Developed by Irene Powell, ACE Fellow, 1999-2000
I. Presidential Commitment
Research on diversity plans indicates that public, clear support from the highest levels of the administration is a necessary condition for success (see, for example, AACU, [1998]; Davis [1998]; and Smith [1997, 1998]). The presidential commitment must be to making sustained long-term change. Most diversity initiatives fail because of a lack of commitment by the Administration to sustaining long- term change. The plan also must include several initiatives across the college - no single initiative in, for example, student services or faculty hiring can be successful alone.
II. Justification
A. Why is diversity important to Grinnell College?
1. Reasons related to institutional mission/core values Grinnell's mission statement states, "the college exists to serve . . . society . . ." and " . . . the college strives to be a multicultural residential community open to the intellectually qualified who want to participate . . ." The mission statement also says that Grinnell ". . . expects and respects intellectual and social diversity." Furthermore, Grinnell's 1998 Statement of Core Values lists diversity as one of our core values. Thus, enhancing diversity in all ways possible, and to the best of our ability, is one of our core values and part of Grinnell's mission.
Grinnell's primary mission, our "ultimate goal," is to "educate citizens and leaders for our republic and the world beyond our borders." We cannot fulfill this mission without preparing all of our students to perform well in a diverse, multicultural world. We cannot accomplish the goal of "developing in students analytical and imaginative thinking," in a context of true "intellectual and social diversity," without preparing students, in a diverse residential academic community, to respect and deal effectively with people from all cultures. We cannot fulfill our mission without exposing them, and forcing them to confront, the complexities involved with true intellectual and social diversity in their classrooms, and in their lives outside the classroom. This is, in fact, why enhancing diversity in all ways possible, and to the best of our ability is one of Grinnell's core values and is part of its mission. [All quotes are from the Grinnell College Catalog, multiples years, page i.]
2. Effect on student outcomes
The evidence continues to grow that diversity, including serious engagement on these issues in and out of the classroom, has a positive impact on racial attitudes, cognitive development, academic success, student satisfaction, and interpersonal skills. As Daryl Smith points out in Diversity Works [1997], a review of the literature on the success of campus diversity initiatives, "These benefits are particularly powerful for white students . . ."
Alexander Astin of the Higher Education Research Institute is one of the foremost researchers on factors affecting the college experience. Using a national multi-institutional longitudinal data set on 25,000 students, Astin [1993] found, after controlling for entering student characteristics, that emphasis on institutional diversity, faculty diversity, courses in ethnic studies and women's studies, and diversity workshops all have strong positive effects on student outcomes. These factors increased overall satisfaction with college, cultural awareness, tendency to vote in national elections, and racial understanding for all students, including whites.
Smith [1997] cites numerous studies that suggest that engagement of diversity in the classroom and curriculum, and in linkages of classroom and out-of-class activities, have a positive effect on student commitment to education, involvement on campus, satisfaction with college, retention, and diversity awareness. She also concludes that, "inclusion of cultural diversity content and perspectives in coursework has positive effects on critical thinking skills and knowledge acquisition." For examples of the research she reviews, see Gilliard [1996] and Tanaka [1996].
For many years, University of Michigan scholars have been examining the impact of diversity initiatives on student outcomes, an effort that has intensified in the wake of the 1997 Michigan Affirmative Action case. For example, Steele [1997] and Steele and Aronson [1995] conducted experiments that showed that African American students performed significantly less well than equally qualified white students on standardized tests when perceived as a typical test of ability, but performed as well as equally qualified white students when the test was perceived as not related to ability. They found similar results for women's performance relative to men's on standardized math tests. Based on the results of his research, Steele developed first-year programs at the University of Michigan that were successful at eliminating the racial gap in grades, and were successful when compared to randomized control groups. These programs also raised the retention rate of, for example, African American students to 92% compared to 72% for blacks at Michigan overall.
Gurin, Hurtado, et al [1999] also at the University of Michigan, have specifically studied the effect of campus diversity on student learning and democracy outcomes, using both national multi- institutional data, and an extensive sample of Michigan students. They measure diversity in three ways: structural diversity (racial/ethnic representation), diversity in classroom coverage, and interactional diversity (interaction across race/ethnicity on campus in general). They examine outcomes such as growth in active thinking processes, a broad range of intellectual and academic skills, the value students place on these skills after college, citizenship engagement, and compatibility of differences. They found positive and significant effects of these types of diversity on all outcomes for white and African American students. In almost all cases, the effects were as great or greater for white students as for African American students. (See www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html.)
