Beyond Metrics: Racial Identity Development as Anti-Colonial Praxis in Contested Institutional Spaces

Abstract

Amid escalating attacks on the diversity, equity, and inclusion, Historically Black Emerging Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HBeHSIs) represent overlooked spaces of resistance in U.S. Higher education. This study examines how faculty and administrators negotiate racial and professional identities within institutions shaped by Black liberatory traditions and exclusionary HSI policy. Guided by Bradley and Tillis’s Afro-Latinidades heuristic, we link psychosocial identity development to institutional praxis and anti-colonial resistance. Interviews with 10 BIPOC professionals reveal identity ork as collective praxis challenging essentialist narratives and affirming servingness beyond enrollment metrics. Five themes illustrate work as collective praxis challenging essentialist narratives and affirming servingness beyond enrollment metrics. Five themes illustrate strategies for sustaining equity-driven missions under racial retrenchment, calling for renewed commitments to justice-centered higher education.

1. Introduction

Racial identity development has long been a subject of scholarly interest across various racial and ethnic identities (Helms 2014; Smith 1989; Torres et al. 2023). However, the currently available literature on racial and professional identity development within higher education spaces, particularly politically contested institutional spaces such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), overwhelmingly focuses on students and student services (Komives et al. 2005; Taylor and Wynn 2019; Turman and Irwin 2023). This gap is pressing as HBCUs increasingly meet HSI enrollment thresholds, producing institutional contexts that remain largely absent from current scholarship. Understanding how faculty and administrators navigate racial identity development in these settings is crucial for informing institutional practices related to faculty retention, institutional culture, and the capacity of MSIs to serve diverse communities equitably. This study frames HBeHSIs as contested institutional spaces where racial identity intersects with policy exclusions, establishing an urgency for examining lived experiences as sites of resistance. Guided by Bradley and Tillis (2025) anti-colonial inclusion framework for Hispanic Serving HBCUs, we consider how institutional logics shape racial identity development among faculty and administrators.

While HBCUs are well-documented as supporting the racial identity development of Black students, much less is known about how these institutions shape the racial identities of faculty and administrators. The assumption that racial identity is fixed in adulthood obscures how faculty of color continually (re)negotiate their identities as they navigate institutional missions, power dynamics, and student engagement (Patton and Bondi 2015). Most research on faculty identity development is situated in predominantly white institutions (PWIs), where faculty of color are often framed in terms of marginality, resistance, and survival (Diggs et al. 2009; Gutiérrez y Muhs et al. 2012; Kelly and McCann 2014; Turner et al. 2008). By contrast, HBCUs often provide affirming contexts in which racial identities are closely tied to racial uplift, cultural pride, and community building (Favors 2019; Gasman and Commodore 2014).

Even less attention has been given to Historically Black colleges that enroll significant numbers of Latine students. These Historically Black emerging HSIs (HBeHSIs) represent a distinct and understudied context. HBeHSIs are HBCUs that meet the federal enrollment criteria to be designated as HSIs but remain ineligible for federal recognition due to exclusionary policy. The stakes of this liminality are high: how HBeHSIs reconcile, or fail to reconcile, these competing logics will affect their ability to sustain faculty of color, support diverse student bodies, and advocate for federal recognition that reflects their lived servingness (Ray 2019; Bradley and Tillis 2025).

This study aims to provide insight into how HBeHSIs promote racial identity and professional development among faculty and administrators across racial backgrounds. By centering these professionals’ experiences, this study contributes to ongoing debates about what it means to be ‘serving’ in MSI contexts, informs policy discussions about the absence of dual HBCU-HSI designation, and highlights how institutional culture shapes faculty well-being and career trajectories. In doing so, the study extends the scholarship on HBCUs, which have an increasing presence of Latine students, many of whom meet the U.S. Department of Education’s definition of HSIs (HACU n.d.). We are guided by the following research questions:

• How does working at an HBeHSI impact the racial identity development of faculty members and administrators, as well as their individually held professional missions?
• How does gender impact the racialized experiences of BIPOC faculty and administrators on Texas HBeHSI campuses?
• How do BIPOC faculty and administrators’ engagements within HBeHSIs impact their perceptions of these institutions as potentially identity-affirming spaces?

2. Literature Review

To situate this study’s focus on professionals’ racial and gender identity experiences, we provide an overview of studies that have focused on faculty and administrator experiences, with a predominant emphasis on HBCUs, MSIs, and broader minority-serving institutional contexts. We begin with a brief overview of HBCUs, including their evolution over time. We then summarize the literature, focusing on faculty and administrators’ racialized experiences within their institutions, before describing these individuals’ gendered experiences and discussing how the findings from previous literature complement our work.

2.1. The Origins and Transformation of HBCUs

HBCUs have long served as sources of hope and empowerment for Black Americans, who were denied access to higher education prior to their emergence. HBCUs serve as spaces for education and cultural preservation and are vital institutions for nurturing Black identity, leadership, and community engagement (Allen et al. 2007). The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision is foundational to understanding this trajectory. While Brown directly challenged segregation in K–12 education, it laid the legal groundwork for desegregation across all levels of American schooling, including higher education. However, the integration it demanded was framed mainly around increasing Black access to historically white institutions, not strengthening or investing in Black educational spaces. Key higher education cases, such as Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and the enrollment of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi in 1962, illustrate this dynamic (Kluger 1976; Doyle 2001). These legal and political battles were necessary to break open exclusionary white campuses, but they also reinforced a one-way model of integration that treated historically white institutions as the default sites of opportunity and excellence (Anderson 1988; Gasman 2013).

Meanwhile, federal policy shifts, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965, while expanding financial aid access, often failed to center on or equitably fund HBCUs. Instead, these policies presumed that “diversity” meant redistributing Black students into white-controlled institutions, while Black colleges remained chronically underfunded and underrecognized. Despite these dynamics, HBCUs continue to enroll and graduate a disproportionate share of Black students, remaining indispensable institutions of educational advancement, cultural affirmation, and community empowerment (Brown and Dancy 2017). Rather than being relics of segregation, they have persisted as vital, liberatory spaces that center Black educational success on Black terms. HBCUs have always maintained an open-access mission, welcoming students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds since their founding (Allen et al. 2007; Gasman 2013). These institutions were not created to exclude non-Black students, but rather to provide educational opportunities denied to Black Americans in a segregated system (Brown and Dancy 2017; Gasman and Commodore 2014).

