Background Story

Being an immigrant professor of color is an interesting academic status that reflects a controversial façade of academe. It brings pride and acknowledgement as well as doubt about credibility and competence. The way teachers of color have been historically perceived and evaluated supports this claim. For example, African American teachers have been portrayed as incompetent and powerless (Fultz, 1995). From another perspective, Walker (2001) provided a historiography of African American teachers between 1940 and 1960 who had a strong sense of commitment and determination to make a difference, despite all odds. These African American teachers in the South did not consider themselves victims of their environment, despite the harsh and unfair conditions they had to navigate (Walker, 2001).

Other teachers coming from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds share similar experiences in their teaching career, regardless of their trajectories and teaching approaches. They are usually reminded of their foreignness and questioned about their competencies (Creese, 2019; Dumlao & Mengorio 2019; Eros, 2016; Hutchison, 2006; Kuhn, 1996). Kim and Cooc (2020) reviewed 37 peer-reviewed research studies on the beliefs, experiences, and practices of Asian American and Pacific Islander teachers in relation to social justice work within U.S. schools. Their analysis of teacher diversity shed light on teacher practices that disrupt whiteness in schools. The results showed that these teachers of color questioned whiteness by adopting a set of beliefs and pedagogical practices that celebrate difference, value multiple perspectives, and empower marginalized voices. As a remediation strategy, Kim and Cooc (2020) urged school policies and culture to “affirm and sustain the belonging of teachers with diverse cultures and languages regardless of their country of birth or official citizenship, to uphold diversity as an asset to the overall learning environment” (p. 10).

In academe teacher pedagogical competence is transferable and transportable. Teachers carry their competence and experiences wherever they move as part of their teaching journey either from urban to rural cities or across international borders. Thus, it is assumed that foreign teachers as well bring with them competence from prior experiences. It is evident that teacher hiring is based on strong qualifications and promising competencies. This is indeed applicable to international teachers. When they move to a foreign country to teach, they carry their acquired competencies and experiences, along with pride and ambition for professional growth.

I came from Africa to the United States as a Fulbright scholar to teach at an institution of higher education. This award is highly competitive, and is given to scholars who demonstrate outstanding achievement and potential, and who represent the diversity of their societies (Council for international Exchange of Scholars – CIES, n.d). In the succeeding years, I kept seeking various opportunities for growth. I gradually enhanced my competence and expertise by earning additional graduate degrees, certificates, attending trainings, and teaching in diverse contexts within the United States. I was always cognitively, emotionally, and academically prepared to advance and grow professionally; equipped with qualifications, enthusiasm, and passion for teaching. However, it was not until the last 4 years that I began teaching specific courses related to diversity and methods of teaching diverse learners; it was then that I started to notice a consistent pattern of questioning and resistance from some students. The questions they asked at the beginning of every course were not about the intellectual discourse, but rather, about my racial and cultural background. They wanted to know more about my qualifications, teaching competency, and expertise. Some of the questions were outright intrusive and by the time I got my mid and end-of-semester evaluations, I knew something was not right. During informal conversations with other professors of color, I heard similar complaints about the inquiries they were receiving from students and the hostile end of semester evaluations. These conversations sparked my motivation to conduct this study as a way of investigating possible reasons for this kind of behavior and learning about White college students’ attitudes towards immigrant professors of color. The purpose of the study is to understand why White students experience cognitive dissonance when they are taught by a foreign professor. For this reason, this study adopted the action research attitude (Johnson & Christensen, 2019) as an approach to understand students ‘beliefs and attitudes with the goal to create a positive learning environment for all. Data was primarily collected from one professor’s classes, while a second research expert, who is also a female professor of color, helped with data analysis.

