Collegiate Times

I love black people!!!

While I admire Mr. Kissel's devotion to "the cause," I'm a bit troubled at how much he tries to credit a simple statement in a memo as a demand. Simply saying that the university should do a better job of documenting the diversity activities that faculty participate in is not a "demand." Last time I checked, faculty can choose what to put in their review packets. Diversity activities are part of university service, and if requiring those that seek one of the highest faculty positions a department can offer to show how they have contributed to the betterment of the university community in more than a few ways, then I'm all for it. Calling out the desire to document the diversity activities of faculty as a requirement and as a form of political ideology is like saying that Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind" is a manifesto for sex, drugs, and rock and roll and Garfield never liked lasagna...it doesn't make sense.

I am glad at least you recognized the importance of diversity to the well being of any campus. Now, there is one side who really thinks that it should matter to consider contributions to diversity. And there is your side that thinks it shouldn't. I don't see how you can blame the side whose interest is to make this good thing (diversity) matter while your side wants it not to matter. Forget people and ideologies... Don't you think diversity is key to elevating Virginia Tech where it needs to be as a global contributor to education, science, engineering, liberal arts and more? If you do, diversity become a necessary aspect that we all need to promote in order to contribute to the advancement of this great school. If you like thing to stay where they are and hide behind argument such as the ones you presented then that's your choice too.

The title of this letter was added by the editors. CLAHS defines "diversity" using these terms: "the desirability and value of many kinds of individual differences while at the same time acknowledging and respecting that socially constructed differences based on certain characteristics exist within systems of power that create and sustain inequality, hierarchy, and privilege." Amine Chigani: are you saying that this is a neutral definition with respect to ideology and politics, one that all faculty in CLAHS must agree with and promote? Perhaps when you use the term "diversity" you mean something else.

While a perusal of FIRE's website shows that they have aligned themselves in the past with a range of groups and interests (e.g., the NAACP at Catholic University), the notion that what FIRE seeks to further is somehow not an ideological position is flawed. While the First Amendment has been given a place of legitimacy and authority in the political, cultural, and legal frameworks of the US, it is nonetheless subject to an ideological analysis. Indeed, reading Mr. Kissel's title gives one an idea of the ideological character of FIRE's mission - the very conception of individual rights is based upon an ideological position. That point does not mean that I seek to render that mission invalid on its face; rather, the charge of ideology is not solely applicable to those who explicitly take positions not informed by the canon of American law, politics and culture. My point about the ideological position of FIRE's efforts is not rendered inaccurate because of the privileging of the Constitution, at least not outside of the realm of a contextualized legal scholarship. I would agree with his point below about the language of the college diversity definition. There is often clumsiness to the ways in which such notions get articulated. It would have been reasonable to present such a language as troublesome, but to also acknowledge that the concrete articulation of the requirement renders diversity in a broad enough fashion so as to nullify that implication.

In further reflection, the comparison of diversity to patriotism and Christianity is flawed. Diversity has a concrete embodiment that cannot be paralleled in the cases of either religious belief or national fervor. Thus, when the Republican National Committee under Lee Atwater decided that it wanted to reach out to African American voters, it did not have to abandon its principles in order to do so; similarly, the Christian Coalition sought diversity in its base by reaching out to evangelicals from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds without subordinating its value commitments. The falsehood or reality of diversity has an objective reality that can be verified to exist or not. One may challenge the dimensions along which diversity is figured - thus an emphasis on race or gender or sexuality alone may be rendered as ideologically driven. However, given the breadth of experience and perspective that diversity as an abstraction reflects, its presence or absence carries a critically different character than the evaluation of one's patriotism or Christianity, which rely upon the evaluation of one's beliefs and principles, even as embodied in action. Finally, given the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld diversity in higher education as a compelling state interest, would it not seem to be reasonable for an institution of higher education - especially a public land grant university - focused upon its mission to embrace the embodiment of diversity, while still recognizing that there may be multiple understandings of it?