2.2. Gendered and Racialized Faculty Experienced

Faculty of color, particularly women, navigate higher education spaces marked by complex intersections of race, gender, and institutional expectations regarding class (Collins 2000; Tatum 2007; Crenshaw 2013). Black feminist thinkers and women of color the analysis of agency and identity-based oppression for women of color. Ahmed (2004, 2012)’s work on diversity and institutional life provides critical insight into how inclusion is often performative, while Tatum’s exploration of racial dialog underscores the psychosocial dimensions of identity negotiation. These additions frame faculty narratives within intersectional critiques that highlight structural and cultural barriers to belonging. Whether at HBCUs, HSIs, or other MSIs, faculty members balance academic and institutional demands with cultural labor and community obligations (Haynes et al. 2024). Despite the perception that these spaces are more inclusive than PWIs, faculty across all institutional contexts report challenges, including identity suppression, microaggressions, and unrecognized service labor (Koonce et al. 2024; Venegas et al. 2024). This section explores how racialized and gendered experiences impact faculty of color, emphasizing how they both struggle within and resist exclusionary norms.

2.2.1. Identity Suppression and Microaggressions Within the Academy

Faculty of color often face pressure to conform to dominant norms by downplaying aspects of their racial, ethnic, or gender identities. Cross’s (1991) Nigrescence theory explains how narratives of early racial identity development, particularly transitions from pre-encounter to immersion-emersion stages. Helms’s (2014) framework illuminates how whiteness operates in professional norms, while Torres et al.’s (2023) Latine identity model contextualizes bicultural negotiation. These processes of identity development reflect the underlying dominance of whiteness in academic spaces (Cross 1991; Helms 2014; Torres et al. 2023). Such expectations are especially pronounced at PWIs, where faculty and administrators of color navigate an environment that implicitly demands assimilation. In a study on Latina administrators’ experiences, Sánchez et al. (2021) describe how Latina administrators felt compelled to embody the “whitest version” of themselves to fit into institutions, signaling that success and acceptance are often tied to how closely they align with white cultural norms. This pressure to suppress one’s identity is not merely an individual struggle; it reflects a larger structural issue within academia, where whiteness operates as the standard for professionalism and competence.

Multiracial faculty members encounter similar challenges, though their experiences are complicated by the difficulty of fitting into fixed racial categories (Torres et al. 2023). Harris et al. (2021) describe this as “monoracism,” where multiracial individuals are marginalized because they do not align with socially constructed racial boundaries. These faculty members experience subtle but persistent exclusion, leaving them without the sense of belonging that monoracial faculty might find within racial or ethnic affinity groups. As a result, they must navigate multiple layers of marginalization, contributing to emotional strain and professional tension as they manage their identities within rigid institutional frameworks.

Institutional-level scholarship on HBCUs and HSIs highlights structural logics shaping these experiences. While MSIs, are theoretically committed to fostering diversity via enrollment metrics, faculty of color in these spaces continue to encounter microaggressions. These microaggressions reveal that simply increasing diversity in enrollment or hiring is insufficient to dismantle the deeper cultural biases embedded within institutions. Black and Asian women faculty at HSIs experienced anti-Blackness and colorism, indicating that even within spaces that promote inclusivity, racial hierarchies persist (Koonce et al. 2024). Participants in this study described a sense of responsibility to promote cultural competence on campus. These experiences often place faculty members in a double bind, where they are expected to embody both the ideal of diversity and the institutional norms that marginalize them (Harris et al. 2021; Venegas et al. 2024). This dynamic of hypervisibility and invisibility is especially challenging. On one hand, faculty of color are hypervisible as representatives of their racial group and expected to be spokespersons for diversity and inclusion efforts. On the other hand, they are rendered invisible when it comes to institutional support, as their contributions are often overlooked or devalued (Harris et al. 2021). This dual burden leaves faculty, particularly women, in precarious positions where they must carefully manage how they present themselves while simultaneously carrying the weight of institutional diversity efforts.

2.2.2. The Burden and Resistance of Faculty of Color

The cumulative burden of these pressures leaves faculty vulnerable to burnout as they juggle the demands of teaching, research, and service while managing the emotional and psychological strain of exclusion (Venegas et al. 2024). Burnout among faculty of color is often compounded by a lack of institutional resources to address these challenges, as well as by the limited presence of supportive networks within their institutions (Koonce et al. 2024). Without meaningful change, these experiences can lead to disengagement from academic life, with some faculty choosing to leave the profession altogether. These realities underscore the need for more profound institutional transformation beyond superficial diversity initiatives. While many institutions have made strides in increasing the representation of faculty of color, true inclusion requires a reexamination of the cultural norms and power structures that govern academic spaces. Until such changes occur, faculty of color will continue to face the exhausting challenge of navigating environments that demand both conformity and cultural representation, thereby eroding their well-being and limiting their opportunities for advancement (Harris et al. 2021; Sánchez et al. 2021). Jean-Marie and Tickles (2017) describe how Black women administrators at HBCUs challenge both racism and sexism by creating spaces where students and colleagues feel empowered to express their full identities. These leaders engage in transformative leadership by intentionally bridging institutional traditions with the need for innovation, often in ways that push back against practices that marginalize students and faculty (Blake 2018). Even in the face of these barriers, Black women leaders remain committed to upholding the core values of their institutions, ensuring that HBCUs continue to serve as spaces of empowerment and resistance (Jean-Marie and Tickles 2017).

