March Leadership Abstract (continued)
On the other hand, employees of the college do not reflect the ethnic
makeup of the communities served. During the tenure of the CEO, the
percentage of full-time faculty from minority groups had increased from
9 percent to 12 percent; that of administrators had increased from 12
percent to 21 percent; and that of classified support staff had
increased from 17 percent to 21 percent. The CEO was just concluding a
difficult struggle with faculty to change the employment policies and
procedures, requiring sufficient numbers of qualified candidates and
sufficient gender and ethnic representation in the applicant,
interview, and finalist pools. Under the proposed policy, the CEO would
interview the top three or more unranked candidates for each faculty
and administrative position and, after meeting with the search
committee, would recommend his selection to the board for employment.
At any time the administration felt that the pools did not have
sufficient diversity or sufficient numbers of qualified candidates, the
search would either be extended or canceled. The CEO could waive these
requirements in highly unusual circumstances (e.g., lack of male
applicants for nursing faculty positions after evidence of unsuccessful
attempts).
The policy and procedure changes that the CEO had sought had, after
several months and not without opposition, made it through the college
internal governance and were scheduled to appear for information at the
next meeting of the board of trustees. However, before the board
meeting, the CEO received a letter from the State Chancellor’s Office
stating that Palomar College had not meet a state-mandated goal that 30
percent of new employees in a three-year period should be members of
ethnic minority groups. The Chancellor notified the CEO that he would
be dispatching a Technical Assistance Team to Palomar College, as well
as to other colleges in similar circumstances, to review employment
policies and practices and to make recommendations to the CEO and the
board. Although the CEO saw the review of the Technical Assistance Team
to be positive in helping the college to focus on improving policies
and practices, conservative local newspapers ran stories that portrayed
the visit as punitive.
When the CEO introduced the board agenda item to change the employment
policies, board members were influenced by the negative newspaper
stories about the scheduled visit of the Technical Assistance Team. The
board chair commented that he resented interference by the state.
Another trustee, who was a retired faculty member, said that she did
not like the emphasis on diversity in the proposed policy, and that
Palomar should hire quality not diversity. Their comments were reported
in three local newspapers the following day.
The comments from the board members inflamed the minority communities.
At the following board meeting, the president of the North County NAACP
joined minority faculty members and students in condemning the comments
from the two trustees as being insensitive and potentially racist.
Despite words of caution from the CEO, the board chair angrily gaveled
down a student who called the board racist. The following day, minority
students, led by MEChA, the African-American Student Alliance, and the
Native American Student Alliance, paraded through the campus with mock
coffins for the board chair and the trustee who made the comment about
hiring quality rather than diversity. With the encouragement of
minority faculty members and community members, the students decided to
turn their demonstration into a campout in front of the campus and
pitched makeshift tents. The two coffins were predominantly displayed
near the tents along Mission Road near the campus entrance.
Local newspapers ran front-page stories on the protest. The CEO
received notes from a few faculty members urging him not to cave in to
pressure from liberal minorities. A nonminority male student came to
the CEO’s office saying that he was thinking about organizing a counter
protest of White students. The protesters received notes handed to them
from passing automobiles, many in support of their efforts. However,
one note threatened that they would be shot if they continued their
protest. The national head of the White Aryan Resistance, a separatist
organization, lives in the college district.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
The community served by the college is changing demographically,
becoming more ethnically diverse. However, the community and its
leadership remain very conservative. The CEO has been successful in
leading the college through several financial and political challenges
during his eight-year tenure. His efforts to bring greater quality and
diversity to the faculty and staff have not necessarily been welcomed
by faculty and trustees. Trustee comments about proposed policy changes
and an impending state Technical Assistance Team visit ignited a
student protest and presented the CEO with the need to protect freedom
of speech, protect the safety of the student protesters, and keep the
situation from escalating further. Three local newspapers are competing
for readership. One of the newspapers has assigned the story to a
young, aggressive investigative reporter who has interviewed community
leaders, students, board members, and the CEO. She is following the
story closely. The trustees to whom the CEO reports are under attack by
the protesters.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Should the CEO allow the protesting students to continue their campout protest? If so, under what conditions?
