When I attended Colgate University, I remember Black students taking over the administration building. They camped out in the hallways and offices and refused to let administrators in until their demands were met. That was almost fifty years ago.
Now, we are going through another cycle of protests by college students. These protests focus on race, racism, a chilly and/or unsafe climate for minorities on campus, too few minority students and tenured faculty, racial intolerance, college courses that are devoid of minority contributions and perspectives, and a lack of racial sensitivity and diversity consciousness among students and faculty alike.
The protests tend to follow a script. Students bring a list of demands to the President’s Office. There is call for systemic change. After soul-searching by the parties involved, the president and her/his staff agree to address the student’s demands. The president then tries to engage in damage control, saying something to the effect that diversity is extremely important and what took place is what higher education is all about. The president points out that the process, although difficult and uncomfortable, is necessary and will hopefully be fruitful.
The immediate upshot is to hire a diversity officer and call for diversity training for all faculty and staff. A task force is then created, and new initiatives are announced accompanied by short- and long-term strategies that deal with diversity and inclusion. Throughout all of this, the President may or may not keep his or her job.
What is wrong with this script? Too often, college presidents feel like they have been blindsided by these protests. They have not. In fact, presidents have generally been hindered by their racial and cultural encapsulation. How many of them have the education and life experiences to deal with the volatile issue of race? Do their backgrounds prepare them to manage a crisis of this nature, or better yet, act proactively and prevent a crisis altogether.
While these presidents may have been exposed to a random course in sociology, literature, or history that might have touched on issues related to race, that is not nearly enough. If they have had so-called diversity training, my guess is that it might have done more harm than good. By that I mean, too much training of this nature is offered as substantive but is anything but. Moreover, much training fails to stimulate deep learning; the kind of learning that Presidents need to draw on.
Recently, I read an article by the President of Wilbur Wright College. The article talked about what was on the mind of a number of college presidents today. The list included developmental education, the process of curricular review, uncertain funding and doing more with less, and data analytics. Not surprising, race and diversity was not mentioned. In working with college presidents, my experience has been that while they may talk about the importance of diversity and race, they often do not do the ongoing and challenging personal growth work that is necessary in this area. Rather, they are focused on the college crisis of the week.
If real, substantive, and systemic change is going to occur, it needs to start at the top. Unfortunately, it appears that too many college presidents do not have the requisite awareness, understanding, and skills to make this happen or if they do, other “more pressing” issues get in the way.