Conceptual Framework

When White college students first enter a college classroom, they expect to find a professor who looks like them. It therefore comes as no surprise that they experience cognitive dissonance when they find an immigrant professor of color (DiAngelo, 2012; Kowal et al., 2013). Cognitive dissonance is defined as that state in which people have a core belief and when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted (Fanon, 1967). Since it is very important to protect the core belief, people will rationalize, ignore, and even deny anything that does not fit with the belief (Fanon, 1967). Cognitive dissonance refers to feelings of discomfort that arise when a person’s behavior or attitude is in conflict with the person’s values and beliefs, or when new information that is contrary to their beliefs is presented to them. According to Festinger et al. (1955), people desire consistency and want assurance that their values and beliefs have always been right. They want to act in ways that align with their beliefs. When the beliefs are challenged, it creates a dissonance which might be manifested though stress, anxiety, regret, shame, embarrassment, or feelings of negative self-worth (Festinger et al., 1955).

Loosing Balance & Harmony

According to McFalls and Cobb-Roberts (2001), an individual can experience psychological tension or dissonance when new knowledge or information is incongruent with previously acquired knowledge. Therefore, White college students experience feelings of mental discomfort when they find an immigrant professor of color in their classroom and they may seek to alter their attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. This type of behavioral disequilibrium is expected especially in predominantly white serving institutions. Students are used to be taught by professors they can associate with and with them they share common characteristics. When exception happens and they are presented with a professor who does not fit into their existing schema, they may experience some type of discomfort and unbalance. They are later forced to assimilate the new reality and expand their mental effort to adjust and accommodate with the new experience.

Restoring Balance & Harmony

However, restoring the balance and harmony is not always easy. Festinger et al. (1955) found the danger of cognitive dissonance lies in the fact it is much easier to make excuses than to make changes. This leads people to self-justification and a search for arguments that reinforce their viewpoint:

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has an investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attack (Festinger et al., 1955, p. 1).

Literature Review

Boatright-Horowitz et al. (2013) conducted a study to investigate whether White college students would change their attitudes about racism after being exposed to a list of White Privileges (McIntosh, 2001). This was after the acknowledgement that campus social climates were racist and many White students failed to acknowledge the problem. Indeed, more than 70% of Black college students felt “they were viewed as lacking academic competence by faculty and others on campus” (Boatright-Horowitz et al. 2013, p. 699) and 65% experienced verbal and racial harassment. Even though 50% of the White college students in this study admitted to exhibiting open dislike (e.g., name-calling, physical violence, negative facial expressions) towards others because of their race, being exposed to the White Privilege (McIntosh, 2001) list resulted in hostile, anti-diversity, sexist and insulting responses from some students. Similarly, Clark and Zygmunt’s (2014) study on implicit bias resulted in disregard and rationalization when teachers’ core beliefs and attitudes were challenged. Teachers were exposed to the Implicit Association Tests (IATs) instrument, which measured their preference for European American and light skin against Black skin. Even though 96% of the teachers indicated a preference for European American and light skin, some disregarded the results and rationalized the results. One participant in the study argued that “the results of the IAT did not seem accurate to me. It stated that I had a strong preference for White people but I don’t agree with this. I almost felt like it was a trick” (Clark & Zygmunt, 2014, p. 152). The pattern of complete dismissal, denial, and devastation at the thought of possessing a hidden bias resulted in the teachers failing to acknowledge race as a social construct, “moving them to consider their personal role in advancing equitable education for all” (Clark & Zygmunt, 2014, p. 158). College students in the Kinney (2013) study experienced a moment of “awkwardness” when they were exposed to a barrage of negative tweets towards a Black character in a film. The bone of contention was that the beloved character in the book from which the film was derived bore perceived White characteristics and viewers felt betrayed when a Black person was cast in the film. The White audience was therefore angry and experienced a moment of “cognitive dissonance between imagined impression of the character and the way she was represented in the film” (Kinney, 2013, p. 47). Prior to discussing the angry tweets, students in this class had rejected the notion of White privilege and subscribed to “we are different and should celebrate our differences as equals” (Kinney, 2013, p. 41). The purpose of the activity was, therefore, to engage the students and show them “how common sense hegemonic narratives are created, produced, reproduced and contested through popular culture” (Kinney, 2013, p. 41). DiAngelo (2012) argues that most of “White superiority is internalized and unconscious” (p. 175), such that any address of racism and privilege elicits responses that include “anger, withdraw, emotional incapacitation, guilt, argumentation and cognitive dissonance” (p. 183). DiAngelo (2012) refers to this phenomenon as “White fragility,” in which even a minimal amount of racial stress becomes “intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves” (p. 183). White fragility limits the ability to build cognitive or affective skills to develop the stamina and allow for constructive engagement across racial divides and when faculty of color raise race issues: “they are seen as a problem and accused of being racist towards whites for suggesting that racism is present” (DiAngelo, 2012, p. 184). Consequently, faculty of color find themselves in a double bind: “they either have to endure racism or be penalized for trying to change it” (DiAngelo, 2012, p. 184). To restore balance and harmony, Whites modify their existing beliefs and values so that “white privilege is not a factor because we do not see color anyway, we see each person as unique individual” (DiAngelo, 2012, p. 174) and thus, “categories such as race have no meaning and provide no more or less opportunities” (p. 175). Kowal et al. (2013) introduce the concept of “reflexive anti-racism” in reference to diversity training because even motivated anti-racist trainers are prone to negative emotions such as “discomfort, distress, guilt, fear, anxiety, inaction and withdrawal” (p. 318), and this disjunction may arise “between anti-racist ideas and unconscious feelings, thoughts and behaviors that reflect racist social norms” (Kowal et al., 2013, p. 318). By engaging in reflexive anti-racism, Kowal et al. (2013) argue that White people would shift their thinking of racism from something that is “individual malicious, overt, to seeing it as pervasive reality that they themselves have a responsibility to address” (p. 321). This sentiment was equally expressed by Kinney (2014), who noted that the “cloak of color blindness frequently renders whiteness invisible” (p. 147) and therefore, “they need to recognize how they benefit from privilege without becoming mired in guilt and anxiety (Kowal et al., 2013, p. 325). White college students are prone to experience cognitive dissonance when they realize their professor is an immigrant of color. This study therefore was guided by two questions: (1) How is cognitive dissonance manifested in White college students’ beliefs and attitudes in my course? and (2) How do they restore their balance and harmony in order to be successful in the course?