Several studies demonstrate that institutional commitment to diversity need not come at the expense of quality. Bowen and Bok [1998], using data on more than 45,000 students of all races who attended academically selective colleges and universities, examine the effect of affirmative action (the change in probability of being accepted to a college due to race, holding constant academic qualifications such as test scores and grades). They compare the performance of black and white students, both during college, as measured by grades in college and graduation rates, and after graduation, as measured by employment, earnings, job satisfaction, pursuit of graduate education, civic participation, and life satisfaction. By most of these post-graduation measures, black students performed better than white students holding constant pre-college test scores, grades, and socioeconomic status. Thus, among other findings, Bowen and Bok's research suggests that educational quality is not sacrificed by diversity initiatives.
Finally, Richardson [1991] shows that administrative effectiveness at improving diversity at colleges and universities is correlated with clear and inclusive strategic planning that creates administrative excellence in general.
3. Social Justice/Equity
We in higher education is knowledgeable about the history of groups that have been oppressed, including those denied equal participation in higher education. Thus, it is our responsibility to attempt to make up for past injustice.
4. Who are our students? (demographic changes):
The traditional-aged, white, middle- and upper-class population is shrinking and being replaced by a student pool that is more diverse across every demographic category. The demographic categories that are especially relevant are those of race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, religion, disability, and primary language.
5. Competitive Advantage (demographic changes):
Institutions that are already sensitive to issues related to educating and serving students from diverse groups, and have begun to address them, will increasingly be able to attract students from these diverse groups. Thus, these institutions will be relatively more competitive in this more diverse potential student pool.
B. Why is it important to have clear justification for diversity efforts?
In addition to the obvious and compelling need to know why we are pursuing any goal, legal issues related to Affirmative Action add a special reason for having a clear justification for diversity efforts that is related to college mission and purpose. In the 1978 Baake decision, Justice Powell stated that a university could take race into account as one among a number of factors in student admission for the purpose of achieving student body diversity. However, the university would need to demonstrate a compelling institutional interest for diversity, particularly race-based diversity, in providing clear educational benefits, and provide evidence that those benefits are tied to the educational mission of the institution. Also, any such admission policy would need to be "narrowly tailored" to achieve the requisite diversity, i.e., it could not use quotas or any system that seemed quota-like.
Even though the Fifth Circuit's 1996 Hopwood decision suggested that Justice Powell's opinion in Baake was no longer good law, the Baake case remains the applicable Supreme Court Precedent. The Supreme Court declined to review Hopwood because the quota-type system used by the University of Texas had since been changed. A number of other cases dealing with Affirmative Action in university admissions are still in the court system, and are not liable to be heard before the Supreme Court in the near future. But, even to meet the standards of Baake, universities need to demonstrate the compelling educational benefits of race and diversity-based Affirmative Action policies, and their connection to the college's mission.
III. Define Goals, Objectives, Outcomes
A. Internal Scan: Where are we now?
See Diversity Report for Grinnell College, Spring 1999, prepared for the Diversity Initiatives Group by Irene Powell, which outlines current efforts, past strategies developed by previous groups, and a partial evaluation of what has and has not worked. The report also includes a detailed summary of focus group conversations with students of color that occurred in Spring 1998. This summary describes problems these students see at Grinnell for students of color and their suggestions for change.
B. Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes
Goals (and tactics) must be developed with the community. A successful plan would have a mix of short-run and long-run goals: short-run goals to show relatively quick success, but, more importantly, long-run goals (and tactics) to create institutional change. Most diversity initiatives fail because of a lack of commitment by the Administration to sustaining long-term change. An early focus on increasing numbers will not lead to long-term institutional change in the absence of other goals and actions to improve campus and classroom climate. Typical goals are:
a. Improve the campus climate for people of color, people who are gay or bisexual, and other people who are discriminated against or harassed.
b. Increase the percentage of the student body, faculty, staff, and administration that are people of color.
c. Diversify the curriculum.
d. Achieve retention rates of U.S. students of color and international students that are approximately the same as those of white U.S. students.
e. Increase all student outcomes by various learning and democracy outcome measures by improving the climate for diversity.
f. Increase student satisfaction regarding diversity as measured by various student satisfaction surveys.
g. Increase access to education for all students.
