Institutional penalty: mentoring, service, perceived discrimination and its impacts on the health and academic careers of Latino faculty

Abstract

Institutional ethnoracial taxation increases work stress and reduces research productivity among Mexican American and Puerto Rican faculty. Latinos are a heterogenous group, yet little is known about differences in taxation, discrimination experiences and health by race, ethnicity, and nativity. This study explores three questions: Are there differences between URM (historically underrepresented) and non-URM Latinos in: 1) demographic factors, 2) taxation experiences and 3) physical and depressive symptoms and role overload? Survey respondents included 134 Mexican American, 76 Puerto Rican, and 108 non-URM Latino faculty. URM respondents are significantly less likely to report white race, more likely to report racial/ethnic discrimination, and more likely to report joint appointments compared to non-URM faculty. Almost 25% of respondents report clinical depressive symptoms. Disproportionate combinations of taxation from service, administrative demands and discrimination without institutional supports constitute an “Institutional Penalty.” Reducing taxation demands requires institutional equity agendas to support research productivity, promotion, and retention.

Introduction

Latino¹ faculty constitute about 4.7% of faculty in postsecondary institutions in the US (US Department of Education NCES 2018). Latinos are composed of individuals with different histories, traditions, racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds. Additional differences include skin color, experiences of racism, and being perceived as “unfit” or of inferior intellectual ability. Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans (hereinafter referred to as URM Latinos) are historically underrepresented minorities² (URM) and represent about 68% of the US Latino population (“Hispanic Origin Groups in the U.S.” 2019; Zong 2022). During the last three decades, URM Latinos have experienced a modest increase in their representation among faculty ranks in higher education with increases attributed to the inclusion of other Latinos (non-URM), about half of whom are foreign-born.³ Although URM Latino faculty often experience ethnoracial taxation and discrimination, data on non-URM Latino faculty suggest they experience different forms of taxation, such as language barriers and feelings of loss of their home countries (Martinez, Chang, and Welton 2017). A significant body of work has identified different forms of taxation under multiple terms. Racial/ethnic, cultural, minority, identity and Black/Brown taxation are terms that have historic antecedents and refer to unrecognized and unrewarded academic labor not usually required of non-URM groups.

However, little is known about differences in work taxation and the resulting physical and mental health consequences of Latinos by race, ethnicity, and nativity. Institutional Penalty is coined here as a set of interrelated and overlapping structural, ethnoracial expectations in multiple work role areas (diversity, administrative or leadership service) that academic institutions impose on historically underrepresented faculty, often resulting in deleterious effects on health and well-being. This penalty is associated with three consequential realities on individual careers: (1) assigned roles proffer only symbolic institutional antiracist and equity measures but have limited benefit for the communities, students, and faculty members they purport to serve; (2) roles entail excessive, unrewarded academic service and administrative labor not valued in tenure and promotion; and (3) efforts rarely result in institutional investment in professional socialization, monetary compensation, or the meaningful, career-enhancing mentoring support by senior faculty needed for role efficacy and research productivity.

To our knowledge, the assessment of combined and multiple institutional demands on physical and depressive symptomology has not been quantitatively measured. Many studies have employed qualitative methods, tackled one or two ethnoracial expectations and have not had large enough sample sizes to test associations quantitatively (Casado Perez 2019; Guillaume and Apodaca 2022). The novel contribution of this paper is its examination of the physical and mental health consequences of the taxation penalty, namely the interactive effects of diversity service, leadership and administrative tasks combined with inadequate mentoring and discrimination, while interrogating the heterogeneity of Latinos by race, ethnicity and nativity. This study underscores the importance of Latinos as an untapped talent pool in higher education; the necessity of institutional equity to increase opportunity for upward mobility; and Latinos’ pivotal role in training the next generation of students to ensure diverse representation.

Taxation in higher education is a persistent area of concern for URMs because it is institutionally inscribed in varied and (in)visible ways. A robust body of descriptive knowledge exists on the challenges experienced and the role of taxation among URM Latino faculty (Niemann et al. 2020; Rodríguez, Campbell, and Pololi 2015). Taxation is defined as “increased expectations that faculty of color should address diversity-related departmental and institutional affairs,” and as such, these faculty often have additional responsibilities due to their commitment to this work (Joseph and Hirshfield 2011, 123). Ethnoracial taxation refers to the unspoken expectations placed on URM faculty to maintain the same workload as their non-URM peers while also disproportionally “[caring] for marginalized students, [being] overburdened with institutional service, and [having] obligations to teach colleagues about race and racism” based entirely on their racial/ethnic identities (Rideau 2021, 161). It decenters institutional responsibility for work taxation that often diminishes research productivity and, instead, places it on the individuals who serve the institutions’ diversity mission.

This paper connects the consequences of taxation with suboptimal physical and depressive symptoms. It adds an important analysis to the literature on the sociology of work and race and ethnicity, which has generally aggregated Latinos into a monolithic, undifferentiated group. The majority of studies on Latino professionals, including faculty, have failed to assess the differential impacts of discrimination and taxation on Latinos by race, ethnicity and nativity. We argue that the cumulative effects of multiple service ethnoracial expectations combined with perceived discrimination and inadequate mentoring represent an institutional penalty that often adversely contributes to physical and depressive symptoms, role overload and career derailment. In this paper, we describe demographic differences between URM and non-URM Latinos, explore distinct experiences of taxation, and proffer fair and impartial practices to address the higher education inequities experienced by Latino subgroups.

Literature review

Ethnoracial taxation deserves critical attention in higher education systems because it intersects with historical identifiers of race and ethnicity, stereotypes of low intelligence, low socioeconomic status, perceived dangerousness/criminality, post-1980s diversity initiatives, and a platform of diversity representation rather than an investment in URM professional development. The construct of taxation has been present in multiple forms throughout the last three decades. Padilla (1994) eloquently defines “cultural taxation” in the following way:

[…] the obligation to show good citizenship toward the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation on committees, or to demonstrate knowledge and commitment to a cultural group, which may even bring accolades to the institution but which is not usually rewarded by the institution on whose behalf the service was performed.