Methodology

Research Approach

This study followed an action research design to investigate how cognitive dissonance is manifested in White college students when taught by an immigrant professor of color and how they restore their balance and harmony in order to succeed in the course. In action research, the teacher is the main investigator and the intent of the inquiry is to inform and improve the instructional practices or understand a specific student behavior. In this particular study, the intent of the researcher is to understand the cognitive processing behind students’ perceptions and expectations of their immigrant professor of color. This research was carried out within the context of the professor’s environment. Implicit in the term action research is the idea that teachers will begin a cycle of posing questions, gathering data, reflection, and deciding on a course of action. Action research emphasizes the involvement of teachers in problems in their own classrooms and has as its primary goal the in-service training and development of the teacher, rather than the acquisition of general knowledge in the field of education (Metler, 2013). Johnson & Christensen (2019) mentioned that “action research starts with you and your place of work, and it is used to address what you believe is important to address” (p. 56). In congruence with this assumption, the researchers in this study adopted the action research attitude to improve their teacher-student relationship by identifying the sources of cognitive dissonance. “This attitude asks you to be both reflective and forward thinking and to be a good observer” (p. 56).

Context of Study

The study took place in a large, predominantly White university in the southwestern United States. Even though the university has reached a 25% Hispanic population, thus earning a Hispanic Serving Institution (HIS) status, the teacher education program where I taught has majority White middle-class female students. For the last 4 years, I have been teaching diversity and bilingual courses required for students in the teacher education program to become certified teachers in PreK-12.

Participants

The participants in this study were preservice teachers enrolled in both my culturally and linguistically diversity course or/and bilingual education course. These preservice teachers go through a rigorous teacher education curriculum that is focused on students’ learning and intensive clinical experiences. The implementation of the field practice is intended to better prepare these preservice teachers to the teaching profession. Upon the completion of the program they become certified teachers in preK-12. A total of 321 preservice teachers provided information for this study. There were 278 females and 43 male preservice teachers who were predominantly white.

