Diversity at College Park

The Value of Diversity in the University: A Statement by a Faculty-Staff Committee at the University of Maryland

The Value of Diversity in the University:

A Statement by a Faculty-Staff Committee at the University of Maryland

March 5, 1997

Executive Summary

This document describes and explains the pursuit of diversity at the University of Maryland at College Park. It has been produced by a faculty-staff commitee in response to a recommendation contained in the Report of the Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Task Force.

Through its various actions and statements of policy, the University has demonstrated a commitment to diversity along three different lines:

It has taken affirmative action to achieve representative numbers in its student body and workforce of members of groups historically denied access to educational and employment opportunities as a result of discrimination based on race or gender;

It has worked to create programs of study to explore the experiences, perspectives, and contributions of a wide variety of cultures, groups, and individuals; and

It has sought to create a campus environment which encourages tolerance and respect for individuals regardless of differences in age, race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, class, political affiliation, and national origin.

The pursuit of diversity on the College Park campus began during the 1960's and 70's as an effort to end discrimination against African Americans. Over the course of several decades the University has taken a number of measures designed to increase the representation within its student body and campus workforce of women and members of other historically underrepresented or excluded groups. During this period the University's interest in diversity has broadened to include a wide range of factors that affect the quality of the workplace environment and the institution's overall educational effectiveness. Some diversity-related initiatives have been undertaken in order to comply with state and federal laws or directives, while others reflect the conviction that providing students with a high-quality education requires a curriculum, faculty, staff, and student body broadly representative of the larger society. The University's pursuit of diversity has led to the creation of new academic units, courses of study, and lines of research, and aided in the recruitment of outstanding students, faculty, and staff. During the next several years, the University will pursue a set of diversity-related goals as identified in recent Presidential Action Plans, including, among other objectives, achieving a greater sense of common purpose among the members of the campus community.

I Introduction

In the Spring semester of 1995, the Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Task Force issued its report to the President of the University and members of the campus community. One of the report's seventeen recommendations was that:

The University should develop a comprehensive concept of diversity that embraces Asian, Hispanic, and Native Americans, as well as African Americans, and incorporate this perspective into its strategic planning. The University must send a tangible and consistent message that discrimination is no longer an acceptable form of behavior.

Following a discussion of the Report by the members of his cabinet, President William E. Kirwan assembled a group of faculty and staff members and asked it to prepare a statement along the lines set out in this recommendation. More specifically, the President asked the group to explore:

The various 'dimensions of diversity': what is meant by 'diversity' in the context of student admissions and financial aid, in the curriculum, in the conditions of student life, in faculty appointments, in staff employment, etc.);

The University's goals and aspirations in each of these areas;

The basis in law and/or educational philosophy for the University's pursuit of these goals;

The relationship between the University's pursuit of diversity and its commitment to affirmative action; and

Any other issue or topic thought essential to describing and explaining the University's commitment to diversity.

The committee has met frequently during the past year and invited oral and written comment from a number of campus groups and individuals. After circulating two preliminary drafts for discussion and criticism, we offer the following statement as our response to the President's request. Our report is organized around three main questions: 'How has the University sought to achieve diversity in its student body and workforce?', 'What is the basis for these efforts in law and educational philosophy?' and 'What are the University's remaining diversity goals?' The answers we give to these questions are based on information contained in reports issued by various campus committees, statements made by the President, actions taken by the Campus Senate, official statements of University policy, and on our own understanding of the value of diversity within the institution.

II A Brief History of the University's Pursuit of Diversity

For much of its history, the University of Maryland served the educational needs of a narrow cross-section of the State's citizenry. The forerunner of today's University, the Maryland Agricultural College, was founded in 1856 for the purpose of educating the sons of Maryland's gentlemen farmers. Sixty years would pass before the University admitted its first woman student; almost a century would pass before an African American was permitted to enroll and live in campus facilities.

In the Fall of 1916, Ms. Elizabeth Hook became the first female undergraduate at College Park; a second student, Ms. Charlotte Vaux, enrolled in January of 1917. By 1922, more than 80 women had enrolled on the campus; by 1929, the number had risen to more than 300. Over the past half-century the percentage of women students at College Park has grown steadily, and at present women make up 48% of the student body.

