News | Administration

Columbia commits $30 million to increasing faculty diversity

Updated, 12:55 a.m.

The University has committed $30 million to developing a more diverse faculty, administrators announced on Monday. The funds will be dedicated to “the recruitment and support of outstanding female and underrepresented minority scholars,” University President Lee Bollinger and Provost John Coatsworth said in a statement.

The money is meant to help graduate schools across the University implement three-year diversity plans that they recently submitted to the provost’s office.

The provost’s office will work with the deans of individual schools to implement each school’s unique diversity plan, and to “design and implement mentoring and professional development programs for junior faculty; create training materials for search committees; and exchange information on best practices,” according to the statement.

Bollinger and Coatsworth praised the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of the student body, but noted that “building a diverse university community is not the work of a moment or only of admissions offices.”

“This is about helping each of the schools reach its diversity goals,” Vice Provost Andrew Davidson said in an interview. “The one thing that became increasingly clear to the deans and to us in this process is that the situation in each school is different.” Davidson is the senior administrator most involved in the plans.

Jenny Davidson, co-chair of the Commission on the Status of Women, reviewed a University-wide 10-year study with Andrew Davidson last week and noted that these trends in the natural sciences are “surprising, and a little horrifying.”

“Looking at those studies was a bit of a wake-up call that gender diversity needs a lot of fighting for in some parts of the University,” said Davidson, of no relation to the vice provost. The report found that gender inequality is more evident in the sciences than in the humanities, Davidson, an English professor, said.

School of Nursing Dean Bobbie Berkowitz said, “Needless to say, we’re extremely pleased. It is very good support for the diversity initiative that the school has internally.”

“The announcements of President Bollinger and the provost fit in very well and will help us a great deal in recruiting more diverse faculty,” she added. “We’re very excited to get going.”

The central administration and the individual schools will each cover part of the cost. Of the $30 million, $15 million will come from the University’s central budget, and the other $15 million will come from matching contributions from the individual schools.

The provost’s office will organize a competition between the schools to allocate the funds. A committee of senior faculty members will distribute the money based upon the quality of candidates put forward, the degree to which the school is supporting current faculty, and the consistency of the enforcement of the diversity plans over time.

While all schools are looking to attract underrepresented minorities, Andrew Davidson said that schools involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields are particularly interested in recruiting and retaining female faculty members, who are significantly underrepresented in these fields.

Jenny Davidson noted that the University made significant progress in hiring female and underrepresented minority faculty members under the leadership of vice provosts Jean Howard and Geraldine Downey over the past eight years. Since that time, Columbia has hired over 30 new faculty members who are underrepresented minorities.

“I do hope that the excitement that comes from a big allocation of funding for outside hiring doesn’t obscure the issue of retention and support of those already here,” she said, noting that this may be the source of the inequity that currently exists. “We can be hopeful, but we will just have to wait and see how things unfold.”

“My hope for this new allocation of resources,” she said, “is that it’s the University saying it will continue to go forward because it hasn’t gone far enough.”

Lillian Chen contributed reporting.

news@columbiaspectator.com

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Anonymous posted on

Here's some food for thought - how bout instead of hiring based on the hue of one's flesh, we emphasize *actual* competence and hire based on skill instead! Revolutionary concept, isn't it? I don't know about you, but when I am looking for a mechanic to fix my car, I certainly don't go out of my way to find the most mexican of the bunch - I find the most competent. Affirmative action is not only racist but also just plain disgusting when its used to justify singling out the most ethnically-interesting on the arbitrary basis of background. Even worse, affirmative action hiring is inherently inefficient and amplifies our already absurdly, bloated racial self-conciousness. That is to say, affirmative action instills a divisive sense of group preference that pins one faction against another. Fact of the matter is Lee Bollinger is a fool and so are the rest of the lot of you overly politically-correct, snobbish cretins.