2.3. Academic Labor and Navigating Competing Missions

At historically and predominantly white colleges, faculty of color disproportionately take on the role of mentors for students from underrepresented backgrounds and manage heavy service commitments. At HBCUs, the expectation of mentorship is deeply embedded in the mission of these institutions, which have historically prioritized academic success and personal and community uplift (Palmer and Scott 2017). Mentoring at HBCUs often extends beyond the classroom. Faculty support students through both academic challenges and help facilitate personal development, enabling them to navigate systemic barriers that exist outside the institution. Holistic mentorship is seen as essential to the success of students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds (Griffin 2012; Palmer et al. 2009). However, despite its importance, this labor is often overlooked in formal evaluations for tenure and promotion, leaving faculty feeling overworked and undervalued (Hollis 2024).

Black and Asian women faculty also often navigate multiple layers of responsibility within their institutions, a dynamic not unique to HSIs, but reflective of the broader invisible labor disproportionately placed on women of color in academia. In addition to mentoring students, they are frequently expected to lead diversity initiatives, participate in community outreach, and serve on numerous institutional committees, often with little acknowledgment of the time and emotional energy these tasks require (Koonce et al. 2024; Venegas et al. 2024). These service roles are not optional. They are implicitly required as students and colleagues rely on these faculty to fill critical gaps in support systems. However, when it comes time for tenure and promotion decisions, these contributions are seldom counted with the same weight as research output, further marginalizing faculty of color within academic hierarchies (Venegas et al. 2024). At PWIs, Latina administrators emphasize the importance of informal mentoring networks as a survival mechanism for early career faculty (Sánchez et al. 2021). These networks offer emotional and professional support and guidance, while fostering a sense of belonging, all of which are essential for thriving in environments that can otherwise feel isolating and exclusionary.

Ultimately, the burden of mentorship and service labor disproportionately carried by faculty of color underscores the need for systemic changes in how academic institutions define and reward success. Until institutions recognize and appropriately value the relational and cultural labor faculty engage in, the cycle of overwork, burnout, and professional stagnation will persist, limiting the potential for meaningful change. Addressing this imbalance requires more than policy adjustments; it demands a cultural shift within academia, one that acknowledges the full scope of faculty contributions and prioritizes equity in evaluation processes.

3. Theoretical Framework

This study is situated within, and extends, theories of race as a social construct and racial identity development (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Omi and Winant 2014). This perspective emphasizes that racial, ethnic, and gender identities are not fixed categories but evolving, contextually driven constructs shaped by social interactions and institutional norms. Faculty identity development is understood as situational, shifting across life stages and institutional contexts (e.g., pre-tenure vs. post-tenure), reflecting pressures to conform and opportunities for authenticity. We draw from these frameworks to offer additional insight into how shared categorical membership fosters belonging while also creating boundaries, and how collaboration across differences can generate collective strength. This work further underscores the role of institutions in empowering individuals as critical thinkers who value diversity as a resource for collective growth from their unique standpoint of intersectional positionality. By building on these theories, we frame identity development as a dynamic process mediated by institutional logics and social positioning, challenging essentialist assumptions prevalent in U.S. higher education discourse.

Guided by Bradley and Tillis (2025) anti-colonial inclusion framework, Afro-Latinidades1 (see Table 1), our analysis centers tenet four: tending to fallacious notions of essentialism. This perspective emphasizes that Black and Latine communities are often constructed through settler colonial logics as fundamentally different and in competition, obscuring the heterogeneity, intersecting identities, and shared struggles within and across these groups. By resisting these essentialist constructions, we situate identity as a dynamic, relational, and negotiated process within institutional contexts. Applied to faculty and administrators at HBeHSIs, this framework enables us to examine how racial identity development unfolds within spaces shaped by both the historic missions of HBCUs and the shifting designations of HSIs.

Table 1. Afro-Latinidades as an Organizational Heuristic.

Tenet	Description
1. Tending to white settler colonialism	Organizational stakeholders must philosophically recognize, attend to, and disrupt white settler colonial mechanisms of domination and oppression.
2. Tending to Fiscal Precarity	Organizational stakeholders must acknowledge that institutions have been economically and politically constructed in ways that exploit and reinscribe colonial relations.
3. Tending to Sacred Spaces	Organizational stakeholders must protect the sacred spaces of marginalized peoples by honoring the institutions (such as HBCUs) that preserve their cultural ways of knowing and being.
4. Tending to Fallacious Notions of Essentialism	Organizational stakeholders must acknowledge that settler colonialism constructs Black and Brown peoples as essentially different and in competition with each “other.”

Afro-Latinidad identities complicate these binaries, and their presence within HBCU-HSI spaces, offering both a mirror and a critique of the institutional narratives that govern inclusion. We argue that racial identity development among faculty and administrators at HBeHSIs cannot be understood through generic or universalist lenses. It is not a linear or individual process, but a deeply relational and contextual one, shaped by institutional mission, demographic change, professional role, and intersectional power dynamics.

We rely on tenet four to answer the following research questions:

(1)

How does working at an HBeHSI impact the racial identity development of faculty members and administrators, as well as their individually held professional missions?

(2)

How does gender impact the racialized experiences of BIPOC faculty and administrators on Texas HBeHSI campuses?

(3)

How do BIPOC faculty and administrators’ engagements within HBeHSIs impact their perceptions of these institutions as potentially identity-affirming spaces?

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Site Selection and Participants

Data for this study were drawn from a larger instrumental phenomenological case study (Bradley and Tillis 2025) involving 15 faculty and administrators from three Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in Texas. Texas was selected for its historical and sociocultural significance, including its legacy of settler colonialism and chattel slavery, which continues to shape policies and cultural norms that constrain professional agency. The state also has a substantial Latine population and growing Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities. HBCUs in Texas enroll significant numbers of Latine/a/o students; notably, St. Philip’s College in San Antonio is the only HBCU nationally designated as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI).

A purposeful maximum variation sampling strategy was used to select sites and participants (Merriam 1998; Merriam and Tisdell 2016). Eligible participants were faculty or administrators employed for at least six years within the past year at one of three HBCUs meeting HSI criteria (HBeHSIs), which included one community college and two four-year institutions. Here, HBeHSIs refer to HBCUs where at least 25% of students identify as “Hispanic,” per U.S. Department of Education guidelines (HACU n.d.). While 15 participants were recruited, this analysis focuses on 10 whose interviews provided the most extensive discussion of gendered racial identity and professional mission (see Table 2 for full sample).

