williams
To meet the needs of increasingly diverse campuses, many institutions have developed executive positions to guide their diversity agendas. In many instances, these individuals and their units are the "face" of diversity efforts and carry formal administrative titles like vice provost, vice chancellor, associate provost, vice president, assistant provost, dean, or special assistant to the president for multicultural, international, equity, diversity, and inclusion -- to cite only a few of the most frequently used titles.
Yet despite so many different monikers, if you ask most officers what they do, they often respond in a remarkably similar manner, noting that they are the institution's "chief diversity officer" (or CDO, as many say), using the title more commonly found among their counterparts in the corporate world. We've just finished a national study of these positions: why these roles are emerging, their main characteristics, and the key knowledge, skills, and abilities that institutions should seek when searching for a new officer.
In the last five years, no fewer than 30 institutions have created these new roles. A review of recent higher education job listings illustrates the scope of this phenomenon, as institutions moving towards the CDO are swelling in number and differ by type, control, size, and geographic location. Institutions like the Berklee College of Music, Oklahoma State University, Harvard University, Xavier University, Miami University, Marquette University, Washington State University, and the University of Virginia, have recently hired inaugural officers. These roles have been constructed in an effort to build diversity capabilities similar to those found at institutions like the University of Michigan, University of Connecticut, Indiana University, the University of Washington, Brown University, the University of Denver, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, to name a few of the places that have had these positions for some time.
The emergence of these offices in higher education is not without historical precedence, as some institutions had "vice president for minority affairs" roles in the 1970s, when the first large group of African Americans enrolled at what were nearly all-white colleges and universities. These early units were often criticized as a symbolic appeasement to protesting minority groups and others demanding infrastructure for newly admitted minority populations and campus change.
While these positions have been consistently mentioned in diversity plans, senior leadership and others were often resistant, falsely criticizing these roles as "ghettoizing diversity" by putting the full burden on the shoulders of one person, and creating a campus police officer who would "tell people what to do." Additionally, many individuals believed that these officers would simply be "student development specialist" or "affirmative action officers" in new clothing.
What distinguishes the current executive diversity officer from its historical predecessors is the functional definition of diversity as a resource that can be leveraged to enhance the learning of all students and is fundamental to institutional excellence, in addition to its historic definition as the presence of individuals that differ by race, gender, or some other social identity characteristic.
The most influential of these officers is also distinguished by ability to infuse diversity into the most important academic issues of the institution. For example, the chief diversity officer may collaborate with the academic senate to develop a general education diversity distribution requirement; lead international negotiations for establishing a sister campus in Dubai; or develop incentives to develop new programs and initiatives that infuse diversity into the curriculum and co-curriculum. These types of initiatives are distinct from the traditional responsibilities of affirmative action officers, although chief diversity officers may play a key role in resolving sexual harassment and workplace discrimination complaints, or supervising the unit that performs this function.
Where others work on issues of diversity as a matter of second or third priority, chief diversity officers engage matters of diversity as a matter of first-priority. Although the structures and vertical portfolios of the CDO range from basic one-person offices, to more complex multi-unit configurations, a number of threads define this emerging administrative role in higher education.
A Functional Approach: Chief diversity officers have responsibility for guiding efforts to conceptualize, define, assess, nurture, and cultivate diversity as an institutional and educational resource. Although duties may include affirmative action/equal employment opportunity, or the constituent needs of minorities, women, and other bounded social identity groups, chief diversity officers define their mission as providing point and coordinating leadership for diversity issues institution-wide.
Building a robust chief diversity officer capability insures that the institution has expertise on diversity related matters and infusing this understanding throughout the campus environment. For instance, at the University of Connecticut, the Office of the Vice Provost for Multicultural & International Affairs leads the execution of a five-year board-sponsored strategic plan for diversity and provides key input and leadership to several committees focused on minority faculty mentoring, undergraduate student retention, and increasing the number of historically underrepresented students of color and women studying in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics areas. Moreover, members of the office's senior leadership team participate in many of the most substantive non-diversity centered committees at the university, ranging from information technology usage, to space allocations, to athletics.