Note: Schools that have set goals with absolute numbers for representation as targets have run into morale and equity problems, and are on shaky legal ground. Also, numerical guidelines should, to be effective, depend on the location, mission, and core values of the individual institution and be widely supported.
IV. Tactics
A. Academic Programs
1. Curricular development: increase coverage of issues related to diversity in courses throughout the curriculum (do not marginalize).
a. Provide stipends for course development (that is, continue funding of curricular development through the Multi- Intercultural Curricular Development Committee).
b. Continue to provide support, and possibly expand support, for attendance at multicultural curricular development workshops.
c. Pursue outside funding for these activities.
d. Reward faculty members who undertake this type of curricular development. Regardless of whether specific rewards are given, the first step should be to ask about this type of curricular development on the Faculty Activities Report.
e. Bring discipline-based diversity experts to campus to consult with specific departments on diversifying their courses and curriculum (The MICD Committee has attempted to encourage this activity.)
f. Increase diversity of the curricular expertise of the faculty (see faculty recruitment below).
2. Revision of pedagogy:
Ensure the use of diverse pedagogical methods.
a. Same tactics as for curricular development, above.
b. Faculty teaching development through on-campus and off- campus programs.
3. Classroom climate: improve classroom climate for students of diverse cultures, age, sexual orientation
a. Sponsor on-campus workshops on improving classroom climate, at least occasionally with outside facilitators or speakers. Provide incentives for faculty members to attend these sessions (for examples, see section on faculty recruitment workshops/speakers below).
c. Pursue outside funding for these activities.
e. Develop new faculty orientation session focused on diversity in the classroom (see #5 below).
4. Faculty recruitment & appointments: increase number of faculty members from various race/ethnic groups, and/or who add to diversity in other ways.
a. Affirmative Action Officer/Committee Diversity Officer: This position would report directly to the president or Vice President of Academic Affairs, be responsible for affirmative action and recruitment activities, serve on the Affirmative Action Committee, and facilitate and plan diversity initiatives. (See appended proposal for the Diversity Officer position.) Affirmative Action Committee: Would continue to serve as currently, with the addition of having faculty members on the committee serve as liaison to individual searches as described in ii. below. In addition, successful models from other schools seem to share a few key characteristics:
i. The Dean of the Faculty has an open and strong commitment to this goal.
ii. Each department's search process has the involvement of someone responsible for affirmative action to serve as advisor and to aid in diversity recruitment strategies and resources.
iii. An orientation on searches for chairs is held once a year to make clear legal issues, college policies, and strategies for conducting regarding searches.
iv. Faculty generally agree with the College AA policies. To ensure this agreement, the faculty needs to go through a process to reach that agreement, perhaps by developing the policy as a faculty.
b. Process to get the faculty knowledgeable and supportive of affirmative action goals and other diversity initiatives. Research indicates that developing a faculty that is informed about, and committed to, the benefits of diversity is a necessary condition for improving campus diversity. Faculty involvement is necessary for fulfilling the potential of diversity to have a positive impact on the education of all students and is necessary to make long-term progress on faculty recruitment, without negatively affecting faculty morale, and without marginalizing recruited faculty of color even before they arrive on campus. The process should involve on-campus workshops or talks with outside experts as well as broad faculty involvement in developing the diversity faculty recruitment plan and affirmative action policies. Through this involvement, faculty can be educated about goals, issues, and strategies. In order to ensure broad attendance and participation in talks or workshops incentives should be given for faculty attendance. Examples of incentives that have been used at other colleges include cash stipends, books bought or ordered through the campus bookstore up to a limit of $30 - $50, or a gift certificate for dinner for two. My impression is that the book award has been the most acceptable and effective.
Specific proposal for speaker/workshop series: Invite several speakers to campus to help build even greater faculty understanding of the benefits of diversity, and more knowledge about methods for achieving it. Three events would occur in the first year. I have chosen speakers who would present the type of evidence and information that would be most readily appealing to the faculty, and would be most effective at developing the knowledge and commitment that is important for successful diversity-oriented faculty recruitment.
