 At these points, I would like to introduce to you the first speaker, Orlando Taylor, who is distinguished senior advisor to the president, executive director, center for the advancement of STEM leadership, Field Graduate University. Prior to his current appointment, Dr. Taylor served as president for strategic initiatives and research at Fielding, where he was also the principal investigator and director for a national science foundation funded grant to advance women in STEM fields into leadership positions at the nation's historically black colleges and universities and tribal colleges. Before that, he served in several senior leadership positions at Howard University. I just happened to interact with, at that time, Dean Taylor at Howard University. I really enjoyed interacting with him. He was one of the architects of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Science Foundation funded preparing critical faculty for the future project. Dr. Taylor has been a national leader for many years on issues pertaining to diversity and inclusion. It is a distinct privilege for me to welcome Dr. Taylor, and we look forward to your presentation today. Well, thank you, Dr. Phil, for that introduction and good afternoon, and I should say good morning and afternoon to the audiences today. This is a very important panel, very important workshop, and I'm honored to be the lead speaker. I want to focus on that topic of leadership as an essential requirement for broadening participation in STEM, because that is indeed what is a very important dimension of the whole question of diversity, equity, and inclusion and access in STEM. Rather than start with the model that many people start with, which is social justice, I don't start with that. While social justice is important in our nation and representation is important in our nation, I start with the competitive to competitive leadership, but the competitive advantage of the United States and claim that the United States will be unable to retain a STEM global leadership without more diversity and inclusion. And really, there are a lot of data one could cite to make that case. For example, the large number of STEM graduates in other countries, for example, in China and India, more global competition for STEM workers around the world. In fact, many individuals who formally sought to advance their own work in the United States are thinking in other countries, in other continents, Australia, and Asia, and in Europe, in Canada, so that we have much different competitive environment than we had, say, 50 years ago or 60 years ago when the United States pretty much dominated the STEM disciplines. At the same time, there is a decline in the relative numbers of white male college students. And that's the population that has sparkly fed into the STEM disciplines, white males. But that relative population is declining, only about 43% of all U.S. college students, for example, white males. And the rapid growth is in women, 57%, and purses of color, which now constitutes close to 40% of all students and colleges and universities. And some projected in the near future, the majority of students in American colleges and universities will be students of color to represent it in STEM. So that's really the context, in my view, why representation is so important. Also, at the outset of our workshop this afternoon, I think we need to be very mindful that different times and situations often require different approaches for change. And most of us have been focused on something some researchers call first order change, where we rearrange or we refine, or we add new dimensions to an existing structure or organization. Re-engineering, if you will, current structures. That's been a classic model that colleges and universities have followed for decades. We leave the organization the way it is, the curriculum the way it is, and we try to, we may tinker around the edges to make the organization of the institutions more acceptable and more effective with different types of students. But that's a first order change, and that's one approach. But that would argue that as a second order change, we need to take a much more interest in. That is changing or transforming the fundamental ways in which a structure or an organization does business. In other words, creating new models with new functions. Also, I think it's important for us to distinguish between leader leadership. Most people will hear the word leadership, and they'll think about whole titles. But leader is usually one with designated or articulate or titular authority and resources to make an implement organizational decisions and change, whereas leadership is anyone who acts or persuades others to act, to advance an organizational agenda with or without a formal leadership title. Many of us knowing universities that the department secretary, for example, may play a major leadership role in student support, for instance, and faculty support. They're not the dean, they're not the department chair, but they play an important part of leadership and student leaders, faculty leaders, alumni leaders and so forth. So I argue that we need second order change to advance rapid participation in STEM. That's because despite that case of efforts to achieve equity and inclusion in STEM, underrepresentation is confused. I argue that new approaches are required to achieve equity along the way also inclusion. Leadership is required. The focus is on fixing higher education. More than fixing Center for the Ambassador of STEM Leadership. It's a collaborative center research and development center funded by the National Science Foundation originally in 2016. It's a center that has three major components. There's a research component, the primary component, but there's an education component and an outreach knowledge transfer component. And it's a collaboration between and among four entities, the University of the Virgin Islands, North Carolina ANP State University, both historically black colleges, universities rather, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, that is a correct name. They changed their name to go. What was the Association of American Colleges and Universities, AAC and U, and it's still AAC and U, but it's American Association of Colleges and Universities. And my institutions are building graduate university in California. Now, we have this project with College Castle as our acronym and our goals are shown on the screen. I won't go through every one of them, but the key ones, one I would like to mention is too, we seek to examine, elucidate, and promote the intuitive and often unwritten codes of excellence and leadership that result in the broadening participation and success of AAC, U, and STEM. If you go to the literature or go to the books on leadership, you probably will not find these codes. And yet, these institutions do very well. The