Office of Equity and Diversity
January 2015
Report on the Barriers to Institution-Wide Diversity and Inclusion
Overview:
Given the events of the past semester and the current focus on climate for
our students of color and other marginalized groups on campus, it seemed an
appropriate time for the Associate Provost for Equity and Diversity and the
Director for Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action to share our
perspective on institution-wide diversity and inclusion efforts and the
challenges we face in promoting change across the organization. It is our hope that this document can be
shared broadly with concerned constituents and serve to inform future
discussions of the steps Colgate will take to promote a more welcoming and
inclusive environment for all members of our community.
Institutional Barriers to Diversity
and Inclusion (D&I):
1. While Colgate’s
organizational chart reflects six divisions, these divisions do not fully
reflect the true number of areas empowered to determine how they will operate,
perform, and make decisions in an independent and distinct manner. For example, under the Dean of the Faculty, athletics,
university libraries, information technology, and the academic faculty all
serve as independently operating areas.
The academic faculty further sub-divide into independent and distinct
departmental units, while inter-departmental committees (under the faculty
governance structure) control curriculum, pedagogy, and aspects of faculty
development. The Dean of the College
Division, Finance and Administration, and Institutional Advancement also
contain several distinct areas within the division. The number of independently operating areas
far exceeds the number typical of an organization of this size. This structure impacts institutional
diversity and inclusion in the following ways:
a.
Overlap and Gaps.
Recently, Dean of the College Suzy Nelson proposed a rubric for
institutionalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion at Colgate. This rubric (“Rubric for Assessing
Institution-Wide Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (Diaz & Kirmmse) outlined
six dimensions: Philosophy and Mission;
Administrative Leadership and Institutional Support; Faculty Support and
Involvement; Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Research; Student Support and
Involvement; and Staff Engagement and Involvement. Across the six dimensions, multiple efforts
from several distinct divisions focus in more or less limited fashion on two of
the dimensions: student support, and faculty support and involvement. The remaining dimensions are largely
untouched (except by those “designated” as D&I personnel) and
unsupported. In sum, the majority of
institutional effort focuses on narrow aspects of two out of six of the
diversity, equity, and inclusion dimensions.
b. Decentralization. Each distinct area manages and controls their
diversity and inclusion efforts. Checks
and balances do not exist within this decentralized model and the institution
lacks cohesion in these efforts. As a result:
i.
each distinct area may opt in or out of D&I efforts
without an external structure to hold any one area accountable (either for
electing to opt out or for ineffectively opting in);
ii.
each area may define diversity and inclusion;
iii.
each area may measure success and competence;
iv.
there is limited or no linkage between diversity and
inclusion efforts.
c.
Lack of placement or presence at key junctures. The Office of Equity and Diversity (OED) is
often excluded from decisions, initiatives, and programming that impact
diversity and inclusion. When members of
the OED are included, they are not inserted from the beginning of the effort to
the end, and their participation is oftentimes regarded as intrusive.
Taken together, these issues create
major stumbling blocks for institutional advancement of D&I. Systemically, the organization lacks
individual/organizational will in addition to any incentive and accountability
structures to effectively support D&I.
Within a highly diffuse decision-making structure, initiatives often
rely upon political or social capital to advance. Therefore, to advance D&I requires broad
support for an unpopular initiative that lacks presence and structural support
in critical areas, that lacks the ability to withstand organizational
retaliation against change efforts, that requires the voluntary relinquishment
of power, and that fundamentally alters practices that have been in place for
decades.
2. Over the course
of the past semester, we have been engaged in productive dialogue regarding
campus climate for students on this campus.
Unfortunately, campus climate for faculty and staff remained largely
absent from these discussions. Yet
climate for students must be viewed as inextricably linked to climate for
faculty and staff. What is learned
derives its meaning from the context in which it is learned. If global, historical and cultural learning
occurs only within the detached and unique context of the classroom, without a
complementary extra-curricular experience of inclusion, this learning remains
subject to the distortions associated with the transition from the academic to
the real-world setting. We find the
insidious aspects of campus climate for students to be rooted deeply within the
institution itself. As a result,
analysis of campus culture from an employment perspective bears relevant impact
upon campus culture for our student population.