Collaboration: Given complexities like infusing diversity into the curriculum, enhancing the compositional diversity profile of students, faculty, and staff, and developing policies designed to improve the campus climate, the challenge of diversity is beyond the capabilities of any one individual, division, or team. Hence, chief diversity officers serve as powerful integrating forces for diversity issues, collaborating and working through the lateral networks of the institution no matter how large or small their staffs.
Like comparable roles in other administrative areas, such as the "chief financial officer" or "chief technology officer," the work of the chief diversity officer does not fit into a traditional administrative box. Like diversity, the role of the chief diversity officer spans the boundaries of the institution as officers and their units collaborate with areas like admissions, human resources, faculty development, marketing and communication, academic deans, and institutional advancement in an effort to enhance diversity up, down, and across the institution.
Collaboration is often achieved through consultative relationships. Many officers regularly co-author, write letters of support, and build relationships with community colleges and historically minority serving institutions to support and strengthen the grant writing efforts of faculty members interested in obtaining National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health awards that often emphasize diversity and collaborative relationships. Others work closely with their development offices, playing a key role in identifying prospective donors, cultivating new relationships, and securing resources to fund everything from scholarships, to study abroad opportunities in developing nations.
Because of the boundary spanning nature of the chief diversity officer role, the types of possible relationships is nearly endless. Consequently, these officers must be malleable, innovative, and committed to fluidly adding value in areas outside of their core area of expertise and experience.
Leading Through Status and Influence: Chief diversity officers generally have no formal authority to command, reward, or punish individuals outside of their formal span of control and leadership. As a result, their source of "power" is often grounded in status, persuasion, and symbols. For example, no chief diversity officer has the authority to hire faculty members without support of the academic department or dean, even if they have the resources to provide a portion or all of the salary necessary for the position. Nevertheless, some officers can persuade department chairs to pool resources and hire a potentially high caliber diversity candidate by offering these resources as a start-up incentive. This is one of the main reasons that it is important for chief diversity officers to have resources allowing them to encourage behavior that advances the diversity goals of the institution.
Another primary source of power for these officers is their location at the presidential or provost level of formal administrative hierarchy. Participation in the executive cabinet of the institution insures that the position has visibility, access, and symbolic impact. For that reason, chief diversity officers can infuse diversity into highly politicized discussions about budget allocations, new initiatives, and future priorities of the institution. If these officers were not present, these issues may not be mentioned, nor understand in a manner consistent with diversity goals so often mentioned in institutional academic plans, websites, and marketing materials.
By titling officers at the vice or associate vice president, provost, or chancellor level, a powerful symbolic message is sent to the entire campus community regarding the important role of the CDO and diversity on campus. Some of the most influential officers often have a dual title like academic affairs, student development, international affairs, or faculty development, in addition to their "diversity" title. According to one officer that we interviewed, the presence of a title like "vice provost for diversity and academic affairs," in combination with a portfolio of units and responsibilities in both areas, signals that the officer is "more than simply a resource on matters of diversity and suggests a fundamental connection between diversity and academic excellence."
Promoting Change: Chief diversity officers are best defined as "change management specialists" because of the importance that they place on strategies designed to intentionally move the culture of their institutions. At least at the surface, no CDO is hired to maintain the status quo, although some institutions are not serious about change and extend only superficial support to the efforts of the officer.
Nevertheless, change is a fundamental aspect of the chief diversity officer role leading campus-wide diversity planning and implementation efforts, seeding new diversity initiatives to create bubble-up energy and involve others in change projects, developing diversity training and educational strategies for executives, faculty, staff, and students to shift their mental models and skills regarding diversity, developing high profile and symbolic campus diversity events to suggest diversity's relationship to institutional excellence, and creating new systems to insure that faculty and staff search committees cast a broad hiring net. Although diversity is the targeted domain area, each of these initiatives and projects is intended to affect some type of intentional change in the systems, structure, and culture of the institution.
