Here and below we refer to `DIVERSITY PLAN FOR UO' as the Plan. Citations from the Plan are in italics. We divide our comments into several themes and provide specific suggestions on how to improve the document.
This seems to be an inaccurate presentation of the UO Mission Statement from the previous page, which actually says equality of opportunity , and not equality, opportunity. The difference is substantial. The university actually does not consider equality as one of its core values, otherwise everybody would be paid the same salary and all students would be getting the same grades. Commitment to equality in the abstract is meaningless, one can only speak of equality of opportunity, fairness, etc.
Further in the third paragraph of page 1, there is another seemingly minor change of terminology, where instead of equality, suddenly commitment to equity is affirmed. This is yet another meaning, which does not seem to follow from the UO Mission Statement. The problem with this term is that it has two main meanings: fairness (noncontroversial) and proportional representation (controversial). Should the number of sociology professors be proportional to the national averages? Should the number of professors who are religious be proportional to the national averages?
If the University is consistently committed to equity in the sense of proportional representation, the consequences will be dramatic...
Further reading of the document suggest that it is this controversial meaning of proportional representation that the Plan often has in mind. Consider the statement on page 6: We have maintained relative proportionality in some areas but have yet to catch the curve of rapid growth that we are seeing throughout the state. The Plan puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that the percentage of students (and faculty) from a certain group is smaller than the percentage of this group in a general population. Should we then consider as important the fact that proportional representations of Libertarians, Protestants, Jews and Republicans are substantially different on campus than off campus?
And what do we have to say about those who are `overrepresented'? For example, the manner statistics on pages 5 and 6 are presented, the implication might be that we should discourage Asian students from enrolling at the UO given that they are disproportionately represented relative to Oregon demographics.
In view of the above, we suggest to change Equality, opportunity, and pluralism are core values that the UO embraces [...] to Equality of opportunity and pluralism are core values that the UO embraces [...], in accordance with the UO Mission Statement. We also suggest to drop any reference to equity and substitute the terms fairness, equality of opportunity, etc. Alternatively, we might keep the term equity but state explicitly that it is used in the sense of fairness and not in the sense of proportional representation. All references to proportional representation (like the one on page 6) should be removed.
We commend the Plan for giving this broad definition of diversity and agree that diversity of thought is one of the most important kinds of diversity on campus. On the other hand, we were disappointed that in all subsequent concrete steps the Plan recommends allocation of resources only to address diversity understood in the narrow sense: racial, ethnic, and gender diversity.
For example, on page 6 of the Plan some (questionable) information is provided on negative experiences of students of color on campus, but nothing is said about the treatment of Asian, Jewish, conservative, or religious students. What are the data here? Is it even being collected? Does anybody care?
page 27, second paragraph. Point 2 focuses on the importance of recruiting and retaining faculty, students, officers of administration, and staff from groups that are underrepresented in a unit with respect to ethnic, racial, or gender diversity. Although all kinds of diversity benefit the University, and units should seek to recruit and retain persons of diverse backgrounds broadly defined, to the extent the University devotes resources to building a ``critical mass'', the emphasis should be on racial and ethnic diversity, and in some departments, gender diversity. (We assume there is a misprint here: the authors probably meant Point 3 rather than Point 2?)
Disappointing. If all kinds of diversity are indeed important for the University, why, once we talk about resources, are only special kinds of diversity selected? These are precisely the same kinds of diversity that already attract almost all of our substantial expenditures. The Plan does not explain why we should take this narrow point of view. Yes, affirmative action rules apply primarily to the special kinds of diversity, but the Plan underlines several times that we should not merely comply with affirmative action, but should go beyond those legal obligations (see second paragraph on page 28 for example).
We urge the new committee to reconsider this very crucial point. To a great extent, this will show how serious we are. The Plan should suggest concrete steps to ensure all forms of diversity. We suggest that every specific suggestion towards diversity keep in mind the broad definition of diversity given in the Plan, for example when collecting data on negative experiences of students or faculty.
Cultural competence is an active and ongoing process of self-reflection, learning, skill development and adaptation, practiced individually and collectively,
This is not precise enough as it applies to lots of things: prayer, meditation, confession, scientific research, environmental activism, artisan bread making, .... On the other hand, the second part of the definition doesn't try to say what cultural competence is but rather what it does:
that enables us to engage effectively a culturally diverse community and world [...] allows us to recognize that [...] enables us to bring this knowledge [...]
When you describe a word through what it does this word must be a verb, but cultural competence is not a verb... The condescending remark on the previous page that the term is a well-established concept isn't helpful at all, and just intimidates the reader. If it is so well-established, why can't it be defined properly?
In view of the constant difficulties with the notion of cultural competence, and because it does not seem to play an important role in the Plan anyway, we suggest that it be dropped.
Faculty members at different times have asked administration for precise numbers, but somehow these were never provided. The Plan is an appropriate place to require that the university community be informed about the allocation and amount of diversity resources. Given the substantially increased administrative work required by the Plan, we suggest a fully transparent and complete accounting of diversity expenditures. Such accounting will be invaluable to decision making bodies such as the University Senate and the Council of Deans. Everything should be included in this accounting, for example, scholarships used primarily for minorities, Minority Recruitment and Retention Fund, and estimates of the administrative costs across campus. Confidential information should not be required, but the data like what are the average start-up funds and salary bonuses per person and how decisions are being made are certainly appropriate.
Unfortunately, the section of the Plan under the heading "Need for a Diversity Plan" is weak. We will outline the specific reasons for this opinion below. The inclusion of this section in the formal document detracts from the Plan's potential as an effective tool to fostering diversity on our campus. We recommend specifically that this section (pages 3 through 6) be dropped from document.
Specifically:
The data do not speak for themselves. As explained above, the data are nearly meaningless and one cannot even draw the conclusion that a diversity plan is necessary from this data.
To begin with, the work cited is in no way a "study," nor is it in fact "recent." The interviews forming the central framework of the work took place prior to 1992, the publication date of the film "In Plain English: Students of Color Speak Out." This makes the information hopelessly out of date. Furthermore, the subjects of the interviews were carefully chosen and in no way adequately represent the minority population of the University of Oregon, then or now.
The Plan goes on to state, immediately after reference to the work of Professor Lesage, Students of color and other underrepresented students often do not feel included, respected, or safe. They regularly confront inappropriate comments made by University employees and fellow students and endure tense interactions in living, learning, and other public spaces. (The emphases are ours.) It is extremely inappropriate to base such broad statements on the experiences of a few carefully chosen subjects from fifteen years ago. No concrete facts are presented to support this particular vision of minority life on campus. No comparisons with other campuses are provided. We are not told whether the numbers of racial incidents on campus are increasing or decreasing.
There is no reason to try to fix any of these serious problems. It is much simpler to delete pages 3 through 6 and let the remainder of the Plan "speak for itself."
Really? Whatever the Provost deems appropriate? What if the Provost deems appropriate to fire people based on the Provost's understanding of whether they are culturally competent or not? We suggest that this strange sentence be omitted.
One should be careful here. All programs of this great university provide courses, opportunities for advanced study, and scholarly work of interest to students and faculty from underrepresented groups. These students (and all other students) don't like to be pigeonholed, and we think this condescending sentence should be dropped, if not the whole paragraph.