To the editor:
Peter Wood’s commentary, “From Diversity to Sustainability: How Campus Ideology Is Born” (The Chronicle, October 3), attempted to establish a polarization of the needs for diversity and sustainability in higher education. In attempting to offer a commentary on ideological movements in higher education, which is more of an attack on liberalism than anything else, Wood makes the mistake of using diversity as what he perceives as an easy target.
In these times of political polarization and economic uncertainty, it is convenient to make diversity a scapegoat, to render it passé, and to state that universities and their students have moved on to the next “fad.” As diversity professionals, we wish it were true that the dream has been achieved and that it is time to change the ideological window display. The reality is that we are very far from equity in the American academy.
Data reflect that the United States has fallen behind other advanced nations in educational attainment in such important disciplines as math and science, ranking 25th and 21st, respectively, compared with the top 30 industrialized countries. The U.S. also has very high dropout rates compared with other countries, resulting in dramatic economic and social consequences to the nation as a whole.
These dire statistics are even more dramatic when racial-ethnic disparities are considered, because high-school graduation rates for Latinos and African-Americans are far below the rest of the population, which means that college-going rates also lag behind population growth among these groups. In 2007, Latinos represented about 15 percent of the population and about 12 percent of full-time college students but received only 7.5 percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded. The African-American college-graduation rate remains at a dismally low 44 percent.
The overall black-white gap in college graduation rates remains large, at 19 percentage points. Completion rates for African-American and Latino students consistently lag behind those of their white peers and are distressingly low at many colleges and universities, even after accounting for differences in the type of students they admit. Many bachelor’s-degree-granting schools fail to graduate even half of their African-American and Latino students in six years.
The 2010 census will shed new light on the rapidly changing demographics of this country, which have tremendous implications for the future of this country and higher education.
For instance, by 2023, the U.S. K-12 educational systems will consist of a majority of children from racial-ethnic-minority backgrounds, and by 2042 it is estimated that whites will compose a minority within the U.S. population as a whole.
Far from Wood’s depiction of diversity officers relegated to “polishing the spoons,” diversity officers assist higher education to fully integrate diversity into the core of the academic mission and institutional functioning. Diversity efforts in higher education foster inclusive excellence and leverage the many dimensions of difference to positively impact work and learning environments. This requires intentional and ongoing engagement within the academic enterprise. It also includes students, faculty, staff, and administrators, as well as systems and structures such as strategic planning, curriculum, and academic and operational policies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Wood misses the point of diversity completely. At the center of his argument are a host of outdated notions about affirmative-action quotas, set-asides, and sacrificing standards that resulted from the government’s mandated approach to identify and alleviate discriminatory practices in the public sector.
Conversely, diversity is a significant component of higher education’s continuing response to its two greatest adversaries: ignorance and barriers to access. As a result, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and many other higher-education associations and accrediting bodies have placed inclusive excellence at the center of modern diversity efforts in higher education.
Inclusive excellence pairs the highest standards of educational excellence with moral and economic imperatives related to social justice, equity, and access. It is about preparing our students to live and work in a world that is multicultural, multilingual, and multiracial, and whose borders and boundaries are blurring into an ever-expanding global community and economy.
Make no mistake about it, diversity is not an ideological luxury or indulgence; it is an economic and social imperative for the nation. The national demographics rapidly move toward a population that is made up of a majority of minorities. Education will be critical to pulling us out of a long-term economic shortfall, which means that the elimination of educational disparities among racial and ethnic groups in this country is inextricably tied to the social and economic destinies of all Americans.
The combination of diversity and sustainability is not an either-or proposition but a both-and. Too much is at stake to make this a zero-sum game between the environment and a globally competent citizenry. We cannot stop striving for a more equitable world, and we cannot stop our efforts to save the planet. To insist that we choose one or the other is naïve at best and dangerous at its core. It also assumes that our students do not have the ability or the foresight to want to live and learn in a world where these two imperatives can coexist.
Finally, nonfactual rhetoric coupled with subtle references to divisive issues from the past will no longer prevail as we build a brighter tomorrow that is inclusive of all individuals, and that reflects the very truths we all hold to be self-evident. This group of “spoon polishers,” more formally known as the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education is proud to lead the way.
Glen Jones
President (on behalf of the Board of Directors)
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