The Making of a Good CDO
When an institution decides to hire a CDO and develop this new capability, great care must be given to finding the right candidate. This task can be difficult with applicant pools that regularly yield between 120 and 150 persons, and include faculty members with a diversity research agenda, lawyers well-versed in affirmative action law, student development specialists, individuals from the corporate community, and others.
In gearing up for a search, a number of tough issues are often bantered by senior administrators and others designing the position and thinking about the type of knowledge, skills, and abilities that define a qualified candidate. These issues include whether the individual should possess a Ph.D. or other terminal degree; qualify for tenure in an academic department; have a legal background and experience with federal and state compliance issues; and whether or not the person charged to do the work must be a member of an ethnic, racial, gender, or other minority group, to name a few of the most common challenging topics for discussion.
While these issues remain the source of debate, the ultimate decision must de determined by the institutional context, and predicated on factors such as core job responsibilities, span of units and offices that the chief diversity officer may supervise, and the degree to which the officer intersects with issues such as tenure, promotion, faculty hiring, and curriculum development. To say that a person is qualified simply because he or she is an African American and a tenured member of the faculty in art history, for example, is as inaccurate as rendering an Irish American, with expertise in botany qualified to serve as the department chair for European Studies or as the vice president for information technology. The superordinate goals of providing leadership for diversity and guiding change must guide the selection of the candidate, or institutions run the risk of hiring individuals that are woefully under prepared for the demands of such a complex, high profile, and politically charged position.
Although the exact mixture of degrees, experiences, and qualifications is hard to define, we believe that the most successful officers will illustrate seven key attributes regardless of academic and administrative background:
- 1. Technical Mastery of Diversity Issues: The CDO should have an excellent command of all aspects of diversity issues in higher education, including faculty recruitment and retention issues, identity development, access and equity, diversifying the curriculum, assessing the educational impact of diversity, measuring the campus climate, and the policy and legal dynamics of affirmative action and diversity in higher education. Furthermore, a CDO must be comfortable leveraging the social justice, educational benefits, and business case rationales for discussing diversity's importance.
- 2. Political Savvy:The CDO must be particularly astute at navigating an institution's political landscape; responding well to politically charged or politically sensitive situations. He or she must posses an ability and willingness to find win-win solutions when contentious circumstances arise, and know how to build consensus, accrue buy-in, and work through competing interests.
- 3. Ability to Cultivate a Common Vision: The CDO must be able to develop and cultivate a collaborative vision of diversity on campus. This requires resonating as authentic with students, faculty, staff, and administrators, and being committed to working collaboratively with other senior executives to build positive vision, direction, and results through strategic initiatives that holistically impact diversity.
- 4. In-Depth Perspective on Organizational Change: The CDO should possess an outstanding command of the elements and dynamics of organizational change, and also have entrenched experiences having led or been involved with these efforts in the past. Change is rarely easy, and given the inherent difficulties embedded in this often politicized process, the CDO must have a commitment to see the change process through its challenges and rough spaces to effect deep structural change. They must exhibit passion and patience, realizing that change does not happen quickly, and oversee the organizational change process from a holistic point of view -- guiding the design, implementation, assessment, and evolution of key milestones over time.
- 5. Sophisticated Relational Abilities: The CDO must possess a high degree of emotional intelligence, charisma, and communication abilities. Given that much of the work will be accomplished through lateral coordination, a CDO must have ability to cross numerous organizational boundaries with a fluid ability to adapt language and styles to different audiences.
- 6. Understanding of the Culture of Higher Education: The CDO should possess in-depth knowledge and experience regarding the culture of the academy. Colleges and universities are different than any other type of organization, and to achieve success, the CDO must understand the culture of shared governance, tenure and promotion, multiple and competing goals, decentralized campus politics, and the unique needs of students, faculty, staff, and executives with respect to diversity.
