CEDI Summit with President Poskanzer
October 28, 2010
3:30 – 5:00 pm
Alumni Guest House Meeting Room
Welcome from the Community, Equity, Diversity Initiative Co-Chairs
CEDI Co-Chair Michael McNally opened the October 28 CEDI Summit with President Poskanzer by
framing the long-planned event. From their very first meeting during the President’s first weeks on
campus, it was clear to the CEDI Co-Chairs that President Poskanzer was very well versed with the
climate survey and similar efforts. As such, they thought it would be best to hold a meeting in which all
those involved in CEDI’s efforts to date could join in a candid, substantive discussion and allow everyone
to get on the same page with President Poskanzer.
Opening Remarks – President Poskanzer
From the very early stages of the Presidential search, President Poskanzer remarked, it was clear to him
how important issues of climate and inclusiveness were to the Carleton community. As such, a large part
of his preparation before officially assuming his role as President this summer involved delving into and
understanding the climate issues. He expressed hope that by reaching out to and working with CEDI and
other campus groups, together they can ensure that the community lives up to its enormous promise
and potential.
President Poskanzer continued his opening remarks by outlining some of his dreams for the Carleton
community. Academics, he began, are innately at the core of what Carleton is about. Therefore, he
envisions Carleton as an institution that draws talented students from all around the world. He dreams
that these students experience a truly transformative education and, over the course of their time at
Carleton, explore topics and prepare for careers not yet imagined. Likewise, President Poskanzer
expressed a desire for Carleton to provide an intellectual home for faculty to realize their full potential
as both researchers and teachers. The relationships between faculty and students are central and
symbiotic – smart, intellectually curious students will attract the best faculty, and magnificent faculty
will attract top students. This feedback loop is important but, President Poskanzer continued, is not
possible without the staff, whose diligent and difficult work empowers the teaching and learning on
campus. As such, these dreams for Carleton can only occur if staff feel a fulfilling connection to the
institution.
Thus, President Poskanzer continued, it is very important for everyone to feel safe and connected to the
community in their various roles. At the same time, in order to truly ensure a transformative education
and fulfilling environment, we must constantly be willing to learn from one another, which inherently
require uncomfortable encounters that go outside an individual’s comfort zone. As a residential campus,
Carleton is fundamentally designed to facilitate these encounters. Knowing this, President Poskanzer
remarked, CEDI must be purposeful and deliberative in encouraging these opportunities and ensuring
they occur in a meaningful way.
President Poskanzer concluded his opening remarks by thanking everyone for taking the time to take
part in the day’s discussion as well as for their past and present involvement. He thinks CEDI is central to
the achievement of the aforementioned goals. In particular, President Poskanzer reflected that he was
struck by how CEDI was created – while unusual, he feels the group holds much promise. An important
advantage of CEDI is that it avoids just shunting all of the issues of community, equity, and diversity off
to one person, which has the potential of being unproductive, not allowing for either broad or
meaningful change. At the same time, CEDI must be careful to avoid becoming too diffuse that it has
neither the authority nor means of handling issues. What is remarkable about CEDI, President Poskanzer
continued, is the way in which it balances between these two extremes – it has a locus, yet it is flexible
and thus able to evolve to address the issue at hand. Its connections and collaborations with other
groups, such as the Benefits Committee, Human Resources, etc, ensure that CEDI’s work is not separate
from other initiatives on campus. Moving forward, as CEDI grows and matures, it must work out and
clarify where its proper and most effective connections are to the governance structure.
The speed at which CEDI was up and running is truly remarkable and the group has made significant
progress on a number of issues in only a short amount of time. The challenge now, however, is to take
what is created and institutionalize it, both in the governance structure and through creating
measurable, long-term, and strategic goals and work toward them.
Brief Remarks by Chairs of CEDI Task Force/Action Teams
Bill North, Chair of the Grievance Procedure/Conflict Resolution Action Team explained that his group
was tasked with the development and/or clarification of measures on to address conflicts. They have
spent much of this term compiling, articulating, and cataloguing both informal and formal existing
procedures. A major part of their work going forward will be to clarify and streamline processes and
work to create resources to support the existing procedures. Additionally, the Action Team will focus on
how to address concerns of discrimination and bias before they elevate to an official complaint.
