Colleges regularly engage in conversations about enrollment planning, curricular change, athletics, and many other topics. Yet those same institutions fail, or at least struggle, to resolve crucial issues about diversity. That does not imply that campus efforts to increase diversity are stagnant. Rather, it suggests that, although diversity programs may be present, their impact is often short term.
Why? Because broad strategic thinking about diversity among top administrators, and involvement across all areas of the institution, are often lacking today. Most colleges do not discuss diversity or develop programs to encourage diversity outside of a few specific domains, such as admissions, faculty hiring, salary inequities, and various activities associated with multiculturalism. But does a plan for hiring underrepresented faculty members include a plan to diversify the curriculum? How does diversity influence the emphasis on assessment of teaching and learning outcomes, or a philosophy of striving to become a learning-centered campus? To what degree are diversity efforts part of the charge of the regular work of the most influential campus committees?
Even some of the most effective administrative leaders may be unaware of the core diversity challenges they confront. They may not require regular accountability reports, so information about diversity does not move up the line. In addition, the campus politics associated with diversity, real or perceived, can thwart leaders who are more risk averse and loath to make bold moves for fear of encountering resistance from administrators, faculty members, and others.
But senior leadership, both administrative and academic, is indispensable to any serious attempt to integrate diversity into the academy. Campus leaders need to consider eight key points if they intend to stay true to their commitment to diversity. They should:
1. Be prepared to respond to external pressures when making decisions about diversity. The people who exert such external pressures often expect one of two extremes: major institutional reform, or complete adherence to the status quo. Presidents must master the techniques that allow them to balance external expectations with a commitment to core values and good decision-making processes.
At many colleges, the traditional strategic plan is generated with broad-based support. A president can identify where diversity represents a “good fit” with — not a radical change in — that plan, appealing to the treasured values of influential groups on the campus. For instance, Robert M. Gates, a former president of Texas A&M University and now U.S. secretary of defense, repeatedly linked diversity to the university’s Vision 2020 plan and traditional “Aggie” values.
2. Avoid abstract language or ambiguous meaning about institutional change and diversity. While a president’s associates may prepare written drafts of diversity presentations or suggest different ways to communicate about diversity on the campus, the ultimate responsibility for the clarity and consistency of the message rests solely with the leader. As presidents frame and lead diversity discussions, they should consider three factors: the public nature of their statements, the constituents who represent the target audiences, and language that will capture attention and make an impression. A president’s conversations with business leaders can specify the relationship between diversity and work-force development or regional economic productivity. Alumni expect to hear a message that explains the impact of diversity on institutional image and competitive rankings. Potential donors will listen for presidential projections about the return on investments that support diversity efforts.
3. Cultivate a leadership style that alternates between seeing the big picture and recognizing the importance of incremental improvement. A simple axiom will do: There will be few opportunities for macro change — so presidents should capitalize on them when they occur — and many instances where incremental innovation represents the next logical and necessary step. Although many presidents already apply that philosophy when managing institutional operations in general, a macro-versus-micro analysis of diversity may represent new territory for some leaders.
For example, a president can financially support administrative internships in the form of yearlong, mentored, training experiences for promising and diverse faculty members who aspire to move into positions like associate dean or associate provost. Such actions can cultivate the incremental development of leadership skills and competencies among people and, at the same time, create a larger pool of candidates for such positions.
4. Let the wisdom and expertise of a wide range of experts on the campus guide decisions about diversity. The best team of advisers about diversity might not be listed on the formal organizational chart because it reflects traditional roles and responsibilities. A valuable exercise is to take the chart, expunge names and titles, and replace them with those who are the most thoughtful and visionary thinkers about diversity — wherever they work and whatever they do on the campus.
Indeed, faculty members who direct centers for teaching excellence have emerged as influential contributors to academic departments and graduate programs that wish to diversify the curriculum or improve the quality of teaching for diverse student populations. Many academic deans have also expanded their traditional duties to include support for programs that increase the participation of students of color in undergraduate research.
5. Reach a broad consensus about diversity programs before trying to carry them out. Agreement about new diversity programs should be worked out in advance so as to benefit everyone involved and preclude any potential objections. That approach will significantly enhance the speed and effectiveness of any new programs. An alliance between student affairs and academic affairs, for example, is an absolute necessity when considering diversity reform.
6. Base principles and programs about diversity on historical patterns of institutional change. College presidents should identify existing structures and values and explain the role that diversity can and should play in them. For example, can the current general-education or core curriculum drive the diversification of a transformed curriculum? Can the traditional policies, practices, and regulations in human resources absorb the equitable demands of an increasingly diverse work force?
7. Analyze and learn from institutions where at least moderate progress has occurred. For example, most campus leaders are familiar with the public summaries of the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the University of Michigan’s contention that diversity in the classroom has wide-ranging social value. However, they are much less aware, and in come cases ignorant, of the historical context, factual background, and social and psychological implications that provided the evidentiary basis for the case.
Finally, and perhaps most important, they should:
8. Pay special attention to the roles and responsibilities of the chief academic officer. The most significant and lasting gains will occur when diversity is linked in concrete ways to the institution’s teaching, learning, and research mission. The chief academic officer, deans, and department heads should operate together as one of the major leadership groups that campus constituencies associate with diversity. That group should articulate how a commitment to success and excellence is reflected across the various types of diversity — racial, economic, gender, religious, ideological, and others.
In fact, the chief academic officer should develop and disseminate a public document that describes the value of linking diversity to academic excellence and the mission of his or her office. That document should describe the programs, courses, and services that demonstrate the college’s success in creating and sustaining a diverse community. The chief academic officer should also convene a regular series of academic-affairs-sponsored forums on diversity, on topics like “scrutinizing the academic policies and structures that enhance diversity,” “diversity and successful learning communities,” and “diversity as a research agenda.”
Classroom instructors should be engaged in those conversations and others about diversity and inclusion in the classroom, and the chief academic officer and other top administrators should identify ways to motivate faculty members to take ownership of diversity efforts. Examples include curriculum-development grants and operating-budget allocations to departments that excel in diversity programs and activities.
The chief academic officer and deans should also closely monitor the campus climate as it affects underrepresented groups. Once or twice a semester, they should hold a breakfast or luncheon meeting with one underrepresented group or engage in structured surveys or focus groups with them.
Those are just a few of the considerations that top administrators should keep in mind as they create and evaluate their diversity programs. The effective inclusion of diversity has the potential and power to transform institutional climates, and it takes strong, transformative leadership to embed diversity into a college’s culture.
James A. Anderson is a professor of psychology, vice president for student success, and vice provost for institutional assessment and diversity at the State University of New York at Albany. This essay was adapted from his book, Driving Change Through Diversity and Globalization, to be published next month by Stylus Publishing.
http://chronicle.com Section: Diversity in Academe Volume 54, Issue 5, Page B36