May 18, 2005

To: Gregory Vincent, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity

and Diversity

David Frohnmayer, President of the University of Oregon,

From: Jeffrey M. Hurwit, Chair

University Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity

Re: Five Year Diversity Plan: Draft

As you are aware, and as President Frohnmayer has acknowledged in his open letter to the University Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity of May 16, the presentation of the first draft of Five Year Diversity Plan to the Senate of May 11 has elicited a variety of responses (many of them heated) from members of the university community. Some of these responses address specific concerns with and offer serious criticisms of the draft.

The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity commends the many people who contributed their time and energies to the formulation of the draft plan, and especially commends Vice Provost Gregory Vincent for his leadership. The committee also strongly endorses the goals and aspirations enunciated in the draft, and both hopes and expects that at the end of the process the university community will have deepened its commitment to enhancing diversity of all kinds on this campus and to creating a welcoming and supportive environment for all.

There are nonetheless a number of issues that have already been brought to our and to your attention, and that need to be addressed as this process moves expeditiously forward. These issues include but are not limited to:

The definition of “cultural competency.” The term is nowhere defined in the document, yet is the basis of many recommendations within it, including those that would establish new or additional criteria for the evaluation and promotion of faculty. Some legitimately see these recommendations as threats to academic freedom.

2. The definition of “diversity” itself. Is it possible to define this term as well, and

does it include diversity of all kinds (including political or religious points of view)?

3. The apparent need to raise new, or reallocate old, monies in order to fund the initiatives proposed in the draft at a time of severe and chronic underfunding across campus.

The apparent establishment of diversity as the principal criterion for the hiring of new faculty. The draft may be interpreted as suggesting that hiring minority faculty is more important than filling the curricular needs of academic departments or disciplines.

5. The impact of diversity and “cultural competency” issues on the curriculum.

These and other issues, set forward in letters recently submitted to Greg Vincent and Senate President Marcus by representatives of the local chapter of the AAUP and by others, lie at the root of the troubled and anxious reaction to the presentation of the draft last week.

As you know, it is not the mission of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity to draft a revised diversity plan. Rather, one of its missions is to advise you on a process for facilitating the continued and expeditious development of a plan that will effectively meet a critical goal of the university: the establishment of a diverse, equitable, and welcoming campus community. We have made a good start. As President Frohnmayer stipulates in his letter of May 16, the development of the diversity plan should “use as [its] point of departure the diversity draft’s goals. We should give due regard to the details of the draft plan as well as other sources, including the observations of Dr. Elson Floyd, the findings of our campus climate survey, and the thoughtful views of those who feel marginalized by the mainstream views of the campus.” As the process moves forward, the development of the plan should also call upon the knowledge and expertise of a number of standing university committees (such as the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils, the Scholarship Committee, the LGBT committee, and the Curriculum committee).

In response to our charge and to the concerns listed above, we specifically recommend that a new executive committee—an Executive Diversity Working Group—be appointed promptly to review the criticisms and comments that have been offered so far, and that may be made in the future, with the purpose of shaping a diversity plan. We believe that at this point a smaller group of 7–8 might be able to respond more efficiently than the original committee of 24 to campus concerns and to the need to produce a plan that is clearer in its intent and recommendations and that neither violates academic freedoms nor ignores fiscal realities. We would be pleased to suggest the names of possible members. But whatever the specific membership of the Executive Diversity Working Group, we strongly urge that it have a majority of members drawn from the teaching faculty. We further recommend that this executive committee met with Senate Ad Hoc Committee as soon as is feasible, and that it set a reasonable but not excessive period of time in which to solicit, gather, and review comments from all members of the campus community and its stakeholders. As far as we are concerned, that period has already begun.

The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, again, sees itself as an advisory body that may itself evolve by the addition of other members, and, again, we do not intend to offer a general review or detailed revisions of the draft plan itself. That is not our expertise. As former and current Senate presidents, our own competence lies in our experience with the strong traditions of shared governance on this campus, and it is our desire to ensure a fully collaborative process. We stand ready to assist you and the future Executive Diversity Working Group in any way we can as the process moves forward—as, if you will, a new Advisory Council replacing the very large and presumably unwieldy council listed in the front matter of the draft plan. We also believe our charge is to ensure that all future drafts undergo open, broad, and inclusive campus discussion with the ultimate goal of adopting and implementing a diversity plan that is strongly supported by all campus stakeholder groups and that is in accord with our governance structure. President Frohnmayer has reiterated the importance of this role by stating in his letter of May 16 that “curricular changes or fundamental alterations in employment relations are matters to be brought to the university senate under our system of governance.” That system must be both utilized and respected.

We hope that you will accept these comments and recommendations in the spirit with which they are offered. It is in the interest of the entire university community that the process move forward with clarity, collaboration, and broad support, and that it end with a policy that fosters true diversity across every facet of the campus.