April 28, 2004
Is anybody paying attention to Plan 2008? Doesn‘t anyone care that after five years, little or no real progress has been made?
Plan 2008 was adopted unanimously by the Board of Regents in Spring 1998. Earlier it had been enthusiastically endorsed by campus administrators and faculty groups. When adopted, the plan was hailed for its promise to improve campus climate and achieve proportional representation in targeted minority student enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. Since then, substantial amounts of money and human effort have been mobilized to support the more than three-decade-long quest for greater diversity.
What explains the lack of progress? Is it inadequate financial resources? Hardly, when last year UW System spent more than $35 million and UW-Madison more than $12 million on Plan 2008. Is it lack of sufficient staff? Hardly, when several high level UW-Madison officials lead the effort, supported by a large corps of academic staff, lengthy lists of “partner” organizations, and annual diversity forums. Not enough accountability? Hardly, when a mind-boggling array of oversight committees and subcommittees exist to ensure that Plan 2008 works.
If not these reasons, why hasn‘t there been greater progress?
Unrealistic goals? That is what UW-Madison‘s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs suggests in describing the situation as involving “a long uphill battle.” Does the Vice Chancellor, an architect of the Plan, mean that its goals cannot be reached by 2008?
Lack of direction? Probably so, when UW-Madison Associate Vice Chancellor for Climate and Diversity says “our vision is not yet crystal clear.” Does this mean the Associate Vice-Chancellor, another architect of Plan 2008, still doesn‘t know what needs to be done or how to do it?
Lack of focus? Apparently so, when that same Associate Vice-Chancellor dismisses recommendations by an outside expert panel brought in last spring to review progress under Plan 2008. That panel called for concentrating more intensively on fewer programs rather than the dozens of diversity initiatives promised in the campus implementation document. Why spend more than $6,700 for an expert panel to evaluate Plan 2008 and then ignore its reasoned recommendations?
Lack of curiosity? This seems to be the case when in discussing faculty and staff retention, that same Associate Vice Chancellor says “We‘re trying to get a handle on why people leave.” Is this a new problem? Why couldn‘t the reasons for weak retention have been incorporated into Plan 2008 when it was formulated?
Failure to appreciate the depths of the problem? Why hasn‘t UW System Vice President for Academic Affairs and Senior Adviser to the President for Multicultural Affairs done more to document the implications of the tragic lack of academic preparation among many of Wisconsin‘s minority high school graduates? Such information would help students, faculty and staff, plus the general public, understand why it is impossible to enroll more of the state‘s targeted minority graduates, particularly African Americans, without lowering admission standards. This problem was made clear to Plan 2008 proponents back in 1998 but talking about it then was viewed as both impolite and racist.
The one bright spot touted by UW-Madison leaders is the People Program. It tries to prep small numbers of minority/disadvantaged students beginning in middle school to do well in high school, graduate, apply for admission, and enroll at this campus. Once here, these students are generously supported financially and otherwise.
What nobody knows is how many of the program‘s participants would have gone to college anyway, if not here then somewhere else. Nor has the program‘s high cost of producing each UW-Madison degree recipient been well publicized; the cost runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. To claim success for the People Program is misguided until it is carefully evaluated.
Plan 2008 and earlier diversity plans always emphasize “accountability.” But accountability means more than listing who is in charge of what. It means evaluating the performance of those in charge. Past practice has been to offer rewards, whether or not the goals are reached.
Now that everyone can see what little progress has been made, the time has come for the Board of Regents to follow through on the responsibility that goes with accountability. It is now time to find new leadership that will generate substantial forward movement in the pursuit of diversity.
Op-Ed Submission on UW Diversity and Plan 2008
April 28, 2004
Is anybody paying attention to Plan 2008? Doesn‘t anyone care that after five years, little or no real progress has been made?
Plan 2008 was adopted unanimously by the Board of Regents in Spring 1998. Earlier it had been enthusiastically endorsed by campus administrators and faculty groups. When adopted, the plan was hailed for its promise to improve campus climate and achieve proportional representation in targeted minority student enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. Since then, substantial amounts of money and human effort have been mobilized to support the more than three-decade-long quest for greater diversity.
What explains the lack of progress? Is it inadequate financial resources? Hardly, when last year UW System spent more than $35 million and UW-Madison more than $12 million on Plan 2008. Is it lack of sufficient staff? Hardly, when several high level UW-Madison officials lead the effort, supported by a large corps of academic staff, lengthy lists of “partner” organizations, and annual diversity forums. Not enough accountability? Hardly, when a mind-boggling array of oversight committees and subcommittees exist to ensure that Plan 2008 works.
If not these reasons, why hasn‘t there been greater progress?
Unrealistic goals? That is what UW-Madison‘s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs suggests in describing the situation as involving “a long uphill battle.” Does the Vice Chancellor, an architect of the Plan, mean that its goals cannot be reached by 2008?
Lack of direction? Probably so, when UW-Madison Associate Vice Chancellor for Climate and Diversity says “our vision is not yet crystal clear.” Does this mean the Associate Vice-Chancellor, another architect of Plan 2008, still doesn‘t know what needs to be done or how to do it?
Lack of focus? Apparently so, when that same Associate Vice-Chancellor dismisses recommendations by an outside expert panel brought in last spring to review progress under Plan 2008. That panel called for concentrating more intensively on fewer programs rather than the dozens of diversity initiatives promised in the campus implementation document. Why spend more than $6,700 for an expert panel to evaluate Plan 2008 and then ignore its reasoned recommendations?
Lack of curiosity? This seems to be the case when in discussing faculty and staff retention, that same Associate Vice Chancellor says “We‘re trying to get a handle on why people leave.” Is this a new problem? Why couldn‘t the reasons for weak retention have been incorporated into Plan 2008 when it was formulated?
Failure to appreciate the depths of the problem? Why hasn‘t UW System Vice President for Academic Affairs and Senior Adviser to the President for Multicultural Affairs done more to document the implications of the tragic lack of academic preparation among many of Wisconsin‘s minority high school graduates? Such information would help students, faculty and staff, plus the general public, understand why it is impossible to enroll more of the state‘s targeted minority graduates, particularly African Americans, without lowering admission standards. This problem was made clear to Plan 2008 proponents back in 1998 but talking about it then was viewed as both impolite and racist.
The one bright spot touted by UW-Madison leaders is the People Program. It tries to prep small numbers of minority/disadvantaged students beginning in middle school to do well in high school, graduate, apply for admission, and enroll at this campus. Once here, these students are generously supported financially and otherwise.
What nobody knows is how many of the program‘s participants would have gone to college anyway, if not here then somewhere else. Nor has the program‘s high cost of producing each UW-Madison degree recipient been well publicized; the cost runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. To claim success for the People Program is misguided until it is carefully evaluated.
Plan 2008 and earlier diversity plans always emphasize “accountability.” But accountability means more than listing who is in charge of what. It means evaluating the performance of those in charge. Past practice has been to offer rewards, whether or not the goals are reached.
Now that everyone can see what little progress has been made, the time has come for the Board of Regents to follow through on the responsibility that goes with accountability. It is now time to find new leadership that will generate substantial forward movement in the pursuit of diversity.