Data Sources

Three archival data sources were used in this study: (1) anonymous direct questions and guesses on sticky notes, (2) mid-semester student feedback, and (3) end of semester official students’ evaluations.

Anonymous Direct Questions and Guesses on Sticky Notes

Over the last 4 years, I developed a habit of starting off the first day of class with an ice breaker activity. I pull a pack of sticky notes and move around the class, providing each student with a sticky note. I then ask them to write three questions related to the course or the instructor. I give them few examples such as “Do we need a textbook?”, “Are we going to have a final exam or final project?” They are also encouraged to make three guesses such as” I guess this course requires group work and discussions”, “I guess you love dogs”. I finally remind them not to write their names on the sticky notes. Once they are done, I ask them to stick their notes on the board. With no exception, this introductory activity has always been a great ice-breaker. I intentionally use a few jokes to encourage students to make guesses and ask questions. Their attention usually peaks when I start responding to their questions. While conducting this activity, students indirectly get a fair picture of who I am and about the course. Students have repeatedly asked about my academic background, teaching experience, teaching philosophy, my origin, and family. We also cover a big portion of the syllabus and course expectations. Depending on class size, this activity usually takes about 45 min. Right after, we move to students’ introductions, followed by clarification of the syllabus. I usually have about 20 students in each section. After 4 years, I have collected 321 sticky notes from my undergraduates’ preservice teachers enrolled in both my diversity course and bilingual classes.

Mid-Semester Students’ Feedback

At mid-semester, I collect informal and anonymous feedback from my preservice teachers. The purpose of collecting this feedback is twofold. First, is to measure students’ satisfaction with the course content, method of delivery, and usefulness. Second, is to gather suggestions for improvement. Students are encouraged to critique the course and instructor by responding to questions such (1) Which aspect of the course is most helpful to you? (2) Which aspect of the course is least helpful to you? (3) Are there any suggestions you would like to make about how to improve the course? (4) If I could change one thing about this course, it would be?

End Semester Official Students’ Evaluations

This set of data is gathered by the institution. They are the formal course and instructor evaluations that students complete at the end of each academic semester. These are the standard approach used by most educational institutions to rate course and instructor effectiveness. In most cases, these are the sole variables used to evaluate teaching effectiveness and have implications for tenure, promotion, and personnel decisions. Only the comments section of the evaluations was used in this study.

Data Analysis

After eliminating missing and redundant data, the final data set included 321 sticky notes, 73 feedback forms, and 21 formal evaluation comments. We followed open and axial coding for data analysis. We first used open coding, looking for emergent themes guided by Strauss and Corbin (1990). We read through the questions and guesses written on the 321sticky notes. We had a total of 963 questions and 640 guesses collected over the course of 4 years. We separately created tentative labels for each chunk of data that corresponded to either perception or expectation. We initially color-coded the questions that fit into the same category to establish properties for each code, such as origin, academic qualifications, and course requirements. In a second phase, we used axial coding (Strauss, & Corbin, 1990; Scott, & Medaugh, 2017; Vollstedt, & Rezat, 2019) to identify relationships among the open codes. By axial coding, we investigated the relationships between the emerging concepts and categories that have been developed in the open coding process. The coding paradigm simply went through breaking the data in the process of open coding, and then joined together by axial coding pulling out the categories and their subcategories.

Findings

In analyzing the data, three major themes emerged: (a) cultural and racial profiling – othering the professor, (b) competencies, professionalism and credentials questioned, and (c) expressed anger and anxiety towards the diversity and bilingual courses.

