We’ve Come a Long Way; We Have a Long Way to Go: Reports of the Diversity Roundtables of the University of Virginia1 February 2000-March 2001 Introduction On February 18-19, 2000, the University of Virginia launched a year of self-examination and reflection on the topic of diversity in all aspects of the University’s life. In an initiative requested by President John T. Casteen III, our charge was to deepen our understanding of the significance of diversity in the context of the University, and to devise a plan of action that will enable us to realize and sustain diversity in all of our activities. Our work began with a day-long symposium during which we invited leaders and scholars from other institutions to join leaders from our own institution so that we could learn from their experiences and perspectives as we charted our course for the future. The symposium was followed the next day by meetings of eight Roundtable groups, which served as mechanisms for engaging in critical discussions over the ensuing year about the ways in which the University creates—or fails to create--an inclusive environment for its diverse community. Some of the Roundtables heard discouraging reports from members of the University community who do not feel welcomed here because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, job status, or other characteristics. Concerns ranged from narrowness of curriculum, to the lack of women and persons of color in senior administrative and academic positions, to the names of buildings in which we study and work. There is concern that we are not adequately preparing our students to live in a multicultural world, coupled with a sense of skepticism that the University is serious about racial and other equity matters. A mere document cannot convey the depth of concern and passion that was the hallmark of the participants in this undertaking. The diversity of perspective and approach of the Roundtables speaks to the diversity of thought that is a foundation of this institution. This document and indeed this process are not meant to reflect unanimity of priority or opinion, and each Roundtable developed its own conclusions and recommendations. We transmit to you the working reports and recommendations of the Roundtables. The charge, activity and issues of each Roundtable are in the next section, followed by the recommendations of all, compiled and grouped by theme to begin the process of moving from the individual work of the Roundtables to the collective work of the University. The reports are reproduced in full in Appendix 1. 1 Cover document submitted by Co-Chairs Linda Bunker, Professor of Human Services in the Curry School and Chair of the EO/AA Committee, 1998-2000; Glenna Chang, Assistant Dean of Students; Ellen Contini-Morava, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Chair of the EO/AA Committee, 2000-2001; and Karen Holt, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. This project began under the leadership of Courtland Lee, Professor in the Curry School, during the period of a fellowship in President John T. Casteen’s Office. Following Professor Lee’s departure from the University, the Co-Chairs listed above continued his leadership role for this project. The Co-Chairs and Roundtable leaders wish to make a final and significant point about this undertaking. The term “diversity” is not conducive to simplistic or shallow definitions, and this project does not attempt to impose a meaning that applies in every context. The Roundtables defined the issues and problems as they themselves deemed appropriate and relevant, with the result being a varying focus. Some felt that the most pressing issues surrounded race, or women and minorities generally. Others adopted a broader view of diversity in all its permutations. This lack of uniformity reflects the complexity and beauty of the subject; conveying the Roundtables’ reasoning while recognizing that ultimately decisions must be made about priorities and options. With this in mind, we ask that the review of the issues not be done with an eye toward equal acceptance of all; rather, that they be contemplated in a fair, thorough and reasoned manner. Affording respect to these ideas promotes the diversity we all seek. Perhaps the most important recommendation we offer is to build upon this work. We see the Roundtables and this Report as one stage of a journey that must be continued and strengthened. It is our hope that those with administrative responsibility in the areas covered by the recommendations will review, study and implement them as part of the University’s diversity initiatives. Roundtable Backgrounds To understand how the Roundtables came to the recommendations presented here, and to provide a context for the full Roundtable Report, this section provides the description of scope each Roundtable was given in February 2000, summarizes the way in which the Roundtable carried out its task, and identifies the issues that emerged in its discussions. Community –Valerie Gregory (Assistant Dean of Admissions) and Penny Rue (Dean of Students), Leaders Initial Description: The University exists in a larger community context. The relationship between an institution and its surrounding community shapes the climate for all constituents. The multiple realities of the town-gown relationship will be the focus of this group, which should consider current and past relationships, as well as commerce, arts, safety and security concerns, and the roles of women and minorities in leadership positions. This group may wish to examine models of interaction at other institutions of higher education and their respective communities. Summary of Activity: This Roundtable met twice as a group, with the leaders conducting additional meetings. The Roundtable felt that the many of the issues within its charge fell within the scope of the 2020 Commission on Public Service and Outreach. Identification of Issues/Areas of Discussion: • Employees, particularly staff, serve as advocates for the University within the community. Any “town-gown” initiative should take account of their perceptions about the University. • Information about University programs, employment and events must be accessible to the community in order to be welcoming. • All of the University’s activities with respect to employees (recruiting, applying, interviewing, welcoming, selecting, training, orienting, developing, rewarding, and retaining) should reflect the University’s commitment to diversity and affirmative action. Curriculum and Pedagogy –Richard Handler (Professor of Anthropology and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Academic Programs, College of Arts and Sciences) and Kathryn Neeley (Associate Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science), Leaders Initial Description: Curriculum and pedagogy are at the center of the formal educational process and influence the culture of an institution and the interaction of all of its members in profound ways. The group will look at departmental requirements and interdepartmental concerns, as well as individual courses and teaching and learning styles. Such issues as incentives and release time/pay for teaching faculty to engage in curricular transformation, as well as initiatives such as Virginia 2020 and interdisciplinary collaboration, may be evaluated. Assessment, evaluation, and benchmarking with other institutions and professional organizations such as the ACE and the AAHE may be critical for the direction of this group. Summary of Activity: The group met for discussions on four occasions following the initial meeting. Identification of Issues/Areas of Discussion: • The relationship between diversity and curriculum (the intellectual content and organization of university teaching and research) • The relationship between diversity and pedagogy (our strategies and techniques in the classroom and as advisors) Faculty and Staff Recruitment, Hiring, Retention, and Promotion –Frank Dukes (Associate Director, Institute for Environmental Negotiation) and Judy Mallory (Budget Analyst, Budget Office), Leaders Initial Description: Fostering and retaining a diverse faculty and staff is a top priority of the University. Programs and procedures created for faculty and staff recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion should be reviewed for effects on women, minorities, and underrepresented groups. Issues of major concern include equal opportunity programs, partner placement, mentoring, and evaluation of nontraditional research, skills, and styles, as well as the availability of research/teaching opportunities, summer support, and funding for post-doctoral fellows. This group may assess the commitment to equal opportunity and affirmative action across departments, offices, and programs. Summary of Activity: The Roundtable gathered reports and recommendations that previously had been submitted to the University Administration, and identified other institutions that have served as innovators in the area. Seven meetings were held, and a contingent from the Roundtable traveled to the University of Maryland. The Roundtable wrote President Casteen to ask that the searches underway for senior administrative positions identify qualified minority candidates, and to urge that selections represent his commitment to diversity. Identification of Issues/Areas of Discussion: • Inequity along racial lines in certain EEO categories • Inequity of compensation between recent hires and longer-term employees • Absence of data about why minorities decline employment offers, and why they leave the University