THE GOOD

Not much, sorry ☹

THE BAD

July 24, 2008

The State Board of Education approved the Core for 24 framework, thus moving the League of Education Voters‘ campaign one step closer to victory while further undermining the ability of students to tailor their scholastic experience to their individual interests.

THE UGLY

July 29, 2008

McCain comes out against affirmative action in higher education while Obama calls for a system that recognizes socio/economic class as the unequivocal denominator in determining both admission and aid.

August 1, 2008

After seven years of study and strife, Congress passed the expansive (1,158 page) Higher Education Accountability Act to address issues in higher education ranging from students pirating music in their dorms to drug use to PELL grants. It goes without saying that I didn’t read this, and I doubt Congress did either.

Related posts:

1. THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE UGLY (June 1-7th)
2. OBAMA VS MCCAIN (EDUCATION)
3. Observations of Viet Nam: Education

On March 2, 2008, student representatives of a newly formed campus organization calling itself The Coalition Against Injustice and Racism (CAIR) submitted a thirteen page document to President Ronald Thomas, of the University of Puget Sound, which outlined a series of demands and deadlines they intend the University to meet in order to reverse the supposed “negative and adverse environment towards diversity and racial inclusion.” CAIR claims to represent “a diverse group of students, faculty, staff and alumni.” Their demands, however, are predominantly student-focused, Afrocentric, poorly written and raked by spelling errors and typos – suggesting that they were drafted by a non-accredited source.

CAIR, who has posted their demands on Tacoma’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) website (suggesting that the newly formed coalition is merely a front for Tacoma’s SDS chapter) is presently trying to garner support from various student diversity clubs across the UPS campus. On Mar. 12, at 10:08pm, CAIR spokeswoman Allegra Oxborough announced via email that: “Tomorrow [March 13] CAIR will meet at 7:45am at the Infocenter and then walk over to the President’s house to finish discussing the letter and continue making plans for carrying out the demands for change. Please feel free to join CAIR tomorrow and to join in any future discussions as well.” Oxborough volunteered no explanation as to why CAIR decided to issue a public invitation less than 10 hours before they planned to address President Thomas.

As of 10:08pm Mar. 12, CAIR’s demands included the following:

DEMAND #1: The student organizers of a sorority “thug-life” party that was held earlier this year and which provoked uncomfortable feelings among certain members of the UPS campus community, must “provide a substantial public appology to the campus community, which details what actions they have taken, and will take in the future to prevent this sort of behavior. This communication MUST be submitted to The Trail as an open letter to the campus early enough to be published in the March 28, 2008 issue…The community responsible for this incident MUST be compelled to attend a public diversity training or workshop by no later than April 30, 2008.”

This is probably unnecessary but not unreasonable, so I would urge the University to approve the request.

DEMAND #2: “The University MUST provide diversity training beginning no later than Fall 2008. This training MUST address racism, sexism, classism and other forms of oppression. This training SHOULD be required for all faculty and staff. After attending this training, faculty and staff MAY receive a “Safe Zone” sticker so students can know which faculty and staff members identify as allies.”

Tolerance cannot be taught over the course of a seminar, especially one that is mandatory and does not reflect the collective beliefs of the community. Just as you cannot use an exception to set a standard, so too can you not design a program based upon the ideology of the extreme to influence the conduct of general society. Furthermore, this demand is a direct affront to both the faculty and staff’s right to individuality. It seeks to eliminate diversity from the campus payroll by forcing everyone into the same mental mold and is even so bold as to suggest that faculty and staff should receive uniform “labels” or “safe-zone stickers” upon completion of said seminar to dissolve any distinction or difference away from their identity.

This demand should be opposed.

DEMAND # 3: “Whereas the I Am Puget Sound orientation program is insufficient, and in the absence of followup programming, the University MUST provide diversity orientation programming for incoming freshman beginning no later than Fall 2008. This training MUST address racism, sexism, classism and other forms of oppression. This training MUST continue through each academic year. The University has already determined this to be valuable per statements in the “Diversity Strategic Plan for University of Puget Sound: Creating a Culture of Inclusive Learning.”

These courses will translate into increased costs for students that will more-than-likely contribute to the creation of a polarized campus that cannot converge as a community. The US Constitution gives every American the right to be an intolerant bigot if they want.

This demand should be opposed.

DEMAND #4: “In order ensure proper funding for diversity groups and programs, the university MUST provide sources of funding separate from ASUPS. Additionally, the university must ensure that programs such as the Students of Color Graduation events and the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Celebration are appropriately funded. The university MUST also ensure that ASUPS is providing equal opportunities for groups to be funded. The university and ASUPS MUST allow for clubs to directly and democratically control the distribution of club funding. In addition, the university MUST recognize that finding funding for the important work of diversity groups MUST NOT remain a challenge.”