In July, 1949, Mr. Hiram Whittle, an African-American student at Morgan State College, filed suit to be admitted to the University of Maryland at College Park to study engineering, a program then not available at his home institution. In August, 1950, Mr. Parren Mitchell, a graduate of Morgan State College, sued for admission to the University's graduate program in sociology. In October of that year Mitchell became the first African American to study at College Park when Baltimore City Court Judge John T. Tucker directed that he be admitted to the University. In January, 1951, the University's Board of Regents, acting on the advice of the State's Attorney General, voted to permit Whittle to become College Park's first African-American undergraduate. In the following year Whittle withdrew from the University and moved out of state, but Mitchell completed his course of studies and received a Master's degree in 1952. Two years later, prompted by the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the Board of Regents voted to permit academically-qualified African Americans to enroll for study on each of its campuses. In 1956, the Board also voted to permit qualified African-American students from out-of-state to be admitted.

During the 1950's and 60's the number of African-American students enrolled on the campus remained quite small. In 1969 the University was placed under a desegregation mandate by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights, a directive which remains in effect to the present day. In the 1970's the University began to undertake measures designed to increase the presence of African Americans and members of other ethnic minorities in its student body and workforce.

According to the Office of Institutional Studies, in the Fall semester of 1996 there were 3,401 African-American members of the undergraduate student body (13.9% of the total), 3,446 Asian Americans (14.0%), 1,105 Hispanic Americans (4.5%), 60 Native Americans (0.24%), and 15,142 White Americans (61.7%). At the graduate level there were 659 African Americans (7.8%), 463 Asian Americans (5.5%), 196 Hispanic Americans (2.3%), 40 Native Americans (.5%), and 5,145 White Americans (60.7%). In the 1995-96 year the College Park faculty consisted of 973 women (31.5% of the total), 2,117 men (68.5%), 163 African Americans (5.3%), 236 Asian Americans (7.6%), 46 Hispanic Americans (1.5%), 4 Native Americans (0.1%), and 2416 White Americans (78.2%). The University's total non-instructional workforce consisted of 2,302 women (55.2%), 1,772 men (42.4%), 1,010 African Americans (24.2%), 144 Asian Americans (5.1%), 131 Hispanic Americans (3.4%), 15 Native Americans (0.36%), and 2,780 White Americans (66.6%).

During the past two decades a number of campus offices, programs, committees, and commissions have been created to help recruit, retain and graduate ethnic-minority students. Among the most active of these have been the Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Education and the Intensive Education Development Program. Special centers in the colleges have also provided valuable educational and counseling services. Special initiatives by the Graduate School have significantly increased the amount of financial support available for ethnic minorities at the graduate level, and in 1990-91 the Graduate School began an extensive post-doctoral program to bring a group of outstanding African-American scholars to the campus each year. In its 1991 Periodic Review to the Middle States Association, the University cited as one indication of its 'rich diversity' that there were at that time:

. . . no less than twenty-five commissions, committees, and campus offices directly or indirectly involved with improving the campus climate and equity . . .and approximately seventy registered campus organizations reflecting the various cultural, national, religious, racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual differences among the student body.

In 1989 the campus administration commissioned the first of three studies of the educational and employment opportunities for African Americans on the College Park campus. The first report, prepared by Mr. Ray Gillian, Assistant to the President, was entitled Access Is Not Enough: A Report to the President Concerning Opportunities for Blacks at the University of Maryland at College Park. Its main findings were that:

(1) College Park had become a leader in providing access to higher education for Black students; (2) A chilly climate existed on campus for Black students, faculty, and staff; and (3) College Park was in a unique position to become a model institution with a diverse student body, curriculum, and work force.

A second study, carried out in 1992 by a sub-committee of the Middle States Periodic Review Committee chaired by Dr. Cordell Black, led to a chapter on 'Progress in Equity and Diversity' in the University's Periodic Review Report to the Middle States Association. On the positive side, the review committee noted that:

In the years since the 1986 review the College Park campus has pursued as one of its major institutional objectives creating a campus climate that encourages the exploration of cultural and racial diversity as an essential aspect of the educational experience. Vocal support for the concept of 'excellence through diversity' from the campus' senior administration, reinforced by the commitment of funds and other forms of assistance, has spawned a number of initiatives, and led to some identifiable gains.

On a less positive note, however, the committee observed that:

It is evident from the difficulties it has experienced in retaining and graduating Black undergraduate students, from the testimony of a number of recent campus studies, as well as from occasional eruptions of intolerant behavior, that the campus remains less than fully hospitable for all its members. The current budget crisis, moreover, jeopardizes continuation of many of the diversity-related initiatives undertaken in recent years.