- 7. Results Orientation: Although not singularly responsible for results, the CDO must be results oriented and committed to encouraging the change agenda along to achieve significant results. Consequently, it is fundamental that they illustrate how diversity is an integral component to the successful fulfillment of the institutional mission, and a fundamental aspect of academic excellence in the 21st century.
As more institutions grapple with the challenge of building diversity capacity, changing demographics and ever broadening definitions of diversity, these positions will become even more a part of the educational landscape in higher education. Understanding the role and skills necessary to accomplish the job can help higher education institutions insure that diversity units are populated by leaders that have the best chance of supporting the organization, and helping it to obtain its long range diversity goals.
- Institutional administration
Comments on What Is a Chief Diversity Officer?
" .. a CDO must be comfortable leveraging the social justice .."
What is "social justice?"
Does it include white, working-class Republican females?
The foremost characteristic of a Chief Diversity Officer is that they be a racial minority, or if white, an overt lesbian. Absolutely no white male Republicians allowed!
The foremost qualification is their ability to not let inappropriate, white-supremist, sexist and homophobic attitudes interrupt institution progress from teaching education as a practice of freedom.
I would imagine that social justice and diversity would be inclusive of everyone... It sounds like social work, but it smells more like the law. Even so, would a white male republican apply for the post? Isn't saying that you couldn't have a chance being prejudicial to oneself to not apply if the position interested you? It sounds like it could be both fun and masochistic. For exmaple, I would find creating diplomatic connections to other universities and educational institutions fun and interesting, but then you'd have to wade through all the bureaucratic red tape, which would be obnoxious (but understandably important).
Anyhow, the comment just reminds me of Ivy league applications processes, where people who figure they aren't qualified or unintersted or can't afford it, self-select themselves out... The only problem is, why are you blaming someone else for your own decision?
Look, I'm not sure that a Chief Diversity Officer is the way to go in any institution. I think the jury is still out on whether that is the best way to go. But so far the first two comments rely on red herrings, instead of focusing on the issue at hand. Focus. Why would institutions need or wish to appoint a Chief Diversity Officer? It is not just political cover, and whether political cover is part of the equation or not, the fact remains that issues of "diversity" such as equity and inclusivity remain not just relevant, but essential to institutional and personal (all campus citizens) scholarly, professional, and pedagogical concerns.
Perhaps the majority of diversity officers are not white, and perhaps they are not white heterosexual female republicans. Not a suprise given that attention to equity and inclusivity issues stems from concerns over oppressive and dismissive treatment of traditionally under-represented groups, and that deep personal connection to those issues can provide much needed perspective, enhance the commitment by administration to those issues, enhance visibility and thus help with recruitment (both of faculty and students), and ultimately lead to more attention paid to the very real problems that still dog us.
The note by the first two commenters about white republican females, and white republicans, makes some interesting associations, namely white and republican. These two categories ought not be conflated, but perhaps the problem lies more with the political ideology than with skin color. Whiteness is not a neutral category, and the very fact that it is assumed as such, or as oppositional to the interests of traditionally under-represented groups that are then racialized is already part of the problem. Finally, although we shouldn’t assume that all Republicans are in opposition to “diversity” efforts, it does not take an advanced degree in history, politics, or sociology to understand the Republican fine art of missing the point on race.
Thanks,
N
What are the demographics of the diversity industry? If diversity is as important as its proponents claim, shouldn't there be a concerted effort to recruit more conservative white male heterosexuals for these diversity positions?
Considering the widespread use of racial and gender preferences, I would think that these potential candidates are more familiar with discrimination than most minorities or women.
Why should we be considering political ideology and/or sexual identity as a qualification? And what "diversity industry" is that? Let us not assume what should be demonstrated. "Diversity" is indeed important, but let us not make the disingenuous argument that diversity is everything, and thus why not take this or that into consideration. Again, if what we want is to embrace a wider definition let us present substantial arguments, not assume that diversity stands for what we want it to stand.