Concerned Graduate Student seems not to have read, and Graves seems to ignore, the new guidelines. The new guidelines specifically state that "The university and college committees require special attention to be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives; categories for documentation may be found in Section VII.C.1.-8. of the promotion and tenure guidelines. . . ." And "According to the memo of 29 May 2008 from Provost McNamee . . . there are several areas of particular importance with regard to promotion to the rank of professor: “[D]iversity accomplishments are especially important for candidates seeking promotion to full professor.” The university and college committees require that special attention be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives; categories for documentation may be found at Section VII.C.1.-8. of the promotion and tenure guideline. . . ." And, " The committee expects all dossiers to demonstrate the candidate’s active involvement in diversity." How is this voluntary or just for those whose work involve especially large diversity contributions? It seems clear, untenured faculty who want to keep their jobs, and tenured faculty who want promotion to full, MUST become involved in diversity initiates or be punished.

Diversity is an ill-defined ideological concept. Yes, there are various definitions, but try pinning Graves, the provost, or Tech's administration down long enough to give one. Imagine that a faculty member believes in "one America," and that we should treat everyone as individuals with various abilities and desires, all operating within a shared American culture. This runs counter to the general idea of diversity at Tech, where group identity based on race and ethnicity prevails, and where policies give some groups more "diversity" worth than others. I ask, just how long is this faculty member going to be welcome at Tech if the Promotion and Tenure policy remains in place? Only if diversity is openly, in writing, defined to protect dissent, will that faculty member keep her job. But you never hear about protecting those who disagree with the administration's definition. If the administration really cared about dissent and free exchange of ideas, it wouldn’t be trying to coerce faculty into supporting its version of diversity. They didn't get their way through the free exchange of ideas, so they are going to use raw power to force compliance.

Anonymous, I love how you think that just because someone may not list an abundance of diversity activities on their dossier that they will be punished. That's simply not the case. Obviously I did not right the provost's memo regarding the documentation of diversity activities of faculty, but I would assume that the global role of a research university such as Tech is in mind when McNamee wrote that there is a particular importance to diversity activities. With this in mind, would it be safe to say that diversity activities could be easily coupled with international research efforts? Creating international research endeavors that focus on sustainable energy in developing nations could fit into that effort. Faculty could work with the Cranwell Center to improve the transition of international students into various aspects of Tech and the Blacksburg community; this could help students coming into their own department which could improve both the educational experience of students and the productivity of both students and faculty in that department. So as much as it may seem that diversity activities are narrowly focused, the reality is that diversity is broad in its general definition (which gets at Different Diversity's post).

Diversity is a concept that is applied in various fields of business, economics, social science, and even engineering. Could it be better defined for Tech? Yes. But could you not say the same thing about patriotism? I think so. I'm sure you could go up to one of the people you mention, Different Diversity, and they would give you a definition of diversity. Whether it's to your particular liking is a different story. A faculty member that believes in "one America," as you give as an example, is protected through both the constitution, the policies of our university, and the AAUP. I think there are many people on campus that would disagree that one form of diversity is given more weight than another, and that the whole notion of racial and ethnic group identity as the only focus by the university is false.

Good lord, the posts by Ellington Graves are one long paragraph after another of absolute nonsense that reminds me of the opaque academicese you find in sociological journals. And I think you need to read up a little bit more on Supreme Court precedent Mr. Graves. Citing a case (though not by name) decided by the Supreme Court in which it ruled affirmative action is somewhat useful (love how you left out the various Supreme Court rulings indicating how use of race alone for admissions is unconstitutional)and using it to bolster an argument in favor of ideological loyalty oaths is disingenuous in the extreme. Yet it is revealing. By using such an argument you make it quite obvious that your view of diversity is concerned pretty much exclusively with skin color and has nothing whatever to do with diversity of opinion. I wonder how you would react, Mr. Graves, if a state university decided diversity meant a certain amount of faculty, staff and students had to be on the right of the political spectrum and the faculty had to document what they were doing to further those goals in order to gain tenure. I think the answer to such a question is obvious.

"While I admire Mr. Kissel's devotion to "the cause," I'm a bit troubled at how much he tries to credit a simple statement in a memo as a demand." I think a document titled "College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences Promotion and Tenure Guidelines" rises above the level of memo, don't you? "However, given the breadth of experience and perspective that diversity as an abstraction reflects, its presence or absence carries a critically different character than the evaluation of one's patriotism or Christianity, which rely upon the evaluation of one's beliefs and principles, even as embodied in action." Even more proof, as if more were needed, that diversity mongers care about one thing, race. Diversity of ideas? Who cares.