Table 2. Full Participant Sample (Faculty and Administrators).

Pseudonym	Race/Ethnicity	Pronouns	Campus Role	Tenures	Alumni Status
LuLu	South Korean, Chicana	She/Her	Executive-level Admin	0.5 years	non-HBCU
Devin	Black	He/Him	Mid-Level Admin	1 year	non-HBCU
Safiyah	Indian	She/Her	Executive-level Admin	1 year	non-HBCU
Neal	Hispanic	He/Him	Executive-level Admin	1.5 years	non-HBCU
Derrick	Black	He/Him	Low-level Admin	3 years	non-HBCU
Sonya	Chicana	She/Her	Mid-Level Admin	5 years	non-HBCU
Stephen	Black	He/Him	Executive-level Admin	7 years	HBCU Alumni
Jacob	Black	He/Him	Faculty	9 years	HBCU Alumni
Latrice	Black, Mexican	She/Her	Faculty	10 years	HBCU Alumni
Tempest	Black	She/Her	Mid-Level Admin	11 years	non-HBCU
Kevin	Black	He/Him	Low-level Admin	13 years	HBCU Alumni
Jonathan	Black	He/Him	Executive-level Admin	15 years	non-HBCU
Ken	White	He/Him	Mid-Level Admin	19 years	non-HBCU
Jeff	White	He/Him	Faculty	31 years	non-HBCU
Virginia	Black	She/Her	Faculty	49 years	non-HBCU

4.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Participants were identified through organizational charts, professional social media (e.g., LinkedIn), and academic networks. Each received a $20 Amazon gift card for their time. To protect confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned, and institutional identifiers were withheld.

We analyzed 45–60 min semi-structured interviews, focusing on sections where participants discussed how their roles at HBeHSIs shaped their gendered racial identities and professional missions. Data analysis involved iterative coding and comparative analysis (Stake 2000). Inductive coding revealed themes related to participants’ identity development. Applying deductive coding through Tenet 4 enabled us to examine how their narratives reflect institutional influences on identity formation from an anti-colonial perspective. Tenet 4 of the Afro-Latinidades organizational heuristic emphasizes interrogating institutional practices and power structures that shape identity formation within racialized and colonial contexts. In this study, Tenet 4 guided our deductive coding by framing participants’ narratives through an anti-colonial lens, allowing us to move beyond individual experiences to examine how organizational norms, policies, and historical legacies influence psychosocial processes of identity development. This approach situates identity work not as an isolated phenomenon but as deeply embedded in institutional structures that reproduce or resist coloniality. This sub-analysis centers on Tenet 4 because it specifically addresses institutional influence on identity development within this unique organizational context. While our broader study engages all tenets of the Afro-Latinidades organizational heuristic, we expand on the remaining tenets in sister manuscripts that move beyond psychosocial processes to explore structural and organizational dimensions in greater depth. To maintain conceptual precision, we distinguished between psychosocial identity processes and structural aspects of institutional culture during theme refinement.

4.3. Researchers’ Positionality

As a research team, we approach this study with an acute awareness of how our identities as Black/African American, Latina/Mexican American, and Afro-Nuyorican scholars, shaped within HSIs, HBCUs, and PWIs, inform our commitments and interpretations. Our lived experiences, marked by racialized marginality, diasporic consciousness, and navigating institutions that both uplift and constrain minoritized communities, ground our understanding of the complexities and possibilities of higher education. Collectively, we enter this work with a praxis rooted in equity and decolonial advocacy, seeking to illuminate how institutional actors make sense of their roles within racialized contexts and to challenge deficit narratives that obscure the serving missions of HBeHSIs and related institutions.

5. Results

The findings of this study provide insight into the ways faculty and administrators at HBeHSIs experience identity development within their uniquely contested institutional context. Our findings illustrate identity work as anti-colonial praxis enacted through five themes: 1. early racial identity development, 2. postsecondary and prior career experiences, 3. intra-cultural individuation, 4. institutional programming, and 5. intergroup relations. Throughout each theme, we discuss differences across genders, where relevant. In addition, we reflect on the ways their psychosocial identity development influenced their institutional praxis, based on their perception of the school’s mission. To maintain the confidentiality of the participants, we use pseudonyms and remove identifiers related to their specific job roles.

5.1. Foundations of Praxis: Early Racial Identity Development

Although this study focuses on the racial and gender identity development of faculty and administrators, more than half of our participants looked back at their early childhood experiences to gain insight into how their perceptions of their racial identities have evolved. For example, Stephen, a Black executive administrator, recalled attending a predominantly white high school. He said, “I had a really good amount of Black male teachers in middle school, but [in] high school, I didn’t, so there was not a lot of affirmation… It was just, you figured it out.” Stephen’s reflection on the absence of Black role models underscores how his current commitment to mentoring students is rooted in his own identity formation and desire to provide affirmation he once lacked. The absence of Black role models in such environments diminishes positive presence, highlighting the importance of examining underrepresentation in leadership and its impact on the racial identity development of marginalized students.

Furthermore, the geographical environment where people grow up influences their racial identity. Tempest, a Black mid-level administrator raised in a major Texas city with mostly white residents, shared how a short time in Detroit changed her view of racial identity and empowerment: “So, I grew up in mostly white schools except for when I went to high school. And then I lived in Detroit for a little bit, that was an experience…But then coming back and being her, I know the impact, it’s empowering.” Although they did not go into detail, their reflections suggest that experiencing different racial settings, especially time spent in a large Black-majority city, helped foster a sense of empowerment and a deeper understanding of racial dynamics.