Also in 1991-92, a number of studies were conducted by a committee brought into being by a resolution of the Campus Senate, the 'Excellence through Diversity Committee', co-chaired by Dr. Monique Clague and Dr. Sylvester J. Gates. Its report, The Report of the Committee on Excellence through Diversity: Providing Opportunities for Black Americans at College Park stated that the University could take only a 'bittersweet' pride in the current situation. Despite the fact that College Park could claim a relatively high ranking among American colleges and universities in the numbers of black Americans admitted and graduated,

The bitter with the sweet is that UMCP's high ranking is really a testimonial to how inadequate a contribution, during the last decade, most predominantly white institutions of higher education have made to the graduation of black American baccalaureate and graduate students, and to the hiring, retention, and promotion of black American faculty and staff. . . that UMCP does much better at bringing in undergraduate African American students than in graduating them, and far better at hiring African American faculty than in retaining them. . .[and] that perceptions about racial issues and race relations remain, at UMCP as elsewhere, widely divergent between black and non-black respondents.

Based on its studies, the committee recommended a total of eighty-one measures to improve the conditions for black faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and professional and executive staff on the campus.

In June, 1993, in response to the recommendations contained in these three reports, President Kirwan developed and distributed to the campus an 'Action Plan' consisting of twenty-three initiatives for improving conditions and opportunities for African-American students and staff at College Park, with a timetable for the completion of each initiative and provision for periodic review of the implementation effort (the current status of each initiative is described in section IV following).

In November, 1993, President Kirwan and Dr. Janet Helms, Chair of the President's Commission on Ethnic Minority Issues, jointly appointed the members of the Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Task Force. The Task Force, co-chaired by Dr. Pedro Barbosa and Dr. Robert Yuan, was given the charge of determining the extent of the opportunities for access, participation, and success of Asian, Hispanic, and Native American faculty, staff, and students on the College Park campus. The President has recently announced his plans for implementing fifteen of the Task Force's seventeen recommendations (see section IV following). The campus also continues to operate under the terms of a Minority Achievement Plan which sets goals for the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of all ethnic minorities underrepresented on the campus.

A second major focus of campus activity since the early 1970's has been expanding educational opportunities for women. Although a Women's Caucus was established in 1972, and a Women's Studies Program was begun in 1974, only in the 1980's did educational opportunities for women on the campus become the subject of major study. In 1987, a subcommittee of the President's Commission on Women's Affairs--the Leonard committee--first documented the existence of a 'chilly climate' for women students at College Park. In 1988, a second committee--the Greer committee--called for the integration of materials and instruction on issues relating to women and gender in the classroom, improving the classroom climate for women and ethnic minorities, and creating programs to increase the representation of women in 'non-traditional' fields such as math, science, and engineering. (Note: as used in this document, 'women and ethnic minorities' should be understood as referring respectively to women in all ethnic categories and to both men and women members of ethnic-minority groups.) As a consequence of the work of the Leonard and Greer committees, the campus made additional appointments to the Women's Studies Program, developed guidelines for the use of inclusive language in University publications, and in 1989 launched the Transformation of the Curriculum Project. In succeeding years the campus has continued its efforts to hire additional numbers of women faculty, develop programs to increase the numbers of women in the sciences and engineering fields, address issues relating to faculty salary-equity and sexual harassment, and to ensure equality of athletic opportunities for women under the provisions of Title IX. The President's Commission on Women's Issues continues to address concerns such as the status of women on the campus, child care, staff needs, and the recognition of outstanding women faculty and staff.

Over the years the 'pursuit of diversity' on the College Park campus has come to involve more than a set of affirmative-action measures designed to increase representation on the campus of previously excluded or underrepresented groups. The first statement of a broader commitment to diversity was made in 1984 when Chancellor John Slaughter challenged the campus to become a 'model multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multi-generational' academic community. Five years later, in his inaugural address to the campus, President Kirwan expressed his desire to see the University become recognized as:

. . .a place where excellence is achieved through diversity; a place that reflects the diversity of our state and the cultural richness of the world; a place where study and learning count, and color or accent or gender do not; a place where one can attack the ideas of another while affirming the human dignity of all; a place where diversity is not only tolerated, but celebrated; a place that enables individuals to be larger than they once were and more open of mind than they thought they could be.

The University's official Mission Statement, approved by the Maryland Higher Education Commission in February, 1990, affirms that College Park:

is an academic community that fosters intellectual growth, commitment to diversity, and appreciation for different cultures. . .[and that] within the next decade, the University seeks to be recognized for its commitment to cultural and racial diversity.

In short, over the last two decades the senior administration has sought to encourage greater respect on the campus for differences in race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation, and national origin; and to capitalize on the rich diversity of the campus community in order to enhance the quality of its educational programs.