As has been my experience in the past, these "engagements" deteriorate more often than not into exaggeration and sophistry rather than constructive exercises in reason and dialogue. I thank Mr. Kissel for an opportunity to consider some of the questions that diversity engenders, though I continue to believe that his position is one that misconstrues key issues. Many others simply fail to understand the realities of the tenure and promotion process - I encourage you to read the piece published in the CT to which Mr. Kissel responds for more about the relative weights given to criteria for faculty performance, to provide something more than naive assumption. Given that the CLAHS policy has been in place for over 2 years, there has been ample opportunity for the bullying many fear to have presented itself. I have no doubt that there are many faculty in the college who do not view themselves as "diversity mongers." Should one of them have been denied tenure or promotion, I also have no doubt that Mr. Kissel's organization or a similar one would have had a far more powerful case to press than the intimation of what diversity means. If anyone would like further opportunity to dialogue, feel free to contact me directly. And, by the way Mark, I think you mean "academese."

Yet again Graves IGNORES the actual Promotion and Tenure document. That document has not been in effect for two years. Being able to list voluntary diversity activities has been on the Faculty Annual Reports for two years, but the mandatory participation in diversity activities for tenure or promotion has not been in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines at all until this vote came up (that ended on 31 March and remains unreported). In this sense Graves is trying to slip one past us. Please respond to the NEW guidelines in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, Mr. Graves: "The university and college committees require special attention to be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives. . . ." And, "[T]here are several areas of particular importance with regard to promotion to the rank of professor: “[D]iversity accomplishments are especially important for candidates seeking promotion to full professor.” The university and college committees require that special attention be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives. . . ." And, " The committee expects all dossiers to demonstrate the candidate’s active involvement in diversity." Read that last line again: no diversity activities, no promotion, no tenure. Coercion, not persuasion.

Yet again you ignore the information that has been given about how the tenure and promotion process works. While there may be an "expectation" that faculty will demonstrate active involvement in diversity, and while there is a requirement that special attention be given to documenting involvement, neither the document nor the ongoing reality of the process asserts that any faculty member who demonstrates significant merit in the other areas of his or her duties will be punished for not having done so. We expect lost of things in life, but often have those expectations dashed. I expect that people who seek to engage in discussion will have the capacity to look beyond that which seems obvious to develop an appreciation for the distinctions between the formal language of a policy and the reasonable application that it comes to have. Finally, I refer you to the documented statement of the provost, who, in response to a direct question from the Chronicle reporter who documented this dust up, explicitly said that NOTHING would happen to a faculty member who failed to document such activity and otherwise met the criteria for P & T.

The provost's statement, "nothing" would happen to those documenting no diversity involvement, is an "ascribed" quote in the Chronicle. The provost is not officially on record anywhere as saying such. If he really means that, why not just send out a memo saying so? The reason is that the administration means for diversity to be a required activity for job security and got caught. I've read the P and T guidelines and know how it works. Referring specifically to promotions, it says, "there are several areas of particular importance with regard to promotion. . . ." It then lists ONE: “[D]iversity accomplishments are especially important for candidates seeking promotion. . . ." Only diversity is singled out as being of "particular importance." Teaching is later mentioned, but not as of "particular importance." Everyone knows that research is important, that it is an "expectation." But try to get promoted without it. As Graves writes, Diversity is a new "expectation." All that the administration has to do is clarify: only those with substantial diversity related activities need report them; if someone puts "nothing" down, that person will suffer no ill effect. They have not, because they mean to coerce compliance.

I was trying to figure out why Ellington Graves had such a burr under his butt about this issue so I looked him up. Dr. Graves is Associate Director of the Race and Social Policy Research Center, and his current teaching interests include Race and Ethnic Relations and Social Inequality. Methinks he as an agenda.

Hello.This post was extremely motivating, particularly since I was browsing for thoughts on this matter last Tuesday. seo link building http://linkbuilding1.overblog.com/

We start detail to describe each just one and a portion of the benefits that every offers. bags longchamp uk http://www.bagslongchampuk.info

Greetings! I've been following your website for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from New Caney Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work! Cheap Oakley Sunglasses http://www.premiumcorporateawards.com/

This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks! Triathlon Store Online http://www.triplesportsonline.com