Presentation:

Professor Nazario began the session by giving a brief overview of twenty years of diversity initiatives at Rutgers University as a conceptual framework for participants to use when considering the efforts at their own institutions. The rapidly-shifting demographics of New Jersey offer a fertile ground for cross-cultural exchange. New Jersey is the 5th most diverse state in the nation with rapidly increasing ethnic and racial populations. Rutgers serves over 45,000 students in three campuses throughout the state: Newark, Camden, and New Brunswick/Piscataway. Nearly thirty-two percent of the students, twenty-two percent of the faculty and thirty-two percent of the staff are from ethnic and racial under-represented populations. At Rutgers University, the effort to strengthen diversity is ongoing. Over the years, as knowledge of diversity scholarship broadened and as awareness of the social and academic benefits of having a diverse learning environment increased, Rutgers began to experiment with strategies to implement a more “integrative” approach to diversity.

Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, the number of academic departments and cultural programs that addressed diversity increased. On the New Brunswick campus, these include: the Paul Robeson Cultural Center, the Center for Latino Arts and Culture, the Asian American Cultural Center, The Human Rights House, The Islamic Center, the Chabad House, the Institute for Research on Women; and on the Newark campus, the Institute on Ethnicity, Culture, and the Modern Experience. However, these programs tended to be run at the margins of the university without interdisciplinary participation.

To make issues of diversity central to the university, the Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes was formed in 1987 to initiate and support programs that deepen understanding and celebrate diversity. It was followed in the spring of 2000 by the Multicultural Task Force which went beyond mere intercultural understanding to examine how positive intercultural interactions can occur. The Task Force concluded its report by conceptually connecting the various units working on diversity so that intercultural understanding and appreciation of diversity become central to the undergraduate experience (Armstrong-West et al., 2000). Two major university governance bodies, the University Senate and the New Brunswick Faculty Council, endorsed the report and urged undergraduate college curriculum committees to require curricular and co-curricular experiences in diversity. However, it was clear that the multicultural structures that had been created since the 1970’s (all working as silos) did not provide the systematic infrastructure needed to make these transformative changes in undergraduate education. Conceptualizing diversity issues in a more coherent and comprehensive way required new ways of thinking about undergraduate education as well as creating structures to support collaboration.

As a first step, Rutgers assessed the current status of diversity by using the Developmental Diversity Initiative Model (Knox and Teraguchi, 2005) which conceptualizes diversity as a developmental continuum of four stages. The model takes into consideration the integration of both the micro and macro levels of the institution. Micro levels include projects, programs, and curricular and co-curricular initiatives, while macro levels involve the commitment of institutional leadership and infrastructure. Developed by Dr. Daniel Teraguchi, this model uses three measures to assess full integration of diversity—centrality, pervasiveness and integration. The four stages are nominal with few diversity initiatives all emanating from the macro level; marginalized with few diversity initiatives on the periphery of the micro level; balanced where there is interplay between the micro and macro spheres; and institutionalized where diversity is central, pervasive and integrated resulting in the best outcomes of educational quality, sustainability and academic excellence. In 2000, Rutgers was at the marginalized level implementing diversity at the micro sphere level, with numerous centers, institutes, culturally-specific departments and multicultural programs working in isolation of one another. There was also a disconnect between different units offering diversity-focused programs which were perceived to be primarily social activities. Therefore, Rutgers’ greatest challenge was how to cultivate support for transforming the undergraduate experience so that diversity and cross-cultural understanding would be embedded and centralized in undergraduate education.

In order to do foster support effectively, Rutgers needed to rethink and redevelop: a) the content focus of undergraduate education; as well as b) the way we structured our work and activities at this very large, complex university. We needed to adapt our content focus to address issues of intercultural interaction, rather than only addressing multiple individual cultures understood in isolation from each other, and we needed to restructure to connect the various units at the university that work on intercultural issues in an effort to make them central to the undergraduate experience.

