Reprint from the Opinion page of the Badger Herald, November 28, 2000UW-Madison’s more than 30-year quest for race-ethnic diversity continues under Plan 2008. Again this Fall, minority students complain about the lack of diversity. Again, campus administrators respond by promising to redouble campus recruitment and retention efforts. Then, last week we learned that two members of the Board of Regents are questioning campus diversity efforts.
But who is accountable for achieving UW-Madison’s diversity goals? The public is told that accountability matters-officials in charge are expected to produce results. Detailed lists specify exactly who is responsible for what. But, has anyone ever been called to account for the lack of results on diversity?
The answer would seem to be no. Consider two recent examples that may be unfamiliar to most students.
When Donna Shalala became Chancellor in early 1988, she immediately launched her widely-publicized Madison Plan. Among its highly visible goals was a doubling of new minority freshmen within 5 years.
What happened? By Fall 1992 the number of minority freshmen had increased by less than 10 percent rather than the promised 100 percent increase. The obvious conclusion? The Chancellor and her Madison Plan failed to deliver on their commitment.
When Chancellor David Ward responded in Spring 1996 to student pressure from the Civil Rights Defense Coalition to increase minority recruitment, he made a personal commitment in writing that by Fall 2000 the campus would achieve proportional representation of minority freshmen. (In other words, the percentages of new minority freshmen would mirror the percentages of recent minority graduates from Wisconsin’s high schools.)
What happened? By Fall 2000, the gap remains, with minorities representing 9.7 percent of new freshmen as compared to 10.1 percent of recent minority high school graduates. A much wider gap remains for African Americans who represent only 2.3 percent of new freshmen as compared to 4.4 percent of recent Wisconsin high school graduates. The obvious conclusion? The Chancellor failed to deliver on his commitment.
In this most recent instance, who is or should be accountable? The Chancellor? The Provost who works directly under the Chancellor? The Vice Chancellor who is charged with implementing diversity programs? The Admissions Director who recruits each year’s new freshman class? The recruiters who seek to bring more minority students to campus? Who?
And, what should be done to enforce accountability? What kinds of penalties are appropriate? Should campus administrators be fired? Reprimanded? Or should they be rewarded because in the absence of their efforts minority enrollment might well have declined? Nobody knows the answer because accountability for diversity, though much discussed, has never been defined or tested.
Suppose those in charge were penalized? Would doing so make any difference? Would replacing them make a difference?
The answer is clear. Achieving diversity enrollment goals does not depend on who occupies which seat in the administrative hierarchy. Rather, it hinges on fundamental demographic and educational forces too long ignored in formulating campus diversity goals.
Specifically, the weak academic achievement of far too many of Wisconsin’s minority high school graduates reduces their likelihood of being admitted to college. Too few take the college preparatory courses required for admission to the UW-Madison. Too few achieve high scores on the ACT. Too few perform well enough to place in the upper third or quarter of their high school graduation class. In short, far too few are competitively admissible to UW-Madison.
There is no easy or quick fix. Increasing the proportion of minority high school graduates able to compete academically at UW-Madison is a long-term challenge. The lack of academic achievement among minorities is too pervasive to erase quickly. Academic achievement tests given in the 10th, 8th, 4th grades, and even earlier, demonstrate that minority students perform much worse than non minority students.
Building a larger pool of competitively admissible minority students must begin at the earliest grade levels, if not before entering kindergarten. At a minimum, thirteen years will be required before substantially larger numbers of minority high school graduates can be competitively admitted to this campus.
Campus leaders claim that the new People program is the answer. The goal is to increase the number of competitively admissible minority applicants. It does so by identifying promising minority students in middle school and giving them summer academic enrichment and other special help in high school so they can become academically prepared for college. (This help continues through college.)
Despite its attractive features, the program’s effects are likely to be limited. One, because it is small. Two, because nobody will know for some years how many minority students in this program will complete the high school component, how many of them will apply to UW-Madison, how many will be competitively admissible to UW-Madison, and how many of them will choose to enroll here.
The facts presented here dramatize the futility of the grandiose goals still being embodied in diversity programs. They highlight the emptiness of verbal commitments to diversity. Few faculty and staff will acknowledge, even privately, what most of the public realizes, namely, these goals and commitments cannot be realized within the time frame of our diversity programs. But, campus administrators are not willing to admit the truth. Nor are they willing to admit to past failures in reaching these goals and honoring their commitments. What conclusion do we draw? As long as there can be no failure, there can be no accountability.
The campus needs to devote more time and resources to understanding why its minority recruitment goals have not been met and are not being met. Only then can real progress be made toward achieving a racial and ethnically diverse campus.