(26)

All forms of racial/ethnic/gender-based taxation constitute an unjust burden that can be defined as a penalty because these work responsibilities hamper career persistence and do not have academic value in promoting achievement of tenure or promotion to a higher rank. Taxation encompasses multiple experiences, including exclusion, pigeonholing faculty into teaching racial/ethnic classes regardless of their expertise, serving as department diversity officers and/or committee members, advising URM students combined with persistent questioning of competence and legitimacy of their research by students and peers (Chesler and Young 2015; Turner 2021; Pérez 2019; Trejo 2020; Robinson and Henriquez Aldana 2020).

Engagement in institutional diversity efforts often engender multiple disparities in exposure to racism and discrimination, social and professional isolation, inadequate mentorship, heavy clinical burdens, and promotion disparity – all of which negatively affect the health and career trajectory of URM Latino faculty (Salinas et al. 2020). These combined disparities, to the extent that non-URM faculty are not expected to perform them, exacerbate the institutional penalty that URM faculty experience. For example, the absence or inadequacy of mentoring for early career faculty is associated with fewer research collaborations and transmission of network capital (Bateman et al. 2021; O’Meara et al. 2020), which places URM faculty at a unique yet hidden disadvantage within the academic hierarchy (Kelly and McCann 2014). Taxation often presents as informal requests and is usually not linked with compensation, dossier recognition, or other rewards. In effect, institutions place the brunt of their diversity initiatives on a small group of URM Latino faculty who often engage in academic labor to promulgate institutional visibility, good will, and racial equity intentions. These service obligations penalize URM faculty because they represent barriers to research productivity, mentoring opportunities, and are often ignored for tenure and promotion (Guillaume and Apodaca 2022).

Among non-URM Latino faculty, studies describe workplace dissatisfaction as associated with barriers to information-seeking contributing to specific stressors, including completing and maintaining immigration paperwork, adjusting to different cultural values, coping with loneliness and isolation, navigating language barriers, and experiences with racism (Mamiseishvili and Lee 2018). Despite these barriers, non-URM Latino faculty report higher research productivity and spend less time on teaching, mentoring, and service compared to URM Latino faculty; they also report less career satisfaction (Kim et al. 2020). In contrast, taxation studies describing URM Latino experiences have yielded a modest body of literature regarding institutional service and teaching demands resulting in decreased productivity (Turner 2021; Salinas et al. 2020). Often overlooked is the connection between multiple work-associated taxation roles jointly with discrimination and inadequate mentoring and its impact on health and role overload. Acknowledging the heterogeneity among Latinos, we shed insight on the differences and similarities between URM and non-URM Latinos and describe how work-associated taxation experiences may adversely affect career trajectories and health.

The relationship between Latino faculty work stress and its impact on physical and depressive symptoms is an understudied area of inquiry and represents a major gap in knowledge. Contemporary population health knowledge is unveiling new understandings of the role of taxation, markers of institutional racism, on health conditions, early departures and lower promotion rates to full professor among URM faculty (Gumpertz et al. 2017; Pizarro and Kohli 2020; Stone and Carlisle 2019; Zambrana et al. 2020). For example, the harsh terrain of academia for URM faculty who experience role overload coupled with institutional racism requires management of emotions to avoid and/or not reinforce stereotypes of being “dangerous” (males) or “hysterical” (females) (Dade et al. 2015). Additionally, promotion and tenure processes, which heighten stress and anxiety for all faculty, can be particularly pernicious for URM faculty who may experience a discreditation of their research and an obligation to represent their race/ethnicity while also being labeled as affirmative action hires (Chancellor 2019).

These taxation experiences and the guarded responses that are manifestations of the institutional penalty for URM faculty often result in racial battle fatigue (RBF), which depletes emotional energy, erodes spirit, and strains intellectual resources – all of which detract from research productivity and career advancement (Haynes et al. 2020; Smith 2016). Physical manifestations of RBF include headaches, weakened immune systems and increased blood pressure, while emotional manifestations include “frustration, anger, exhaustion, physical avoidance, psychological or emotional withdrawal, escapism, and at times acceptance of racist attributions” as well as depression and isolation (Arnold, Crawford, and Khalifa 2016; Louis et al. 2018; Smith, Allen, and Danley 2007, 552; Williams 2019). URM faculty are often viewed as the champions and executors of diversity yet do not benefit from this work and such efforts usually fail to achieve promotion/tenure (Lawrence et al. 2021; Rodríguez, Campbell, and Pololi 2015). While diversity service associated with taxation experiences frequently contributes to adverse consequences, including frustration with inequitable institutional practices and perceived resistance to change, URM faculty often express a strong sense of responsibility, commitment, and pride in paying it forward (Joseph and Hirshfield 2011). The questions of who reaps the benefits and who is disadvantaged by the institutional penalty are central to the higher education equity discourse.

We draw upon an intersectional framework to contextualize the experiences of URM and non-URM Latino respondents at the intersections of history, race/ethnicity, power, and social status to examine patterns of unequal treatment in higher education institutions. The advantaging of one group over another in access to opportunity has deep roots in structural racism (Zambrana and Williams 2022). An intersectional lens drawing on critical race theory provides a solid theorizing foundation to examine the shared representational identities and intergenerational experiences of historic population groups. The analytic strength of the intersectional framework is its understanding of how historically underrepresented Latino groups (Mexican American and Puerto Rican) are connected to the power of social institutions and their complex inequalities and how structural inequities are shaped by historical incorporation, race, ethnicity, nativity and class identifiers (Collins 2019; Dill and Zambrana 2009; Zambrana and Hurtado 2015). Four critical assumptions guide our frame: a) racism is ordinary and not aberrational; b) US society is based on a “White-over-color ascendancy” that advances White supremacy; c) race and racism are social constructions; and d) storytelling “urges Black and Brown writers to recount their experiences with racism” (Delgado and Stefancic 2001, 7–9).