Cultural and Racial Profiling – Othering the Professor

This theme emerged primarily from the analysis of the anonymous direct questions and the sticky notes guesses. The commonly asked questions evolved around my origin, culture, language, ethnicity, and race. This was evident as soon as I enter the classroom, students immediately made a mental note that I was a foreigner. While this curiosity could be extended to any professor on the first day of class, the invasiveness in which some of questions were framed indicated a certain level of intrusiveness on the professor as a person (e.g., “Do you plan to go back home one day?”, “At what grade did you start learning English?”). The physical appearance urged some students to make inaccurate guesses centered around the geographical origin based on visible physical attributes such as skin color, hair type, and the English accent, (e.g., “I guess you are from Puerto Rico” or “I assume you are from…”, whichever country where my physical features could stereotypically fit). When going through the guesses students made about the instructor, we found out that they all, without exception, made a clear assumption that the professor is of a foreign origin. This conclusive observation is derived from the preconceived assumptions students have about what physical traits people from a foreign background have. It was, therefore, not surprising that the multilingual status became a factor in determining the effectiveness in teaching as shared by one student (preservice teacher, spring, 2019):

This class was a valuable learning experience; the teacher was knowledgeable and available. My comment is for the Bilingual program: Why this course, which was supposed to prepare me to teach English language learners is taught by professor who speaks English as a third language? This does not make sense.

The same sentiment of “othering” the professor was expressed by another participant (preservice teacher, fall, 2018) who shared:

She was phenomenal in cultivating a safe environment for controversial conversations. She was very respectful, kind, and was eager to pass along her knowledge and share experiences with us; however, I do not understand why this course is taught by a professor who is not from here.

Despite the acknowledgement that teaching was effective and the professor had the indicators of a successful educator, being an “other” challenged the sensibilities of the participants in this study especially when the diversity course addressed sensitive topics related to race, racism, and white privilege.

Competencies, Professionalism and Credentials Questioned

This second theme was derived from the Mid-semester students’ feedback and the final evaluations. Some students questioned the professor’ competency, professionalism, and credentials right on day one of the course. They wanted to know my academic qualifications, whether I had experience teaching in the college or K-12 environment in the United States or if I had a teaching philosophy. It did not take long for the students to confirm their doubts by mid-term evaluations with comments about the diversity course such as “So far, I did not find much benefit in this class. I do not understand why we are taking this course about diversity, how this can prepare me to teach, I felt like it was a waste of time and money” (preservice teachers, mid-term evaluations). Others claimed the bilingual course was redundant, as they had already picked up the skills in other courses and one thing they would change about the course was to have another teacher “from here”, with experience teaching in K-12 in the US. One student wrote: “She is teaching us how to differentiate instruction for diverse students in high school and not how to control them. She has no clue how to deal with their problems and behaviors because she had never taught at high school” (mid-term evaluation). This sentiment was expressed by yet another student (preservice teacher, mid-term evaluation) who said,

You have told us in the first day of class that you did not attend K-12 school here and you have only college level teaching experience, therefore, you really do not know how hard it is to deal with students with diverse backgrounds here.

Some students questioned the pedagogical approaches used in the classroom, such as peer-review and micro-teaching. They perceived these student centered practices which put more responsibility on the students about their own learning as irrelevant. One student shared (end of semester evaluation):

A lot of microteaching was done and at times was ineffective. I’m paying for a class where a professional is going to teach me, not my fellow peers. She is a fine teacher, but the structure of the class was ineffective and not a valuable learning experience. I Wish I learned more about the theory behind ESL.

This sentiment was further reinforced by another student (end of semester evaluation) who said:

She is a sweet lady and is a kind professor. When it comes to this course though, I do have a different opinion. The way that she laid out this course or this course was designed was not really effective. She had students teach every class time. Which to an extent I can get that, but when we are teaching ourselves the content I don’t really feel like there is a need to show up for class. We each had a micro lesson that we had to teach and so I felt like we are all teaching each other information. I don’t feel as though I learned as much as I could have if we had just been lectured to and taught by our professor rather than being taught by other students. Again, I don’t have anything negative to say about her., she was nice and was respectful.