One dimension of this last effort was the introduction of a greater degree of cultural diversity into the undergraduate curriculum. As a consequence of the work of the Pease committee, starting in the Fall of 1990 all undergraduates were required to take at least one course focusing 'primarily on either (a) the history, status, treatment, or accomplishments of women or minority groups and subcultures; or (b) cultural areas outside North America and Western Europe.' This requirement continues today as the 'Human Cultural Diversity' requirement in the new CORE program.

Over the last several decades the campus has witnessed the development of a wide array of internationally-focused programs. Programs in virtually all the colleges offer courses of study which focus on other regions of the world, and the campus' Office of International Affairs coordinates an extensive set of international activities and special events. The Language House and International House offer opportunities for study within a highly diverse setting of races, nations, and cultures. In 1989 the College of Arts and Humanities, working with the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, and the Afro-American Studies Program launched the 'Africa and the Americas' initiative, a program of activities designed to showcase faculty resources and expand educational opportunities relating to the African heritage in American life. In the Fall semester of 1996 there were 225 foreign faculty teaching at College Park, with 808 foreign undergraduates and 1,782 foreign graduate students. The enormous degree of diversity represented by these campus programs, along with the large numbers of faculty and students from other countries have added immeasurably to the educational resources available on the campus.

The University has also undertaken measures in an attempt to ensure that all students, faculty, and staff are treated equitably and afforded equal dignity. The President's Commission on Ethnic Minority Issues has been in existence since the early 1970's and is charged with monitoring the campus climate with respect to issues of race and ethnicity. In 1976 the University established a Human Relations Code to aid the institution in:

. . . eliminating discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, personal appearance, age, national origin, political affiliation, physical or mental disability, or on the basis of the exercise of rights secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Code was amended in 1992 to include sexual orientation as one of the protected categories. In 1989 the campus began the Classroom Climate and Teaching Excellence Project and in 1990 it issued a set of 'Guidelines for the Use of Inclusive Language and Illustrations in University Policy.' In the Fall of 1990 a group of faculty and staff organized what is today the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Staff and Faculty Association. The Association has provided important support for its members and worked to strengthen protections against forms of discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual students, faculty, and staff. In 1991 the campus developed a set of guidelines defining and prohibiting sexual harassment, and established a process for responding to harassment complaints. In 1991 the Office of Human Relations began the celebration of 'Multicultural Day' which later became the 'Diversity Week' and continues at present as the year-long 'Diversity Initiative: Moving toward Community'. In May of 1991 the College Park Senate passed a series of resolutions including a recommendation for the University's Board of Regents to 'undertake a review of the benefits that it controls with an aim toward extending such benefits to university employees in domestic partnerships.' Although an ad hoc committee created by the Board recommended instituting benefits for domestic partners, at its meeting in the summer of 1996, the Regents failed to approve the proposal. In recent years the President's Commission on Disability Issues has worked with the campus administration to address the needs of students, faculty, and staff with disabilities. The campus administration is currently implementing a Transition Plan to improve access to campus facilities for persons with disabilities and to meet the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, the University currently sponsors a one-day Equity Council conference which addresses various diversity-related concerns, and the Black Faculty and Staff Association sponsors a two-day Black Faculty and Staff Conference which addresses various issues relating to race and culture.

It seems clear from a number of recent studies that today's University differs markedly from the one that existed here as recently as two decades ago:

The University's Strategic Plan, developed in the spring of 1996, reports that: 'Among all non-historically Black institutions the University currently ranks as one of the top three in the nation in the number of baccalaureate and doctoral degrees awarded to African Americans. . The University has assumed a position of leadership in American higher education through its commitment to diversity and the transformation of the curriculum to address issues and new scholarship relating to women and our multi- cultural heritage';

According to a recent study by the National Research Council, the University now ranks second in the nation among non-historically Black institutions in the number of African-American students who go on to earn Ph.D.s;

According to a recent NSF report, the University also ranks second overall among non- historically Black institutions in the number of African-American students graduating in the sciences; and

A study recently published in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education concludes its review of the process of diversifying America's flagship institutions with the statement that the 'universities that appear to have made the most serious effort at faculty diversification, when we include comparisons to blacks in the student body and in the state population, include the University of Massachusetts, the University of Maryland, and Rutgers University.'

