has appeared in April 2005 and caused a firestorm. The most scandalous part was tying all life functions of the university to the never defined notion of cultural competency. Here is
Interesting discussions of Plan-1 can be found for example at Chronicle of Higher Education, Emerald, Joanne Jacobs, Number Two Pencil, LeftToRight, Amritas, EducatioNation, Rosenblog, and many others.
Especially recommended is the following contest for the best definition of cultural competency. (My favorite entries: Cultural Competency: Cacophonic Clause Calculated to Clear a Campus of Conservatives, and Cultural Competency: making sure we all can't just get along).
The administration created the next committee which was supposed to come up with a new version of the plan. By March 2006 a new plan was made public:
This is much longer document, which is also more vague than than Plan-1, but still has cultural competency in it, this time even "defined". Professor Shelton and I have written detailed comments with an eye on improvement of the plan:
These comments were signed by 57 faculty members. The comments were submitted to the next, third committee, which was formed for the purpose of collecting comments and making recommendations to the president as to what should the third and final plan be. Committee has also solicited oral comments on three special forums. On these forums many faculty have voiced strong criticism of the university diversity efforts. Main lines of criticism were: cultural competency and lack of financial transparency. Meanwhile, Professor Harbaugh came up with a much cheaper and much more direct alternative plan:
Up to this moment the debate has been quiet, but here came a "letter written by some Education School faculty":
The letter was spread through Professor Pope's e-mail list. It threw around words like "blatantly discriminatory" and more or less claimed that opponents of the Plan are racists. This was an obvious provocation. Many people considered the letter libelous and tried to find out who are the authors of the letter and who it was sent to. Professor Pope refused to answer these questions. There has been a discussion of pursuing a formal grievance for libel. Professor Tublitz next tried to set up a meeting between some of the opponents of Diversity Plan and the authors of the Ed. School Letter. Professor Krista Chronister, who was collecting signatures under the Ed. School Letter, was initially interested but then after consultations with Professor Benedict McWhirter refused. The status of the letter at the moment is unclear. Whoever is the author of the letter, it has created strife and schism between the faculty. My response to the letter is available at
After sending my response to Chronister and B. McWhirter I have invited them to have either public or private discussion of the Plan and all related issues. They did not respond.
Meanwhile, the third and final plan appeared from the president's office:
It was almost identical with Plan-2, with some of the least important criticisms taken into account, but in all major points the same or slighly worse. This applies especially to the Cultural Competency section which was even somewhat reinforced.
The University Senate has considered the Plan-3 on its May 24 session and adopted it by a vote of 32 to 6. The senate meeting presented a scary picture. Radical students dressed in black shirts with red bands shouting, booing and hissing wildly at the slightest attempt of dissent, people talking about their experiences under totalitarian regimes under laughter and hissing from the audience. It resembled court proceedings against "enemies of people" in the USSR in the thirties.
So, let us see what is the balance now. Thousands of hours spent by hundreds of faculty members and administrators on various committees, letters, etc. Schism between the faculty stronger than ever before. Reputation of the UO damaged among people of the state and among the legislators. Many people who were not cynical about this before now are cynical. Several of the best professors will eventually leave (or be hounded out if they dared to speak against the plan). The atmosphere of fear on campus with dissenters to the Plan afraid to speak. We will keep spending more and more on "diversity" with the same results. But we now have a plan which says that more plans should be written. Great.
Some further references:
A small further development. In the late Spring of 2006 I had a meeting with Charles Martinez (our diversity vice-provost). He suggested that he is interested in continuing dialogue with the opponents of the Plan. I suggested that one way of maintaining the dialogue going could be for his office to organize a series of lectures on diversity, with supporters and opponents of the Plan taking turns in inviting distinguished scholars/intellectuals with strong opinions about the issues involved in the debate. He initially liked the idea and promised to get back to me over the Summer. I'm still waiting...