We are concerned by the extent of criticism of the Working Group F report, and are sympathetic with some of the criticisms expressed by the faculty. This prevents our support of the general endorsement resolution before the Senate. However, we do support the general objective of Working Group F report and some solutions. Consequently, we offer two compromise resolutions both having the intent of identifying specific actions that we hope the majority of Senators can support. We note that many departments and most colleges have taken action to address racism, bias, and related issues. Approving our resolutions will support departments, colleges and the university in making continued progress on social issues of deep concern to all of us.
Our first resolution encourages departments, colleges, and the university to develop faculty education programs appropriate to the needs of each unit without mandating a centralized, top-down approach. Our premise for each resolution is that the diversity of Cornell may require diverse, locally adapted solutions. Allowing for diverse solutions may lead to greater creativity in our approaches, the ability to learn from each other, and compliance. We should allow our solutions to evolve.
Whereas President Pollack and #DoBetterCornell have called for faculty to be educated about systemic racism and bias,
Whereas the Faculty Senate supports a strong and effective institutional response to address issues of racism and systemic inequalities,
Whereas the Faculty Senate has received and considered the “Working Group-F Final Report to the Faculty Senate,” dated April 5, 2021,
Whereas a faculty that collectively commits to understanding and addressing systemic inequalities and enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion is better able to fulfill the university’s mission and guide Cornell’s diverse student body,
Whereas the Office of Faculty Development and Diversity (OFDD) and colleges, schools, and departments have developed initiatives to improve education and culture of faculty, staff, and students around issues of diversity, equity and inclusion,
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate endorses the goal stated in the Working Group-F final report, of creating educational programs “to support faculty in creating an antiracist, just and equitable climate for our campus community.”
Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate supports the development of faculty educational programs by the university-level OFDD and by the colleges, schools, and departments to address issues of systemic injustice, diversity, equity and inclusion.
Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate encourages departments and colleges to work with each other and with the OFDD to evaluate the participation rates and effectiveness of these programs.
Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate calls for the relevant Senate standing committees, including the Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty Committee, the Educational Policy Committee, and the Faculty Committee on Program Review, to participate in the process to design, vet, review, recommend, and/or discontinue any and all university-wide programs for faculty education.
Vote Results:
Yes = 54, No = 44, Abstain = 9, DNV = 19
I can see that this proposal wants to reach a compromise and also offer departments, programs, and units the liberty to craft solutions appropriate to their context. I see two complicating issues. One, much of the racist and sexist behavior occurs in departmental and lab contexts. Many folks struggle to call out (or call in) behavior by their faculty peers that discriminates against students and other faculty. This resolution asks for the “fox to monitor the henhouse,” for lack of a better image. The second complicating issue is that we have long authorized departments and colleges to address racism in a variety of ways, most notably through OFDD. This modified resolution is calling for the continuation for plans that have been in place for a long time without much positive effect. That isn’t really a call for change, as I see it.
Again, we see broad claims that there is “much” racist and sexist behavior (not described with any particularity and with no evidence) at the University. Surely it isn’t too much to ask for such evidence before coercing the entire faculty in the way being proposed. Without it, such claims are subterfuge.
Moreover, I find it difficult to believe, given all the policing agencies the University has established at the University level, that those subject to such behaviors have no avenues to report such behaviors. If that is so, I would be grateful for additional details describing the deficiencies of these existing mechanisms. And if those reporting mechanisms are indeed inadequate, then the solution is to fix them. Don’t coerce faculty in the way the proposal contemplates. And if the behaviors the comment has in mind are such that those engaging in them don’t realize they are doing anything wrongful, then a simple expedient would be for the University to distribute a document describing WITH PARTICULARITY, and not cast in the vague language of “racist and sexist behavior,” exactly what behavior is permitted and what behavior is not. If that cannot be done, then how are people to be expected to behave as they are told they must? If a faculty member wants to ignore this imagined document, then they are free to do so. They will then proceed at their own peril, but they will have been given fair and adequate notice, without being compelled to be “educated.”
Senator F-Resolution-1 and Senator F-Resolution-2 are sponsored by a group of faculty, none of which appear to be BIPOC . Could you not garner support for these alterative resolutions from a single BIPOC colleague? The demographics of the faculty sponsors are 12 men and 5 women. None conduct research in or offer expertise in the topics of Africana Studies; American Studies; American Indian and Indigenous Studies; Asian American Studies; Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies; and Latinx Studies. And, unlike the WG-S resolution, a counter proposal has not been put forth by the above program directors.
I contend it is because many Cornell faculty need to be held accountable in their participation in DEI education.
None probably conduct research in or offer expertise in classical liberalism either, I suspect. But why should that matter? An ideology is an ideology is an ideology. And the University should not be forcing faculty to listen to the dogmas associated with any ideology. Teach them. Research them. Debate them. But don’t force people who aren’t believers to listen. Of course, that claim may itself rest on the freedoms associated with liberalism, but liberalism begins with a presumption of liberty. The ideology associated with the coerced programming apparently does not share that presumption, and therein lies the danger.
I find language like “need to be held accountable in their participation in DEI education” vaguely threatening. And, if the perception of a threat is all it takes to establish the reality of a threat, then such language is a threat.
I appreciate the intent of my colleagues who sponsored this resolution. But much of the racist and sexist behaviors happen in departments, labs, programs, and centers, i.e., in the intimacy among people we know and work with. Many of us (faculty of color) struggle to know when to call someone out; many of us have been in department trainings and noticed that the folks who needed it the most don’t attend. These proposals — however well-meaning — remind me of the adage about foxes and hen houses. Let’s make this a university-wide requirement and not put the burdens on chairs and individual departments and faculty.
Here are some pertinent thoughts, about what is described as the “origins” of “diversity training,” from a sociologist at Bucknell.
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2021/05/the-origins-of-the-cruel-ritual-of-diversity-training/