This demand will only deprive ASUPS of what little autonomy it has. ASUPS’ authority is rooted in its ability to designate funds to individual organizations as its elected representatives see fit. By strong-arming ASUPS’ budget in the name of “ensur[ing] that ASUPS is providing equal opportunities for groups to be funded” the University would effectively be nullifying the voice of the student body.

A better proposal would be for ASUPS to establish a “diversity fund” under its authority, that would be separate from ASUPS’ general budget and would be divided to qualifying groups by an appointed committee of diversity advocates from the student body. Diversity groups should expect to raise independent funds just like all other student organizations are expected to do.

DEMAND #5: “…the University will introduce a new core requirement, that of Issues of Difference. Beginning with the freshman class entering in Fall 2009, each student SHALL complete three courses that fulfill the “ID” core requirement. The university MUST implement this new core in such a way that students may fulfill this new requirement without increasing the total number of core courses they must take, and without reducing their opportunities to study within their chosen majors…The university MUST add more ethnic studies departments and fund existing ethnic studies departments more adequetely.”

Interesting idea. Generally speaking I disapprove of all core-requirements, preferring instead that students navigate their own course through an individualized intellectual odyssey. But, considering core-requirements are the reality we live with, and because this “ID” proposal sounds no less ludicrous than any other class I was required to take, I see nothing wrong with it provided that it does not increase the total number of core courses a student must complete to graduate. I also agree that UPS would benefit from more ethnic courses – particularly Middle Eastern Studies – but it is a small school with limited resources and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Still, I more-or-less approve of this one.

DEMAND # 6: “The university MUST increase the number of students of African descent, students of color and students of different classes so that each incoming class proportionally reflects the population in the United States. The university MUST also increase the number of students of color from local Tacoma schools who are admitted. Admissions officers MUST have a benchmark for recruiting students of color from across the United States.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. California that affirmative action in public colleges and universities is unconstitutional. Just because UPS is a private college and thus – as I understand it – legally able to employ “a benchmark” for recruiting students of color doesn’t mean we should go against the trend. Affirmative action is unpopular, unproductive and unethical.

It is not possible to have a university with a student body that accurately reflects the demographics of the United States, much less the State of Washington. Furthermore, even if you were able to model a student body upon national racial and economic demographics, then you would be unfairly ignoring age, religion, sexual orientation and geographical demographics that also contribute to a diverse campus. CAIR’s proposal would set a precedent with an unfair bias that will only leave the door open for more problems and should be fought tooth and nail.

It is worth noting that between 2004-2006, the percentage of African American students on campus doubled, suggesting that progress is being made, if ever so slowly. It is also worth remembering that the students of the University of Puget Sound recently elected former Black Student Union President Yusuf Word as their ASUPS executive. He is replacing Hart Edmondson, an un-closeted member of the LGBT community. Edmondson replaced Van Pham, a student of Vietnamese decent, who replaced Alex Israel – who I believe was Jewish.

The students of the University of Puget Sound have repeatedly demonstrated their support for a diverse campus by including minorities at the highest levels of student government and campus life. CAIR’s claims that the University is fostering an antagonistic community of bigots that is driving minorities away is, in my opinion, unfounded and untrue. Just because a sorority threw a party that was in poor taste is hardly cause to call in the National Guard to “integrate” the University of Puget Sound.

This demand is unnecessary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and should be opposed. If CAIR is serious about recruiting minorities to this campus, it should be discussing marketing strategies and methods to lower tuition to make the UPS experience more accessible for low-income students.

DEMAND # 7: “The university MUST increase the number of faculty and staff of color so as to be proportional to the population in the United States. Additionally, new hires should be evaluated based upon their cultural competency (their ability to be sensitive to issues related to culture, race, gender, sexual orientation, and class).”

Again, unnecessary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and should be opposed. UPS should strive to have the best professors in the nation: not the Blackest, the gayest or the most economically deprived. I would personally hate to know that I got my job because my employer was required to have a faculty that was at least 1.4% Jewish and he was coming up short.

UPS needs hiring policies that emphasize quality, not category.

DEMAND #8: “The university MUST increase the number of trustees of color recruited so as to be proportional to the population in the United States. Additionally, new members should be evaluated based upon their cultural competency.”

Why?

I am especially concerned about CAIR’s demands. In one sense, I am inspired by the fact that students are seeking to establish a greater share of influence in how their university is organized (an idea I’ve been championing for the past three years). But in the greater sense, most of these ideas are ludicrously insane and – although well intentioned – will surely cause more harm than good. I would hope that the majority of UPS students prove mature enough to realize that.

Related posts:

1. The Intolerance of Tolerance
2. Response from CAIR to the UPS Community
3. Backed Against the Wall