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Well, that would be nice, hiring people on the basis of merit.  It would be terrific.  It does not happen and it has not happened in academia for decades (if ever!). As a Columbia alum and professional academic with a successful career, I can tell you that people do not get hired as faculty based on their merit. It's sad, but it's true. What given you an edge during the hiring process are things like who your advisors/mentors have been and whose ass you kissed in conferences and in papers.  When people apply for jobs as faculty at places like Columbia, 95% of the applicants have what it takes to do the job.  They really do.  What makes the differences in who gets hired boils down to interpersonal stuff.  Do the current faculty like the person?  Do they see themselves going out to lunch or the opera with them?  Do they want to jog with them in the morning?  Will we celebrate holidays together?  In other words, the people in power, the people who are already faculty have to be your friends or want to be your friends.  Guess what?  People pick people like them, who have similar backgrounds or went to similar schools or, more commonly, people who "related" to them, people who shared the same advisor or whose advisor was mentored by your advisor.  It's more difficult for the men and women who don't fit the prototype (which is most cases is a white man) to be considered seriously as candidates.  That's why schools have diversity initiatives, not to promote hiring people on the basis of "hue of one's flesh" but to counteract the unfortunate tradition of hiring people who are part of our own little academic families and who may, in fact, not be the candidate who will contribute the most to the department and to the students.  As a pigmentally challenged academic, I can tell you that these initiatives are sorely needed so that someday we can really be more meritocratic.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

I completely agree, Mark. Altho I am overall against affirmative action, there is no reason why a place of learming cannot be diversified. A diversified student population, needs divversified mentors. There is no way a female can learn, if the faculty are 100% male, or a black can learn if the faculty are 100% white. Most of the final candidates for faculty positions are more than qualified, this is where personality and personal traits come in. This is a university (universe) of higher learning for all. We all need to grow and develop and be exposed to other ways of thinking, learning, and viewing the world.  Vanilla ice cream may be the best, but if we are not at least exoposed or try the other 4000 flavors, or at least know they are out there, we may never learn or know what we are missing and find something better. There is a time for us to be old predjustice bigots in our suburban homes, but the prime of our life is not the time.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

This is utterly ridiculous. I am against affirmative action at all levels, but do understand the idea of college as being an institution that could create elites for people form "minority" backgrounds etc.... but what's the argument in favor of this? FUCK IDENTITY POLITICS.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Does this mean we can expect even more professors in math/engineering classes who speak almost no English on the merit that they are international scholars from "under-represented backgrounds?" Here's what's actually happening here: Bollinger is hiring more RESEARCH and GRADUATE-oriented professors from Asian countries like India and China. The administration is NOT looking to empower the domestic minority groups that really need help, nor to enhance undergraduate education. It's sugar-coating its initiative to poach foreign math/science talent to serve as the new worker bees slaving away in the new graduate facilities in Manhattanville. Bollinger refers to "reflecting the composition" of the national ethnic population breakdown, but that doesn't mean drawing scholars from the nation; it means unfairly grouping minorities - American and foreign - together due to their common skin color, then recruiting that minority quota from foreign nations, and just flatly saying "look, we have more minorities."

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Agreed. The theoretical benefit of fostering a diverse community of professors - a culturally well-rounded faculty - is a secondary benefit as best. That is, the positive outcome of faculty diversity is only in the image it creates of minorities in academia. The hope being that youth from diverse backgrounds will be encouraged and find academia more comforting environment; that young minorities will view the pinnacle of intellectualism as accessible. It's a lofty goal and not necessarily one misaligned, but its potential benefits are intangible. In practice, faculty diversity creates more problems than it solves. The issues "Are You Kidding?" mentions (e.g. an inarticulate research professor, well-educated in math and science, but fundamentally lacking in English competency) are exactly the reason a diverse faculty is and must be less important than quality professorship. If Bollinger wants to bring about a real change and lift up those from less fortunate backgrounds within the context of academia, he'll focus on undergraduates, not professors, and not research. He'l focus on creating a meaningful and intellectually stimulating and valuable setting for Columbia students. This is not the way to accomplish that. If the administration wants to focus on diversity, I'm all for it, but it must consider the direct, tangible applications and benefits. Change our admissions practices regarding affirmative action; target real diversity (economic, not racial, and certainly not international, considering nearly all international Columbia undergraduates come wealthy upbringings); focus on the opportunities that arise from a Columbian education, not the abstract political correctness associated with the useless and impractical aim of promoting faculty diversity. 

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

A new way for Bollinger to waste 30 mill to enhance his reputation with the world community of morons.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"There is no way a female can learn, if the faculty are 100% male, or a black can learn if the faculty are 100% white."

Hmmm, yes there is. Especially if, for a reason or another, the said non-minority instructor is better. I am gay and have never felt the need to look up to gay academics in college. I have chosen my professors based on syllabi, class reviews, and their relevance to disciplines. And I would certainly take a white straight man who is awesome over a gay latino instructor with lesser credentials.Although this is my personal experience, I know several students who feel the same way. Yes, minorities exist, yes our experiences may be unique, but there are many universal elements in education that we can learn from. 