Still, while "diversity" might well be considered what we all bring to the table, the issue has not been, historically or in terms of experience, what we all bring to the table, but what has been left out, suppressed, ignored, dismissed, and otherwise devalued from that table in a concerted, sustained, and systematic way. The "widespread" use of racial and gender preferences, yet another claim that needs to be supported, does not amount nor start to change the systematic discrimination that particular groups have experienced and continue to experience; and yes primarily non-white groups. Systematic and concerted discriminatory practices provided benefits and continue to do so for whites at a pace inconmensurate with whatever non-traditional groups might receive. The potential white male candidates as a group are, in my estimation, not more familiar at all with discrimination. Unfortunately, in their inability to conceive of white privilege, some might like to think so.
Saludos,
N
The article assumes diversity is (1) valuable and (2) worth the cost. Even assuming it's valuable, why not provide evidence that diversity is worth the cost of hiring the CDO and reducing the measurable qualifications of the student body?
Yes, the effort to achieve diversity reduces average grades and test scores of entering students. After all, if those who are admitted based in part on their diversity scored as highly as their peers, they would need no extra help in admissions. Yet the help occurs, even though admissions offices are no longer biased against nonwhite students (indeed, many, including Michigan's until recently, are illegally biased in favor of diversity). Maybe the piece should have involved more critical thinking.
Diversity,
I would like to see your information that supports the notion that diversity efforts lower average test scores and grades of entering students. Also, when you provide it, please consider the "boy crisis" affecting white males as well as other cultures (reported in Newsweek or Time Magazine), the growing concerns about lack of preparedness for college (cross-culturally), and the alarming drop-out rate of students across the US, reported in Newsweek (again this a cross-cultural concern).
My point… If it is both valuable and worth the cost to continue recruiting and educating white males despite their deficiencies and struggles, then there is no need to discuss whether it is worth the time or the cost to ensure that other groups receive the same opportunities (not in the least implying that all underrepresented students are deficient or struggling). However, if you must discuss it, you might do well to take your own advice in terms of critical thinking and add a measure of research to understand the whole picture rather than support your sadly biased views.
"Systematic and concerted discriminatory practices provided benefits and continue to do so for whites at a pace inconmensurate with whatever non-traditional groups might receive. The potential white male candidates as a group are, in my estimation, not more familiar at all with discrimination. Unfortunately, in their inability to conceive of white privilege, some might like to think so."
Where is your evidence?
"I would like to see your information that supports the notion that diversity efforts lower average test scores and grades of entering students."
It's obvious; it's a truism. The mere existence of affirmative action or a diversity officer in an institution that is not biased against minorities leads to the conslusion that average test scores will be lower, because if they were not, no school with a limited budget would spend money on affirmative action. See also the statistics listed below.
"Also, when you provide it, please consider the “boy crisis” affecting white males as well as other cultures (reported in Newsweek or Time Magazine), the growing concerns about lack of preparedness for college (cross-culturally), and the alarming drop-out rate of students across the US, reported in Newsweek (again this a cross-cultural concern)."
I don't read Newsweek or Time because they're crap, so I'm not familiar with this cross-cultural "boy crisis." Let's say it is a theory that holds that white males are less prepared than other groups for college. Fine -- their lack of preparation should be reflected in their high school grades and test scores, which should depress (and, as the rumor holds, already is depressing) their relative admission to competitive schools. Are you saying that they should receive a race-based and therefore arguably illegal preference? Should anyone receive such a boost contrary to his evidence of preparedness as long as the admissions officers are unbiased against him?
"If it is both valuable and worth the cost to continue recruiting and educating white males despite their deficiencies and struggles..."
I think you're saying that schools actively recruit white males despite their drop in relative performance. Even assuming they have dropped, to say that they are recruited as a group (compared to the recruiting efforts given African-Americans) is bizarre.
"...(not in the least implying that all underrepresented students are deficient or struggling)..."