Childhood memories surfaced in participants’ narratives as powerful moments when they first began to internalize what it meant to be racialized in their communities. Virginia, a Black faculty member, shared how certain childhood songs and media reinforce negative stereotypes about Blackness, leading to feelings of low self-esteem. This was particularly painful because these messages were often internalized at a young age, becoming part of her self-concept before she could critically examine them:

I mean, we used to sing these songs as kids, ‘if you’re white, you’re all right. If you’re yellow, you’re mellow; if you’re Brown, hang around; if you’re Black, get back.’ And so, we internalize these attitudes of Blackness being bad, and it’s within those kinds of historical traumatic teachings that we do need to work with folks who may have low self-esteem. Maybe it is because they’re Black, maybe those are the things we need to work with. What kind of messages they learn as kids.

Virginia’s story emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing how anti-Blackness, spread through narratives that aim to reinforce racial subordination, can influence how Black individuals see themselves and their role in society. These internalized messages can have a profound and lasting impact on self-worth and identity development.

Neal, a Hispanic executive-level administrator, described how his understanding of race evolved in tandem with his understanding of racism. He said, “I have always prided myself on the fact that my parents, my family, and the institution that I served in were, in my mind, [f]or the most part, colorblind and merit-based, and that was a good thing. I was very proud of that.” Neal also shared that, “in the last couple of years,” he realized the harm caused by color-evasiveness and the real-life effects of race, recognizing that “if you believe that you are treating everybody and that your organization and institution is treating everybody equally…that is not necessarily acknowledging everything that has happened to those individuals along the way.” This shift in perspective reflects a broader process of racial identity development, where Neal’s reflection highlights the influence of upbringing on understanding racialized experiences. In his adult years, Neal’s perspective has changed so that he can now see the complexities of race and racism within society.

The challenge of racial categorization and the frustration of being racially mislabeled also emerged from one of the participants. Safiyah, an Indian executive administrator, shared an experience in high school where people assumed she was East Asian despite not identifying as such. She recounted the following:

I remember once in tennis in high school, our coach was like, “All the Asians line up and give me an extra suicide run.” I was like, What the hell? But I got on the line, [I] didn’t really question it. My white friend was like, “You’re not Asian.” I was like, “What am I, then?”

Both men and women discussed their early development of racial identity. However, it is worth noting that women focused on societal impact in their responses. Women reflected more on how systemic inequalities, particularly within educational settings, influenced their personal development. The narratives shared by participants underscore various ways in which racial identity is shaped by early experiences and how these experiences continue to be relevant in adulthood.

5.2. Comparative Contexts: Navigating Institutional Logics

While many participants traced the roots of their identity development to early childhood, others also wove in experiences from their time as students or employees in other institutions. These spaces shaped how they perceived themselves and their place within broader systems. This connection highlights the role that institutional environments play in identity development and how previous organizational experiences influence the way faculty and administrators operate within HBeHSIs. LuLu, a South Korean and Chicana executive administrator, reflected on how she grew close with a Black woman and colleague she worked with as a student at a large, historically white public university:

We had a lot of these conversations about identity, about what is it like to be somebody of color? Or even talking about equity, talking about first-generation students. And that’s how my interest in higher education actually started, through these conversations.

This adaptive strategy informs her current approach to supporting students navigating cultural boundaries, illustrating identity as anti-colonial praxis.

LuLu also explained how code-switching at another historically white institution allowed her to adapt to predominantly white spaces while still retaining aspects of her identity. She stated, “[I’m] not saying that I wasn’t who I was, as a person, but I think it’s just within the settings and the people that you interact with that make it different in how you’re going to interact.” LuLu’s insights provide evidence of how her college and previous work experiences were transformative in helping her determine a career pathway while also understanding the adaptive strategies that many people of color must develop to manage the complexities of moving between cultural contexts. Code-switching, and in some cases outright masking one’s full range of humanity, while a survival mechanism, also points to the tensions when one’s identity must be navigated through a lens of social acceptability.

Stephen, an HBCU alum, shared that he knew he wanted to work at an HBCU since he was an undergraduate student, to give “Black students, HBCU students in general, an experience that was going to be positively affirming.” He also described how his background as a first-generation college student from a low socioeconomic background motivated him to pursue an executive-level position, so that students who looked like him and came from similar backgrounds could see representation and the possibility of their future. Jacob, also an HBCU alum, reflected on his observation at his current institution’s graduation, sharing, “…I sat there as a member with the other faculty members and observ[ed] the amount of Black young people who are graduating, both Black Americans as well as Black folks from the diaspora…” He described the stark contrast between Black and Latine graduates at a large, public, historically white HSI compared to those who graduated from the HBeHSIs where he works, adding, “…I’ve been to other graduations. They did not look like the ones I saw.”

While Stephen reflected on his commitment to supporting HBCU students, given his alum status, Safiyah’s experience working at a historically white institution provides insight into the exclusion of certain racial groups that can exist within institutional settings. Safiyah shared how, as a South Asian, specifically Indian, woman, she has witnessed how often her community is left out of conversations about race. She described being invited to a party for people of color only because she does not identify as white, stating, “When people say Black and Brown, I really mean Brown, all Brown, but people really just mean Latino when they say that, right?” Safiyah describes the limited perceptions of racial classifications that can overly simplify specific categories, such as “Brown” and its association with Latine identities, despite its broad potential to apply to other racial groups. Safiyah’s analysis underscores the complexity of racial identity, which is often reduced to a monolithic label (Busey and Silva 2021).

It is worth noting that, unlike in the previous section, women focused more on personal challenges within the organizations they had previously operated. In contrast, men focused their responses on broader communities, describing their desire to be a source of representation and uplift their communities, particularly Black and Latine students. The varying focus on faculty and administrators’ responses highlights how these institutions shape a professional identity that establishes one’s goals while also revealing how individuals must show up to be deemed acceptable standards of professionalism, and the limited understanding of racial and ethnic diversity. These findings underscore the significance of prior organizational affiliations in shaping the development of professional and racial identity.