Bollinger, with the support of _certain_ identity-based groups, is usurping minorities of their true universal voice.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Ridiculous. Why not put that money towards recruiting more kids who actually need financial aid, regardless of color? Not the minorities from Exeter and Andover. 

+1
+3
-1
Anonymous posted on

Agreed.   Marc is very foolish if he thinks that 95% of applicants for faculty jobs "have what it takes" and committees spend their time imagining if they can "go to the opera" with a potential hire.  All of these millions should go into recruiting poor kids from ALL backgrounds.  

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

"Poor kids" typically aren't the ones applying to be professors (they rarely have the financial resources to go through the many years of schooling required to get the basic level of credentials), so no, this is not about expanding socioeconomic diversity - just purely racial

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Hmmm... the NYT broke a story today on GS owning 16% of a illegal prostitution ring. Interesting timing here. What they didn't tell you is that Bollinger owns the other 84%, and his spending of exorbitant sums of University money on "increasing faculty diversity" is an attempt to veil his involvement with the underground gigolos. 

Conspiracy between the Spec and the Times? These two liberal rags are in cahoots. 

+1
-3
-1
GentleGiant posted on

Who invited the cretins?

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Commit to just bringing new faculty and professors to Columbia, in gereral, especially the core.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

This is proof of the spec's white supremacist agenda. Obviously, this article would weigh about the same as a duck, which means that everyone at the spec is a witch, which means that they obviously curse diversity, otherwise they would not have used such large font for the title. We at the spec sucks community embrace diversity and hope that every spec writer is replaced with a Mexican squirrel named Jorge.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

i love watching white people freak out. 

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yes, please let it remain so the majority of our faculty is comprised of white males! Because they are obviously the most bright and competent of our species & opportunities for academic growth should NOT be offered to stigmatized intellectuals like female scientists and professors of underrepresented minorities! Let's just continue to have faculty ratios that do NOT match up with the demographic of our nation's population, b/c representation and opportunity is bad, so so bad!! If affirmative action did not exist, then OUR faculty would be DIVERSE in the first place. Affirmative action today, simply means offering a bit of the opportunities that were offered/reserved for white males for centuries, to EVERYONE ELSE! Affirmative action has existed throughout history, it's called WHITE PRIVILEGE. The second some of those opportunities are extended to ANYONE ELSE it's an issue. Who said the individuals who would get hired would not be competent? No one is hiring uneducated incompetent academics, they would obviously be fit and overly qualified for the job. The university is just actively searching for people who normally are not offered the privilege of teaching at Columbia (as we can see with the homogenous faculty) to teach here. For the first individual who commented who clearly does not know the meaning of "racism" when stating affirmative action was racist I suggest reading --->http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

When you complain that it is racist that others will get the chance to be hired, you are complaining that the "status quo of white males who are usually offered these jobs" is being challenged. There is a sense of entitlement that the status quo yields and IF and WHEN that is challenged individuals like you reek havoc. Oops, the opportunity white males have had for centuries is finally being yielded to EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS THE SAME LEVEL OF COMPETENCY BUT ARE JUST NOT WHITE AND MALE. Well that can't happen, right?

Also hard to engage in any type of educated debate when individuals clearly do NOT even know the definitions to terms like "racism". Read up. 

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh, so because _your_ definition of racism is crafted specifically to fit solely the experience of African Americans, no one else is allowed to talk about this concept. Thanks for your open-mindedness. Racism can also be defined as simply the exceptional consideration of race in issues that are supposedly "universal", for all men and women. With this respect, both the terrible process of slavery and the policies of affirmative action are racist. 

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

hahaha "anon" are an idiot saying that affirmative action is racist. It was put in place to put attempt to reconcile the centuries of genocide committed by the ruling powers in the US.  
Great point Yohana 

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

For the record, Anon, I think your elementary error above is indicative of a bigger misconception in American society more generally. We have a tendency to refer to everything relating to race as "racist", when the proper term would be "racial". Affirmative action as such is not "racist"; it has not been put in place for the sake of denigrating, oppressing, or stigmatizing any particular race group. Likewise, a person (any person) using the term "nigga" is not automatically "racist", unless he/she has the intent to denigrate/oppress/stigmatize a racial group; as such, the term "nigga" is not inherently "racist", either. 