We probably disagree about what "underrepresented" means -- is it "underrepresented according to population," which is probably a symptom of poverty and poor elementary school education available to many people of color in this country, or is it "underrepresented according to qualifications"?
"you might ... add a measure of research to understand the whole picture rather than support your sadly biased views."
This from someone who also fails to include either a jot of evidence OR a logical argument. Is someone biased if he assumes that schools implement affirmative action precisely because the students they are trying to attract have lower scores, or is the assumption that black people deserve lower expectations a biased view?
Evidence that minorities admitted to college have, on average, lower high school grades and SAT scores (in support of the idea that the purpose of affirmative action and to some extent a diversity officer is to grant preferential treatment based on race) includes this information:
-According to the College Board, the average verbal SAT score among whites in 1998 was 526, African Americans, 434 (http://www.collegeboard.com/press/senior98/html/satt3.html). This is statistical evidence supporting the assumption that African-Americans entering college have lower SAT scores on average than whites. (Math scores were 528 to 426.)
-At Longwood College, 41.5% of African-American students failed to graduate within six years by 2003, compared to 37.8% of white students (http://www.longwood.edu/news/releases/graduationrate.html), which may indicate preparedness. Ditto for Colorado, where six-year graduation rates in 2005 were 15 percentage points lower for African-Americans (http://www.colorado.edu/pba/records/time/ovv6.htm).
-About 78% of white students in the high school class of 2002 graduated from high school, compared to 56% of African-Americans (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_08.htm), which may relate to lower grades among African-Americans in general.
-At Berkeley, the 1999 graduation rate in six years "for African Americans soared to 71.1 percent while the rate for whites inched up to 82.9 percent" (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/3-11-1999.html). Graduation rates may reflect preparedness.
-The overall 2006 college graduation rate for African-American male students is 40 percent, white males 61 percent (http://www.bus.ucf.edu/sport/public/downloads/2005_Football_APR_Grad_Rate.pdf). Again, this is not evidence that African-Americans admitted under Affirmative Action have lower scores on average, but it tends to support that thesis.
-The College Board stated in 1999 that "College-bound African American and Latino students continue to make progress, but are still less academically prepared for college than other racial and ethnic groups. Today, over 80 percent of them studied chemistry in high school, about 40 percent studied physics, 29 to 38 percent took precalculus, and 13 to 19 percent took calculus. In every group, course study is above the levels of 10 years ago but substantially below the levels of white and Asian American students." (http://www.collegeboard.com/press/senior98/html/980901.html)
-In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) the Supreme Court found the University of Michigan's point-based admission policy illegal.
-Even a pro-preferences writer, Debra Humphreys, admits (based on reading _The Shape of the River_) that "If race were given no consideration whatsoever in admitting students, the percentage of African American students at selective institutions would drop substantially, especially at the most selective institutions. By the author's calculations, the percentages of African Americans entering selective institutions in 1989 would have fallen from 7.1 percent to between 2 and 3.5 percent." (http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/F98/farreaching.html).
Oh sweet gods and goddesses. The banal and prejudiced arguments on this thread certainly signal the decline of civilization as we know it.
In academia, one colleague queries, "What is social justice?"
Another posits that 'diversity' results in lowered grades and standards, and calls this remarkable insight a 'truism." (Shades of 1955 conversations regarding housing values if neighborhoods were integrated.)
So much for a broad education in the liberal arts, in depth critical thinking, argument and analysis.
Having implemented diversity programs, I can tell you that there's nothing more horrifying than helping the most learned confront their own prejudices. But, we really know that a completed doctorate educated you to research narrowly, not think broadly.
The comments posted here are ample reason for all universities to appoint CDOs -- and rapidly.
For someone who claims to be in favor of critical thinking, Petunia offers neither argument nor evidence beyond the easy, bootless, and baseless claim that someone who opposes racial preferences is "biased." That is not an argument. (And just because someone's biased wouldn't necessarily mean that his arguments are flawed anyway, would it?)