5.3. Intra-Cultural Individuation: Resisting Normative Professionalism

Intra-cultural individuation refers to instances where individuals discussed challenging or rejecting conventional academic expectations, such as through the presentation of self (physical characteristics, style of dress) or behaviors that do not align with a monolithic notion of Black excellence, which often reinforces whiteness in academia via traditional norms of professionalism. Within this theme, participants focus on how they present themselves in academic spaces as their authentic selves, the intersections between race and gender, and call for additional forms of cultural understanding within academia. These themes show how individuals actively navigate, resist, and redefine academic expectations in ways that align with their unique cultural and individual identities.

At the center of intra-cultural individuation is the rejection of conventional academic norms, particularly those that favor and reinforce whiteness. Individuals who reject these norms express their identity through their physical appearance and style of dress. Latrice, a Black and Mexican faculty member, shared that she wears anime t-shirts and Jays to work every day. She discussed the importance of setting an example to students that they can show up as their authentic selves, even in environments that often promote conformity:

I tell them, listen, get your career before you get tattoos on your head, like me, or all on your arms. When I first started, I got them above my elbows so that I could cover them up, but at this point in my career, I’m where I’m at just for being myself. And so, I like for students to know that I am authentic.

Rather than adhering to prescribed standards of professionalism that often exclude or marginalize non-white identities and forms of expression, Latrice asserts her right to define herself in her own way, demonstrating how cultural identity can be a source of pride and a tool of resistance. However, it is important to note that Latrice referenced being at a certain “point” in her career before she covered the length of her arm. This reveals a deeply embedded internalization of white, heteronormative standards of professionalism until reaching a particular point in one’s career. While Latrice offered an optimistic and prideful perspective on her ability to show up within her institution, Safiyah shared that she must “fight for [her] right to be [at her institution]”. However, she continued by sharing that she is not one to compare her oppression and the degree to which she has been discriminated against to others’ experiences.

While the men in our sample did not offer reflections related to physical appearance or presentation, women spoke to the complexities of navigating both racial and gendered expectations in their self-presentation. Their narratives highlight what Crenshaw (2013) calls intersectionality, the interlocking systems of oppression that uniquely shape the experiences of Black women. Participants described negotiating tensions between cultural expression and the pressure to conform to dominant, often white and gendered, standards of professionalism. Virginia, for example, described how her height as a Black woman affected her perception of professionalism and how others perceived her, sharing, “My master state is obvious when I walk into a room, I am a Black woman, but I’m also tall, which is not the norm for a woman. And so the reaction to me would be very different [than] a short woman…” Virginia’s identity as a tall Black woman can be both a source of empowerment and a potential obstacle as it risks feeding stereotypes of dominance or intimidation (Patton 2016). Such experiences underscore that standards of professionalism are not neutral but are deeply racialized and gendered, requiring careful navigation by those who are multiply marginalized. By pushing back on and rejecting these normative expectations, through appearance, behavior, or cultural expression, participants are not merely resisting conformity but actively redefining who belongs in academic spaces.

5.4. Institutional Programming: Sites of Engagement and Contestation

Most participants shared reflections on mission-driven efforts to affirm the ethno-racial identities of campus community members, highlighting the role of faculty and administrators in fostering or hindering inclusivity. A recurring theme was the importance of reinforcing the institution’s mission and heritage across the entire student body to strengthen students’ connection to the institution’s core values. For instance, Jacob, a Black faculty member, discussed his institution’s mission statement, noting its emphasis on developing “leadership,” yet admitted that many students never engage deeply with this mission outside of isolated courses. He emphasized, “There needs to be a stronger emphasis on the institution’s heritage and mission. I don’t think students need to end up in my [redacted] class or…[a] freshman studies class before they learn that [mission].” Jacob’s critique serves as a call for university leadership to embed institutional history and values more holistically across the curriculum and campus culture. In contrast, Safiyah described her college president’s intentional approach to sharing the history of HBCUs, MSIs, and organizations like the Divine Nine with all students, underscoring the potential for leadership to shape an inclusive understanding of the institution’s mission. These contrasting experiences illustrate how HBeHSIs are navigating the challenge of honoring their historic identity while serving an evolving student body.

Crucially, while demographic shifts and potential HSI designation may change enrollment profiles, they do not change the mission-based organizational identity that defines HBCUs. This identity is not merely about who enrolls, but about an enduring commitment to Black educational uplift, cultural affirmation, and social justice (Gasman and Commodore 2014). Even as HBCUs consider dual designation, their foundational purpose remains rooted in this legacy. Rather than viewing this as a tension, HBeHSIs have the opportunity to articulate how their historic mission can be preserved and expanded, to intentionally and equitably serve all students while maintaining the integrity of their HBCU heritage (Nguyen et al. 2023).

Faculty and administrators discussed their efforts to foster community and promote knowledge sharing across races and cultures to facilitate communication across identities. Neal, a Hispanic executive administrator, described how racial healing circles were instrumental in fostering empathy and understanding across differences:

[They’re] oriented on getting to know each other on a personal and deeper level so that you create bridges to different individuals in different communities that don’t look or think alike or have shared experiences and build bridges across some of the divides that we have in our society.

Neal’s facilitation of these circles reflects his own evolving identity as an administrator committed to dismantling essentialist boundaries and fostering solidarity. These circles allow campus members to share personal experiences without emphasis on race or politics to move towards trust and mutual respect, while bridging divides and fostering stronger community ties within the institution.

Virginia, a Black faculty member, described the evolution of her course, which focuses on inner-group relations in the curriculum:

I have to really be sure I’m focusing on being much more intentional in including other groups…we have to now be more intentionally inclusive. Whereas when I came in 1973, I didn’t have to think that way because 98% of the students were Black, and they needed a place where they were safe and comfortable.

These findings provide insight into the macro and micro-level implementations administrators and faculty have incorporated within their institution and classroom to affirm the identities of students, faculty, and staff as demographics shift.

Generally, those HBeHSIs faculty and administrators in our sample expressed reflections that seemed particularly intentional in relation to cultural sensitivity. However, this was not always the case. For example, Jeff (white faculty member) recalled a concerning response to a Hispanic individual at his institution, where he asserted, “Okay, you were born a minority. I became one at the age of six months” because he was diagnosed with a disease that resulted in him developing irreversible physical impairments. While his anecdote appeared to be well-meaning, Jeff’s comment fails to reconcile his privilege as a white man, at once erasing the experience of racially minoritized individuals with limitations similar to his own and establishing a false equivalency between race and ability status.