2. If the CEO allows the protest to continue, what should he do to
ensure the safety and security of the students and the campus?
3. How should the CEO respond to the student who suggested a counter
protest?
4. Should the CEO delegate dealing with the student protesters to his
Vice President for Student Affairs or to one of his minority
administrators?
5. How should the CEO deal with his board members?
6. How should the CEO deal with the press?
7. What, if anything, should the CEO report to the State Chancellor’s
Office?
THOUGHTS AND ANALYSIS
1. College campuses are historically centers for freedom of speech. If
the CEO were to consider a forced end to the demonstrations, he would
be acting against his own values and would need legal advice.
2. Classes end at 10:00 p.m. on the San Marcos campus of Palomar
College. The campus generally closes at 11:00 p.m., all facilities,
including restrooms, are locked, and Campus Security leaves for the
evening.
3. With the strong emotions involved on both sides of the diversity
issue, and with the head of the national White Aryan Resistance living
in the college district, there is a very real threat of violence.
4. Since the protesters are calling for the removal of the board chair
and another trustee, the CEO’s job security may be at stake.
5. The student protesters have no single authority to represent them,
and the Hispanic and African-American students do not always agree,
making it difficult to negotiate an agreement to end the protest. The
Native American students pulled back from the demonstration.
OUTCOMES
The CEO decided to allow the minority students to continue their
protest. He arranged to keep restrooms near the campsites open
throughout the evenings, had water delivered to the students, and
assigned 24-hour security to protect the students and the campus. He
successfully discouraged the nonminority students from mounting a
counter protest by pledging to work on behalf of all students and to
seek a peaceful resolution to the protests. The CEO kept law
enforcement officials, the trustees, the State Chancellor’s Office, and
the press informed of developments on a regular basis. He wrote an
opinion editorial for the largest of the local newspapers, outlining
the college’s efforts to improve both the quality and diversity of its
faculty and staff. The CEO decided to negotiate with the student
protesters directly and at the campsite rather than delegating the
responsibility or requiring the students to come to his office. During
the 11-day protest, the students and the CEO developed a respectful and
trusting relationship.
After the student protesters told the CEO of the threat of a shooting,
he ordered the protesters to move their tents to the interior of the
campus. The protesters refused to obey the order, saying that they were
prepared to sacrifice for the rights of minority students. The CEO told
the protestors that he was responsible for their safety and would
contact the sheriff’s department and have the students arrested if they
did not obey. The students responded that the CEO could do what he had
to do, and they would do what they had to do. The CEO called the
sheriff, and deputies arrived in about a half hour along with the
investigative newspaper reporter. The deputy said that he had to hear
the students disobey the CEO’s order before he would arrest them. The
CEO called the students together and again asked them to move their
tents to the interior of the campus where they would not be susceptible
to a drive-by shooting. The students changed their minds and agreed to
do so, ending the standoff and a certain front-page newspaper story.
In the course of the protest, the students presented a list of demands
for changes that they felt would improve the climate for diversity at
the college. The CEO worked with students, community members, faculty,
and trustees to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution to the issues
that were raised. Discussions with the protesters were conducted in a
respectful and nonconfrontational atmosphere. In all of the meetings
with the protesters, the CEO affirmed the right to free speech and the
college’s commitment to increase the diversity of the faculty.
Throughout the negotiations, the CEO was focused on ensuring freedom of
speech, open discussion of the issues, academic freedom, open
communications to all concerned, and the safety and security of the
students and the campus.
The protest ended with an agreement on a plan for increasing diversity
awareness that included the formation of a task force to address
diversity issues, the recommendation for cultural awareness courses for
employees and board members, recommendation for an advisory vote for
the student trustee, and continuing dialogue between students and
administrators. The state Technical Assistance Team’s major
recommendation to improve the hiring rate of minorities was to give
less weight to previous teaching experience when evaluating resumes.
The CEO’s recommended new employment policies were approved unanimously
by the board of trustees. The CEO was named as an Honorary Elder the
following year by the Western Region of the National Council on Black
American Affairs.
George R. Boggs is the President and CEO of the American Association of
Community Colleges and the Superintendent/President Emeritus of Palomar
College in California.
_____________________________________________________________________