Diversity in Silence: A Look Back To Diversity Reform Now Forgotten at Penn State University

I have not commented on the recent, and potentially quite profoundly transformative, movements to center diversity generally, and the African American experience in particular, in the American University. Penn State University, like many other similarly situated university institutions, has now sought to intensely engage with the issues that have become once again passionately current in the United States.  On 10 June 2020, "Penn State President Eric Barron issued a statement . . . outlining steps the university will take to address instances of racism, bias, and religious intolerance within its community." (President Barron Outlines Penn State’s Actions Against Racism, Hate Speech).

Given the nature of events, and the very short time cohorts of students have an intense engagement with the university, for many this may seem new and long overdue.  For faculty, many of whom have been insulated from events increasingly shunted behind the closed doors of "leadership teams" and the closed cultures of emerging university bureaucratic practices, the extent of university efforts to confront issues of inclusion may well seem somewhat removed fro their lives--and certainly from the center of their shared governance experiences.  

For the ever growing administrative superstructure, and its increasingly distinct and remote operational ideologues, the issue of diversity has been treated as one of many on a large platter of issues , the importance of which might have been measured by the risk it poses.  The reason for that, of course, is that at the heart of emerging ideologies of university governance is the framing principle of risk avoidance, implemented through the application of the secondary principles of prevention, mitigation, and remedy. Every challenge to the university (that is to the stability of the governance of the institution, and the avoidance of threats as those are understood by university administrators) is understood only within the parameters of risk, and the riskiness of choices among prevention, mitigation, or remedial measures. Diversity issues--like campus drinking, the registration system, the allocation of student fees, and the smooth running of dormitories, parking spaces, and events--are conceptualized first as a normative challenge (goal) but one that must be assessed for the risk it poses and the value of adopting policies that focus on prevention, rather tan on mitigation and remedy.  It has been, in that sense, nothing special.

And yet, it would be a mistake to believe that there have not been efforts to change the way that senior officials approached the application of these governance parameters, even within the logic of what they perceive their operational function to be. 

One such effort to bring greater focus on diversity started in January 2013  under my leadership of the Penn State University Faculty Senate when at my invitation students addressed the Penn State University Faculty Senate about the issue. (Diversity Awareness Task Force: Statement to the University Faculty Senate January 29, 2013). Following that intervention a Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force was constituted including elements from the major stakeholders of the University. Its charge included:

· Bring a diverse group of administrators, faculty and students together to work collaboratively to engage in dialogue and provide recommendations to the University Faculty Senate and Administration to enhance diversity awareness in the University Community.
· Thoroughly investigate practices that will be most effective to increase diversity understanding among the student body.
· Provide recommendations to the Faculty Senate Committee charged with reforming the general education curriculum as a whole.

This post chronicles both the achievement of that remarkable committee over the course of several years--and the ultimate marginalization of its work--now so long forgotten that it is not even a memory within the administrative organs of the university, much less among its stakeholders. Those efforts are worth remembering if only as a cautionary take for the current group of individuals and institutional representatives now bent on a similar task. The principal lesson was one that I pointed out in 2014, even before the full set of Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force Reports was produced:

This response provides an excellent illustration of the approach to diversity at many institutions--engagement and oblivion.  This is all the more important because of it collateral result--Marginalization.  Even as the University devotes a tremendous amount of resources to its reconstruction of General Education, even as it focuses substantial public time to experiential learning and other important elements of a public education--the education and practice of diversity is buried and marginalized. . . . The expectations appear simple enough--provide a formally responsive forum for meeting, produce a report well received but avoid robust interconnection to the vital life of the university, and then move on with a sense of satisfaction of having engaged with diversity. (Diversity in Silence--The Joint Diversity Task Force Report at Penn State University Becomes Less Visible).

That chronicling was set out in a series of Reports produced by the JDATF over the course of several years.  Now long forgotten (and effectively inaccessible except by university faculty senators "For agendas or records prior to 2016-2017, please contact the Senate office. Faculty Senators may access Agendas and Records through the Senate Archives.") they are reproduced below.

The initial efforts of the JDATF was descried in an Informational Report submitted to the Penn State University Faculty Senate.  However, it was never presented.  It was the first marker of the institutional approach to diversity efforts that were not tightly controlled by the institutional center--SILENCING.

The Penn State University Faculty Senate Council approved the JDATF’s Informational report and it will be included in the March 18th Senate Agenda. But it will not be presented.  It will be posted online only and that there will not be any presentation at the Senate meeting. The JDATF will not be able to present the report or stand for questions. (Diversity in Silence--The Joint Diversity Task Force Report at Penn State University Becomes Less Visible).

The Report Follows; it is worth a read in light of the contemporary (2020) debates within universities. 

Appendix X

2/10/2014

JOINT DIVERSITY AWARENESS TASK FORCE

Update

(Informational)

Diversity is a key feature of our modern industrial and labor market culture.  Companies like Hewlett-Packard, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare and IBM consider cultural competence an important management requirement (important enough to hold managers accountable with financial incentives).  We strive to prepare students who are at the top of their fields of employment.  An understanding of diversity and the ability to interact effectively with people from diverse backgrounds is fast becoming a required skill for leadership positions in the workplace, as well as the public sphere.  Graduates who leave the University well on their journey toward gaining cultural competence will have a clear competitive advantage as they assume leadership roles in the workplace and as emerging leaders in local, state, national and international government.

The charge of our task force given in May of 2013 was to:

·      Bring a diverse group of administrators, faculty and students together to work collaboratively to engage in dialogue and provide recommendations to the University Faculty Senate and Administration to enhance diversity awareness in the University Community.