Gender differences emerged in the ways participants engaged with this theme. While both men and women acknowledged the significance of efforts to affirm the identities of those within HBeHSIs, women were more likely to emphasize the importance of community engagement and personal representation. For example, Tempest, a Black mid-level administrator, described how programs that facilitate discussions about natural hair foster racial pride. LuLu discussed her student-centered role, given her ability to work well with students and promote their sense of belonging by making them feel comfortable and supported. While men also referred to community efforts, they focused on institutional critiques and broader philosophical reflections on race. This is apparent in Jacob’s critique of the institution’s generic mission statement. Additionally, Jonathan, a Black executive administrator, emphasized the importance of belonging over racial identity itself, sharing, “We also have a racial philosophy, and we tell people all the time, ‘You can be our kind and not be our color, and what we care about is, are you our kind?” His philosophical perspective reframes institutional identity around cultural alignment, communal values, and shared purpose, rather than focusing solely on phenotype. In doing so, Jonathan invokes a broader philosophical stance that resists narrow essentialist notions of Blackness while still affirming the centrality of Black culture and collective belonging within the HBeHSIs context. This framing prioritizes inclusion for all students who embrace the institution’s ethos, while also underscoring that access to belonging is tied to affirming, rather than erasing, the historic and racialized identity of the HBCU.

5.5. Innervisions of Love: Building Solidarity Across Difference

Building on the previous section on institutional programming and race consciousness, participants also demonstrated rich, reflexive thinking about how their unique identities shaped what we refer to as innervisions of love. These experiences of intergroup relations illustrate moments of self-reflection and intergroup overtures of love, respect, fictive kinship, or friendship. Participants described their experiences relating to individuals within their institution across ethno-racial identities to facilitate unity, mutual understanding, and respect for one another in ways that honored them and resisted the colonial urge to create further distance from those seen as other than, or foreign to, oneself.

Jonathan, a Black man, described his genuine relationship with Latine students, sharing that he has supported them financially, visited their homes, attended quinceañeras, and even been named after some of their children. He went on to share that he “[tells his] Black brothers and sisters this all the time, ‘We are so secure with our culture that we can make room for someone else’s culture without feeling as if it diminishes ours.’” 6 Stephen shared a similar sentiment, discussing his history of mentoring students beyond only those who are Black, stating, “…They’re white, they’re Hispanic, they’re…Asian…and they all needed…to help them to figure out life and to make it okay to make mistakes and then to launch in their career.” When asked if Tempest began working at an HBCU with a commitment and mission to help Black students before the increasing enrollment of Latine students, she shared, “…For me, I’m a student person. It doesn’t matter [what their race is]. Yeah, it really does not matter.” Remarks from Jonathan, Stephen, and Tempest highlight their investment in support across racial identities, emphasizing that security within one’s identity can coexist with a sincere desire to embrace the culture and uniqueness of others on campus without compromising their Blackness and investment in supporting those who share the same racial identity.

Given her identity as a Black and Mexican woman, Latrice said, “My background allows me to speak to a wider range of students. Not that anybody can’t talk to a wide range of students, but to speak to them and be accepted by them.” She went on to acknowledge how her biracial identity puts her in a unique position. Latrice’s reflection highlights the advantages of her identity as an Afro-Latina (Dache et al. 2019) in fostering relationships on campus, particularly as someone who shares the two identities represented most at HBeHSIs. Latrice’s ability to relate to Black and Hispanic individuals allows her to develop more interpersonal connections across both groups, given her ability to empathize personally with both identities. LuLu, who also identifies as biracial, recalled a connection she shared with Black women who worked at her institution. She shared that the Black women were so intrigued by her shared music preference that they asked if she was Black because of the music she listened to. LuLu shared, “…I’m not Black, but if music is a way for us to connect, I would want to connect with somebody through the ways that we can.” LuLu’s experience signals an ability to connect across identities with students, as previous anecdotal evidence suggests, and fellow employees. Additionally, this interaction shows how music is just one example of a universal language that transcends racial identities and fosters an avenue for connection.

Insights from non-Black and non-Hispanic faculty and administrators were also substantive. Safiyah shared how, at an HBCU:

…we’ve taken out the whiteness. That part of it is different because there is not as much tension and struggle, because we know and understand Black culture and Latino culture, and we respect it and honor it in a way that it isn’t always in society.

Safiyah suggests that, by taking whiteness out of HBeHSIs, a greater connection between Black and Latine communities can exist, allowing for more meaningful relationships. Although Safiyah’s perspective is not invalid, it is essential to note that HBeHSIs do not eliminate white people or whiteness, for that matter, from within their institutions. White students, faculty, and administrators still co-exist in these spaces, even if in smaller quantities, as a result of opting into non-mission-driven colleges and universities. With that comes its unique challenges, particularly when individuals like Jeff describe that, despite his identity as a white man, he is a member of a “minority group” due to his physical disabilities.

Additionally, although not described by the individuals who participated in this study, cultural tensions between Black and Latine individuals can persist, even within HBeHSIs. This includes but is not limited to anti-Blackness by the Latine community and feelings of superiority by either group. Given that men and women described a dedicated commitment to fostering support and community for all, regardless of identity, there were no notable distinctions across genders related to this theme of intergroup relations, demonstrating a shared ethos and praxis of diversity, equity, and inclusion and service to all students, while centering Black culture.

