2008 Woodie Awards
SLRP diversity and anti-racism goals appear specious
Bryan Cahall
Issue date: 4/6/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 3 next >
The Strategic Long Range Plan (SLRP), a document that often goes unread and unchecked, details Guilford's ongoing financial, curricular and social commitments. Its most ambitious promise is strategic priority number two of continuing goal number three: "Guilford recommits to becoming institutionally diverse and anti-racist."
While Guilford should be commended for committing to these values, a cursory examination reveals that what is actually written in SLRP, and the documents assessing its progress, is, at best, toothless and, at worst, a sham.
"By 2010," the plan reads, "Guilford College will meet the targets for diversity set forth in the strategic plan as strategic indicators." These targets measure the representation of different identity groups among staff, faculty, and students.
First to note are discrepancies that occur between the May 2005 publication of the "Final Working Draft" and more recent figures. In the former, the "most recent" data indicates that 18 percent of traditional students are people of color. This presumably refers to 2004-05 (the document is not explicit in this).
Yet President Chabotar's 2006 "Assessment of Strategic Indicators" (ASI) claims that only 10 percent of traditional students were people of color in 2004, while the most recent assessment, ASI 2007, claims that the figure was 14.6 percent. Such discrepancies make these statistics dubious.
A more interesting fact is that, for six of the 10 categories listed, Guilford had already met or exceeded its diversity goals in 2004. For example, 17 percent of the faculty were people of color in 2004, according to ASI 2007. The goal in this category for fiscal year 2010 is 17 percent. (Note: the actual number recently dropped to 15 percent in 2005).
In other words, SLRP sets numbers that it can fail to attain only if the Guilford community becomes less diverse than when the document was drafted.
Many find these goals satisfactory without asking what the statistics actually conceal about diversity at Guilford. ASI 2007, for example, indicates that 15 percent of faculty are people of color. But, because "Faculty" is not broken down by teaching appointment - tenured, tenure-track, adjunct, visiting or part-time - there is no way of determining turnover.
While Guilford should be commended for committing to these values, a cursory examination reveals that what is actually written in SLRP, and the documents assessing its progress, is, at best, toothless and, at worst, a sham.
"By 2010," the plan reads, "Guilford College will meet the targets for diversity set forth in the strategic plan as strategic indicators." These targets measure the representation of different identity groups among staff, faculty, and students.
First to note are discrepancies that occur between the May 2005 publication of the "Final Working Draft" and more recent figures. In the former, the "most recent" data indicates that 18 percent of traditional students are people of color. This presumably refers to 2004-05 (the document is not explicit in this).
Yet President Chabotar's 2006 "Assessment of Strategic Indicators" (ASI) claims that only 10 percent of traditional students were people of color in 2004, while the most recent assessment, ASI 2007, claims that the figure was 14.6 percent. Such discrepancies make these statistics dubious.
A more interesting fact is that, for six of the 10 categories listed, Guilford had already met or exceeded its diversity goals in 2004. For example, 17 percent of the faculty were people of color in 2004, according to ASI 2007. The goal in this category for fiscal year 2010 is 17 percent. (Note: the actual number recently dropped to 15 percent in 2005).
In other words, SLRP sets numbers that it can fail to attain only if the Guilford community becomes less diverse than when the document was drafted.
Many find these goals satisfactory without asking what the statistics actually conceal about diversity at Guilford. ASI 2007, for example, indicates that 15 percent of faculty are people of color. But, because "Faculty" is not broken down by teaching appointment - tenured, tenure-track, adjunct, visiting or part-time - there is no way of determining turnover.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
sara
posted 4/09/07 @ 2:42 PM EST
The far left's ability to impose "diversity" upon institutions has been limited by the constitution. They can not select employees and students by their race. (Continued…)
Post a Comment