A Practical Approach To The Diversity Resolution
Addressing the USG Campus Climate Resolution’s sticking points from the perspective of cost, benefit and political risk produces definite conclusions that critics should consider.
USC frequently touts the diversity of its student body in promotional materials and press releases. However, minority students have reported various incidents of intolerance that sharply contrast with this image. For the administration to not address this incongruence would simply be a bad business decision as it increases litigation risk and alienates current and future students, not to mention diverse, successful alumni, while practically institutionalizing misrepresentation. This results in a potentially substantial impediment to applicant count and revenue growth. Strictly from a pragmatic perspective, USC should take action in order to preserve its reputation and future potential as it is in the best interest of the university and those who depend on it.
The USG Diversity Resolution demands a variety of actions, most of which make sense on their face. Others are more than a bit controversial. One provision seeks to require diversity components in courses across the university while another seeks $100 million in funding for scholarships and tenured faculty positions for individuals of diverse backgrounds. I agree with Senators Giuseppe Robalino and Jacob Ellenhorn that the possibilities of increased tuition and decreased academic freedom cannot be dismissed, but these problems can be dealt with by amending the resolution itself or may be naturally addressed once the proposals are sent to administration without axing the entire document.
Let’s start with the costlier line items that stand out: the additional administrators and the $100 million fund. Adding a Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is likely necessary to implement the other proposals and measure their efficacy, so let’s let that stand. The bigger issue is adding Vice Deans of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for every academic department. Students and faculty alike have already been complaining about the university’s excessive administrative costs, and adding even more bureaucracy will only see that number increase and possibly be passed onto students in the form of higher tuition. Diversity supporters, though they are right in wanting a strong implementation mechanism, should understand that the trick to making these programs feasible and not just established now and done away with tomorrow is to ensure that gains created from their existence exceed the costs. Adding too many new administrators just would not be efficient. Perhaps an existing administrator in each department should be placed in charge of diversity efforts for that department. If a particular department feels the need for additional staffing in this area, then that should be a case-by-case decision.
With regard to the $100 million fund, I wonder how the resolution’s authors arrived at this number without knowing the intimate details of USC’s cost structure that probably are not public. Though USC inarguably has a lot of money, they are looking for any excuse to keep more of it and putting a big number to paper is a good one. The activities mentioned, like scholarships, fellowships, faculty, and student programs are normal expenses of the university, so why not just ask that existing funds for those areas be allocated to diversity-related efforts in said area? Note that I believe the $100 million number is likely just a starting point for negotiation. It will be inevitably reduced significantly so USG may have been smart in putting a big number there so the final figure will be in proportion to that.
Other notable concerns are adding diversity-related components to the curriculum and reinstating a diversity course GE requirement. I am not alone when I say that students don’t like taking additional courses that seemingly have little or nothing to do with their future career. I understand that diversity has a major role in today’s workplace but I do not see how there needs to be a full course with very specific requirements (mostly theoretical) added to attain the goal of having more accepting and inclusive students. Re-adding the old diversity requirement alone may be an acceptable option, but for reasons that I will make abundantly clear, the new requirements are simply not a good idea.
The resolution requires that courses include both Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory. The key concept of Critical Race Theory, which states that our system of power in society is based upon white supremacy would probably be disagreed upon by many, including minorities. Such requirements cannot possibly be necessary to merely ensure students do not offend one another at school or discriminate in the workplace. A diversity training at orientation is already included. These requirements will also be particularly burdensome on transfer students as these are likely not standard courses available at community colleges. Since many minority students start at community college because of cost concerns and family obligations and transfer to USC after a year or two, this new requirement may actually wind up hurting minorities. At the very least there should be an exemption from the course content requirement for transfers.
A better option would actually be the slightly more derided one: adding diversity-related elements to some (not all) courses in a given program in a manner that is relevant to the field studied and deemed appropriate by both leadership and faculty. Perhaps a management class will explain how to best manage workers from different cultures or a criminal law class will include a module on the disparities in incarceration by race. The goal is to prepare the student for the changes in American society that will affect a wide variety of fields; this is important information that will help ready Trojans for employment in today’s global marketplace.
From a strictly political perspective, the conservative Republican USG senators opposing the measure should realize the costs and risks associated with doing so. The GOP fell out of favor with blacks in the 1960s when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act due to constitutional issues, not racism. Now over 90% of blacks vote Democrat. Substitute “fiscal” for “constitutional” and you have our conservative USG senators’ situation. It saddens me to see members of my party attacked with allegations of racism due to a failure to act on diversity issues. Though it would be great if the resolution was revised to lower costs and protect academic freedom, voting yes on this plan may be the only thing that can be done if conservatives want to stay relevant and not seem racist.
By first acknowledging the potential economic benefits of including a wider student base at USC, fully understanding the magnitude of the risks of non-action and taking the best reasonably possible steps to mitigate costs so as to make the measure sustainable over time, diversity and practicality can certainly coexist.
Reach Contributor Greyson Peltier here.