Julie Thornton reported that the Community Standards/Expectations Action Team was created in light of
the common desire that arose in the four original task forces to have one, clear document that outlined
the important expectations related to community standards. The Action Team is tasked with the job of
coordinating the various documents and official communication of community standards, thus allowing
for a broad overview.
Cindy Blaha, chair of the Learning Environment Inside the Classroom Task Force noted that a lot of the
work of the committee is a continuation of projects from last year. This includes a further development
of classroom climate guidelines created for the A&I Seminars. Additionally, classes for the Intergroup
Dialogue Pilot Project will begin next term, led by 10 student facilitators who have been undergoing
training all term. She also noted that there will be a session for the community about the program from
December 1-3.
After a successful initiative last year looking at and providing assistance in facilitating a welcoming
atmosphere in campus offices, the Learning Environment Outside the Classroom Task Force, explained
chair Carolyn Fure-Slocum, has identified specific groups that ranked lowest for climate – religious
students, particularly Muslims and Christians, low income students, and students of color. The Task
Force intends to work with other offices and committees to address campus climate issues for these
groups. Finally, they have also considered looking into climate for student athletes.
Ann Iijima, chair of the Workplace Environment Task Force reported that the group’s overall objective
was to enhance a feeling of respect, value, and engagement on campus. As such, they have worked to
somewhat level out benefit equity, such as the accrual of vacation days. The group has aimed for the
‘low-hanging fruit’ --- changes that will make a noticeable difference, but are budget-neutral.
Additionally, members of the committee have discussed ways to improve engagement with the
community and involvement in all-campus events, such as convocation or serving on committees.
Finally, Kaaren Williamsen reported the work of the Sexual Misconduct Committee. She explained that
the group was newly instituted from the merging of the Sexual Misconduct Task Force and SHARE. They
are tasked with maintaining campus policies and monitoring the implementation of the review process
recommendations. Additionally, they will be addressing campus climate issues related to sexual
misconduct.
Moderated Discussion
Noe Hernandez ’11 began the discussion with a question to President Poskanzer regarding how he
would approach issues surrounding student experience in Northfield. President Poskanzer answered
that a first step would be to build bridges to and alliances with other groups in the community that want
to work on this, too. This could include Northfield’s robust Human Rights Committee, interfaith
organizations, or political groups. As an academic institution, a natural point of entry for Carleton would
be in local schools. Additionally, it would also be important to work with St. Olaf. Every community is
different and has its own unique situations, but building these bridges could give a better indication of
where to start.
Dean of Students Julie Thornton noted that the Task Force on Learning Environment Outside the
Classroom had often brought up the climate in Northfield, which has presented itself to be a pressing
and ongoing issue. However, the topic was always placed on the back burner. It was felt that such a
large undertaking would shift too much focus away from issues on-campus that should be addressed
first.
It was suggested that ACT and ACE programs could serve as good tools of outreach and bridge-building
in the community. While the problematic incidents that affect college-town relations generally happen
in day-to-day interactions, outside of the context of official programming, ACT and, more recently, ACE,
has been building relationships with the community for several decades - Carleton has friends in the
community which can be leveraged to help facilitate a productive discussion of the Northfield climate.
Finally, it was noted that the Human Rights Committee is interested in taking action and would love to
have student members.
Furthering the discussion of CEDI’s work in the future, Associate Dean of Admissions Dan Lugo noted
that there has been no official communication created in response to the climate survey – is the work of
CEDI Carleton’s response? Are, then, the current structure and objectives of CEDI the right way to
handle the next steps? For example, should CEDI remain a volunteer organization or are other resources
needed? CEDI Co-Chair Michael McNally commented that CEDI has created very organic connections to
the community and to issues of campus climate, but that these need to be more explicit – the broader
community is generally unaware of the work CEDI is doing.
Chair of the Sexual Misconduct Committee Kaaren Williamsen noted that the Campus Climate Survey
was originally purposed as an intervening step between the drafting of a diversity statement and a
strategic planning exercise. With the dissolution of DIG, however, this third step never occurred, which
could be contributing to some of the uncertainty surrounding the best future roll for CEDI. Ann Iijima,
Chair of the Workplace Environment Task Force, observed that while her task force has been working on
addressing the “low-hanging fruits” – changes that are fairly easy and cost neutral to make – but they
are unsure of when and how they are to go about addressing the “high-hanging fruits”. This would
include issues like tuition benefits --- should there be more sharing of the burden if not the benefits?