"Having implemented diversity programs, I can tell you that there’s nothing more horrifying than helping the most learned confront their own prejudices."
Does that include prejedices against low high school grades and SAT scores at selective institutions?
Petunia, how do you account for the fact that Michigan's affirmative action policy in admissions was recently declared unconstitutionally discriminatory on the basis of race? It's against the law! Could it be that the admissions staff themselves harbored a bias that they implemented in their admissions policies, illegally?
I stand by my statements. The technique employed in the previous post is agumentum ad absurdum. I said nothing akin to what my gentle colleague wrote.
The Michigan decision has nothing to do with the need for a diversity officer. Diversity is a much broader topic than the poster imagines.
There are people who know what they don't know and are eager to learn.
There are people who know what they don't know and don't give a ratz patootie.
Arguments intended to demonstrate that allowing people of color (or WHATEVER) lowers the high standards (of usually obnoxious legacy kids who are ushered through to get Daddy's Big Gift) signals that the writer thinks that SAT scores actually MEAN something. SAT scores accurtately predict your socio-economic class.
Whoopie. Put 40 of them in my class.
I encourage you to reread the article opening your heart and mind to learn what you suspect you might not know.
Have a great weekend.
Hi Petunia,
You are right in noting that this discussion has gotten off the topic of CDOs and onto affirmative action. I should have confined the discussion to the original beef, which was with the article's assumption that diversity (which I interpret to include lowering standards for admission, since that is required to admit more of any group that is on average less well-prepared) is a good thing in and of itself.
The article betrayed this assumption most clearly in this sentence:
"What distinguishes the current executive diversity officer from its historical predecessors is the functional definition of diversity as a resource that can be leveraged to enhance the learning of all students and is fundamental to institutional excellence[.]" We all think that diversity is better than a lack of diversity, but can we assume that diversity (as defined above) really enhances institutional excellence, especially when excellence is measured by readily-identifiable metrics such as graduation rates and qualifications of incoming students? The assumption that diversity adds to excellence and that efforts to achieve diversity do not detract from excellence that underlies the article is worth debating.
It is not true that the "Michigan decision has nothing to do with the need for a diversity officer." Diversity is, however, as you say, a much broader topic than the illegality of racially-discriminatory admissions policies at state-supported institutions. I suppose a diversity officer deals with diversity among faculty as well as the groundskeeping staff, neither group falling under the undergraduate admissions office.
"Arguments intended to demonstrate that allowing people of color . . . lowers the high standards . . . signals that the writer thinks that SAT scores actually MEAN something."
Allowing people of color to meet a uniform standard cannot by definition lower the standard. Lowering the standard specifically to allow people of color (or any other group) by definition lowers the standard. As I stated before, I am not willing to assume that most (or even any) admissions offices are racially biased against African-Americans, for example. Schools were like that in the 1950s, we hear, but that kind of racism just seems less likely today, and it certainly is not a national problem. Schools just are not turning away students simply because they are black. Therefore students of any color need no special help to get in if they are qualified. (Schools use a variety of measures, and most use grades and SATs, which, in combination, are in fact the best means we have of predicting success in college.) If any student is allowed into a selective institution on the basis of affirmative action (off-topic again) it must be because he was unqualified, or below the average level of qualification. And the careful studies cited above (lower entering grades, lower graduation rates) bear out the claim that schools lower their standards in order to admit certain groups (or, where the standards are low to begin with, those groups just do less well in college; nobody's hurt but the members of that group, I suppose).
Diversity will happen. Diversity is a natural result of a lack of bias and a diverse applicant pool and quality high schools.* To simply assume that a CDO is necessary without explaining why the diversity to be managed is so valuable that it must be achieved by hiring a CDO or discriminating on the basis of race makes for an article that is less informative than it should be.
Have a great weekend.
*Yes, it's not their fault that they go to poor high schools. But that's no reason to unfairly let them into selective institutions from which other equally innocent applicants are turned away simply because they were born with an undesirable skin color.
