Reviewed by:

• Campus Counterspaces: Black and Latinx Students’ Search for Community at Historically White Institutions by Micere Keels
• Katherine S. Cho

The beauty of Campus Counterspaces is the clear construction of the both-and. In this book, Micere Keels holds the tension of how campus counterspaces are critically necessary within higher education while also recognizing their limitations. That is, these spaces are not the “panacea for increasing Black and Latinx students’ college persistence” (p. 164). With topics including the financial stressors college students experience (Chapter 3), the critical importance of advising (Chapter 10), and the need to move beyond representational diversity (Chapter 6), Campus Counterspaces provides a sharp analysis at the intersections of race, gender, class, and placemaking to differentiate the ways students experience going to school versus being a student. Keels defines campus counterspaces as “pockets of resistance” designed intentionally for individuals from marginalized groups (p. 18). The book’s thesis centers campus counter-spaces as part of and a response to the racialization within higher education. As such, the introduction is aptly titled, “It doesn’t have to be race-ethnicity to be about race-ethnicity” (p. 1). Keels and her co-authors nuance this argument throughout the book, exploring the tensions historically marginalized students experience (chapter 2), finding community (chapter 7), and engaging in the campus as scholar-activists (chapter 5).

Guided by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s influence regarding the dangers of the single narrative, the book reflects a rich portrait of student experiences, with data collected from 533 participants across five universities via seven waves of survey deployment and four waves of interviews. The analysis includes the intentional integration of co-authorship among Keels’ team. Outlined in the appendix (a must-read), Keels highlights the generative process behind the research design and within it, illuminating what Patel (2016) would describe as answerability for more justice-oriented scholarship. Student participants explained how they appreciated being able to talk both about their experiences and how they felt about them (see p. 171). The research used to construct Campus Counterspaces serves as a counterspace itself, pushing back against the extractive practices within higher education and student affairs scholarship. As such, the diversity of narratives and nuances clearly illuminated how these findings are not singular incidents but are instead woven into the fabric of the campus culture and climate.

The shift toward institutional support versus student readiness best describes my (Cho’s) point of entry with this review. As a former student activist and student affairs professional, my academic and professional trajectory has been rooted in the organizational potential toward transforming higher education and the organization’s reality of reinforcing harm. Now, as a Korean-American woman of color faculty member at a predominantly white institution, my scholarship and praxis continue to challenge how academic spaces—literal and figurative— shut out racially marginalized students. For me, the critique between what students expect versus what the institution provides (especially [End Page 382] seen in Chapters 5 and 7) is one of the text’s most poignant takeaways and contributions. Keels’s scholarship extends existing research on institutional accountability, particularly regarding the phenomenon of empty promises and disillusionment. Ahmed (2012) and Squire et al. (2019) have concretized similar phenomena through the language of nonperformativity, noting that institutions claim they are making progress via proclamations rather than through any tangible action—hence, the “non” in non-performance. Institutional efforts toward diversity and inclusion can easily turn into forms of “checkbox diversity” initiatives (Ahmed, 2012) or surface-level appeasement without clear transformation (Cho, 2018; Patton et al., 2019; Ray, 2019). Thus, even university efforts to invest in counterspaces as possible recommendations or even as interventions may be inadequate. Keels argues these types of diversity policies “revolve around tolerance—the acceptance of an allowable amount of variation—and aim to help historically marginalized students adjust in ways that leave the institution’s culture largely unchallenged and unchanged” (p. 5).

The ways that Black and Latinx students form and navigate relationships with each other align closely with my (Hall’s...

审阅者：

• 校园柜台空间：黑人和拉丁裔学生在历史悠久的白人机构中寻找社区作者： Micere Keels
• 凯瑟琳·S·曹

校园柜台空间的美妙之处在于两者的清晰结构。在这本书中，米塞雷·基尔斯（Micere Keels）强调了校园柜台空间在高等教育中的重要性，同时也认识到它们的局限性。也就是说，这些空间并不是“提高黑人和拉丁裔学生大学毅力的灵丹妙药”（第 164 页）。校园柜台空间的主题包括大学生经历的财务压力（第 3 章）、提供建议的至关重要性（第 10 章）以及超越代表性多样性的必要性（第 6 章）对种族、性别、阶级和场所营造的交叉点进行了敏锐的分析，以区分学生上学和学生的体验方式。Keels 将校园柜台空间定义为专门为边缘群体的个人设计的“抵抗区”（第 18 页）。该书的论文将校园柜台空间作为高等教育中种族化的一部分和回应。因此，引言的标题很恰当：“讨论种族问题并不一定要涉及种族问题”（第 1 页）。基尔斯和她的合著者在整本书中对这一论点进行了细微的阐述，探讨了历史上被边缘化的学生所经历的紧张局势（第2章），寻找社区（第7章），以及作为学者活动家参与校园（第5章）。

在奇玛曼达·恩戈齐·阿迪奇 (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie) 关于单一叙事危险性的影响的指导下，这本书反映了学生经历的丰富描述，通过七轮调查部署和四轮访谈从五所大学的 533 名参与者收集了数据。该分析包括 Keels 团队之间有意整合的共同作者。基尔斯在附录（必读）中概述了研究设计背后及其内部的生成过程，阐明了帕特尔（2016）所描述的对更加公正导向的学术的责任性。学生参与者解释了他们如何感激能够谈论他们的经历以及他们对这些经历的感受（见第 171 页）。用于建造校园柜台空间的研究它本身就是一个反空间，反对高等教育和学生事务奖学金中的榨取实践。因此，叙述的多样性和细微差别清楚地说明了这些发现不是单一事件，而是融入了校园文化和气候的结构中。

向机构支持与学生准备的转变最好地描述了我（Cho）这次审查的切入点。作为一名前学生活动家和学生事务专业人士，我的学术和职业轨迹植根于改变高等教育的组织潜力和组织强化伤害的现实。现在，作为一名在以白人为主的机构中担任有色人种的韩裔美国女性教员，我的学术和实践继续挑战学术空间（无论是字面上的还是象征性的）如何将种族边缘化的学生拒之门外。对我来说，学生的期望与机构提供的东西之间的批评（尤其是[结束第382页]见第 5 章和第 7 章）是本书最深刻的收获和贡献之一。基尔斯的学术研究扩展了现有关于机构问责制的研究，特别是关于空头承诺和幻灭现象的研究。Ahmed (2012) 和 Squire 等人。（2019）通过不绩效的语言具体化了类似的现象，指出机构声称他们是通过公告而不是通过任何切实的行动取得进展——因此，不绩效中的“不”。实现多样性和包容性的制度努力很容易变成“复选框多样性”举措的形式（Ahmed，2012）或没有明确转变的表面绥靖政策（Cho，2018；Patton 等，2019；Ray，2019）。因此，即使大学努力投资对抗空间作为可能的建议甚至干预措施也可能是不够的。基尔斯认为，这些类型的多样性政策“围绕宽容——接受允许的变化量——并旨在帮助历史上被边缘化的学生进行调整，使机构的文化在很大程度上不受挑战和保持不变”（第5页）。

黑人和拉丁裔学生形成和处理彼此关系的方式与我的（霍尔的……