Diversity Committee Minutes
September 29, 2000
Present: Kris Bartanen, Bernie Bates, Kim Bobby, Mariette Clardy, Jim Davis, David Droge, Rosa
Beth Gibson, Maegan Parker, Bev Pierson, Jac Royce, Mike Valentine, Carrie Washburn
Absent: John Dickson, Norma Guiler
Announcements: Norma Guiler will serve as the Staff Senate representative on the FDC.
Meagan Parker brought an article on attempts to increase diversity in the California State
University system to the attention of the FDC. The article is from the September 22, 2000 issue of
the New York Times.
th
th
Minutes from the FDC meetings of April 28 and September 15 , 2000 were approved.
Agenda: We returned to a review of the four charges the committee recommended to the Faculty
Senate for its 2000-2001 work:
1. Work with Director of Access Programs to implement the Faculty Support Committee and the
Speaker’s Bureau:
Droge has sent a request to Academic Vice President Cooney along with a copy of the memo
from last year asking about formation of the Faculty Support Committee. He has not received a
response so he will send a follow up reminder.
2. Work with Office of Admission to implement the faculty telephoning project:
Kim Bobby has talked to Dan Evans (Director of Admissions). His questions to the committee are:
(a) Do we want the students given to the faculty broken down by discipline or geography?
Pierson noted that there was the perception of little interest in UPS from East Coast candidates.
Consensus was that geography (West Coast) and then discipline would be most useful. Droge
queried whether we were going to make this a project for FDC members or were we going to
invite other faculty members? Bobby responded that we had planned for outreach to other faculty
members.
(b) Do we want this to happen by mid October?
Consensus was “the sooner the better”.
(c) Does anyone want a training section on admissions protocol?
Mike Valentine agreed that something like that or a few pages of email might be helpful. Pierson
suggested a meeting once a few outside faculty members were lined up.
Evan’s last question was a request:
(d) Is there any way that when you talk to a student that you could capture or summarize your
conversation so that office of admissions can use the information during their follow-ups?
David Droge will send out e-mail invitations to other faculty to help with the phoning.
3. Review and Facilitate deliberation regarding a University Statement on Diversity.
Kris Bartanen and Dean Cooney met over the summer and drafted a statement after an
exhaustive review of university statements on diversity.
Droge asked the FDC to review the draft statement, to see where we are, discuss what we want
to do and then figure out how to move on.
Bev Pierson expressed concern about (1) the process of scripting a new diversity statement and
(2) how we intend to use it. Since it has to be approved by all university constituents (students,
staff and faculty) whom support it, by what mechanism will it flow for their input? On the faculty
side, as faculty representatives, the draft will pass from FDC to the Faculty Senate to the full
faculty, but should it run a parallel course through student (ASUPS) and staff (Staff Senate)
organizations?
Kris Bartanen also raised the question of what purpose we envision the statement serving. David
Droge saw it as a place where potential new members of the university community could learn
about the university’s commitment to diversity. Maegan Parker felt that the draft statement was
vague and as a potential student concerned about diversity, it would not have enticed her to
attend UPS. Bev Pierson concurred that the draft statement is not attracting or engaging if you
value a university with a strong commitment to diversity.
Rosa Beth Gibson reminded us that one of our objectives last spring was to frame a document
that would engage the campus community by catalyzing dialogue about diversity.
David Droge drew our attention to the language of the May 1990 “Recommendations to the
President from the University Diversity Committee”, especially language from the “Definition and
Principles” section. He felt that it is much more specific about what we mean by diversity, and
more forceful about our intent to pursue and increase diversity on campus.
Concerns about resistance to diversity arose. Kris Bartanen asked if we wanted a document that
named specific groups as opposed to one that welcomed all groups including those historically
excluded from educational and workplace opportunities. Droge responded that any statement on
diversity is going to encounter resistance. He thought that perhaps the language of historically
underrepresented groups was forceful enough.
Carrie Washburn pointed out that the FDC encountered resistance in terms of curriculum
initiatives, specially the attempt to identify courses that had diversity content. It did not help that
the definition of “diversity” changed during this process.
Washburn pointed out that how you define diversity is not a simple question and that Bev Pierson
was correct when she asked, “how do we intend to use it?”. Maybe there needs to be different
versions of the statement depending upon its use and how it relates to the university’s mission.
We need to figure out the product and what we want to get out of it, rather than just the content at
this point.
There was a feeling that we need a strong statement, one showing that the university takes action
to promote diversity and to overcome resistance to it. Washburn added that a statement that says
“we recognize that we’re not there yet and we’re working on it” has an honesty not usually found
in such documents.
A sub-committee was created to formulate ideas on goals and the process for the creation of a
diversity statement. The DFC will as a whole refine the goals and process. Volunteers: Bobby,
Royce, Parker, Pierson and Bartanen. This sub-committee will report back to the FDC in four
weeks.
The first agenda item for our next meeting will be item number four:
4. Undertake, using the task force model, consideration of disability as an aspect of diversity.
Ivey West (Disability Services Coordinator) and John Hickey (Director of Business Services) will
be invited to our next meeting.
David Droge will continue to send members of the FDC an e-mail remainder with agenda and
main topic before scheduled meetings.
Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard Bates