I have yet to see a clear, operational definition of "diverity," beyond recruitment of student and faculty of color. How exactly does diversity affect science courses? To me, it sounds like Horace Kallen's old "cultural pluralism," which was an anti-assimilation theory. Now it is, under another name, the latest academic fad, a word that makes us feel virtuous, but tells us very little. S
Diversity is about allowing differences and respecting differences until those differences do not make a difference anymore...General Colin Powell.
Diversity is not Affirmative Action nor does it embody any laws which many who have posted have incorrectly combined. It is not quotas but is an attempt to create an atmosphere of inclusion and respect for differences in an institution and to have an institution be one of choice to work and learn. Diversity is truly a voluntary concept which appreciates and respects the differences of others so that we can have diversity of thought and the opportunity to bring the best of minds to the table. Not that it makes any difference but I am a white male in this position for the number one hospital on the planet. Johns Hopkins Hospital has 89% women and minorities in its make up of its employees and is a flagship for diversity which demonstrates that diversity truly can excel.
How can having a Diversity Officer help promote "equity and inclusivity" when the position alone indicates a special/exclusive officer to help the "underrepresented" populations? That helps separate, not include, no? Why can't everyone just be treated the same? Why can't recruitment be based on ability and not the fact that a school only has 30% minority so they have to recruit more hispanics or whatever... why do we HAVE to look at race at all. Maybe only 30% of your applications were minorities! Why would a college offer FREE tuition to persons of color so they can say they are a diverse college. How is that fair to the white male who would like to go to an Ivy League school but can't afford it. Why can't we treat different races the same or am I just a dreamer?
Diversity and its value are great ideas, but those fantasies rarely address the need for funding and the practical needs of a campus. I have yet to see a Diversity officer prove the economic value of the position, or the role in retention.
Diversity officers are often forces of censorship that label those who disagree with their views as "hateful". Students view these professionals as thought police who will only tolerate views similar to theirs.
Diversity officers are a nice idea, but their practicality falls way short in an era of decreasing funding, and limited resources.
I am reading this article and these comments for the first time, and I am surprised by much of what I read here. I am also somewhat disappointed.
With regard to who can practice as a CDO in a college or university, I believe anyone may. As to whether anyone can, that's another story. I would count out some of the African Americans I know. Some of them can't see beyond blackness to the rest of the world (think: Black Eyed Peas, "Where is the Love?" and their line about limiting one's vision to one's group is just another form of discrimination.) And, some of the white people I have known over many years would make, and do make creative, expansive, and change-making diversity change agents in their current and past institutions. As an African American, I recognize them as my mentors.
What matters is that a CDO or other diversity change agent have done, and continues to do, personal, reflective, and active work on their own attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and motivations. This is the change work CDOs model and promote within their institutions at the institutional level. More, they are often involved in the planning of programs and initiatives that promote this sort of reflection and transformation in the individuals who populate the insitutions administration, faculty, staff, and student body.
The fact of the matter is, and anyone who works in diversity and is familiar with some of the tried and true literature knows, white men - heterosexual and/or conservative - have little incentive to divest themselves of the privilege they have enjoyed personally, or that others like them have enjoyed over centuries. It seems to be human nature to keep what one has and to protect it from challengers. That's why the opposite behavior - social justice thinking, alturism, and other selfless thinking and behaviors - are regarded a sacred, noble, honorable. They are not common, they are beyond the "normal" human behavior. They are hard and require a new consciousness for majority people. (Of course, for "minority" peoples, this consciousness is not usually new or novel, but just the way many of us think.) So, I am not surprise at the demographics of our field, but I am passionate about changing them.
This work is not easy, especially for target people. I believe, and act on my belief, that I need majority people to work with me to do this work in predominantly white institutions. I need white people to talk to white people because of the historical relationships between blacks and whites. Once white people realize that diversity-based change is not as scary as has been reported, they can then feel more comfortable actually listening to what I have to say, rather than imagining that I speaking to their fears of change, especially racial change.