Claude Steele, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, is nationally recognized for his research on the effect of stereotype threat on the performance of Blacks and women on tests of achievement. The research demonstrates that awareness of a perceived negative stereotype about the performance of their group on achievement tests, is at least partly responsible for the lower average scores on these tests by Blacks and women. Hearing of his research will help combat the stereotypes of faculty members regarding the abilities of students and faculty job candidates. Dr. Steele lectures widely on his research and its implications for faculty and students at predominantly white colleges and universities. An article by him on this subject was published recently in the Atlantic Monthly. I heard his presentation on this subject at the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) Annual Conference in March 2000. He is an excellent speaker.
Daryl G. Smith, Professor of Education at Claremont Graduate University, has done extensive research on diversity in higher education, and is nationally recognized for her work for the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Ford Foundation Diversity Project. She has done consulting for many colleges and universities to help them improve diversity on their campuses. Dr. Smith gives presentations on the educational justifications for enhancing diversity, the development of diversity plans, and assessment methods for diversity efforts. I heard a presentation by her at the AACU Conference, Educating All of A Nation, in October 1999, and had a long meeting with her about developing a diversity plan for Grinnell in April 2000. She is an excellent speaker and was very helpful in our discussion.
Beverly Daniel Tatum, Professor of Psychology and Dean of the College at Mount Holyoke College, is author of the nationally recognized book, Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race. In this book, she applies her expertise on race to argue that straight talk about racial identity is essential to the nation. The book, which uses real-life examples and the latest learning and development research, works to dispel race as taboo and gives readers a new understanding of race as a developmental factor experienced by everyone. She also has extensive experience with strategies to recruit faculty members of color. Dr. Tatum lectures extensively on her research and other diversity issues. I heard her speak at the AACU Conference, Educating All of A Nation, in October 1999, and met with her at Mount Holyoke in November 1999. She is an excellent speaker. She could speak at Grinnell about recruiting a diverse faculty (and speak to student affairs staff about her work as Dean of the College, especially regarding new student orientation). In addition, we would arrange to invite three Mount Holyoke faculty members identified by Tatum, one from each of the three divisions, from departments that have been successful at recruiting faculty of color. Divisional workshops could occur with Professor Tatum and the MHC faculty member from that division on issues specific to recruitment from that division. For example, Dr Tatum identified the Department of Chemistry at Mount Holyoke as a successful department in this regard.
Patricia Gurin, Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, is one of the key people responsible for the research on the effect of diversity on outcomes for all students that is being used by the University of Michigan in their court case. If she, or one of the other faculty members responsible for this research, e.g., Eric Dye or Sylvia Hurtado, spoke on this research, it would help faculty members develop a greater appreciation for the importance of improving diversity for achieving our mission. I have seen Patricia Gurin, Eric Dye, and others give presentations on this research at various conferences. They give very effective presentations.
c. CSMP positions: Continue with current program. However, have the Administration formally announce that it will fund up to four such positions each year, given successful departmental recruitment of qualified candidates. Also, in order to have a long-term effect, the program should be backed by administrative willingness to create new positions when appropriate. This willingness should apply to Minority Scholars in Residence as well.
5. New Faculty Orientation: helps achieve all of the above goals, especially that of improving classroom climate. Through the proposed process, we gradually will have more and more faculty informed and thinking about these issues.
Specific proposal:
a. Use the Derek Bok video, "Race in the Classroom," followed by discussion facilitated by an outside facilitator in the first year, and every third or fourth year thereafter. For example, Lee Warren from the Derek Bok Center told me that she could perform this service. This video presents vignettes that show problems in the classroom experienced by students of color. The discussion then allows participants to develop strategies to avoid or solve these problems.
b. Ask selected current faculty to participate to provide the expertise that our tenured faculty and many untenured faculty have regarding teaching and leading classroom discussions.
c. In successive years, have the discussion led by a faculty member who participated the year before. Continue to select additional current faculty to participate each year, both in order to prepare additional faculty to facilitate discussions, and to increase the number of faculty exposed to this type of training.
B. Student Life Out of the Classroom, Academic and Co-Curricular
1. Multicultural Space Students from groups other than the dominant Anglo middle-class background of most students frequently cite how draining and uncomfortable it is to always be "on," attempting to navigate in a culture different from their own. While colleges stress the importance of working to encourage interaction between cultures on campus, schools where students felt most welcome also provided space where they could hang out comfortably. Students who might need their "own" space might be students of color, international students, and first-generation students.