We position this study within the reality of racial inequity among the heterogenous group of Latinos in higher education. The academic work site is defined as a bastion of culturally driven organizational rules and norms that obscure “individual capacities for clarity and responsibility,” especially in recognizing the covert nature of racialized processes (such as multiple institutional taxation demands) (Chesler and Crowfoot 2000, 437; Embrick, Domínguez, and Karsak 2017; Espino and Zambrana 2019; Feagin 2020). This study answers three questions: (1) Are there differences in demographic factors between URM and non-URM Latinos? 2) Are there differences in their taxation experiences? and 3) Are there differences in the relationship between their taxation experiences and physical and depressive symptoms and role overload?

Data and methods

The data are drawn from a larger national cross-sectional survey study of 616 faculty in research universities in the United States. For this paper, data were analysed for 318 respondents of which 210 were URM (Mexican American and Puerto Rican) and 108 were identified as non-URM Hispanic respondents who self-reported ancestry in Spanish-speaking Latin American countries and Spain. Data were collected via a self-administered web-based survey using 143 items from standardized instruments on demographic factors, family, and employment characteristics, perceived racial/ethnic discrimination, mentoring, administrative service and physical and depressive symptoms (See Zambrana 2018 for a full description of measures).

Sample criteria selection

Eligibility criteria included US-born men and women who self-identify as Mexican American, Puerto Rican or “Other Hispanic” (Other Hispanic included US or foreign-born respondents) and were tenure-track assistant or tenured associate professors at Carnegie-defined very high/high research-extensive universities (McCormick and Zhao 2005). Participants were identified through network sampling techniques using academic listservs, personal contacts, and respondent referrals to assure representation by racial, ethnic, and sex demographics as well as rank and geography. The study was approved according to IRB procedures at the University of Maryland College Park.

Measures of sociodemographic, family and employment characteristics

Sociodemographic data included age, nativity, parental education, household net worth, race, ethnicity, sex, marital status, number of children, annual income, and home ownership. Employment characteristics included academic rank, primary academic discipline, estimated hours spent on research, teaching, university service, outside professional activities, joint and administrative appointments, and type of institution (public, private, other). Sociodemographic and employment characteristics provide an important context for understanding taxation in research universities. Employing US Census Bureau measures, self-reported race and ethnicity were ascertained by two questions: (1) “What is your race?” and (2) “Are you of Hispanic/Latino origin?” Sex was measured as: Are you (1) male, (2) female, or (3) other? Marital status was measured as: (1) never married, (2) married/living with spouse/living with partner/partnered, or (3) separated/divorced/widowed. The number of children was measured as (1) none, (2) one-two, or (3) three or more. Items to assess employment and educational characteristics were adapted from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates Study (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics 2020).

Sample description

The study sample included 134 Mexican Americans (41.8%), 76 Puerto Ricans (24.2%) and 108 Other Hispanics (34%). Other Hispanic participants originated from a total of 15 other Latin American countries or Spain, including Colombia (n = 13), Cuba (n = 10), Spain (n = 10), Argentina (n = 9), Brazil (n = 7), Peru (n = 7), Chile (n = 5), Ecuador (n = 4), and El Salvador (n = 3). Seventy-five percent of Other Hispanics were born outside of the US.

The average age of the sample was 43.2 years, with no significant differences by subgroup. About 60% of respondents reported female and about 40% reported male. Most of the sample was married, with approximately half reporting a household size of two. Most respondents had 1–2 children (55.6%), and about a third had no children (35.6%). Approximately 21% of the sample was geographically located in the Northeast, 18.6% in the Mid-Atlantic, 12.1% in the Southeast, 13.5% in the Midwest, and 34.9% in the Southwest/West. About 60% of all participants were employed in large public universities, while 40% were employed in private and other research universities. Respondents represented a variety of disciplines, with about one quarter in Arts and Humanities, 21.1% in the Social Sciences, and 16.7% in Professional Schools.⁴

Description of measures

Four measures were selected as indicators of the institutional penalty. These include: (1) the perceived impact of the adequacy of the mentoring relationship on career growth; (2) perceptions of race/ethnic bias or discrimination by a superior; (3) perceptions of being left out of opportunities for professional advancement based on race/ethnicity; and (4) having a joint appointment.

Mentoring Scales:

Mentorship of early-career faculty is an important socialization process to guide new hires to obtain information about institutional expectations, understand their role, and perceived identity affirmation (Bauer et al. 2007). One item measured whether respondents reported having a current mentor with a yes/no response option. Mentor’s sex was measured as an individual item with male/female response option. Mentor’s race/ethnicity was measured as an individual item with Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, or another race/ethnicity as response options. Mentoring as an institutional support variable for the participant was assessed using two scales from the National Faculty Survey (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 1995). The Mentor Facilitated Activities Scale asked whether mentors facilitated mentee participation for six items with yes/no response options. Activities included invitations to conferences and opportunities for research collaborations on book chapters or article co-authorship. The Mentorship Relationship Functions Scale assessed respondents’ perceived performance of their current faculty mentor. Five items asked about the frequency of the mentor’s availability to critique the mentee’s scholarly work, promote visibility outside the institution, prospectively advise about criteria for promotion, hold progress meetings about promotion criteria, and provide emotional support and inspiration concerning the mentee’s academic career. Response options included never (1) to always (5). Total scores ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating more frequency of relationship functions. A final cognitive appraisal item asked, “Do you believe that inadequate mentoring has impeded your career growth?” The response options ranged from very significantly (1) to not at all (5).