What is absolutely crucial for you to understand when approaching race-related issues in general, and this article's issue in particular, is that "racism" is entirely dependent on INTENT.   Race, an entirely man-made notion that came to be around the same time as America did, is moreso than anything else, a classification system for social control. And I know that from sociological literature, not from my subjective assumptions of what race really is. With that in mind, reassess the INTENT of this new initiative, and the INTENT of affirmative action, and then return to the conversation. 

+1
-1
-1
achillesserpent posted on

Affirmative action or some form of it exists ALL over the world. They produce the same results. Everywhere. It increases the momentum toward mediocrity. Everywhere, it's not a black white male female thing. Einsteins theory of relativity is the same here and in other countries. It's a law per say. Social sciences have them too, we just tend to favor our own biases and irrationalities.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Maybe you are all just ignorant rather than bigoted but it is a FACT that Columbia was a GREAT college when it was not diverse. In those days, the humanities and history professors were second to none. Historians, all at the same time, included Jacques Barzun, Henry Graff, Richard Hofstader, Carlton Hayes, Alan Nevins,  Henry Steele Commager, Andrew Hacker, Dwight Miner, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolf Berle (the last three technically members of the Law faculty), In the humanities, there were such giants as Mark Van Doren, Moses Hadas, Joseph Wood Krutch, Quentin Anderson, Raymond Wheeler, Harris Ross Steves, George Nobbe, Lionel and Diana Trilling,  There was little diversity there but great scholarship and charisma.

Is today's student body superior to its less diverse predecessor? The humanities and history faculty certainly are not. Diversity is not necessarily a virtue.

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

The College was once safe from violence. In the late '50s,  and early '60s some giant brains, lacking common sense, tried to diversify the student body by bringing in "scholars" who needed considerable mentoring and tutoring to survive on Morningside Heights, One of these creatures was Eldridge McKinney who, in spite of much extra help, was unable to pass his courses.

When told that he would be expelled/suspended for his inability to be a satisfactory college student, McKinney did what any civilized person would do. He barged into Dean Henry Coleman's office and fired six shots at him, striking the dean five times. This assault would be enough to kill most people, but Dean Coleman was a crew man, and it is virtually impossible to kill a rower. So the dean survived, somewhat the worse for wear, and suffered from his injuries for the rest of his life.

Dean Henry was a fine gentleman, universally liked. Admitting McKinney to the college and giving him extraordinary support would be considered a grievous error by anyone with common sense which leaves out diversity lovers. The geometric rise in campus crime is also in direct proportion to the increase in diversity.

Does anyone know a college like Columbia was back in the day where you are admitted for academic and personal excellence irrespective of the color of your skin? I'd love to send my kids there and so would a lot of other people.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Well Nicolas

Your little anecdotal story although interesting has absolutely nothing to do with the article.  For one, Columbia as you well know is located in a city of some 8.5 million citizens.Crime rates in this city have risen and fallen over the past five decades do to a myriad of reasons none of which have anything to do with the diversity of the student body and staff at Columbia. In the end, you seem like one more unfortunate soul who thinks back to a mythical post war past that never truly existed in an unfortunate effort to avoid the realities of today. One reality of today is that Columbia is a diverse campus and as such is one of the leading University's on this planet. Another reality of today is that this is a much harder University to get into today than it was in the past and if your list of humanity professors from the past were forced to teach class's today they would be confronted and quite frankly challenged by today's incredibly refined, diverse and educated students. So I'm sorry life has passed you by and thus you feel a need to live in a mythical past, but the Dean of this University can not live in the mythical reality to which you inhabit. Instead he must live in the real world were every first tier university is desperately trying to keep up with each other so as to attract that next class of top tier students, to do that the University must have more diversity. 

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

 Varley, I don't mean to nitpick, but you would have more credibility if you improved your usage of the English language. Your errors include:

1. Using "do" when you mean "due."

2. "None of which HAS" instead of "have."

3. UNIVERSITIES not "University's."

4. HUMANITIES professors not "Humanity professors."

5. CLASSES not "class's."

6. "mythical reality to which you inhabit" should be simply MYTHICAL REALITY THAT YOU INHABIT.

There may be more but the six above stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. But your lack of understanding and reasoning is even worse.