Diversity Re-examined
Reprint from the Opinion page of the Badger Herald, November 28, 2000UW-Madison’s more than 30-year quest for race-ethnic diversity continues under Plan 2008. Again this Fall, minority students complain about the lack of diversity. Again, campus administrators respond by promising to redouble campus recruitment and retention efforts. Then, last week we learned that two members of the Board of Regents are questioning campus diversity efforts.
But who is accountable for achieving UW-Madison’s diversity goals? The public is told that accountability matters-officials in charge are expected to produce results. Detailed lists specify exactly who is responsible for what. But, has anyone ever been called to account for the lack of results on diversity?
The answer would seem to be no. Consider two recent examples that may be unfamiliar to most students.
When Donna Shalala became Chancellor in early 1988, she immediately launched her widely-publicized Madison Plan. Among its highly visible goals was a doubling of new minority freshmen within 5 years.
What happened? By Fall 1992 the number of minority freshmen had increased by less than 10 percent rather than the promised 100 percent increase. The obvious conclusion? The Chancellor and her Madison Plan failed to deliver on their commitment.
When Chancellor David Ward responded in Spring 1996 to student pressure from the Civil Rights Defense Coalition to increase minority recruitment, he made a personal commitment in writing that by Fall 2000 the campus would achieve proportional representation of minority freshmen. (In other words, the percentages of new minority freshmen would mirror the percentages of recent minority graduates from Wisconsin’s high schools.)
What happened? By Fall 2000, the gap remains, with minorities representing 9.7 percent of new freshmen as compared to 10.1 percent of recent minority high school graduates. A much wider gap remains for African Americans who represent only 2.3 percent of new freshmen as compared to 4.4 percent of recent Wisconsin high school graduates. The obvious conclusion? The Chancellor failed to deliver on his commitment.
In this most recent instance, who is or should be accountable? The Chancellor? The Provost who works directly under the Chancellor? The Vice Chancellor who is charged with implementing diversity programs? The Admissions Director who recruits each year’s new freshman class? The recruiters who seek to bring more minority students to campus? Who?
And, what should be done to enforce accountability? What kinds of penalties are appropriate? Should campus administrators be fired? Reprimanded? Or should they be rewarded because in the absence of their efforts minority enrollment might well have declined? Nobody knows the answer because accountability for diversity, though much discussed, has never been defined or tested.
Suppose those in charge were penalized? Would doing so make any difference? Would replacing them make a difference?
The answer is clear. Achieving diversity enrollment goals does not depend on who occupies which seat in the administrative hierarchy. Rather, it hinges on fundamental demographic and educational forces too long ignored in formulating campus diversity goals.
Specifically, the weak academic achievement of far too many of Wisconsin’s minority high school graduates reduces their likelihood of being admitted to college. Too few take the college preparatory courses required for admission to the UW-Madison. Too few achieve high scores on the ACT. Too few perform well enough to place in the upper third or quarter of their high school graduation class. In short, far too few are competitively admissible to UW-Madison.
There is no easy or quick fix. Increasing the proportion of minority high school graduates able to compete academically at UW-Madison is a long-term challenge. The lack of academic achievement among minorities is too pervasive to erase quickly. Academic achievement tests given in the 10th, 8th, 4th grades, and even earlier, demonstrate that minority students perform much worse than non minority students.
Building a larger pool of competitively admissible minority students must begin at the earliest grade levels, if not before entering kindergarten. At a minimum, thirteen years will be required before substantially larger numbers of minority high school graduates can be competitively admitted to this campus.
Campus leaders claim that the new People program is the answer. The goal is to increase the number of competitively admissible minority applicants. It does so by identifying promising minority students in middle school and giving them summer academic enrichment and other special help in high school so they can become academically prepared for college. (This help continues through college.)
Despite its attractive features, the program’s effects are likely to be limited. One, because it is small. Two, because nobody will know for some years how many minority students in this program will complete the high school component, how many of them will apply to UW-Madison, how many will be competitively admissible to UW-Madison, and how many of them will choose to enroll here.
The facts presented here dramatize the futility of the grandiose goals still being embodied in diversity programs. They highlight the emptiness of verbal commitments to diversity. Few faculty and staff will acknowledge, even privately, what most of the public realizes, namely, these goals and commitments cannot be realized within the time frame of our diversity programs. But, campus administrators are not willing to admit the truth. Nor are they willing to admit to past failures in reaching these goals and honoring their commitments. What conclusion do we draw? As long as there can be no failure, there can be no accountability.
The campus needs to devote more time and resources to understanding why its minority recruitment goals have not been met and are not being met. Only then can real progress be made toward achieving a racial and ethnically diverse campus.