Perceived Discrimination Scale:

Multiple forms of discrimination manifest in the daily lives of Latino faculty and contribute to identity taxation, workplace stress, and physical and depressive symptoms. The 6-item Perceived Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class Bias or Discrimination in the Workplace scale was adapted from the National Faculty Survey (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 1995). Respondents were asked whether, in their professional career, they have ever encountered gender, racial/ethnic, and/or class discrimination by a superior or colleague and whether they were ever left out of opportunities for professional advancement based on their gender, race/ethnicity, and/or class. Response options were on a 4-point scale that ranged from never (1) to always (4).

Life event stress, role overload and physical and depressive symptoms scales

Taxation is often exacerbated by additional stressful life events, which may contribute to role overload due to personal loss or economic strain. In turn, multiple and simultaneous life stressors can exacerbate physical and depressive symptoms. A 12-item life event stress inventory measured the presence of life events over the past year. Examples of events include “spouse or partner death and major problems with money.” Four response options included: No (1), Yes and it upset me not too much (2), Yes and it upset me moderately (3), and Yes, it upset me very much (4). We identified and compared the top five ranked life stressors that may compound the impacts on physical and depressive symptoms and role overload of study respondents.

Role Overload Scale measured the extent to which job demands exceeded resources (personal and workplace) and the extent to which an individual was able to accomplish workloads. The subscale included ten items ranging from rarely or never true (1) to true most of the time (5). Scores ranged from 10–50, with higher scores representing higher overload.

Physical symptoms were measured with the 18-item Physical Symptoms Index (PSI), which assesses physical and somatic health symptoms associated with psychological distress (Spector and Jex 1998). Each is a condition/state about which a person would likely be aware (e.g. headache and stomach). For each symptom, respondents were asked, “During the past 4 weeks, did you have any of the following symptoms? If you did have the symptoms, did you see the doctor about it?” Response options included: No; Yes, and I saw a doctor; and Yes, but I didn’t see a doctor. We used the total symptom scores, ranging from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating a higher prevalence of physical symptoms.

Depressive symptoms were measured with the 8-item Center for Epidemio-logic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff 1977). The scale is widely used with women and racial/ethnic minority groups with adequate reliability. Scoring was based on a Likert-type scale using options ranging from rarely (0) to most days (3) and scores ranging from 0–24. Higher scores indicate higher levels of depressive symptoms. A score greater ≥ 7 suggests a clinically significant level of depression.

Analytic strategy

US Census race/ethnic categories, jointly with covariables (race, ethnicity and nativity), were used to examine Latino heterogeneity. To answer the first question regarding demographic differences (e.g. age, self-reported race, marital status) between URM (Mexican and Puerto Rican) and non-URM (Other Hispanics), univariate statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations) were employed to describe characteristics for each of the three groups. Parental education was dichotomized as less than college completion (first-generation) and college completion (non-first-generation). One-way ANOVA tests were used to examine differences in taxation experiences (Question 2) for continuous variables (mentoring relationship functions, life event stress, role overload, and physical and depressive symptoms) between groups. Chi-square tests were conducted to assess group differences for categorical variables (race, age, rank, mentor characteristics and race/ethnic discrimination from superior and being left out of opportunities). Lastly, to assess differences in the associations of mentoring relationship functions, inadequate mentoring and perceived discrimination from a superior, hours of research, administrative and joint appointments, and being left out of opportunities based on perceived racial/ethnic discrimination with physical and depressive symptoms and role overload (Question 3), Pearson correlation coefficients and ANOVAs were employed to compare differences between groups. The significance level was set at .10 to reduce the chances of a Type II error (Hackshaw and Kirkwood 2011).

Study limitations

Several limitations include the non-probability cross-sectional study design, respondent self-selection, recall bias, and inadequate measurement of any undisclosed/undiagnosed disability (physical or mental) that may be associated with a successful career path. Findings may not be representative of the experiences of all Latino faculty in research universities, teaching colleges and minority-serving institutions. These data add to the growing body of scholarship regarding taxation as a significant contributor to premature morbidity among URM faculty, low retention and promotion rates, and fills a critical knowledge gap regarding the burdens of the institutional taxation penalty experienced by many URM Latino faculty and its impact on health and career persistence.

Results

Table 1 displays data on respondent demographic characteristics by URM (Mexican American and Puerto Rican) and non-URM (measured as Other Hispanic). These analyses highlight demographic (self-reported race, generational status, income, and home ownership) differences in response to our first research question. Self-reported race shows that 49.3% of the total sample identified as White, 4.1% as African American/Black, and 46.7% as some other race/mixed race. Approximately 39% of Mexican Americans, 36% of Puerto Ricans, and 67% of Other Hispanic respondents identified as White. Mexican Americans were significantly more likely to have mothers with less than a college education (first-generation college status) compared to Puerto Ricans and Other Hispanics. Nearly three-quarters (71%) of the sample reported owning a home, with Other Hispanics significantly more likely to report homeownership (79.4%) compared to URM respondents. Almost 40% of the sample (37.5%) reported an individual annual income of $70,000 or less, while 17.4% reported an individual income of $90,000–115,000. Puerto Ricans were most likely to report a household net worth of under $90,000 (35.2%), and Other Hispanics were significantly more likely to report a household net worth of $201,000 or more (39.6%).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics by URM and Other Hispanic (non-URM) respondents.