6. Discussion

This study highlights the transformative role of Historically Black Emerging Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HBeHSIs) in shaping the racial and professional identities of faculty and administrators, particularly those from Black and Latino backgrounds. Participants’ narratives illustrate how racial identity shifts across settings, echoing Omi and Winant’s racial formation theory and Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) social construction paradigm. For example, reflections on early experiences and career transitions reveal situational identity negotiations, aligning with an emphasis on identity flexibility and context specificity. Jeff’s inability to perceive his white privilege is reframed as a microaggressive act that underscores how dominant norms shape identity boundaries (Helms 2014), while Latrice’s account of authenticity demonstrates agency within structural constraints (Torres et al. 2023; Cross 1991); leveraging diversity as a strength to advance institutional missions (Bradley and Tillis 2025). By situating these dynamics within social construction theory and our original organizational framework, we offer that identity development is not merely individual but relational and institutional, shaped by evolving contexts and power structures. The findings reveal several key themes that underscore the complexities of racial identity development in HBeHSI contexts, given the significance of institutional programming and the dynamics of intergroup relations within these educational environments.

We found that the early racial identity development of faculty and administrators has a significant influence on their professional missions and interactions with students. Many participants reflected on their formative experiences in predominantly white educational settings, emphasizing the critical need for representation and affirmation within academic spaces. While participants’ reflections on student needs remain relevant, we connect these observations to their own identity work. This pattern across narratives suggests that identity work and student advocacy are mutually reinforcing, challenging the notion that professional identity is separate from institutional service. This aligns with existing literature that underscores the importance of seeing oneself reflected in educators, which is essential for fostering a sense of belonging, and racial identity development among students. Early racial identity narratives align with Cross’s encounter stage, while participants’ resistance to essentialist norms reflects immersion-emersion processes. Institutional programming themes extend these models by situating identity work within organizational logics, illustrating how structural constraints (funding inequities, dual designation) intersect with psychosocial processes. This integration demonstrates that identity development is relational and context-dependent, challenging colonial assumptions in existing theories.

Additionally, we found that faculty and administrators demonstrate a commitment to evolving their professional missions in response to the changing demographics of HBeHSIs. Rather than seeing the increasing Latino student population as a threat to the HBCU legacy or identity, participants articulated a broader, inclusive vision of servingness. Faculty and administrators actively engaged in creating inclusive environments that foster a sense of belonging for all campus community members, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. This dedication is supported by literature (Garcia et al. 2019) advocating for policies that enhance cultural relevant and culturally sustaining praxis among faculty and staff, such as Title V, which seeks to improve access and success among Latine students by making the servingness that goes on in Hispanic serving institutions richer in anti-colonial cultural representation (García-Louis 2023), richer in its capacity to sustain and center cultural norms and traditions (Garcia 2019), and more expansive in its racial and gender diversity (Allen et al. 2007; Cuellar 2014; Bradley and Tillis 2025).

Moreover, the necessity of institutional programming that affirms students’ identities and promotes intergroup understanding was evident. Participants emphasized the importance of initiatives such as racial healing circles and community-building activities that bridge divides and foster empathy among diverse student populations. This reflects findings from previous studies that highlight the role of such programs in enhancing the educational experience and promoting a culture of inclusivity within HBeHSIs (Helms 2014). Women participants often reflected on the dual pressures of racial and gender identity development, sharing experiences of navigating societal expectations that intersect with their racial identities. For instance, women described how their early experiences in predominantly white educational settings shaped their perceptions of professionalism and self-worth, often feeling compelled to conform to specific standards to be accepted. In contrast, men focused more on the absence of Black role models and the impact of their educational environments on their racial identity and the racial identity of the students they serve. Understanding these nuances is crucial for developing targeted policies that address the specific needs of all faculty and administrators, particularly women of color who navigate multiple layers of identity within their professional roles (Haynes et al. 2024).

Implications for Practice and Research

These findings present significant implications for both practical applications and future research. Institutions seeking to enhance inclusivity must deliberately foster professional development initiatives that validate the intersectional identities of faculty and administrators, particularly those of women of color. Anti-colonial frameworks, such as the one implemented in this study, can inform programming, recruitment, and mentorship strategies that transcend superficial acts of inclusion and resist othering. Moreover, institutional context, including leadership sensemaking and decision-making, emerges as a critical factor shaping the daily realities of faculty and administrators within HBeHSIs. Research highlights the complex negotiations that institutional leaders undertake as they navigate funding restrictions, policy tensions, and the dual responsibility to preserve Black educational traditions while serving a growing Latine student population (Speller 2025). This work highlights the importance of examining how leadership practices at HBeHSIs can either advance or hinder commitments to inclusive, justice-centered institutional identities.

Future research should also investigate how these leadership decisions interact with faculty and staff development, shaping their capacity to support diverse student bodies. By centering the voices of those who operationalize servingness on the ground, researchers can generate actionable insights to help HBeHSIs and other emerging MSIs fulfill their equity missions without sacrificing their historic commitments.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, HBeHSIs serve as transformative spaces that empower BIPOC students, faculty, and staff to envision themselves in professional roles that defy colonial relations and reflect their authentic identities. By prioritizing the needs of these students and supporting the faculty and administrators who serve them, federal policymakers and college administrators can foster a more equitable and inclusive higher education landscape that honors the rich cultural heritage of all students. The commitment to authenticity, inclusivity, and community engagement within HBeHSIs is essential not only for the success of these institutions but also for the broader mission of higher education in promoting social justice and equity (Smith 1989; Torres et al. 2023).

However, the path forward requires grappling with complex questions of organizational identity. As Speller (2025) demonstrates, institutional leaders at HBCU-HSIs must navigate the pressures of federal policy regimes that often force them into narrow funding designations, even as they strive to build inclusive environments for both Black and Latine faculty and staff. This research offers a valuable lens to understand how leadership sensemaking shapes institutional culture, resource allocation, and servingness practices in ways that have lasting impacts on BIPOC faculty and administrators.

While this study focuses on the perspectives of all faculty and staff, future research should explore the experiences of alumni to deepen our understanding of how racial identity continues to develop in the HBeHSI context. Examining how campus members’ socialization across institutional types, including PWIs, MSIs, and HBCUs, shapes post-college identity formation will offer valuable insights into the lasting impact of institutional environments on BIPOC professionals. Through this layered, intersectional, and institutional lens, researchers and practitioners alike can better advance a vision of higher education that fulfills its promise of equity and justice for all.