Present: Betty Young, Co-Chair; Henry Morris, Co-Chair; Linda Duckett,
Co-Chair; Loretta DeLone, Ricardo Muggli, Jessica Flatequal, Tom Gjersvig, Kelly Meier, Calvin Moultrie, Hanh
Huy Phan, John Seymour, Julie Snow, Kenneth White.
Absent: Michelle Washington Carter, Michael Fagin,
Ron Nickerson, Co-Chair of the Faculty Association Diversity Curriculum Evaluation Committee
Meeting called to order in WA 303.
I General Education, Diversity Report provided by Ron Nickerson co-chair of the Faculty Association Diversity Curriculum Evaluation Committee.
Also included in the report:
General Education, Diversity Report Discussion
move from there toward getting the recommendations adopted.
Action needed: Make the broader university community aware of the need for discussion as this diversity policy evolves.
Answer: No, it is just the terminology chosen, but it could easily be a diversity graduation requirement.
To social scientists, the term “culture” means lifestyle but the term “diversity” means something different than lifestyle and could exclude some courses that don’t emphasize a diverse culture. The Diversity Commission likes the term “diverse cultures” so that we can try to stay as true as possible to the university’s understanding of the term diversity.
Question: Since the term culture reflects lifestyle, is it the responsibility of the university in a global world to require specific courses?
Answer: Perhaps in an ideal world that would be the case. Culture is a lifestyle and a history. We want to be sure that people of color and underrepresented groups aren’t pushed out and perhaps victimized again. The University of California system requires each student to take a course in American racial minorities. If English and Mass Communications are the only required courses, perhaps a course covering all of these issues should be required for all students so that it is not all “white on white”. Would this narrow or expand the scope of course offerings?
NOTE: Drafts of this report are available from Ron Nickerson and Donna Blom in Faculty Association Office.
Decision made: We will read the document and come back at to our next meeting prepared to discuss this.
II Bullying survey and consultants meeting report by Kelly Meier.
Answer: They will take the data and come back after the survey
and the implementation of recommendations. They don’t just give us numbers that give us demonstration for prevalence, but also recommendations for solutions.
Answer: They are making contacts with some people they couldn’t connect with during their visit and will contact us in regard to their next steps. We are hopeful there will be some change, and Susan Taylor and Kelly Meier, Co-Chairs of CSW, have been meeting across campus with people who have concerns and want to share their stories. Once we get back the results of the survey, and there are some obvious patterns, the outcome and response will be important.
III The Status of Women and the Diversity Commission Meeting Report by the Co-Chairs of the Diversity Commission.
There are campus-wide concerns about hiring practices and personnel matters regarding the fact that the Commission on the Status of Women and the Diversity Commission serve as a bridge between members of the university community and the upper administration. The Co-Chairs reported that they wrote to the President, respectfully requesting an opportunity to meet with the President, and they have an appointment scheduled.
There is some understanding that we have done this sort of thing in the past: there is a precedent set with the re-hire of a Dean. How do we handle this situation in the future? We have not made any significant hires in Cabinet positions for women or minority candidates.
The climate specialists said, if you permit it, you promote it. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. We are advisory commissions, and should do that.
Don’t ever apologize for starting a conversation—let’s get together and have the conversation, as that and the public eye are our major tools. This procedure directly violates the procedures we are asked to monitor.
The particular candidate needs to be looked at, and we can look at him, as he ran the fiscal budgeting process with meetings that were secretive—was he reflecting his style of leadership or doing someone’s bidding? The Diversity Commission was deeply concerned with the secrecy and lack of transparency in the budgeting process—we heard that Student Affairs was not included in this conversation.
Decision Made: The Diversity Commission supports the meeting between the President, the CSW, and the Diversity Commission Co-Chairs.
Future Meeting Agendas:
Minutes submitted by: Linda Duckett