	Online Survey Sample (n = 318)
	Total Sample n = 318 (%)	Mexican American n = 134 (41.8%)	Puerto Rican n = 76 (24.2%)	Other Hispanic n = 108 (34%)
Age M (SD)	43.17 (7.80)	43.22 (8.73)	42.95 (7.53)	43.20 (6.83)
Self-reported Race
White****	133 (49.3)	39 (39.0)	22 (35.5)	72 (66.7)
African American/Black	11 (4.1)	1 (1.0)	10 (16.1)	‐
Some other race/mixed race***	126 (46.7)	60 (60)	30 (48.4)	36 (33.3)
First Generation College**
First Generation (<college completion)	122 (46.6)	60 (56.6)	24 (40)	38 (39.6)
Not First Generation (college completed)	140 (53.4)	46 (43.4)	36 (60)	58 (60.4)
Marital Status
Never Married	37 (11.7)	19 (14.3)	7 (9.1)	11 (10.4)
Married/partnered	236 (74.7)	97 (72.9)	57 (74.0)	82 (77.4)
Separated/Widowed/Divorced	43 (13.6)	17 (12.8)	13 (16.9)	13 (12.3)
Individual Annual Income
>70,000	119 (37.5)	54 (41.6)	26 (35.2)	39 (36.4)
70,001–90,000	92 (29.0)	38 (29.2)	20 (27.0)	34 (31.8)
90,001–115,000	55 (17.4)	25 (19.2)	13 (17.6)	17 (15.9)
115,000+	42 (13.3)	13 (10.0)	15 (20.3)	14 (13.1)
Owns Home*
Yes	225 (71.0)	88 (66.2)	52 (67.5)	85 (79.4)
Current Household Net Worth
≥90,000	78 (25.2)	30 (26.1)	25 (35.2)	23 (24.0)
90,001–200,000	107 (34.6)	47 (40.9)	25 (35.2)	35 (36.5)
200,001 or more	97 (31.3)	38 (33.0)	21 (29.6)	38 (39.6)

^*p < .10.

^**= p < .05.

^***= p < .01.

^****= p < .001

The second set of analyses compares taxation experiences by URM and non-URM respondents. Table 2 shows work characteristics including rank, service appointments, research hours per week, mentoring and discrimination experiences, and role overload. Over half of the sample was assistant professors (57.6%). Mexican Americans were most likely to be assistant professors (62.2%), and Other Hispanics were the most likely to be associate professors (46.7%).

Table 2.

Work characteristics, taxation experiences and role overload by URM and Other Hispanic (non-URM) respondents.

	Total sample n = 318 (%)	Mexican American n = 133 (41.8%)	Puerto Rican n = 77 (24.2%)	Other Hispanic n = 108 (34%)
Rank
Assistant	174 (57.6)	79 (62.2)	39 (55.7)	56 (53.3)
Associate	128 (42.4)	48 (37.8)	31 (44.3)	49 (46.7)
Has a Joint Appointment**
Yes	59 (21.1)	23 (20.4)	21 (33.9)	15 (14.3)
Has an Administrative Appointment
Yes	206 (72.8)	85 (75.20)	46 (74.20)	75 (69.70)
Hours per Week: Research
0–10	69 (25.5)	27 (24.5)	18 (30.0)	24 (23.8)
11–20	86 (31.7)	39 (35.5)	17 (28.3)	30 (29.7)
21+	116 (42.8)	44 (40.0)	25 (41.7)	47 (46.5)
Impact of Inadequate Mentoring on Career Growth
Very significantly/great deal	64 (21.1)	25 (19.5)	17 (22.7)	22 (21.8)
Somewhat	117 (38.5)	56 (43.0)	23 (32.0)	38 (37.6)
Hardly/not at all	123 (40.5)	48 (37.5)	34 (45.3)	41 (40.6)
Perceived Racial/Ethnic Discrimination by a Superior**
Never/Rarely	187 (60.9)	78 (60.0)	38 (50.7)	71 (69.6)
Often/Always	120 (39.1)	52 (40)	37 (49.3)	31 (30.4)
Left out of Opportunities Based on Perceived Race/Ethnic Discrimination
Never/Rarely	226 (73.9)	97 (74.6)	49 (67.1)	80 (77.7)
Often/Always	80 (26.1)	33 (25.4)	24 (32.8)	23 (22.3)
Role Overload (RO) Mean (SD)
RO Score	33.83 (7.4)	33.53 (8.1)	33.98(6.70)	34.07 (7.2)

* p < .10.

^**= p < .05.

*** = p < .01.

**** = p < .001

Regarding administrative service, just over 20% of the sample reported having a joint appointment, with Puerto Ricans being the most likely (33.9%) and Other Hispanics being significantly less likely (14.3%) to report having a joint appointment. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the sample served in an administrative position, with Other Hispanics being the least likely to hold administrative positions (69.7%). Although time invested in academic responsibilities did not differ significantly by subgroups, with 42.8% of all respondents engaged in research 21 + hours per week, a higher percentage of Other Hispanics (46.5%) dedicated time to research compared to about 40% of Mexican American and Puerto Rican respondents.

Just over half of the sample reported currently having a mentor.⁵ Other Hispanics were significantly more likely to report having two mentors (41.9%), and Mexican Americans (37.3%) and Puerto Ricans (36.4%) were significantly more likely to report having 3 + mentors. Puerto Ricans (70.7%) and Other Hispanics (62.8%) were significantly more likely than Mexican Americans to have a male mentor, while Other Hispanics were significantly more likely to have a White mentor (72.1%) compared to Puerto Ricans (49.3%) and Mexican Americans (46.3%). Other Hispanics were significantly more likely to report opportunities for research collaboration and co-authoring articles/books/chapters as mentor facilitated activities, while Other Hispanics and Puerto Ricans were significantly less likely than Mexican Americans to report annual career reviews as mentor-facilitated activities. The mentoring relationship functions scale showed significant differences, with Mexican Americans having the highest average mentoring relationship functions score while Other Hispanics report the lowest average mentoring relationship functions score. About one-fifth of all respondents reported that inadequate mentoring very significantly impacted their careers. About 40% of the sample reported that inadequate mentoring “somewhat” affected their career. Overall sixty percent (59.6%) of respondents reported an adverse impact of mentoring on their career trajectories.