A similar sentiment was expressed by a student (end of semester evaluation) who shared:

She made us teach the class this semester, which I can understand from an educator perspective as being helpful. I’m very disappointed that my money has been spent on me teaching myself the material or having a peer do it.

References to being “sweet” “nice”, “kind”, “respectful”, and so forth premises the scathing criticism which follows, akin to saying, “am not racist” but this person is not qualified for the job.

Expressed Anger and Anxiety Towards the Diversity and Bilingual Courses

This third theme stemmed from the mid-term and final course evaluations. Teaching diversity and bilingual courses to students who are predominantly white raises anxiety even in the best of circumstances. Being taught by an immigrant professor of color may have brought an added layer of anger. Even before the course began, students had assumed that the professor would be harder on them in terms of meeting expectations and even in their classroom behavior. They wanted to know whether “absenteeism, tardiness, or late submission” of assignments would impact their grades, exuding some level of anxiety. By mid-term evaluation, students had begun to show higher level anxiety about grades and class assignments as shared (end of semester evaluation):

Her class was a valuable learning experience; however I felt that some lesson did not have adequate instructions to help us understand what it was that we were supposed to be doing for an assignment. When contacted for clarification she would respond quickly and she would give clarification. I feel that if more explanation was given on some assignments students would be more successful in completing assignments to the proper standards.

This sentiment was reinforced further by a student (end of semester evaluation) who said:

when I would speak with her in class she would come off as if she didn’t care what I was asking and would not answer my questions clearly. Her assignments were not clear and if you didn’t do them correctly she gave you points off, which didn’t make sense due to the fact that the rubric didn’t clearly state that’s what was to be done for the assignment. Having clearer instructions would have helped make this course run smoother.

Even though anger and frustration about lack of communication were expressed only by a few students, we decided to still include them in the analysis. This may be interpreted as the approach these students used to restore their balance and harmony by using teacher’s perceived lack of good communication as evidence to justify their low scores. Beyond the anxiety observed about grades and assignments, preservice teachers also expressed fear and anxiety when it comes to meeting the needs of diverse learners at the pre K-12 environment. For instance, during the topic concerning differentiated instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse learners, students argued that the specific differentiated instructional strategies they were practicing would not be impactful during their teaching practice. Instead, they preferred to be taught skills on managing diverse students’ behavior and maintaining control in the classroom. It was undeniable that preservice teachers see diverse students as an extra challenge added to their teaching duties.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, we questioned whether White college students experienced cognitive dissonance while taught by an immigrant professor of color, and if they did how they restored balance and harmony in order to be successful in the course. We argue that cognitive dissonance is manifested by the White college students in this study through processes such as “othering” the professor, questioning their competencies and expressing anger and anxiety towards the course through macroaggressions. These findings have significant implications. One, there is the danger of impeding the professional growth of the immigrant professors of color or reducing the ability to thrive in their career. Official student evaluations are used by many administrators as the only tool to measure teaching effectiveness and are determinants of tenure, promotion, and other personnel decisions. Preservice teachers in this study are aware of the weight that is carried by these evaluations in higher education and therefore, directly questioned the wisdom of those charged with responsibility of staffing this position (e.g., Why is this course, which was supposed to prepare me to teach English language learners, taught by professor who speaks English as a third language?) This is a direct message to the employer to reevaluate the services of this person in order to eliminate the mental discomfort of the student. Secondly, preservice teachers use a mental block to emotionally drop out from participating in their own learning. Pedagogical approaches, such as peer- review and micro-teaching that are used widely in the profession become a barrier to their own learning. This self-sabotage to accessing knowledge results in negative comments (e.g., “this course was a waste of money”). Thirdly, opportunities for reflexivity are lost because of the emotions of anger and anxiety directed towards the course. Since some preservice teachers harbor these unconscious biases, they are unable to productively engage with the professor in the process of problem-solving, where much learning takes place. We therefore recommend that colleges intentionally prepare White students for intellectual engagement with diverse professors. Preservice teachers and students in general need to build cognitive and affective skills to develop the stamina that would allow for constructive engagement across racial divides (DiAngelo, 2012; Kasztalska, 2019; Ramjattan, 2019). It is possible they will find jobs in diverse work places or themselves become foreign teachers in different parts of the world: therefore, they need to be prepared for success in such positions and contexts. More primary data should be directly collected from students to further investigate what can be done to mitigate and fully understand the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in White college students when taught by immigrant professors of color. Likewise, the voice of faculty of color can provide further insights on how conductive environments for teaching and learning can be created in diverse classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how White college students manifest their cognitive dissonance when taught by immigrant professors of color and how they restore balance and harmony in order to successfully complete the course. Cognitive dissonance is a state of mental discomfort leading to an alteration of attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. Students in this study developed a mental note as soon as I entered the classroom that I was an “other”. During an ice-breaker activity in which they were asked to anonymously ask questions and make guesses, they framed the questions in terms of cultural and racial profiling with comments indicative of attacks on my personhood. They clearly questioned my qualification, professionalism and credentials, wondering how I would manage the course given my multilingual background and foreignness. Students expressed fear and anger towards the diversity course and harshly judged the impact it would make to their overall practice as teachers.