III The Basis for the University's Pursuit of Diversity

Through its actions and statements of policy the University of Maryland has demonstrated a commitment to diversity along three lines:

It has worked to create programs of study which explore the experiences, perspectives, and contributions of a wide variety of cultures, groups, and individuals; and

Recent events have posed a challenge to the legitimacy of some of these commitments. In the case of Podberesky v. Kirwan, for example, the United States Supreme Court let stand the decision of a Federal Appeals Court which struck down the University's Banneker Scholarship Program, an initiative undertaken by the University as part of its effort to recruit, retain, and graduate larger numbers of African-American students. The Supreme Court has also recently let stand a decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which barred the University of Texas from considering the degree of racial diversity within its student body as an appropriate factor in admission decisions. The recent passage of an anti-affirmative action referendum in the State of California suggests that the hiring and recruitment efforts undertaken by the nation's colleges and universities are likely to come under increased scrutiny in the future. In view of these developments, it is both appropriate and desirable for the University to undertake to explain the basis in law and educational philosophy for its commitment to diversity.

The first objective, which is essentially a commitment to taking positive measures to end historic patterns of discrimination, has a special relevance for the University of Maryland, though it has a broader significance as well. Non-discrimination is a legal and moral duty incumbent on any organization engaged in serving the public. But because the University was for many years a member of a racially segregated system of higher education, it has a special interest in ensuring that historic patterns of discrimination have been eliminated. Enrolling representative numbers of African Americans and other ethnic minorities serves as a hallmark or public measure of the strength of its commitment and efforts. Similarly, the University is committed to overcoming the legacy of its past exclusion of women by working to assure fair treatment and a hospitable campus climate for all women students and employees.

The University is specifically directed by State law to take measures to ensure 'that women and minorities are equitably represented among faculty, staff, and administration, so that the higher education community reflects the diversity of the State's population' (Md. Educ. Code Ann. Sec. 10-204, 1992). Similarly, the Code directs the University's Board of Regents to ensure 'that women and minorities are equitably represented among the student body, faculty, staff, and administration of the University System so that the University reflects the diversity of the State's population' (Sec. 12-107). The Board of Regents has, in turn accepted this responsibility (in its 'Policy on Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity' approved October 19, 1989 and reaffirmed on August 25, 1995), and directed the University Chancellor and campus Presidents to implement desegregation and equal opportunity programs. The University is also subject to the requirement established by the State's Higher Education Commission that each public higher-education institution must develop a 'Minority Achievement Plan' to achieve diversity by improving the recruitment, retention, and graduation of minority students (State Plan for Higher Education, 1990, 48-52). From 1992 to 1995, the University implemented the provisions of a Conciliation Agreement with the Office of Federal Contracts and Compliance Programs which called for improved documentation of employment practices, compensation for individuals identified as entitled to relief, and the making of at least sixty offers to African-American secretarial/clerical applicants over a three-year period. And, as previously mentioned, the University continues to operate under the provisions of a desegregation order from the U. S. Office of Civil Rights.

But as the University of Maryland and other educational institutions have succeeded in opening their doors to members of groups previously denied access to the academy--as they have done what they ought to do, legally and morally--they have discovered that their efforts to diversify the student body and workforce have led to many beneficial changes--changes which benefit not only the members of previously excluded or underrepresented groups but all those associated with the institution.

One of the educational benefits of a diverse student body was identified by Justice Powell in his decision in the Bakke case. Quoting from an earlier ruling (Keyishian v. Board of Regents) Justice Powell stated that:

Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment. . .The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth 'out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.

In a recent article, the President of Harvard University urged his colleagues to reaffirm the wisdom of Justice Powell's view:

We must reaffirm the critical role that students with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences play in educating one another. We need to insist upon the essential part that colleges and universities play in creating opportunities for students to live in association with peers who are, in many respects, different from themselves but who also have much in common. The process is not always smooth, but its complexity only highlights its importance. (Dr. Neil Rudenstein, 'Why a Diverse Student Body?,' The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/19/96)

Critics have objected to this defense of diversity on the grounds that a diversity of races cannot ensure the presence of an educationally beneficial mix of viewpoints. Indeed, as was the case in the Texas ruling, it has been suggested that a concern for racial diversity in the student body actually stereotypes individuals by assuming that all members of the same race must possess the same set of characteristic beliefs. But our experiences as members of a diverse academic community tell us otherwise: diversity makes an enormous difference within the University, even when the members of a given race do not all see things in the same way. The racial, ethnic, and gender changes of the past decade, when combined with the ages of entering students, the variety of their work experiences, and the multiplicity of their regional and international origins, have all helped to make the University of Maryland a far more vital and cosmopolitan institution than at any time in its past. Our racially and culturally diverse campus community has afforded students, staff, and faculty greater opportunities for intellectual give-and-take, for insight into different ways of life, and for a heightened appreciation of different cultural traditions. Our perceptions coincide with the findings of social scientists who report that opportunities to share ideas with persons of a different race or to work cooperatively on common tasks provide valuable educational experiences.