Approximately 39.1% of the total sample reported often or always experiencing racial/ethnic discrimination, with Mexican Americans (40%) and Puerto Ricans (49.3%) significantly more likely than Other Hispanics (30.4%) to report racial/ethnic discrimination from a superior and more likely to report being left out of opportunities based on race/ethnicity. The Role Overload mean score was 33.83 (7.4 SD), with a range of scores of 1–50, suggesting high overload experiences for all respondents.

Lastly, we describe stressful life events associated with family and/or work life. About one-third of the sample reported stressful life events: “having a close friend/family member pass away or diagnosed with a serious illness” (35.3%), “having financial problems” (32.7%), and “having a major conflict with colleagues” (31.4%), while 20.4% reported job loss and almost 10% reported divorce or breakup. URM respondents were more likely to report “major money problems” and twice as likely to report divorce/breakup compared to Other Hispanics. About one-third of the total sample experienced conflict with colleagues, with Mexican Americans slightly less likely (28.8%) to experience conflict compared to Puerto Ricans (33.3%) and Other Hispanics (33%).

Associations among taxation experiences, physical and depressive symptoms and role overload

The third study question examines the associations among mentoring, perceived discrimination, appointments and physical and depressive symptoms and role overload. Statistically significant differences were observed among the three subgroups for mean physical health symptom score (M = 4.45), with Mexican Americans reporting the highest average physical symptom score (M = 5.02) while Other Hispanics (M = 3.74) reported the lowest average physical symptom score. The depression scale showed high overall rates of depressive symptoms across all groups, with 24.2% of the sample reporting clinically significant symptoms (M = 4.12) (not shown).

Table 3 displays the associations of mentoring relationship functions, impact of inadequate mentoring on career growth, impact of perceived discrimination by a superior, hours of research, administrative and joint appointments, and left out of opportunities based on perceived racial/ethnic discrimination with physical and depressive symptoms and role overload. Significant associations are observed by subgroup with notable differences. Puerto Ricans experience the highest number of significant associations, while Other Hispanics experience the lowest number of significant associations with physical and depressive symptoms and role overload. Inadequate mentoring was significantly associated with role overload and depressive symptoms for all respondents. For Mexican American respondents, being left out of opportunities based on perceived race/ethnic discrimination, fewer hours of research, and perceived racial/ethnic discrimination by a superior were all significantly associated with higher role overload and higher physical symptoms. For Puerto Rican respondents, three factors were most prominent: left out of opportunities based on perceived race/ethnic discrimination, joint appointment, and perceived racial/ethnic discrimination by a superior were associated with physical and depressive symptoms. Among Other Hispanics, being left out of opportunities based on perceived race/ethnic discrimination was significantly associated with depressive symptoms and role overload, while perceived racial/ethnic discrimination by a superior was associated with role overload.

Table 3.

Associations of adequacy of mentoring, perceived discriminations, hours of research, joint and administrative appointments with physical and depressive symptoms and role overload by URM and Other Hispanic (non-URM) respondents.

	Mexican American (n =133)	Puerto Rican (n = 77)	Other Hispanic (n = 108)
Mentoring Relationship Functions Scale (r)
Physical Symptoms	.092	.179	.097
Depressive Symptoms	−.004	.065	−.197*
Role Overload	−.108	−.057	−.045
Impact of Inadequate Mentoring on Career Growth(F)
Physical Symptoms	0.819	2.024	0.676
Depressive Symptoms	2.466*	2.564*	4.397**
Role Overload	4.635**	4.522**	7.281***
Left out of Opportunities Based on Perceived Race/Ethnic Discrimination (F)
Physical Symptoms	1.850	2.839*	0.797
Depressive Symptoms	1.586	3.867**	3.864**
Role Overload	5.372***	1.391	6.717***
Hours of Research (F)
Physical Symptoms	2.391*	0.613	1.604
Depressive Symptoms	2.275	1.743	1.962
Role Overload	11.392****	0.555	1.143
Has an Administrative Appointment (F)
Physical Symptoms	5.205**	0.732	0.089
Depressive Symptoms	0.001	1.702	0.022
Role Overload	0.484	0.010	0.109
Has a Joint Appointment (F)
Physical Symptoms	0.761	4.970**	0.593
Depressive Symptoms	0.015	2.812*	0.175
Role Overload	0.898	0.177	0.438
Perceived Racial/Ethnic Discrimination by a Superior (F)
Physical Symptoms	0.241	4.207**	1.435
Depressive Symptoms	1.275	5.233**	1.720
Role Overload	15.642****	1.970	26.417****

^*p < .10.

^**p < .05.

^***p < .01.

^****p < .001.

Discussion

The study findings draw attention to major differences within the heterogeneous category of Latinos (URM vs. non-URM) and the implications of the institutional penalty on academic careers. While similarities in taxation experiences are present between URM and non-URM Latinos, results are discussed with a focus on differences as posed in the study questions. The first question is: Are there differences in demographic factors between URM and non-URM Latinos? Two salient results include differences in racial identity and socioeconomic indicators. Non-URM Latinos were significantly more likely to report White race, have parents who are college graduates, have assets over $201,000 and report homeownership compared to URM Latinos. One’s phenotype and race confer social advantages when identified by self and others as White in the predominantly white setting of academia (López and Hogan 2021). For non-URM Latinos, color and class privilege may facilitate access to White mentors and protect against chronic microaggressions and discrimination from superiors (Feagin 2020).

