Passed: April 30, 2021
Posted: April 5, 2021
Sponsor: The University Faculty Committee (UFC)
NOTE. Concerns were voiced that the original formulation of the resolution was too “all or nothing” (“Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate endorses the recommendations that are set forth in the WG-C Final Report“) and did not adequately assert the importance of Faculty engagement during an implementation phase. There were also questions about having the WG-C act as the official sponsor of the resolution. For these reasons the original resolution has been modified and is now sponsored by the UFC. There has been no modification of the WG-C final report. (4/20/2021)
Whereas President Pollack charged the Faculty Senate to develop plans for an antiracism center in her July 2020 letter to the Cornell community;
Whereas the Faculty Senate discussed the working group charges and methodology at its (9/30/2020) meeting;
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate believes that the recommendations set forth in the WG-C Final Report are worthy of careful consideration by the President and Provost;
Be it further resolved that broad, transparent consultation with the faculty must attend any decision to implement a WG-C recommendation;
Be it finally resolved that such consultation include engagement with the Faculty Senate and whatever standing committee might be relevant, e.g., the Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty Committee, the Educational Policy Committee, and the Faculty Committee on Program Review.
Vote Results:
Yes = 101, No = 12, Abstain = 5, DNV = 8
The report is formidably bold, coherent, and far-reaching. The introductory paragraphs of sections I (Background) and IV (Collaborations) identify with laudable clarity the overarching concern that this proposal places on the agenda: should the university address the urgent problem of structural racism by adding still another center to its already mammoth complement of 91 centers, 70 institutes, and 43 programs instead of charging one or more of those that exist to take on the responsibility for coordinating a concerted corrective effort? It is reasonable to ask whether cobbling together another center would not be another familiar instance of bolstering the existing system with educational and research activities that fit readily into the established structure. Another broad concern, evoked by a cursory reference to “competition for a fixed pool of resources,” is the absence from the report of any attention to budgetary adjustments the university, already battered by the pandemic, would have to make in order to implement the proposal. Would revamping the current institutional architecture of centers, institutes and programs so as to carve out the substantial resources the report envisages be the approach to financing the center that the working group foresees?
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2021/march/collaboratory-against-hate.html
The Working Group considered membership structures for the Internal Governance Council that had up to two dozen student members. When the Working Group looked at centers at other universities, did their councils have such a large student representation? I could see perhaps one or two graduate students on the council of an academic center, but the final report is unclear as to the size of the council and the composition of its membership.
Some universities have separate cultural centers and academic centers. For example, at Cornell there is the Africana Studies and Research Center and Ujamaa (both of which were founded within a few years of each other.) The Working Group has not made a case for a combined cultural and academic center. It seems to me that students should have more of a role in the leadership of a cultural center, but that significant student leadership of an academic center would be a serious barrier to attracting outside funding.
Since the overall goal is to have all members of the campus community adopt anti-racism principles, it would be logical to make the center and all of its programs equally available to every student, faculty and staff regardless of BIPOC status.
https://www.thecornellreview.org/the-anit-racist-religious-fever-must-break-at-cornell/
(1) It seems deeply vested in the scholarly themes and structures, which is all great. But I think it makes too little emphasis on the role students and trainees could have in the activities of the Center. There is a statement towards diversifying the academy, which is a great goal, but little on building and supporting the next generation of anti-racist/social justice advocates in non-academic trajectories. I would like to see students (both in their research and personal capacities) placed more centrally in the goals and organization (perhaps through empowering recent/junior alumni to have a significant voice on the EAB).
(2) Further, there is a statement that such center is a gather place on campus for such discussions …which is very welcomed, but I would go a step further and emphasize that it could be a hub for cross-cutting (by discipline and academic rank) conversations and initiatives.
(3) I feel it lacks a role of the law students and other social justice practitioners. It would be great to see connections to established outreach programs to make more immediate impact into the community.
I would like to thank the Committee for the excellent proposal. The report is thorough and well conceived and should receive our support.