The possession of a more diverse faculty has also enhanced the University's capacity to conduct research and offer high-quality instruction in a number of different areas. Many important developments in contemporary scholarship have resulted from the contributions of women and minority scholars: in the development and application of feminist theory across a number of different disciplines, in the exploration of the non-elite elements of society in different historical periods, in research on the contributions of neglected women and ethnic minority writers, composers, artists, thinkers, and social pioneers, and in the study of the artistic and literary traditions of non-Western societies, to mention just a few. The value added to the curriculum through these developments has been well-explained in a recent University publication:

It is only by comparison that people are able to understand what is distinctive about the Western tradition. People trained only in that tradition, without any points of comparison, would perhaps think like Westerners, but they wouldn't know what that means. . . Our present position at the confluence of so many great traditions gives us an unprecedented opportunity to know who we are, as Westerners, as moderns, as human beings, and as unique individuals. (Paul Kjellberg, 'Multicultural Education and the Virtue of Comparative Philosophy', Summer/Fall 1996 Report from the Institute of Philosophy and Public Policy).

At College Park, as on other university campuses, entire departments have come into existence only during the last several decades as a result of a broadening of the focus of scholarly activity. A university in pursuit of academic excellence must undertake to keep abreast of emerging areas of scholarship and appoint and retain faculty with expertise in them. In recent years this has required concentrating a portion of the institution's resources on recruiting and retaining the services of outstanding women and minority scholars. As the Middle States committee explained:

While information about the wide range of human achievement is, in some sense, available to anyone, it is unrealistic to suppose that a truly multicultural curriculum can be created and sustained for any length of time without assembling a commensurately diverse community of teachers and students. . . what gets studied and taught in a university depends to a significant degree on who is there to do the studying and teaching.

In working to become a more diverse campus community, the University has also enhanced its capacity to recruit students, staff, and faculty from all walks of life, a consequence which has a direct bearing on one of its fundamental duties--the pursuit of academic excellence. As President Kirwan has explained:

At College Park, our efforts to build excellence are inextricably linked to our efforts to increase diversity. Because we realize that we cannot be a first-rate university unless we serve all the components of a diverse society, we want our campus to be the type of environment that attracts people of different racial and cultural backgrounds. . .

On a larger scale, in affording educational opportunities to a broader cross-section of the population, the University, along with many other educational institutions, has helped to enlarge the pool of expertise available to meet the nation's needs. As President Kirwan has also noted:

In a real sense, the ideal we seek is not new. More than 200 years ago, John Stuart Mill said, 'In all things of any difficulty and importance those who can do them are far fewer than the need. . . and any limitation on the available field deprives society of some chance of being served by the competent.'

The make-up of the campus community also has a bearing on how effectively the University can prepare its students for success in the workplace of the next century. A glimpse of that workplace can be gleaned from a recent report from the Hudson Institute. Its Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century projects that during the rest of this century, 85% of all new entrants into the nation's workforce will be women, immigrants, or minorities. A recent study (reported in the 10/15/96 issue of USA Today) estimates that between the years 1990 and 2050 the percentage of non-Hispanic whites living in the United States will decline from 76% to 52%. In short, in the years just ahead, diversity in the American workplace will not be a goal, but a fact of life. It remains to be seen, however, whether there will be sufficient numbers of minority students well-prepared for success in this new environment, as well as whether students from all races and backgrounds will be prepared to work effectively in a decidedly more diverse workplace. Our nation's colleges and universities can play a key role today in helping their students to live more productive and more successful lives in the much more diverse American society of the next century.

And, finally, it should be recognized that the University's commitment to providing a nurturing environment for all its students, faculty, and staff has both an educational and a moral dimension. No organization, public or private, should be permitted to subject its members to a hostile or demeaning workplace environment; efforts made to prevent racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks, and other expressions of prejudice represent a minimal moral obligation incumbent on any organization. But a prejudicial environment, or the absence of one, can also have a profound effect on how well the university can do its job. Students who can feel that they are welcomed members of the campus community are likely to perform better and complete their programs of study in a timelier fashion than those who have sensed a chilly campus climate. Faculty and staff who sense that they are prized employees are more likely to have a sense of loyalty and commitment to the institution than those who feel that their presence and contributions have not been appreciated. As President Kirwan has stated:

. . . we want our campus to be the type of environment that will encourage people to develop their talents to the fullest. And we realize that if we are to achieve this vision, College Park must be a place where diversity is not only tolerated, but celebrated.