·      Thoroughly investigate practices that will be most effective to increase diversity understanding among the student body.

·      Provide recommendations to the Faculty Senate Committee charged with reforming the general education curriculum as a whole.

To date, our task force has met formally as a group nearly a half-dozen times, including an all-day retreat. Members of our task force have presented twice to the General Education Task Force, once to the Council on Engaged Scholarship, and have met with administrators to discuss the need for diversity and inclusion education at University Park, our Commonwealth Campuses, as well as for the New Student Orientation Program (NSOP). Five members of the Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force (JDATF) sit on subcommittees of the General Education Task Force (GETF). We are also currently in the process of obtaining valuable metrics both through new campus climate studies, as well as mining data from a variety of previous surveys sent to the Penn State community.

As a result, the JDATF has developed six recommendations to date, though we have additional ideas we would like to explore further and are open to new suggestions from the Faculty Senate. Our current recommendations are:

·      Diversity should be a core element of the new general education curriculum.

·      Diversity should be considered by the GETF as a theme, if a thematic approach is implemented in general education reform.

·      A “Diversity Passport” program should be implemented. This program would be similar to programs to enhance diversity and inclusion at other CIC institutions, but would be a voluntary mechanism for engaged scholarship. The program would utilize opportunities that already exist at Penn State for students to be involved in lectures, engaged dialogues, guest speakers, and civic engagement. Students that are interested in gaining further experiences would be able to participate in a tiered program. Participation in such a program could be noted on a student’s transcript. It would not be a reference for multicultural expertise, but rather a way for Penn State students to show their employers that they have chosen to use their time at Penn State to learn about other cultures.

·      The content and material in US and IL designated courses should be enriched. Instead of requiring only 25% of the course material to focus on diversity, we recommend 50% of the material in a course designated as such be spent on diversity and inclusion. For a course to count as both a US and IL course, 100% of the material would need to focus on these concepts. Additionally, a new criterion “to increase understanding of the nature of power, privilege, and discrimination in the United States and abroad at the societal, institutional, and individual levels” should be added to the list of criteria for a US/IL course designation. Furthermore, we recommend that over a period of three years, all courses currently designated as US and IL courses be reviewed to determine if the courses meet the criteria.

·      The current (and well received) New Student Orientation “We Are Penn State” diversity and inclusion program for incoming students should be enhanced based on assessment of the needs of incoming students and the utility of that program so far.

·      Professional development activities for faculty and staff to increase cultural competence should be created.

Based on the discussions that occurred at the General Education Task Force Retreat on January 24, 2014, the following adjustments to our recommendations will be considered by the JDATF:

·      If a thematic approach to general education is recommended and adopted, diversity and inclusion should be a core element of every theme.  At least one course in the theme should incorporate a significant diversity and inclusion dimension (at least 50%), and at least one course should incorporate a significant international dimension (at least 50%).

Penn State takes great pride in helping to prepare the leaders of the future.  Our graduates reflect and contribute to the success and reputation of our institution. Our emphasis on student centeredness and the corresponding benefits of diversity to the student body operate within the context of our role as one of the top institutions of higher education in the world.

-A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: 2010-15, p. 2

By graduating world-class leaders who are aware of the integral role diversity and inclusion assume in any work environment, we are fulfilling Penn State’s Land Grant mission both in Pennsylvania and around the world.

Members

Brian Aynardi – Co-chair                   Krishna Jayakar

Mark Brennan                                     Terrell Jones

Melissa Creely                                    Jonna Kulikowich

Barbara Dewey                                   Karyn McKinney – Co-chair

Caleb Fernandez                                 Evelyn Miller

Jesus Hinojosa                                                Curtis Price

Antwain Hunter                                  Theresa Vescio

Patreese Ingram – Co-chair                 Carlos Wiley

 

The JDATF was reconstituted thereafter and I was appointed its chair.  The charge was complex for charges of its kind:

Given the complexity, the JDATF was divided into three working groups, each responsible for aspects of the charge: (1) Technical Curricular Sub-Committee; (2) Policy Coordination Sub-Committee; and (3) Substantive Policy Sub-Committee.

 The timeline and work of the three committees were summarized in a Report presented to the Penn State Academic Leadership Council (a self reflexive administrative organ of senior and middle level functionaries at the University vested with much of the administrative power of the University which is not a transparent governance collective). See Embedding Diversity at Penn State: A Progress Report From the Penn State Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force  (including the PowerPoints of the presentation made to those officials).  

The first of the four reports produced by the three sub-committee working groups was presented February 2016 and Approved by the PSU Faculty Senate March 2016 (Moving Forward )

Three additional reports were submitted (over some objection) to the Penn State Senate for its consideration at the 19 April 2016 meeting.  These may be accessed here:

 Diversity at Penn State: Reports of the Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force--Moving Forward Embedding Divesity Policy--Advisory/Consultative Report 

Diversity at Penn State: Reports of the Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force--Diversity Best Practices--Advisory/Consultative Report

Diversity at Penn State: Reports of the Joint Diversity Awareness Task Force--US/IL Courses Survey--Legislative Recommendations

And the result to my knowledge: a mention in the "All In" at Penn State website. And that, perhaps, is the most important lesson of all. Voices that are subordinated within complex hierarchies ad embedded within institution enhancing risk avoidance metrics that require balancing among competing risks as a function of institutional administrative authority pint to the sort of decison making where efforts like those of the JDATF are encouraged precisely because diversion is a string risk mitigating activity. That, at least, is how it appears from the outside.