E2. Administration of the Human Relations Code. The Panel proposes significant change in the administration of the Human Relations Code. Presently the responsibility for implementing campus policies in this area is divided among the Office of Human Relations, the Equity Council (whose members are dispersed throughout the campus), and the Department of Personnel Services. This structure, we came to believe, is not optimal for an integrated approach. We recommend the system be restructured.

E3. Restructured Equity System. We propose also that a restructured and better integrated equity system be headed by someone who sits on the President's cabinet. Although we expect all the vice-presidents to be sensitive to issues of diversity, one vice-president should have a specialist's knowledge of the research on diversity, a track record of successful implementation of diversity programs, and, of course, the clout to hold others accountable. The Diversity Panel suggests that this be considered when an appropriate opening occurs at the level of the Vice-Presidents.

E4. Neglected Functions for Equity Administration. There are important functions that are not being performed by either office of the current equity system that should be assigned after restructuring:

• a. A clearinghouse should be established for the many diversity programs that already exist on our campus, and collaboration and cooperation should be encouraged among the units sponsoring these programs. We were surprised to discover that nobody on this campus has a handle on the multitude of campus programs that are intended to improve the climate for diversity, i.e., how many and what sorts of programs exist. Nor is any one person responsible for evaluating which programs do not work, what improvements are indicated, and what new programs would be beneficial and might be enhanced or duplicated elsewhere. Nor are there adequate mechanisms for encouraging communication or collaboration among interested units, especially the academic departments. The result is that programs spring up everywhere, but most reach only small audiences and have poor visibility and little impact. The Diversity Council, organized by the Office of Human Relations, has been bringing together individuals from some of the units responsible for the major diversity programs on our campus, but collaboration, coordination, and dissemination needs to be expanded. Neither the current personnel of the Office of Human Relations nor the structure of the Equity Council is adequate to set up such a clearinghouse and broader mechanisms for coordination and evaluation, but we propose an enhancement that permits this task to move forward quickly.
• b. We also propose that a website be constructed to make this information accessible to everyone on campus. The Panel has viewed the current "Diversity Initiative" website and found it inadequate, although it might serve as a starting point for constructing a site that provides more of the information that this campus needs.
• c. The campus needs more information about diversity issues than is now available. We propose that a representative sample of the entire campus be surveyed on some regular schedule to ascertain where there are areas that the campus should target for special attention. Repeated surveys would identify problem areas where women, persons of color, and gays and lesbians are not welcome, safe, and respected, and/or fairly compensated, and special unit-specific strategies can be developed to change the workplace/classroom/residence culture. Repeating these surveys can also identify change over time and assure that our diversity initiatives are appropriate for the needs of the current moment. This survey would reach all campus constituencies, and not only incoming freshman who are currently being surveyed by the Research Advisory Committee.
• d. Re-institute regular equity salary surveys for faculty and staff.
• e. The recently redesigned Diversity Accountability and Implementation Plan is an improvement over prior reporting forms, but our examination of some of last year's plans identified continuing problems. Each of the reports included statistical data and a written report. The statistical data was most useful, but the written reports primarily trumpeted the units' successes. Of course, no Department Chair or College Dean wishes to bring attention to failures, but the reports did ask units to set goals for further improvements; this request, however, seems to have been widely ignored.. Surely some of the units on our campus have some areas where the need for some improvement might be identified, goals and a timeline set, and a system for monitoring progress established.

  But an even greater problem with the DAIPs is their utter ineffectiveness. Every administrator with whom we discussed the DAIPs expressed frustration that these reports represented a lot of bureaucratic paperwork, but seemed to end up nowhere. We confirmed this: the collection of so much statistical data alone would take any department many worker-hours to gather. However, what happens with these reams of data is unclear. How they are digested and evaluated is unclear. What actions are taken on the basis of the data-gathering is unclear.

  There is no accountability for lack of progress in implementing diversity on our campus. The DAIPs simply do not fulfill the function for which they are intended. Accountability can be achieved only by significantly restructuring the entire equity system and creating a mechanism for bringing responsibility for equity and diversity right into the President's cabinet.