IV The University's Remaining Diversity Goals

In June, 1993, President Kirwan distributed to the campus an 'Action Plan' for implementing a number of the recommendations made in earlier studies of the current status of African-American students, faculty, and staff. The initiatives described in the President's plan ranged across the four identified areas of concern:

The recruitment, retention, and graduation of African-American students;

The appointment, retention, and promotion of African-American faculty;

Current levels of job-satisfaction among African-American staff; and

The general climate on the campus for African-American employees and students.

As of May, 1996, action had been completed with respect to six of the Plan's recommendations:

Expanding the Nyumburu Center;

Arranging for campus participation in Equity 2000;

Developing additional student-recruitment strategies at both the graduate and undergraduate levels;

Submitting support plans in connection with the hiring of African-American faculty;

Disseminating information about newly appointed African-American faculty; and

Creating additional courses on race relations.

Another six of the Action Plan's recommendations have been at least partially implemented:

Addressing campus workplace climate problems;

Devising ways to increase the number of African-American job applicants;

Increasing the number of minority pool positions;

Developing college-level support programs;

Supporting special curricular projects and short-term appointments; and

Reviewing the performance of chairs and deans through the DAIP process.

Two initiatives relating to enhancing the Banneker Scholarship Program were terminated as a result of Court action, and six other goals remain unrealized as of Fall, 1996:

Setting retention and graduation goals at graduate and undergraduate levels;

Obtaining additional financial support for the new, combined Key-Banneker scholarship program;

Developing a methodology for determining equity in staff salaries;

Doubling the number of African-American faculty by the year 2001;

Developing training workshops for supervisors; and

Revising the campus' current equity system.

In his response to the report of the Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Task Force the President identified an additional thirteen initiatives to be undertaken during 1996 and 1997:

1-3. Setting increased hiring goals for Asian-American and Hispanic-American staff and academic administrators;

4. Ensuring diverse representation on key campus committees;

5. Initiating a study of Asian-American, Hispanic-American and Native-American faculty salaries;

6. Reviewing the impact of salary, promotion and tenure policies on ethnic minorities;

7. Authorizing two additional positions in the Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Education and provide programming support for Asian-American and Hispanic-American students;

8. Reviewing the impact of current financial aid policies and practices on ethnic minorities;

9. Creating courses concerning the Hispanic-American and Native-American experience;

10. Developing a plan to assess ethnic minority credentials, reviewing current employment procedures, and creating programs for preparing ethnic minorities for supervisory roles;

11. Developing unit-level initiatives to improve the workplace climate for ethnic- minority employees;

12. Developing a Diversity Statement for the College Park campus; and

13. Appointing an expanded committee to monitor both Presidential Action Plans and providing annual reports to the campus community.

During its deliberations the committee received oral and written testimony from representatives from the Native American Student Union and the Indigenous American Student, Alumni, Faculty, and Staff Association expressing dissatisfaction with the University's past and present efforts to meet the needs of Native Americans. A special concern was expressed that data relating to the number of Native Americans at the University and in the larger community do not accurately reflect current realities. It was also stated that while the numbers of Native Americans will never be great enough to justify a Native American curriculum, such a program would be an important enhancement of the quality of the educational opportunities available at the University. In addition, it is anticipated that the Piscataway Conoy Confederacy will receive official recognition from the State in the near future, which could lead to increased recognition of the presence of Native Americans in the region. It was also suggested that there are sizable Native-American populations in other Eastern states from which the University recruits a significant percentage of its student body. The committee's view is that if information on the numbers of Native-American students, faculty, and staff is inaccurate as a result of erroneous self-reporting, then some of the assumptions underlying recent decisions by the campus administration may need to be reconsidered (e.g. the need to set hiring goals for Native-American faculty and associate and classified staff, or to create a full-time position in OMSE to support Native Americans, or to institute programs to recruit greater numbers of Native-American students).

In response to an an earlier draft of the present statement, the Asian American Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Student Association and other interested parties made it known that formal and permanent inclusion within the University structure of Asian American curriculum and programmatic efforts remains an essential but unmet goal. The Hispanic, Asian, and Native American Task Force also recommended the development of curricula focusing on the experiences of Hispanic Americans and Native Americans.