White college students experience cognitive dissonance when taught by immigrant professors of color, which is manifested through the processes of othering the professor through cultural and racial profiling, questioning competencies, qualifications and credentials, and expressed direct anger and anxiety towards the course. The danger of these processes is that they threaten the career trajectory of the immigrant professor of color, impede intellectual growth of the students, and make the learning environment hostile and stressful. Given the diverse environment in which the students will be seeking employment, colleges have the challenge and responsibility to prepare students to engage constructively with people from diverse racial backgrounds.

Limitations of the Study

We used archival data for analysis of this study, which means that it was collected for other purposes and later found to be relevant to the investigation of this phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. It is therefore possible that it may not accurately answer the specific questions raised in this study. The findings may therefore have to be interpreted with caution. But even with that limitation, the study has yielded significant findings. The preservice teachers in this study experienced cognitive dissonance described by McFall and Cobb-Roberts (2001) as a state of psychological tension or dissonance when new knowledge or information is incongruent with previous acquired knowledge. Typically, college White students expect to find a professor who looks like them when they enter the classroom. On entering the classroom and finding that their professor is an immigrant of color, they did what Festinger et al. (1955) describe as the danger of cognitive dissonance where making excuses become easier than making changes. This leads people to self-justification and a search for arguments that reinforce their viewpoint. Preservice teachers quickly created a mental memo that the professor did “not belong”; thus, consequent intrusive attacks on my personhood concur with Boatright-Horowitz et al. (2013) on college White students exposed to the notion of “White Privilege” (McIntosh, 2001). Rather than change behavior towards their fellow students of color, they responded in hostile, anti-diversity, sexist, and impertinent comments. Similarly, teachers in the Clark and Zygmunt (2014) study noted disregard and rationalization when their core beliefs and attitudes were challenged during an implicit bias training. Likewise, students in this study questioned the professor’ qualification, professionalism, and credentials, but vehemently denied it was anything to do with race. Indeed, they described their professor as being “sweet, nice, respectful, helpful, knowledgeable, and loved her” but had not yet reached the threshold of an effective professor. This is the kind of awkwardness described by Kinney (2013) about the “imagined impression of the character and the way she was represented in the film” (p. 47) when a Black person was cast in what the White audience perceived to be White characteristics based on the book where the film was derived. The professor did not fit the imagined impression of a college professor, so that visible physical attributes such as skin color, hair type, and accent become the central focus in order to trivialize any feelings of discomfort. The way students in this study questioned the qualifications, professionalism, and credentials could correspond to what DiAngelo (2012) refers to as “White fragility” (p. 183). Being taught by an immigrant professor of color caused racial stress, which triggered a range of defensive moves such as questioning the competencies and conspiratorially questioning the wisdom of those who put this professor in that position in the first place (e.g., “I do not understand why this course is taught by a professor who is not from here” [preservice teacher, Fall, 2018]).