By Ryana Munford Dr Kristen A Renn B

By Ryana Munford

Dr. Kristen A. Renn • B. A in music and pyschology from Mount Holyoke College in 1986 • Ed. M in Education Leadership from Boston University in 1988 • Ph. D in higher education from Boston College in 1998 • Professor of Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University • Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies • Director for Student Success Initiatives • Co-PI of the National Study of LGBTQ Student Success. • Associate Editor for International Research and Scholarship for the Journal of College Student Development.

Research Interests • Student Success and Persistence • Identity and Identity Development in Higher Education • Mixed Race College Students • Women in Higher Education • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Higher Education

Awards and Accomplishments • Standing Committee Advocate Award, American College Personnel Association, 2013 • A Senior Scholar of the ACPA-College Student Educators International and a past member of the governing board • Elizabeth Topham Kennan Award for Outstanding Accomplishment in the Field of Education, Alumnae Association of Mount Holyoke College, 2011 • Research Recognition Award, Standing Committee for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Awareness, American College Personnel Association, 2008 • Excellence in Teaching Award, College of Education, Michigan State University, 2005.

History Of Mixed Race in the U. S. • In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the “one drop rule” was used to determine who was white and who was not. • The purpose of the “one drop rule” was used to maintain white racial purity. • During slavery and the Jim Crow era the one drop rule was used to strengthen boundaries between blacks and whites. • The first mulatto unions date back to the seventeenth century in the British Colonies. • Laws preventing miscegenation were eliminated after a 1967 Supreme Court Ruling. • The number of interracial marriages increased from 651, 000 in 1980 to 1, 464, 000 in 2000. (U. S. Census Bureau, 2002).

About the Study • Conducted a study of 56 mixed race undergraduate students on 6 college campuses in the Northeast and Midwest • • • A mix of public, private, small, midsized and large Highly selective, nonselective Community college, liberal arts, comprehensive, and research institutions • Utilized a developmental ecological framework. • Influenced by Urie Bronfenbrenner • Participants drawn from the population of students who had lived in residence halls most of their college experience and who lived away from home while in college • Collected data through individual interviews, written responses by participants, a focus group, observations and archival observations • Purpose was to understand more about how mixed race students identified, and how it pertained to higher education policy and practice

Five Identity Patterns • Patterns are not exclusive or permanent • Patterns are not ordered sequentially • It is impossible to hold one monoracial identity forever and always and also identify situationally • All other identity patterns are compatible • All identity patterns are healthy

Monoracial Identity • Identifies strongly with one of their monoracial or ethnic backgrounds • Students with one white parent and one parent of color are most likely to identify with parent of color • Of the 56 students interviewed, 27 or 48% identified as monoracial • Men were more likely to identify as monracial than women

Multiple Monoracial Identity • Identifies with both parent’s monoracial backgrounds and is knowledgeable about both • Participates in activities connected to both cultures • Usually identifies with a specific ethnic group rather than white (Italian, German, French) • Peers play a role in ability to identify with multiple identities • Twenty-seven students identified with this identity pattern. • Women were more likely than men to identify with this pattern

Multiracial Identity • Students in this pattern identify as mixed, multiracial, biracial or multicultural (self-labled) • They don’t identify in a monoracial category • Can be public or privately held • Common experience with other mixed race students regardless of background • Fifty of the 56 students studied identified as biracial in some way

Extraracial Identity • Choose not to adopt a racialized identity • Resisted outside identity categories • Thirteen students identified with this pattern • Four of these students grew up outside the U. S. • No students interviewed identified exclusively with this pattern • Difficult to maintain on campuses organized by racial identity

Situational Identity • Identify differently in different situations and contexts • Identify in more than one identity pattern • Students in this pattern think of identity as fluid • Thirty-four of the 56 students identified with this pattern • All 13 students who identified as Extraracial also identified in this pattern as well • Women are more likely than men to identify with this pattern

Findings • Achieving a singular racial identity is not necessarily reasonable or desirable • Various identity patterns and combinations were found • Women identified with more identity patterns than men • All 8 students who occupied 1 identity pattern were men • Students with 2 parents of color were less likely identify Monoracial • Students with on Latina/o or Hispanic parent and one white parent were most likely to identify with a Monoracial Identity • Students with one black parent and one white parent least likely to hold Extraracial Identity Pattern

Distribution across Identity Patterns by Heritage Monoracial Multiple Monoracial Multiracial Extraracial Situational Avg 2 parents of color (12) 4 (33%) 8 (75%) 10 (83%) 5 (42%) 11 (92%) 3. 17 1 Asian + 1 White parent (16) 8 (50%) 15 (94%) 2 (13%) 9 (56%) 2. 63 1 Black/ 1 White (13) 6 (46%) 5 (38%) 13 (100%) 1 (8%) 7 (56%) 2. 46 1 Latino/1 white (5) 5 (100%) 0 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 0 1. 60 1 Pacific Islander/1 white parent (7) 3 (43%) 4 (57%) 7 (100%) 3 (43%) 5 (71%) 3. 14 1 mixed/1 white parent (3) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 (100%) 1 (1%) 2 (67%) 3. 00 total=56 27 (48%) 50 (89%) 13 (23%) 34 (61%) 2. 70

Distribution across Identity Patterns by Gender Monoracial Multiple Monoracial Multiracial Extraracial Situational Men (20) 12 (60%) 5 (25%) 15 (75%) 2 (10%) 8 (40%) Women (36) 15 (42%) 22 (61%) 35 (97%) 11 (31%) 26 (72%) Total (6) 27 (48%) 50 (89%) 13 (23%) 34 (61%)

Strengths and Criticisms • Not longitudinal • Sample size per institution too small to generalize • Nature of the sample • Researcher’s identity as a white woman Strenghts • Support the need for changes in policy, program and services, and attention to elemental structural diversity pertaining to mixed raced students on campus. (Renn, 2004)

References • Renn, K. A. (2014, Februray, 1). Kristen A. Renn. Michigan State University. Retrived from http: //www. msu. edu/~renn/ • Renn, K. A. (2004). Mixed Race Students in College: The Ecology of Race, Identity, and Community on Campus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. • Renn, K. A. (2009). Education Policy, Politics and Mixed Heritage Students in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 165 -183. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1540 -4560. 2008. 01593. x • Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the Identities of Mixed Race College Students Through a Developmental Ecology Lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44. Retrieved from http: //journals. ohiolink. edu/ejc/article. cgi? issn=15433382&issue=v 44 i 0003 &article=383_utiomcstadel