Associate Dean of Students Julie Thornton commented that, in terms of communication, one of the
problems faced with expressing the work of CEDI as working with “issues of campus climate” and in
“response to the Campus Climate Survey” is that only the Class of 2011, current seniors, were involved
with the survey process, and subsequent class years do not understand why it is such a big deal.
Professor Cathy Yandell noted that, while a majority of faculty was present for, and even participated in,
the survey process, as time passes the issues fall to the back of people’s minds. As such, CEDI needs to
play an important role of keeping the issues of campus climate central and relevant. Professor Kelly
Connole added that it would also be helpful to communicate with young alumni who were students
when the results came out and were present for the initial community response.
What does it mean for CEDI, Dan Lugo asked the group, to base its actions on a survey of which a
majority of the respondents are no longer part of the on-campus Carleton environment? Chair of the
Grievance Procedure/Conflict Resolution Task Force Bill North reflected on the actual role of the survey
for CEDI – should it be a tool that functions as a thermometer? Should CEDI focus on developing internal
instruments of measurement? It was noted that additional instruments of measure may already exist,
such as the WABASH study. Professor Steve Kennedy noted that surveys such as the Campus Climate
Survey are massive undertakings, for those creating as well as those responding to the questions. While
Sue Rankin was very much impressed by rates of response at Carleton in 2008, it would be hard to keep
up adequate levels of participation year after year. Associate Dean of the College Arjendu Pattanayak
added that if enough time is not left between surveys, new data can be skewed by impressions from
previous results. Associate Director in Intercultural and International Life Luyen Phan considered the
connection between genuine, meaningful change and CEDI’s work. Last year, the Learning Environment
Outside the Classroom Task Force studied the welcoming atmosphere in various campus offices. While
the information gathered depicted successful models to make visitors feel welcome, Luyen Phan
emphasized that CEDI, as a group that really wants to do something to improve climate on campus,
should make sure that it promotes genuine change, not just surface adjustments.
Associate Dean of Students Joe Baggot, returning to the concept of transformative education, asked the
group where CEDI factored into this transformative education. Should, and can, it be neutral regarding
issues such as diversity? Is it fair to ask students, particularly those who don’t want to, to share their
private thoughts and engage in difference? Professor Adriana Estill responded that there are generally
two ways of tracks on which diversity is defined: color or identity-blindness or an attitude that observes
and acknowledges the range of identities, and desires to learn more about both differences and
similarities. The first definition is a neutral education whereas the second is more emotionally fraught
and, transformative. In that sense, transformative education must, inherently, require students to share
personal, private thoughts. The same concept lies behind many of Carleton’s policies – participation in
class is part of a student’s grade regardless of whether he or she wants to talk in class; students must
complete distribution requirements despite an aversion to a particular subject area.
Professor Estill expressed a disappointment in Carleton’s diversity statement, which she felt was more of
an add-on than a transformative document that affirms diversity as a core value of a Carleton education.
Dean Julie Thornton noted that understanding and, perhaps, adding to such documents is exactly the
purpose of the Community Standards Action Team. Furthermore, it was observed that the current
diversity statement was not intended to be aspirational, rather to describe what was. Now, however,
the time has come to work toward creating an aspirational statement. The difficulty of such a task will
be to avoid a narrow definition of diversity, and the related risk of using difference only as a tool for
education. Director of Intercultural and International Life Joy Kluttz added that this issue is the topic of
the next Chili Night – ‘Who Am I, and Who Do You Think I Am?’
Assistant Director in the Office of Intercultural and International Life D Washington asked how alcohol
use on campus fits into the afternoon’s discussion and CEDI. While alcohol use was not officially on the
Campus Climate Survey, there is undoubtedly a connection between much of the problematic behavior,
particularly regarding sexual misconduct, and alcohol consumption on campus. Many present at the
meeting described a ‘work hard and play hard’ mentality on campus – students consider weekends and
related activities a well-deserved reward after the intense academic pressures of Monday through
Friday. While there is drinking at every campus, at Carleton this attitude seems to create a disconnect –
responsible students during the week seem to assume that the law does not extend to the ‘Carleton
bubble’ and put little thought into the accountability of their actions on Friday and Saturday nights.
