The Strategic Long Range Plan (SLRP), a document that often goes unread and unchecked, details Guilford’s ongoing financial, curricular and social commitments. Its most ambitious promise is strategic priority number two of continuing goal number three: “Guilford recommits to becoming institutionally diverse and anti-racist.” While Guilford should be commended for committing to these values, a cursory examination reveals that what is actually written in SLRP, and the documents assessing its progress, is, at best, toothless and, at worst, a sham.

“By 2010,” the plan reads, “Guilford College will meet the targets for diversity set forth in the strategic plan as strategic indicators.” These targets measure the representation of different identity groups among staff, faculty, and students.

First to note are discrepancies that occur between the May 2005 publication of the “Final Working Draft” and more recent figures. In the former, the “most recent” data indicates that 18 percent of traditional students are people of color. This presumably refers to 2004-05 (the document is not explicit in this).

Yet President Chabotar’s 2006 “Assessment of Strategic Indicators” (ASI) claims that only 10 percent of traditional students were people of color in 2004, while the most recent assessment, ASI 2007, claims that the figure was 14.6 percent. Such discrepancies make these statistics dubious.

A more interesting fact is that, for six of the 10 categories listed, Guilford had already met or exceeded its diversity goals in 2004. For example, 17 percent of the faculty were people of color in 2004, according to ASI 2007. The goal in this category for fiscal year 2010 is 17 percent. (Note: the actual number recently dropped to 15 percent in 2005).

In other words, SLRP sets numbers that it can fail to attain only if the Guilford community becomes less diverse than when the document was drafted.

Many find these goals satisfactory without asking what the statistics actually conceal about diversity at Guilford. ASI 2007, for example, indicates that 15 percent of faculty are people of color. But, because “Faculty” is not broken down by teaching appointment – tenured, tenure-track, adjunct, visiting or part-time – there is no way of determining turnover.

That is to say, Guilford administrators are free to hire and fire junior or part-time faculty members of color yearly. They can thus boost the diversity statistics without having to commit to retaining faculty of color.

Moreover, these statistics say nothing about the actual experience of “diverse groups” at Guilford. But SLRP asserts: “Diversity is a matter of numbers and behaviors; we track not only how many people of various groups we attract to Guilford College, but also how well they are welcomed and made to feel a part of our community.”

To measure the comfort level of “various groups,” ASI 2007 presents statistics from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) on the percentage of students who are “‘very satisfied’ that there is a commitment to racial harmony at Guilford.” According to ASI 2007, the goal is that by 2010, 75 percent of students will report being “very satisfied.”

Now, let’s disregard January’s racially charged events and the likelihood that, as a white person, I might not recognize racial disharmony when I see it. Guilford will meet this goal as long as white students report being satisfied, i.e. students of color are altogether unnecessary in these figures. But none of this matters. To date, there are no results for this survey question. And, according to ASI 2007, the most recent survey didn’t even ask.

Diversity statistics mean nothing if we cannot infer the experiences of those counted. We might know that from 2005 to 2006, 18 percent of students were people of color, according to ASI 2007. There is no way to know, however, whether the same people make up this proportion from one year to the next. A woman of color could enroll, decide the campus is racist, and leave because of it. As long as Guilford can replace her, she doesn’t matter.

Just as SLRP fails in regard to diversity, it also fails anti-racism.

An isolated footnote on page 31 reads: “Diversity and anti-racism are not the same … An institution can be diverse quantitatively and still not anti-racist.” Yet, SLRP outlines few concrete strategies for becoming anti-racist.

The only “strategic indicator” that addresses this projects that 100 percent of faculty and staff will have completed institutional racism training by 2010. According to SLRP 2005, that figure stood at 50 percent. But this number is questionable, because ASI 2006 reported that the percentage was zero. Of course, this wasn’t true either. President Chabotar offered a reason for the discrepancy: they decided to start counting over, with 2004 as the “base year.”

So, how well is Guilford doing? SLRP acknowledges that a full accounting of “all staff” is unavailable and that 20 percent of tenure-track faculty, 3 percent of other full-time faculty, and 17 percent of senior staff have been trained.

First, those who have been trained outside of the institution qualify as those trained in Guilford. Second, neither the tenure-track, nor many other full-time faculty members are guaranteed to stay. And it is unclear who actually qualifies as senior staff.

The progress is lacking behind the image presented in these figures.

Further, the “action steps” for “implementing the anti-racism plan” include “instituting an audit of curriculum and pedagogical practices consonant with antiracism/anti-oppression, targeting faculty development efforts to increase pedagogical practices consonant with (these).”

First, no audit is taking place, whatever it would be. Second, this apparently includes: 1) firing Shelini Harris and Eleanor Branch, and 2) finding someone better at this then they are.