This editorial is the first part in a three-part series exploring campus climate and the new Diversity Plan. The second and third parts will be published Friday and Monday, respectively.
Last fall the University of Wisconsin-Madison formed a committee of students, faculty, staff and community members to begin drafting the next strategic diversity plan to address campus climate issues. This Board is fully supportive of the initiative to make diversity a priority on campus.
While we are dismayed by the delay of action in creating the plan, after speaking with committee members we believe the committee is on the right track to improve upon past diversity plans.
According to committee members, this plan strives to expand the definition of diversity to include a variety of attributes including ethnicity, learning style, job level, physical abilities and experience. While admission and graduation benchmarks remain important, the group is aimng for a renewed commitment to giving the diverse array of individuals on campus a more beneficial experience, as well as fostering a more welcoming and beneficial Badger community overall.
The committee is correct to take note that policy cannot change culture—we all must have a commitment to create a learning environment in which everyone feels comfortable. However, policy can provide the backbone and push needed to begin these changes. We applaud campus-wide efforts such as the Preferred Name Policy, discussion of the ethnic studies requirement and the campaign for gender-neutral bathrooms.
We believe it is time to firmly acknowledge that whatever the plan put forward by the committee this spring looks like, it will likely cost money.
The past few years have made it abundantly clear that higher education institutions, including our own, are already struggling for funds.
Unfortunately, diversity programming is often the first to go. However, this Board would like to suggest an alternative option—one that makes diversity a priority, not an extravagance.
On that note, we found it discouraging to hear the current committee is not working under any hint of a potential budget limit. Furthermore, committee members expressed uncertainty surrounding the funding process overall, saying the administration has so far lacked transparency in how the plan might be funded. We feel similarly and believe a more clear and honest comment on the amount of funding the university is committing to the project would be proof the administration is being proactive about and supportive of diversity. We realize expecting to hear a specific dollar amount is unreasonable, but we also have a number of concerns over a lack of pledged financial support in general.
We would like to acknowledge the fact that the committee has made efforts to engage the campus community in the planning process and hope members will continue to do so until a final product is passed on to the university’s shared governance bodies. However, this Board is uncomfortable about the campus remaining in the dark with regard to when funding decisions will be made, who will make them and through what processes they will be made. We sincerely hope the university will make every effort to fully fund any plan that is able to pass through the governance structure with the backing of the campus community.
This Board was also impressed to hear committee members suggest fundraising as a potential source of support for the plan. However, the university may be hard-pressed to find donors to back a plan in the beginning stages of its creation and implementation. We would encourage the university to consider a similar approach to that taken by our fellow Big Ten institution, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, where 1 percent was cut from each department’s funding to support diversity programming. After each department constructed diversity resources and a mechanism to prove their efficiency, the 1 percent cut was reinstated. This Board believes this model is an encouraging place to start for many reasons, including its emphasis on accountability and reinforcement of a campus culture that values diversity. We would like to see our university consider similar funding models.
No matter in what form, this Board believes the university administration should make a more firm commitment to support the diversity plan. Perhaps a preliminary funding model would lend more credibility to the process, and encourage more discussion and engagement with the planning process.
Although we recognize the larger role of a change in attitude and mindset, which is pivotal to creating a more comfortable campus for all, money talks. Without funding support this plan could be a waste of the university’s time, the committee’s time and the campus community’s time. We urge the university to put forward its plans to firmly support the next strategic diversity plan by purse strings and by word of mouth.
Do you think the university is doing enough for diversity? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com