Bill North asked President Poskanzer how CEDI should best address issues of procuring funds for new
initiatives, which are generally finalized at the end of the year, which is six months after the budget
deadline. President Poskanzer answered that the best tactic is to forge partnerships with other groups
on campus that are plugged into the budget process. If CEDI groups work now to forge connections, it
will be easier to access funds down the road. Additionally, President Poskanzer noted, it is important not
to start with the assumption that every new effort requires new resources. Most often, new money is
not available, and implementation will require a redeploying of existing resources according to changing
priorities.
CEDI Co-Chair Michael McNally asked how President Poskanzer would coach the group to avoid
becoming an organization that is too diffuse and, thus, ineffective. President Poskanzer responded that
an important step in creating meaningful change is to ensure that the words describing values and the
values themselves are aligned. An infinite number of documents with soaring rhetoric about diversity
are of no use unless the document reflects a shared cultural value. The people you have involved in a
process and conversation, the more these values are reinforced. Thus, an organization is not necessarily
too diffuse because of physical size, but rather, an organization is too diffuse when it is not cohered
around a culture of shared values.
Dean of Students Julie Thornton responded that the idea of a reinforcing cycle from an involvement in
the discourse surrounding the core values is useful, but there is still the perennial question as to the
most effective way of getting word out to the entire campus community. She suggested that if messages
regarding progress and new initiatives came from the visible leadership on campus – Bev Nagel, Hudlin
Wagner, Fred Rogers, or even from the President’s Office. President Poskanzer agreed that there were
definitely certain moments, such as the flooding earlier in the term, when communication directly from
these sources is called for. However, in the end, they only represent the voice of four people, which will
not necessarily help in the creation and articulation of the culture of an entire community.
CEDI Co-Chair Michael McNally continued with a question regarding the value of using outside events,
such as the tragic death of the Rutgers student, as a means of demonstrating what Carleton is not about,
thus congealing the community around a certain value. President Poskanzer remarked that it is
important to take advantage of teachable moments, which will appear from sites both on and off
campus. Similarly, it is important to remember to celebrate the good, not just discuss what needs to be
improved.
The articulation of core values such as diversity, President Poskanzer continued, will be an important
part of the broader strategic planning initiative for Carleton that will begin in the spring. During this
exercise, CEDI and other members of the community will absolutely be part of a conversation identifying
these core values as well as discussing related priorities and trade-offs, given a finite amount of
resources. It was suggested that a concise, attractive statement expressing these ideas would be helpful
in relaying the information and culture to the larger community. President Poskanzer agreed that this
may be helpful but, again, cautioned that a well-worded statement does not achieve much if there is not
a corresponding ethos. Julie Thornton noted that Carleton does, indeed, already have many documents
that express many of these ideas --- this much was acknowledged at ‘The Documents that Guide Us’
Town Hall meeting last year. The task now is how to make these documents come alive in a real way for
the campus community.
Luyen Phan inquired as to what extent the sentiments expressed here about the core values of the
college are shared with the Board of Trustees. President Poskanzer answered that while he has only
been to one Board meeting, it was clearly during the search process that this set of issues is of the
utmost importance to Trustees. The Trustees will, like the rest of the community, have the opportunity
to further articulate their feelings on the subject over the course of the strategic planning exercise.
Ann Iijima remarked that it would be useful, in communicating ideals to the larger community, to
consider what words immediately define us, thus simplifying language around the issues. ‘Quirky’ and
‘unpretentious’ are oft-used adjectives, but, given the goals articulated in the meeting, are there other
words that can be used? If Carleton approaches diversity as a constant exploration and focus on what is
not known, rather than by forced diversity encounters, we can define ourselves through this – as a
community that joyfully celebrates difference. This, it was noted, is why the Intergroup Dialogue Pilot
Program is such an important initiative as a demonstration of Carleton’s commitment to a joyful
exploration of difference.
In closing, CEDI Co-Chair Andrea Nixon commented that a record will be produced of the afternoon’s
conversation, which should allow groups and individuals the opportunity to truly flesh out what CEDI is
doing and identify other topics and areas of concern. President Poskanzer added that while CEDI clearly
has a lot of work ahead of it, both in addressing issues of campus climate and encouraging a coherent
campus culture, as well as deciding where CEDI fits in to Carleton’s broader strategic plans, he is
encouraged. Simply by the number of people in the room, it is clear that CEDI has already begun to
establish a culture rooted in those core values and a desire to ensure Carleton lives up to its full
potential. Let us now, President Poskanzer conclude, show that we are making a difference, let us
demonstrate the real and positive impacts of our dialogue.