After years of planning and revising, Guilford’s Diversity Plan is in the home stretch. It is in the final revision stage, with one additional draft pending before its submission to the board of trustees in Feb. 2009.The first objective of this current revision was the removal of any loopholes present in the last draft. Concerns over the language used to represent diversity were directly addressed to ensure that no constituency was left out of the plan.
“The new target groups cover everybody,” said David Hammond, theatre studies professor. “You can look at the draft and say, ‘my group is represented there.'”
As outlined in the draft, the groups are based on “race, gender, ethnicity, sexual identity, and international origin.” Unless specifically qualified within the document, the term “diversity” refers to all five groups.
Additionally, members of the Strategic Long Range Planning committee (SLRP) hope that terminology more representative of the intersections of identities will be implemented once the board approves the plan.
“We cannot avoid using the federal government’s classifications of what denotes ‘diversity’ because such terms are still evolving,” said Hammond. “The National Center for Educational Statistics has many more classifications that are astoundingly specific and could be adapted.”
Senior Meisha McDaniel expressed concern about how the Diversity Plan would affect faculty-hiring policy. Currently, objective 1.2 of the Plan projects that Guilford will increase the total number of faculty and staff representing diversity by 2015.
“A representative from the Multicultural Education department should interview prospective candidates for faculty,” McDaniel said.
Hammond feels that such an allowance would be too specific to address the review process of each specific department.
“The Diversity Plan is the Declaration of Independence as opposed to the Constitution,” Hammond said, meaning that the plan will not outline specific applications for diversity promotion and protection, but rather provide a backdrop for such goals.
Martha Lang, visiting assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, articulated concerns about making the campus more accessible to students with disabilities.
“There are things we can immediately do that don’t cost money but will help make the campus far more accessible,” Lang said.
Implementation of these kinds of specific goals will be handled after the Plan is passed. Increasing the number of courses that contain diversity within their curriculum and increasing the involvement of students representing diversity in curricular and co-curricular activities are also primary objectives.
To consider such measures, a Diversity Action Committee will be established no later than 2010. The DAC will, according to the Diversity Plan, “coordinate the work of the Diversity Plan and make recommendations directly to the President of the College.”
This committee will likely supersede the current Cultural Pluralism Committee that currently promotes cultural and intellectual diversity.
“The DAC will be comprised of members from every department and will also include members of the target diversity groups,” Hammond said.
As the plan nears completion, interim coordinator of the Multicultural Education department Holly Wilson stresses that feedback is imperative even at this late stage of the process.
“This revision is definitely more direct. It makes explicit what aspects of diversity will be protected,” Wilson said. “People must take ownership of this plan so that actual policies can be implemented.”
The current draft of the plan can be accessed online via the Guilford Beacon archives.