"Anecdotal story?" Hah. The college made a well-intentioned attempt to diversify its student body and brought in Eldridge McKinney (I never said that he was a person of color. You rightly assumed same without asking). Eldridge pumped five bullets into a dean who busted his own chops to help the lad. By your reasoning, is this incident meaningless?

Crime rates in NYC were higher in the '50s, '60s, and '70s than they have been since, but the campus was always safe and so were the surrounding streets. No one ever had to take back the night because the night was always ours. Campus security forces have increased geometrically because of the danger that exists. Is that caused by diversity? The evidence seems to indicate that it is so.

Some of your misstatements are more egregious than others. Because of time constraints I will only respond to two.

"if your list of humanity (sic) professors from the past were forced to teach
class's (sic) today they would be confronted and quite frankly challenged
by today's incredibly refined, diverse and educated students." Varney

The professors you mention would be delighted to be confronted (and/or challenged) by students but where do you get that today's are incredibly refined and educated? When the G.I.s came back after WW2, they had been part of life and death struggles, and had seen a good part of the world and diverse cultures. There were at least a dozen aces (5+ kills) at Columbia then, plus twice as many silver stars, five times as many bronze stars, and other decorations.

Even with all that life experience they were no match for Mark Van Doren, the kindliest of men who could quote whole Shakesperean plays by heart or Alan Nevins who had won numerous prizes for his writing and was a living repository of American history or Jacques Barzun, still alive and in full possession of his faculties, a multi-lingual genius. These were all gentlemen but if a student became obstreperous and failed to be rational, he was invited to leave the classroom and to spend his time elsewhere.

These days it seems that too many young college students, especially at an elite institution like  Columbia  are convinced that they know more than they do. They have accomplished nothing in this world but that does not stop them from pontificating.

"I'm sorry life has passed you by and thus you feel a need to live in a mythical past," Varney

First, the past I mention was not mythical, as anyone who was there (except anti-social types) will agree--you weren't there so what could you possibly know. Second, life has certainly not passed me by. No one is more optimistic and upbeat, and few are more prosperous. That does not prevent me from seeing that diversity is just another academic fad, and that it will fade in time.

Meanwhile, schools like Dartmouth, Williams, and Amherst that have more modest programs than Columbia may attract the students that made this college great. My belief has always been that the college should accept the best-qualified applicants, regardless of race, color, creed, or gender. I would not give extra credit to any of the preceding but would favor American students over those from other lands.

My heart will always be with Columbia. I only hope that common sense triumphs over the latest fad in academia.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

You left out some really good teachers and scholars, including, but not limited to John Erskine,  Harry Carman, Irwin Edman, James Gutmann, and especially Gilbert Highet. These outstanding academicians did not have to be recruited. They came to Morningside Heights because they wanted to be part of a collegial group who taught outstanding students in an atmosphere of harmony and safety. 

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

 Any way you slice it, diversity is not necessarily a good thing.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Observation: most of the people who have a problem with affirmative action are white. And how could they not be happy? It must be hard living in a world where you actually have to work to get the good stuff in life. 

Word of advice: The world no longer revolves around you, white people. It is okay to let people of equal competency (I know it's hard to imagine, but minorities are actually as equally capable as you are. gasp!) get jobs that have historically been reserved for you. If minority advancement disgruntles you, which apparently it most certainly does, then perhaps I may suggest moving to the deep South where these sorts of attitudes are still accepted in some circles. Otherwise, up here in the melting pot city, things are changing and you'll just have to deal with it. 

I will say this: As a minority, I don't dislike any group of people, but I am personally tired of being bombarded with whiteness in almost every facet of life. You flip through a magazine, you have a ratio of 40 white women to 2 ethnic ones. You flip on the TV, nine times out of ten, any person of color in the cast is tokenized (assuming there even is a person of color in sight). I ask, how is this fair? I have no problem with white people, but I would like to see more Asians, more Native Americans, more Latinos, more EVERYTHING represented in the world. I'm tired of being assaulted with the idea that the white experience is the "normal" experience in this country. Because that's not true. And you all are clinging to an idea that is not only antiquated, but working to keep a country apart in ways that it doesn't need. As a country, we've been through enough from the likes of you. So please, for the sake of our children and future, let everyone you've trampled on finally have a leg up in this world. Let things change so that you're not infecting our future with the same racism that plagues our present and our ancestor's past. 

In closing, I hope you can overcome whatever antipathetic feelings you have towards Columbia's decision. It's a great school and I believe that it will still continue to be one if more minorities are employed. Good day.