2. Hate Incident Protocol Hate incidents regularly cause campus-wide dissatisfaction with campus climate at Grinnell and other colleges. Even if campus climate improves, it is unlikely that hate incidents/speech will stop altogether. Many campuses have established procedures for responding to these occurrences, so that they are prepared to handle them quickly and well. One key characteristic of these policies is to distinguish between actions that could be considered criminal, and have a process to deal with them, and other hate incidents to which the college still needs to respond.
3. Pre-First-Year Summer Program This program would help a target group(s) become prepared for Grinnell College in some well-defined aspect(s). To develop a well-designed program, first address the following issues: a. What is the goal of the program? b. Who is the target group and why?
Some summer programs (so-called "bridging programs) fail because the goals and target group and the connection to design are not clear. For example, some programs only invite students of color, and then design the program to be remedial, ignoring the fact that many students of color do not need remedial help. Right away these students are marginalized and receive the signal that they are expected to have trouble. Some programs are expected to be financially self-sustaining or even revenue generators, but are not designed in order to be so, and then are declared failures when they need financial support from the College. The measurements you use to evaluate the success of the program clearly should depend on its goals. One possible goal of these programs could be to help with the cultural transition to college for students from a background that might make that transition difficult. For this goal, your target group might be first-generation college students, students from a low socioeconomic background, and/or students of color from high schools that predominately enroll students of color. With this goal, the content design would involve activities to facilitate the cultural transition, to prepare them for the dominant middle- to upper- class white culture they will face. Such a program would also have an academic component, but a relatively less intense one, perhaps. Here, your outcome measures might include student satisfaction surveys and before and after first-year attrition rates for students in these categories. A different goal might be to improve the academic preparation of students who come from academically-disadvantaged backgrounds. For this goal, your target group might be students from relatively lower- quality high schools and/or those who have lower numerical academic qualifications for Grinnell. In this case, the content would be much more intensively designed around academic and remedial programming. Here, your outcome measures might include GPA and academic probation figures. A third, and different, goal might be to increase retention rates, especially in the first year, of students of color specifically. For this goal, your target group would be students of color. But, you would still need to decide which students of color: African American? Latino/a? Asian American? Third-generation Chinese American? Hmong? Then, you would need to study why retention rates are lower for students of color, or particular groups of students of color, and design your program to address those factors. Here, your outcome measure would be retention rates of students of color. The New Science Program at Grinnell is designed with this type of goal and has been very successful; however, the mix of backgrounds, preparation levels, and needs of the target group make this type of program more difficult to design, especially for the college as a whole.
4. New Student Orientation A New Student Orientation diversity component addresses the need to create a more positive campus climate for diversity by improving new students' understanding and appreciation of diversity. Research suggests that these components of new student orientation can significantly lower racist and homophobic student attitudes. Our peer institutions have careful and well-funded diversity education and awareness as part of their New Student Orientation. The proposal also is consistent with the advice of outside consultants who recommended diversity enhancement at Grinnell in general, and improved New Student Orientation in particular. It uses the models successfully utilized by, for example, Williams and Occidental Colleges.
The most effective, successful programs have three components:
a. Outside facilitators or trainers b. Involvement of current students, especially those from underrepresented groups c. Follow-up in residence hall programs. d. Follow-up workshops in local schools, an activity that would have the important side benefit of improving the climate for diversity in Grinnell schools.
See the third-round FFE proposal developed by Siclinda Canty-Elliott and Michael Sims for a proposal that incorporates these elements (appended to the current document).
5. Academic Support Advising, counseling, and tutoring programs should be staffed at least partially with people of color. Regardless of color, staff people should have appropriate training for helping students from diverse backgrounds. The Math and Science Learning Centers provide good models that can be extended to the college as a whole. Note that both the Math and Science Learning Centers serve all students, but tend to disproportionately help academically disadvantaged students and culturally marginalized students.
6. Health/Mental Health Services The source from which the students receive their health and mental health services must be well prepared to deal with the special problems of diverse groups, such as gay/lesbian/bi students, students of various race/ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, and students with disabilities. Students from diverse backgrounds need to feel welcome. Methods for accomplishing this sense of welcome might include a representative staff, outreach by the staff to student groups, and joint sponsoring of events with student cultural organizations. Attendance by staff people at campus events sponsored by diverse groups of students increases the feeling of accessibility and decreases barriers, but needs to be counted as a job- related activity.
