Memo from the Liberal Arts Dean. In this memo, the Dean
cordially assured me that the questions raised regarding Chicano/Latino
Psychology were essentially routine "especially when the proposal
may be in the substantive domain of one of the other departments in the
College of Liberal Arts." Well, at least someone was finally being
honest and up front with me. I was encroaching on another department's
domain even though they offered no similar course. Never mind what the
domain of a department of Counseling Psychology is. Now I understood…
business as usual, however, I was still highly dissatisfied. The memo
also requested from me an explicit set of guidelines on which we could
agree as to whether to exempt potential students from the prerequisite
requirement. In my response, I delineated a few guidelines including relevance
of the course to current or future academic or career goals, previous
undergraduate or graduate coursework dealing with issues of diversity
or diverse populations, and previous undergraduate or graduate coursework
in psychology, education, or human development in which students have
been exposed to general models of human behavior. Hopefully, these guidelines
cover every potential student wishing to take the course.
Jan. 3, 1997: Response from the Dean. He had consulted with the Psychology
Department Chairperson that we had reached a level of agreement at this
point on a crosslisted course with no prerequisites at the undergraduate
level, and seemingly meaningless ones at the graduate level. Although
still puzzled, I could live with this agreement, and was happy that I
could then pursue permanent approval of my course. Was my odyssey over
at this point? Not yet!
For some strange reason, my course proposal was passed on without the
Dean's signature and denied with no explanation. How this occurred is
still a mystery to me. Because I did not have permanent course approval,
the registrar at our Tri-Cities Branch Campus then refused to allow students
to register for the course the following summer. Consequently, the course
did not "make" for lack of sufficient enrollment despite university
regulations allowing for a temporary course to be taught more than once.
At various times during my resubmission of the course proposal, curriculum
committee members found it very difficult to understand how I could offer
the course at both the undergraduate and graduate levels between two departments.
Repeatedly, I was told how "unusual" this proposal was despite
having designated the appropriate University defined categories of "crosslist"
and "conjoint" offering on my paperwork. Just when I assumed
that I had jumped through all academic hoops, I received a final memo
informing me that my course had been approved on a temporary basis again!
Enraged, I called the registrar's office, but soon calmed down when the
assistant registrar figured out that the temporary approval was only a
prerequisite to the permanent approval notification that was in the mail.
Most recently, I was able to teach my Chicano/Latino Psychology course
despite a low summer enrollment. I subsequently discovered that our Tri-Cities
Campus registrar advertised it at 7 a.m. as opposed to the requested 7
p.m. time, and was subsequently awarded a Diversity Grant from the Office
of the Provost to support the class. Muchas Gracias!
Conclusions
I often ask myself: "Would I have received the treatment reflected
in my Odyssey if I had proposed a course in Advanced Psychological Assessment?"
I think not. The ethnocentric/racist assumption made by others was that
there was not literature to warrant a course in Chicano/Latino Psychology
despite my documentation to the contrary. In my view, the barriers I encountered
also demonstrated a lack of value for a course addressing the needs of
Chicanos/Latinos which simply reflects the overall neglect and negative
societal attitudes towards our community. Perhaps I was initially naive
and overly optimistic given the University's pronouncements of the value
of diversity and my African American Dean's successful efforts in this
area. However, my Dean definitely took the heat and criticism for his
efforts. One of my initial students attempted to put in a good word for
the course in a meeting with the Dean of Liberal Arts. I was then accused
of being a troublemaker.
Recommendations
While the atmosphere in Higher Education is changing in relation to issues
of diversity and multiculturism, change is slow. First, one must anticipate
the resistance, and check with proper people. In this case I made assumptions
regarding the Psychology Department Chair who had indicated no problem
in previously cross-listing a temporary summer course and appeared to
believe that any course including "Psychology" in the title
is under the domain of one department. Remain strong, and defiant if necessary.
The academic world is full of arrogant bullies who will attempt to intimidate,
use the old boy system, etc. to get their way and push their agenda, which
typically does not include issues of diversity. I was told that my course
would never be approved because of the Psychology Chair's reputation and
close relationship with the Dean of Liberal Arts.
Finally, be ready to follow through. I was continually underestimated
in this process, and given the frustrating sociopolitical climate on our
campus regarding the underrepresentation of Chicanos in the student body,
faculty and staff positions, etc., our Chicano students were ready to
react, and subsequently protested to our University President by waking
him up in the early morning at his home later in the year over these issues.
I was ready to enlist their support as well if necessary.
Future Courses in Chicano/Latino Psychology
Demographics are changing as the Chicano/ Latino population grows, and
thus grows the need for more courses dealing with the psychological needs
of this population. Because of the growing diversity within the Latino
population, there will be a demand for future courses to more fully address
the needs and provide in depth coverage of Cuban, Central American, and
Puerto Rican populations similar to the course developed by Dr. Organista
at U.C.-Berkeley (Personal Communication, January, 1998). If courses in
Chicano/Latino Psychology and/or Minority Mental Health are not offered
in traditional Departments of Psychology, then Colleges of Education,
Social Welfare, Ethnic Studies, and Comparative American Cultures will
need to fill the void. However, what message does this potential development
send to the majority of future applied psychologists trained in these
departments? In my view, it says that providing appropriate psychological
services to Chicanos/Latinos is not important, and that as educators we
do not care.
JSRI Home | JSRI Research & Publications | Occasional Paper Series |