From a diversity and inclusion perspective, it might be
said that the true measure of organizational culture is reflected in how the
organization treats its most vulnerable members. At Colgate, the most vulnerable members of
the organization are junior faculty, persons from historically underrepresented
groups, new hires, and staff members who lack positional authority. Colgate’s culture from this perspective
reflects the following characteristics:
a.
Resistance to change and new ideas. The “Colgate Way” may best be summarized by
the phrase, “We’ve always done it this way.”
The very definitions of “success” and “excellence” are predicated on
preservation of the status quo. New ideas fall on deaf ears and often are
excluded from relevant decision-making processes. When individuals attempt
change or identify problems, the interplay between individual, group, and
organizational dynamics work to elicit conformity or to isolate and expel the
individual. As a result, Colgate
represents a monoculture that lacks the innovative benefits of different
perspectives.
b.
Whisper Campaigns.
The culture permits anonymous, one-sided, personal attacks and vague
accusations that are almost impossible to confirm or deny. Opinion is presented
as fact, inferences and assumptions are left unchecked, conclusions are
accepted without factual verification, and this tactic becomes an informal
basis for subjective evaluation. These campaigns serve to call into question
the expertise and job performance of an individual who does not share the
dominant perspective or who has disagreed with someone on a work-related issue.
c.
Lack of Accountability. There is
currently no way of holding employees accountable for workplace bullying and
micro-aggressions, and there is little opportunity for redress when such
incidents occur. The result is that the
targeted individuals are particularly vulnerable and either quit or are
fired. While our Equity Grievance Policy
states that we want to address workplace issues proactively before they rise to
the level of illegal discrimination or harassment, our standard for conduct is
based on the legal definitions rather than on a higher expectation of employee
conduct.
3. There is a
pressing need for significant reform to key policies and practices. Our hiring process relies upon highly
subjective criteria and lacks any mechanism by which to hold search committees
and departments accountable for deficiencies in the hiring process as well as
underrepresentation. Departments rely
upon the same, often non-diverse, individuals to hire across the
institution. Efforts to implement change
in the hiring process are met with significant resistance and obstruction.
The performance review process also relies upon subjective
evaluation and promotes a narrow understanding of excellence. It incentivizes the status quo without safeguards
against implicit bias.
It is important to note that there are two interconnected
initiatives currently underway at Colgate that have the potential to
substantially impact the recruitment and retention of staff of color: the
institution-wide job description project that is nearing completion, and the
job performance management process that will grow out of the job description
project. These projects will play a critical role in the development of an
accountability structure that can significantly impact necessary changes to
campus culture. Colgate will not realize the full potential of these
initiatives without an accurate understanding of the organization as it exists
and the effective implementation of these accountability standards.
4. Since the passage
of our nation’s civil rights laws, overt, conscious discrimination and
harassment have largely been supplanted by subtle, interactive, and structural
bias. In 2015, we understand that
discrimination operates despite an honest belief in equality. As a result, it is important to address
discrimination and harassment with policies and practices that identify and
address present day realities. At
present, many key stakeholders operate under an outdated understanding of
discrimination and harassment. The below
listed examples illustrate areas in which the institution has the opportunity
to advance a more progressive understanding of harassment and
discrimination. These examples are
intended to be illustrative, not comprehensive.
a.
Minimize subjectivity in decision-making processes. When subjectivity cannot be avoided,
decision-makers involved in subjective or discretionary practices must engage
in conversations or training regarding bias. In addition, (whenever
practicable) external review of decisions and/or decision-making processes
should be conducted. In the employment
context, Colgate must work to reduce the application of subjective criteria in
hiring, promotion, and performance evaluation processes. In the student context, Colgate must analyze disciplinary
procedures for points of discretionary authority.
b.
Analyze for disparate impact whenever practicable. Institutional effectiveness must include
analysis of how institutional practices impact various subsets of the Colgate
population (students, faculty, and staff).
When quantitative analysis is not feasible, qualitative information
should be gathered and considered. In
the employment context, Colgate must expand quantitative analysis to
compensation, performance management, and promotion decisions. In the student context, Colgate must identify
areas (e.g. funding from the student budget allocation committee) for analysis.
c.