Deeply embedded within the academy is the institutional advantage that whiteness provides. As noted by Jones et al. (2008), Whiteness “is an asset in a race-conscious society. Attention to the ways in which opportunity is structured and the value assigned so that ‘whiteness’ is favored may suggest new levels for intervening in health disparities” (502). Conversely, lack of whiteness eliminates a protective cloak and leaves many URMs vulnerable to inequity in service obligations, research and mentoring opportunities, role overload and subsequent physical and depressive symptoms. Racialization and colorism, jointly with less available financial assets, can exacerbate the institutional penalty and stressful life events among those not perceived as White and negatively impact their career trajectories (Niemann et al. 2020; Salinas et al. 2020). For many URM Latinos who do not identify as or present as White, the burden of institutional diversity representation often exacerbates role overload and invokes manifestations of institutional racism.

National socioeconomic indicators for non-URM Latinos are consistent with extant data, which show that non-URM Latinos are more likely to have parents with a college education, almost twice as likely to complete college degrees compared to Mexican American and Puerto Rican groups and have higher rates of homeownership and generally lower rates of poverty (Flores 2017; Zong 2022). One study examined differences in assets between URM and White faculty showing that about 15% of URM Latino female faculty and about 25% of URM Latino male faculty had investment income, compared to over one-third of White men and women (Mora, Qubbaj, and Rodríguez 2018). Future studies are needed to assess these differences in assets between Latino groups by race, ethnicity, class and nativity. Given the protective life benefits of higher family education levels and economic capital conferred in the transmission of assets and wealth, non-URM Latinos may be at an advantage in achieving career advancement and may likely have additional resources to buffer stressful life events and work strain in response to the institutional penalties that they may experience.

The second question examined role obligations in the form of joint appointments, more frequently held by URM respondents. These appointments reflect the higher likelihood of URM faculty having interdisciplinary degrees, engaging in ethnoracial-driven projects and having a commitment to praxis. Due to the underrepresentation of Latino faculty at research universities, diversity leadership and joint appointments are more common experiences in these institutions for URM Latinos, which often increase discriminatory encounters with institutional administrators and peers and contribute to a decreased sense of belonging (Arnold, Crawford, and Khalifa 2016; Lewis et al. 2021). Yet, these same departments that share joint appointments are often under-resourced, with few senior faculty serving as mentors (Shavers, Butler, and Moore 2014). Institutional joint and leadership appointments among early career URM faculty increase their academic labor and constitute harm-inducing practices because they are involved in additional service work without developmental mentorship on institutional practices and leadership skills and adequate resources and/or compensation.

Moreover, these experiences rarely result in productive engagement in research collaborations, high-profile program development or sustainable equitable institutional change. All too often, these professional service efforts often result in discouragement and, at times, obliterate the raison d’etre for choosing an academic life and participating in diversity service. The disadvantages of engaging in these administrative roles and joint appointments in the early years of their careers reduce their opportunities to learn the institutional culture, jumpstart their research activities and acquire a solid social network and circle of support among their peers and senior faculty. These barriers to integration into their institutional culture promote an Institutional Penalty that is more likely to be experienced by URM than non-URM Latinos, and may result in debilitating consequences such as depletion of physical and emotional capabilities (Racial Battle Fatigue), less productivity and higher rates of physical and mental health conditions.

The third question assesses the relationships between taxation measures and physical and depressive symptoms and role overload. Serious, yet understudied, consequences of workplace stress caused by multiple forms of taxation include adverse physical and depressive symptoms, which are associated with lower retention and promotion rates (Gumpertz et al. 2017; Stone and Carlisle 2019). The relationships between high levels of workplace stress, reported as perceived race/ethnic discrimination, inadequate mentoring, and less collaborative research opportunities collectively represent a cluster of detrimental experiences that undergird role overload and the depletion of intellectual, physical and mental resources (Arnold, Crawford, and Khalifa 2016; Pizarro and Kohli 2020; Haynes et al. 2020).

URM respondents experienced a higher number of significant associations of taxation experiences with physical symptoms compared to non-URM faculty. Their physical health was deeply impacted by multiple service obligations with limited institutional supports in unwelcoming environments, often contributing to harmful physical health impacts (Williams, Lawrence, and Davis 2019). In contrast, non-URM respondents do not report health impacts associated with administrative roles, which may be related to higher likelihood of being tenured, more experience and mentorship by White male faculty. These three factors may confer more access to social networks that help non-URMs navigate institutions and may account for their lower rates of reporting discriminatory experiences and physical symptoms. In addition, the advantages of White racial privilege, more involvement in research collaborations, and increased access to economic assets may defer a need for additional salary-seeking and reduce institutional penalty experiences.

High rates of depressive symptoms (20–25%) were observed across all subgroups. When compared to national depression rates (19.6%), depressive symptoms are higher for study respondents (24.2%) (Budhwani, Hearld, and Chavez-Yenter 2015). Although inadequate mentoring was significantly associated with depressive symptoms for all respondents, higher rates of URM participation in administrative service combined with discrimination by superiors and reduced time in research adversely impacted depressive symptoms. Given the lower taxation burden of non-URM Latinos, depressive symptoms may derive from causes that are different than those of URM Latinos. Those born outside of the US may have significant difficulty adapting to new environments and being separated from family. This is exacerbated by the need to integrate into a contemporary professional society laden with historical oppression, colonization and domination not completely understood by them (Mamiseishvili and Lee 2018). In contrast, URM Latinos may experience depression in response to a melding of life stressors, workplace discrimination, and inequitable workload (Zambrana 2018). The disadvantages experienced by URM Latinos may be reflective of the systematic inequities established by and commonly applied in academia (Bonilla-Silva and Peoples 2022). These differences by race, nativity, class, and ethnicity, including the impact of discriminatory experiences on role overload, require further inquiry.