7. Curricular and Co-curricular Programs Most campuses I visited have adequate multicultural programming, such as speakers, movies, and bands. We should continue with our current programs, with consultation with students. However, symbolic acts send powerful signals. Thus, in addition to our regular programming, we should bring one very prominent speaker of color to campus each year. Examples are Maya Angelou, Ronald Takaki, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Sandra Cisneros. This type of signal could be important for recruitment of students of color, and have a broader effect on the education of the entire student body. Perhaps the Minority Scholars in Residence Committee or the new Diversity Officer could implement this suggestion, with money provided from the FFE. While this activity, like other initiatives in the plan, will not by itself achieve our diversity goals, it has been one effective tool used by other schools.
8. Other Living Support Services We should provide information to help students who are from other cultures than the dominant U.S. white middle-class culture, to get the living accommodations they need. Examples of areas in which they might need information, and perhaps provision of services, are hair care, food, driving skills, religious services, and mentor/host families. A staff member(s) from the Office of Student Affairs could be given responsibility for providing this information.
C. Admission and Financial Aid
1. Recruitment Most colleges I visited were using the same techniques as Grinnell has used to a greater or lesser degree: contacts with community-based organizations, fly-ins, some multicultural aspect to prospective student visits, contacts with alumni of color.
2. Financial Aid Many colleges have special scholarships for selected students of color, plus regular need-based financial aid. Many colleges use differential packaging that alters the mix between loans, grants, and work-study. Many colleges give less, or little financial aid to international students, who are not eligible for government-sponsored loans, and whose financial-need is more difficult to assess due to lack of IRS forms. Because Grinnell's international students are an important source of diversity, we should maintain our traditionally generous financial aid policies for them.
3. Staff diversity training Provide specialized training for admission/financial aid staff, and/or as part of New Staff Orientation. Students of color at many institutions cite unintentionally unpleasant encounters with admission and financial aid staff as the reason they rejected a particular college.
D. Administration/Staff
1. Affirmative Action in recruitment and hiring: The Diversity Officer should have responsibility for administration/staff affirmative action. This position must be given the authority to enforce recruitment and hiring processes and policies that have been designed to support affirmative action. Tenured-faculty status of the person in this position would help to ensure the authority needed.
2. Diversity Training Many of our students have extensive contact with staff members across the college as their supervisors and colleagues in on-campus jobs. These experiences can be negative and unwelcoming without good diversity training for all staff members.
a. Provided as part of New Staff Orientation.
b. Additional diversity programming and training for staff.
V. Evaluation and Assessment
A. Responsibility and Accountability
1. Establish who is responsible for each task. Make responsibility clear and reasonable - do not add several major new responsibilities to any one person's job description or expectations.
2. In addition, the Diversity Officer should have the responsibility of facilitating, and keeping on people's radar, the various diversity initiatives across campus.
B. Goals, Outcomes, and Measures
Establish goals, desired outcomes, and outcome measures for each goal. It is important to have the outcome measures tightly designed to accurately measure the goal and outcome desired. This activity is important for showing the effectiveness of successful programs so that the Administration will have an incentive to continue them, and to show weaknesses in order to point toward methods for improvement.
EXAMPLES:
Possible Goals Possible Outcome Measures Improve campus climate for students of color.
1. Annual student satisfaction surveys on this topic, administered to students of color.
2. Retention rates for students of color. (Note: Because so many things affect retention rates, don't expect a single program to have a major impact on this measure.) Increase the representation of people of color on the faculty. 1. Annual report on number of faculty members by race/ethnicity/national origin, and rank.
3. Annual report on turnover of faculty members by race/ethnicity/national origin, and rank, and reason for leaving. Diversify the curriculum. 1. The number of courses whose primary focus is related to people from the U.S. who are people of color.
4. Number of courses whose primary focus is on international issues.
5. Faculty surveys of course content on issues of diversity, and scholars represented in syllabi, with diversity carefully defined. Improve all student learning outcomes. 1. Annual pre- and post- questionnaires on pluralism and democracy issues, and other learning outcome dimensions.
6. Annual student satisfaction surveys administered to all students.
7. GPA and graduation rates of all students annually, in total and by groups.
C. Timelines
D. Incentives or rewards for people responsible for achieving goals.
E. Dealing with Roadblocks Have a central group(s) who periodically discusses the diversity plan or appropriate sections of it, and reviews the evaluation measures. Examine the roadblocks to success and research and develop methods to address the roadblocks.