Address hostile environment. Colgate must review its student policies to
assess whether they adequately address conduct that contributes to hostile
environment. In addition, Colgate must
consider the development and implementation of a code of conduct for faculty
and staff.
d.
Recognize second-generation discrimination and
harassment. The Director for
EEO/AA has conducted extensive research regarding “second-generation
discrimination[1]”
and is formulating a comprehensive approach to addressing discrimination and
harassment. In addition, the director
has reviewed the Office of Civil Right’s response to bias-related claims filed
under Title VI (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and
national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial
assistance) and is compiling a summary of institutional responses to these
claims. A review of this analysis may
inform the institutional review of our non-discrimination and harassment
policy, as well as the development of protocols/procedures for responding to
bias incidents on campus and addressing discrimination and harassment in the
workplace.
Conclusions:
The attainment of a diverse and inclusive campus will not be possible without structural and cultural reform, a renewed understanding of discrimination and harassment, and authority to sufficiently empower the individuals engaged in this work. Institutional change on the scale required for meaningful progress on diversity and inclusion takes time. Engaging in initiatives without a proper foundation is counterproductive and can increase resistance and backlash. It is critically important to recognize that a 10-year plan is much more likely to achieve concrete, sustainable results than a 3-5 year plan that encourages quick fixes but does not address the underlying structural and cultural impediments. It must also be recognized that the goal of a truly diverse and inclusive campus climate is an aspiration, one that requires ongoing effort and regular revision of what it will look like. Following comprehensive D&I assessment and training of the President’s Staff and designated D&I personnel, senior administrators must work in collaboration with the Office of Equity and Diversity to ensure that all the dimensions of diversity, equity and inclusion are addressed within each division and that appropriate assessment mechanisms are in place. Each senior administrator must also work with the Office of Equity and Diversity to establish a working group (including key stakeholders) within their division to identify and evaluate current initiatives, determine implementation strategies for those awaiting implementation, and determine whether additional initiatives or efforts are necessary. Comprehensive change management is difficult and time-consuming; membership in these divisional working groups cannot be an added responsibility with no release time provided to do the work. Commitment to these shared goals must come from the highest level of the organization, along with the recognition that this is not a short-term project but an integral part of the institution’s day-to-day operations. This shared responsibility within and across each division of the university would provide the framework for sustained effort over time and accountability at all levels of the organization. Diversity and inclusion present a quagmire. We have heard the question, “How do we fix this?” numerous times throughout the community. The solution first requires a clear and accurate understanding of the problem in all its complexities, and must include all voices within the institution. We present this report in the hope that it can help us to better understand the problems the organization faces, so that we may effectively work together to achieve the diversity and inclusion we seek.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn D. Rugg
Associate Provost for Equity and Diversity
Tamala S. Flack
Director for Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action
[1]
Second-generation discrimination and harassment: manifestations of
workplace bias are structural, relational, and situational. Often this
type of discrimination/harassment may only be visible in the aggregate.
The discrimination and harassment arises from social practices and patterns of
interaction among groups that, over time, exclude non-dominant groups. In
contrast, first-generation discrimination and harassment manifests itself
as overt, intentional, policies of exclusion or identifiable, discrete
actions, of particular actors. The current legal framework was
constructed under first-generation manifestations, largely addresses only
first-generation claims (with some advancement toward
second-generation manifestations through disparate impact and hostile
environment analysis), and for the most part does not/cannot address the
realities of 21st century discrimination/harassment. This inadequate
legal framework largely informs how organizations/institutions and those
charged with addressing harassment/discrimination understand, identify,
analyze, and evaluate discriminatory/harassing conduct. Moving beyond the
"floor" to a more advanced approach considers both first-generation
and second-generation manifestations. This means, consideration
of both organizational structures and practices that unreasonably
enable the operation of discriminatory bias as well as the traditional
evaluation of discriminatory decision-making of individual actors. It
also expands the application of disparate impact theory and hostile
environment analysis.
The above post does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the AAUP membership or that of its officers, nor does inclusion of the post on this website constitute an endorsement by the Colgate chapter of the AAUP.
No comments:
Post a Comment