The University remains committed to the pursuit of a number of affirmative-action hiring goals for women and ethnic minorities based on federal guidelines, which are themselves based on availability data. The 'Diversity Accountability and Implementation Plan' (DAIP) is the main mechanism through which individual units on the campus determine how best to work in support of the University's diversity goals. Underlying the DAIP is the conviction that individual units can most readily discern the most promising opportunities and determine how best to harness their creative energies to realize those opportunities.

In his 'State of the Campus' address to the Campus Senate in the Fall of 1996 President Kirwan expressed his disappointment with the decision of the Board of Regents not to approve the recommendation of its ad hoc committee to extend benefits to domestic partners. The President reiterated his support for the proposal and committed himself to working toward its approval.

At several points, the campus's Strategic Plan, completed in March of 1996, discusses how the University's rich diversity can help it to continue its advance to the top echelon of the nation's public research universities:

The high quality of our faculty, recent innovations in undergraduate education, and an increasingly well-prepared and diverse student body. . .all add up to a base from which to pursue excellence in undergraduate education; and

Our diverse student body, faculty, and staff, and our commitment to maintaining an inclusive community will help us to prepare our students to succeed in the America of the next century.

The Plan specifically calls for the campus to:

Develop measures that will increase the number of academically-talented students enrolling at College Park, with special emphasis on recruiting larger numbers of academically-talented minority students;

Reinvigorate initiatives designed to attract to the campus larger numbers of minority and women faculty;

Develop recruitment/retention strategies for graduate students with special attention to underrepresented minorities and women; and

Develop the new Center for the Performing Arts to become the region's primary resource for the artistic expression of the region's rich diversity of cultures.

Finally, it seems clear that the University will not achieve all its diversity goals until those of us who make up the institution are able to think of ourselves not simply as members of one or more identifiable groups, but also as members of a single community with many mutually reinforcing resources and concerns. In the committee's view, part of this process must be developing an appreciation of how the institution's historic pursuit of diversity has led not only to significant gains for women and ethnic minorities, but to a better University overall. It is our hope that the preparation and dissemination of the present document will help to foster such an appreciation.

Members of the Diversity Statement Working Group

J. H. Lesher (Chair), Departments of Classics and Philosophy, Office of the President

Pedro Barbosa, Department of Entomology

Gladys Brown, Office of Human Relations

Robert Fullinwider, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy

Ray Gillian, Office of the President

Janet Helms, Department of Psychology

J. Terrance Roach, Office of the President

Deborah Rosenfelt, Department of Women's Studies

Andrianna Stuart, Grounds Maintenance

Shelley Wong, Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Attachment I: UMCP Diversity Data-Fall 1996

Asian African Hispanic

Faculty Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F

# 3090 2117 973 236 177 59 163 71 92 46 29 17

% 100.0 68.5 31.5 7.6 75.0 25.0 5.3 43.6 56.4 1.5 63.0 37.0

Administra

# 241 130 111 5 1 4 35 17 18 2 2 0

% 100.0 53.9 46.1 2.1 20.0 80.0 14.5 48.6 51.4 0.8 100.0 0.0

Other Staff

# 3933 1642 2291 206 95 111 975 400 575 142 44 98

% 100.0 41.7 58.3 5.2 46.1 53.9 24.8 41.0 59.0 3.6 31.0 69.0

Undergrad

# 24529 1269611833 3446 1915 1531 3401 1438 1963 1105 528 577

% 100.0 51.8 48.2 14.0 55.6 44.4 13.9 42.3 57.7 4.5 47.8 52.2

Graduate

# 8477 4423 4054 463 262 201 659 249 410 196 86 110

% 100.0 52.2 47.8 5.5 56.6 43.4 7.8 37.8 62.2 2.3 43.9 56.1

Nat. American White Foreign Unknown

Faculty Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F

# 4 3 1 2416 1659 757 225 178 47

% .1 75.0 25.0 78.2 68.7 31.3 7.3 79.1 20.9

Administra

# 1 1 0 198 109 89 0 0 0

% .4 100.0 0 82.2 55.1 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other Staff

# 14 4 10 2582 1093 1489 14 6 8

% .4 28.6 71.4 65.6 42.3 57.7 .4 42.9 57.1

Undergrad

# 60 33 27 15142 8037 7105 808 440 368 567 305 262

% .2 55.0 45.0 61.7 53.1 46.9 3.3 54.5 45.5 2.3 53.8 46.2

Graduate

# 40 16 24 5145 2480 2655 1782 1224 558 192 106 86

% .5 40.0 60.0 60.7 48.2 51.8 100.0 68.7 31.3 100.0 55.2 44.8

Note: Gender percentages within each ethnic group are based on the overall total for that section.

Source: UMCP Office of Institutional Studies