The unique insights gained by these findings are the prominent barriers that exist for URM Latinos to achieve role clarity and efficacious career performance and how both are manifestations of the institutional penalty. The absence of quality mentoring creates institutional socialization gaps that hinders research productivity, obscures access to social capital, informational sources, and social networks, and inhibits exposure to the “hidden curriculum” or informal rules about which many URM faculty are unaware (Mendez et al. 2020; Thorne et al. 2021; Zambrana et al. 2015). Although non-URM faculty report lower mentoring relationship support, inadequate mentoring may be less injurious for them as they are more likely to be tenured, report significantly less discrimination and have higher likelihood of mentorship by White faculty. The latter three factors may confer some protection from the adverse impacts of institutional racial/ethnic discrimination and enable access to other channels of information, effectively lessening their taxation and its impact on well-being.

Equity implications and inclusion recommendations for higher education institutions

Extant literature has focused on the intense relationship between underrepresentation and the nefarious taxation on URM and non-URM Latino faculty, who are often the “only one” or “a few in the midst of many” who are expected to champion diversity and represent institutional interests at the expense of their careers (Thomas 2019). Not unnoticed is the startling number of recommendations offered to reduce the institutional penalty. Yet limited progress and significant institutional resistance is observed in implementing prior equitable recommendations to reduce the multiple service demands on a small group of faculty, increase Latino faculty, and, most importantly, redistribute institutional diversity tasks to all faculty.

This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge that informs six central recommendations as priority actions to reduce the institutional penalty to enhance career outcomes for URM faculty, increase institutional supports to promote academic careers and decrease early departures from higher education. First, cluster hiring of URM Latino faculty at the assistant, associate, and full professor levels across multiple colleges and departments in traditional and non-traditional disciplines is an effective practice. It accomplishes multiple equity goals, including a demonstration of respect for the importance of varying theoretical perspectives in higher education, increasing representation, and decreasing taxation. Moreover, the presence of URM groups in higher education assures diverse experiences and role models for URM and non-URM students (Samuels 2020). A second recommendation is to develop affinity spaces where URM faculty can share their research ideas, seek collaboration, and expand their networks with interdisciplinary senior scholars. One innovative idea is an interdisciplinary “speed mentoring” event on faculty members’ campuses and nearby campuses to increase social capital and research networks (Cook, Bahn, and Menaker 2010).

In addition, URM faculty may need different kinds of support and access to mentoring throughout the life course associated with race/class/ethnicity. The authors suggest affinity spaces could also provide access specifically to “career coaches.” In this case, mentors for URMs could specifically function as career guides with a focus on educating URMs about how to succeed in academia. Previous work has noted that such coaches may be instrumental in cases where mentees’ research mentors are unable to provide career advice due to differences in lived experiences (Williams, Thakore, and McGee 2016). Third, necessary for URM faculty advancement are equitable and competitive salary packages with research start-up funds and support by chairs to delay administrative positions until advancement to full professor. Fourth, an intentional mentoring approach for the purposes of role socialization to increase role efficacy and protect from taxation is a crucial institutional investment. This entails incentivizing and informing senior majority culture faculty regarding the unique obstacles that URM faculty confront in achieving professional advancement due to the Institutional Penalty. Fifth, as institutions encourage faculty to take on public-facing “diversity and equity” roles, they must ensure that resources, including time, compensation, mentorship, and decision-making power to decrease taxation accompany such roles and include all faculty in EI efforts (Holmes IV et al. 2022).

Lastly, to address the fact that such taxation roles often disadvantage URM faculty career success and benefit institutions, requirements for achieving promotion and tenure need to include a mandate of equity/inclusion (EI) work for all faculty. Institutions need to do the work of clearly and transparently defining equity and inclusion (EI) metrics and requirements for promotion. Diversity is plentiful in research institutions of higher learning. What is less discernable is the representation of URMs in higher education. Institutions must provide clarity about the value of each EI-associated metric. For example, chairing a committee should carry more weight than simply being a committee member (O’Meara et al. 2020). These recommendations urge an institutional culture shift so that equity and inclusion values are endorsed and upheld by the leadership, but not at the expense of the careers of URM faculty.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm both the heterogeneity among Latinos and the adverse consequences of academic work experiences or institutional penalties on their health and well-being. Institutions are called upon to reassess their practices and understanding of the unique positionalities of URM and non-URM Latinos. Taxation research among URMs is abundant and reflective of institutional racism, which has grave career and health consequences. Diversity as a clarion call is not enough and, in effect, may mask racism as it fails to confront equity and inclusion. Academic institutions have a clear mandate to dismantle pervasive racism by recognizing and addressing the inequitable Institutional Penalty often carried by URM faculty. Leaders must be held accountable for increased equity and inclusion among URM Latinos, African-Americans, and American Indian/Native American groups. Currently, the proportion of existing Latino faculty illustrates a disproportionate underrepresentation of two historically underrepresented groups – Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. Transparent research of implementation strategies is necessary not only to measure degrees of success but also to understand which groups benefit most from diversity efforts and how identity taxation affects the career persistence and well-being of URM and non-URM Latinos.

Notes

1. The term “Latino” includes individuals from about 20 countries who may be of mixed races including White, Black, Mestizo, or Indigenous (González Burchard et al. 2005). Despite being used by the Census Bureau, both “Hispanic” and “Latino” are disputed terms, because not all self-identified Latino persons have Spanish ancestry or experienced the historic colonial status and economic/social impacts due to their race or indigeneity. For consistency unless specifically noted, we use the term Latino regardless of gender.

2. Traditionally and historically underrepresented has many differing definitions. In this paper it refers to Latino groups who have been denied access and/or suffered past intergenerational institutional discrimination in the United States and includes Mexican American/Chicanos and Puerto Ricans.

3. “Other Hispanic” (either US or foreign-born) include those who report origination in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean excluding Puerto Rico. “Other Hispanic” was used in this study as the identifier of self-reported identity. Other Hispanic and non-URM Latino are used interchangeably.

4. Professional schools included business, social work, accounting, public policy, journalism, law, library science.

5. Mentoring data are not shown. These data are available upon request.