+1
-2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Umm, Zephyr, do you really attend Columbia? Affirmative action gives "minorities" the opportunity to get what they don't deserve. And, after a ripple of undue limited success, the times will be changing again. Are you saying that one should never question Columbia's decision? Just remember that the next time your gang takes to the streets to protest some imagined slight.

Btw, if you don't like a magazine, you don't to read it. There are plenty of black and Latino mags out there for those who favor that culture. Minorities, by definition, are fewer than the majority. Try to live with it.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I doubt anyone who has posted any of the previous comments has
ever studied racial politics. Affirmative action programs do not prioritize
race or ethnicity but instead take these factors into account when choosing
from among a group of qualified candidates. To be more specific, only when
there is a group of equally qualified applicants for a job in which minorities
are under-represented in that job, is race, ethnicity, or gender
considered.   

 

Second, for those who are making the "hire-on-merit"
argument, you are assuming that this country already hires people based on
merit, which in many cases, it does not. Just take a minute to look at some basic
audit studies conducted by university researchers. For example, among a group
of job applicants with equal resumes mailed to employers in Boston and Chicago,
applicants with names identified with blacks received call backs at 50% the
rate of applicants with names identified with whites (Bertrand & Mullainathan).
Moreover, Devah Pager of Princeton University has found that white men in
America with a criminal record have more of a chance of getting hired than
similar black applicants with no criminal record. On top of this, employees at
a major retailer (Target) have flat out admitted to destroying the applications
of black individuals. This type of white preference occurs anywhere between 50%
— %240 of the time in hiring decisions (Pager & Shepherd). My question to
all of this is... if America is operating on a system of "merit,"
then why employ these nefarious tactics?

 

For those who are unfamiliar with all of this, here are a couple
articles to get you started.

http://www.princeton.edu/~page...

http://www.princeton.edu/~page...

 

And if you want hard confirmation of these trends, feel free to
visit the offices of Eric Foner, Alan Brinkley, or Jonathan Rieder at Columbia
University.

 

My goal here is not to side with one position or another, it is to
discover the truth, and the truth is that diverse hiring practices and
affirmative action programs are not what people often assume they are. And to
be completely honest, Caucasian Americans have been the largest benefactors of
affirmative action programs in the country. Not only were they given priority
consideration over non-European ethnicities in housing, employment, and
political enfranchisement since the nation's founding, they still benefit from
such privileges today. 

   

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

Back to the original issue. Do you believe that it is correct to spend THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS to increase faculty "diversity" or could you find a better priority for that huge sum? 

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

Mr. Butler, so now the issue is the amount of money being spent on
the initiative, it is no longer the initiative itself? I am hesitant to clear
this up for you because you have already stated your false assumptions in your
previous comments. If you don't have an open mind to begin with, your
inclinations will often steer you toward your bias, no matter how compelling
the evidence. First, only $15 million of the $30 million is coming from the
University's central budget, the other $15 million is coming from matching
funds from those schools receiving a portion of the original $15 million. Second,
$15 million in Columbia's endowment of $7.8 billion takes up no more than 1/520
of the school's money, so Columbia is certainly not taking a financial hit from
the project. Third, because whites receive preferential treatment in the job
market over their equally qualified (and in some cases, more qualified)
minority counterparts %50 — %240 of time, why is it a bad thing that the school
is spending an amount of money on an initiative that will in no way hinder its long
term success? Fourth, research has shown that an ethnically diverse student
body actually enhances the intellectual development of its students. On top of
this, three research studies conducted by the American Council on Education and
the American Association of University Professors has shown that, "faculty
members who recognize and use diversity as an educational tool; who

include content related to diversity in their courses; who employ
active learning methods; and who create an inclusive, supportive classroom
climate can and do produce enhanced educational outcomes in classes comprising
a racial and ethnic mix of students."

 

So to sum up,
Columbia University is spending a very small portion of its budget on a program
that research has shown to both increase the intellectual development and academic
achievement of its student body.

 

Again, here are
my sources, also see my post above.

http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyr...

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/...

 

I wish I had more
time to educate everyone on this issue. An argument based on assumption and
bias does not equal truth. Until people learn to approach things with an open
mind and do the necessary research to find out what is really going on, America
will continue to be colored with the lies of false notions.

 

Long Live America~

+1
-3
-1
achillesserpent posted on

I asked this before on another post with no answer.

Wtf is diversity?

+1
+1
-1