reason that I start this conversation with the HBCUs, I could use other, I could use HSIs, I could use tribal colleges, but today, because of time, I only focus on HBCUs. I want to just comment on why I start with HBCUs, and I could because I said MSIs. Remember that HBCUs, if you go to the literature, produce a disproportionate number of African American STEM undergraduates despite low budgets, body facilities, to blue chip students, et cetera, in some fields. While these institutions only comprise about 3% of the total number of higher education institutions in the country and enroll today about 9% of African Americans. In some fields, they produce more than 25% of all African Americans with baccalaureate degrees. For example, in a recent study that math, it was 33%, the physical science is 37%, and of the top producers of baccalaureate degree recipients, African American baccalaureate recipients who obtained doctoral degrees in STEM, seven of the top 10 are from HBCUs. So the question that one has to ask right off, how is that? How could they do that with the budgetary situation that they often face, the political climate they often find themselves in, and so on. And I'll comment on that momentarily. Council is grounded in Bowman and Gallus as four frames of academic leadership. And I would invite you to take a look at their book. There's a most recent version of it. I think you can see it on the screen. We'll make it the name available. It's called Reframing Academic Leadership. It was published by Josie Bassie in 2021. It's the second edition of a book. Originally came out with Bowman and Gallus, same thing, Reframing Academic Leadership. I believe it's the most important book on the topic at the moment. I urge you to read it. Because four frames of leadership that Bowman and Gallus or Gallus and Bowman speak to really serve as the foundations for our work in Castle. The first frame is called Structural, which focuses on a leader who focuses on goals and plans, tasks, strategic initiatives, metrics, and so forth. Political frame, which most people don't want to get involved with, don't want to get into the politics of higher education. But it focuses on political, I mean, coalition building, conflict resolution, and the like. Human resource frame focuses on human needs, relationships, team building, and the like. And the symbolic frame focuses on inspiring faculty and indeed the whole academic community, building a sense of belonging. Sometimes they may use slogans and so forth to do work. But those are the four frames that Bowman and Gallus speak to. Now, with respect to HBCUs, you'd have to argue if you say, well, they're so successful. Could it be leadership at various institutional levels, which I've implied a moment ago? And could it be the addition of a fifth frame that Bowman and Gallus don't talk about? We call it in Castle, the soul of leadership. We're not talking about soul food or soul music, we're talking about the collectivity of values, beliefs, legacies, perspectives, spirituality, personality, and cultural context that provide the basis for how one sees the world, how one interacts with people, objects, institutions, and the physical environment, and provides the framework for leadership. And so the one would argue that this dimension of leadership is a critical attribute of leadership in HBCUs. So then we go back to the question, why are HBCUs so successful and broadly participation in STEM? Castle claims, indeed it is leadership, many institutional levels. And that leadership is derived from the African-American cultural context or the African-American cultural experience. There are some common phrases I put on the screen that you often would hear in these institutions, standing on the shoulders of others. Students being told they've got to be twice as good and work twice as hard to be successful and so forth. A high value on road models and mentoring the young, very important dimension, and a strong adherence to traditional cultural values. Never forget where you came from. Take the next to your community and to your family and to God. In our work at Castle, we have learned several things that we have a special edition of the Journal of Negro Education, as Danny that's published in December 2021. I'm not sure it's available yet, but the date will show December 2021. It's on our work and the work of others who have focused on leadership, the broad participation in STEM. But there are some lessons we've learned as I'll leave you with these thoughts. Number one and most importantly, and this is a nod to one of my colleagues in the audience today, context matters, context and leadership matter together. Secondly, broad participation requires more focus on the concept of domain, more than a focus on the domain, using now the Bowman and Gabba's model. Broad participation requires a focus on institutions, systems and leaders, which is a bit of a difference from a focus on the students. Viewing the student as the problem, the student that needs to be fixed, not the institution, not the leadership. So the broad, the lesson that we have learned in CASEL that it requires a significant amount of attention and in many cases, re-engineering, both in thought and practice on systems and leaders. Then one thing we've learned for certain is that HBCUs and other MSIs should be seen as having successful, maybe even the best models for broad participation, and indeed can inform all, all of American higher education, not just minority serving institutions, so that if one really wants to, to learn how to do this, they should make a pathway to the places like Howard or Morehouse or Spelman. And I have the time to go into some of the numbers, but if you take a stool like Spelman College, which is a 2000 student institution, women, a women's college, and you know women are underrepresented in STEM, that's another talk for another day. Spelman ranks number two in the country in terms of producing African Americans of either gender of any, of any sexual designation and obtaining doctoral degrees upon their graduation from undergraduate school. It's only 2000 students. You can think of a lot, I know a lot of institutions, predominant white institution with far more students than Spelman, far more African American students, right in Atlanta, for example, Georgia State has 10,000 students, 10,000 African American students. That's more than Morehouse, Spelman, and Clark Atlanta put together. They ranked 39th in terms of producing African Americans who obtained doctoral degrees in STEM. Spelman is number two. Morehouse is number 11. Clark Atlanta is in the top 20. So there are lessons to be learned from all institutions. And so rather than seeing these institutions as a special focus that could only deal with their population, they have models that could be useful for all of us in higher education. And I'll stop here.