In 2002, Rutgers became one of eight New Jersey higher education institutions to be awarded funding from the Joan and Allen Bildner Foundation’s New Jersey Campus Diversity Initiative. The others institutions that received funding included: Princeton University, Rowan University, Bergen Community College, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, County College of Morris, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, and Bloomfield College. Rutgers’ primary goal for the Initiative was to “infuse diversity and intercultural competency into the curriculum and make comprehensive connections among courses and co-curricular learning-based programs.” The goal was accomplished through the formation of two steering committees each composed of faculty representatives, students, staff, and administrators from both academic and student affairs. These steering committees served as vehicles for goal setting, planning, implementation, promotion, and communication across disciplines and functions. The strategic objectives developed by the Steering Committees were to: a) revise and develop courses to address intercultural interaction; b) to develop co-curricular activities to enhance intercultural interaction; and, c) to connect the various existing intercultural and multicultural activities on campus. The Initiative had great support from the University President which was a key factor in its success.

A major part of the planning and implementation process was accomplished through the establishment of the Bildner Faculty Fellows. Fellows were selected through a peer review process with faculty members of the Steering Committees serving as reviewers. Each campus developed distinct criteria and goals in order to bring about curricular change throughout the disciplines that fit the needs of the individual region. Fellows were given a $4,000 stipend that could be used for summer salary, research-related travel, supplies, equipment, and/or student assistants. They also participated in faculty development workshops focusing on incorporating intercultural issues in the curriculum, and received guidance on assessment. The Faculty Fellows were also empowered to bring in diversity scholars from other universities to share the latest thinking in the field with their department colleagues. They conducted research to re-think their instructional approaches, and then revised or re-designed courses to incorporate the pursuit of intercultural interaction and the study of social justice issues. To date, there is a cohort of forty fellows in various disciplines.

Professor Nazario gave three examples some of the course work resulting from the Bildner Initiative.

1. Professor Dorothy Hodgson, Department of Anthropology, created teaching modules for new mandatory recitation sections of Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, aimed at increasing students’ understanding of and tolerance for people different from themselves. The modules incorporate active learning strategies. Several types of teaching modules have been developed to review, engage, apply and expand the material on culture, power, and social difference that will be taught in the lectures. These include: a) exercises designed to apply course material (drafting mock field notes, compiling kinship charts, performing a conversational analysis); b) mini-research projects (preparing and doing a semi-structured interview, a cross-cultural analysis of a social practice); c) weekly discussion guides and questions for teaching assistants to help students review, absorb and synthesize course materials. The course attracts about 700 students per year.


2. Professor Ethel Brooks, Departments of Women’s and Gender Studies and Sociology, and Professor Louisa Schein, Departments of Anthropology and Women’s and Gender Studies, developed in tandem three three-week teaching modules on the intercultural factors underlying war and terror for use in the following courses: Women, Culture and Society; Reading Ethnographic Writing; and Sociology of the Third World. These teaching modules encourage student understanding of the lived experiences, cultures and historical contexts of war and terror, and of the intercultural factors underlying such forms of human aggression. In addition, an advanced undergraduate course is being developed in Women’s and Gender Studies that will be offered under the title, War, Gender and Terror in Comparative Perspective. A reading and resource list for undergraduates and faculty with the theme of war and terror is being developed.


3. Professors Kevin St. Martin and Robin Leichenko, Department of Geography, revised the course History and Theory of Geography to incorporate an examination of geographic research and thought from non-Western traditions. A multi-cultural and global context will be developed early in the course and will provide a framework with which to examine contemporary geographic thought. Specific revisions include: revision of the course syllabus to reflect the new intercultural emphasis; development of a series of lectures based on case studies of “encounters” between Western geography and non-Western traditions of geographic thought; and development of student group projects and presentations on intercultural topics. Case studies will include: Native American mapmaking and the colonization of America; Polynesian seafaring; Islamic traditions in geography; Ireland in the 16th century; and African slave trade.

The Bildner Initiative also had a broad impact on co-curricular programming by identifying historically marginalized special programs and projects already in existence. Identifying these existing programs included seeking out student leaders and organizations that were involved in developing programs targeting the needs of students. By consulting best practices in co-curricular programming the Honors Program, the Institute on Ethnicity, Culture, and the Modern Experience in Newark and programming developed by the cultural centers and research institutes were found to be central to structuring, planning and implementing co-curricular programs university wide. The Honors Colloquium is a one-credit course designed to stimulate intellectual discourse and provide students with an interdisciplinary approach to learning. The Colloquium enhances the academic experience in the classroom by encouraging the application of ideas. Through a series of performances, lectures, visits to art exhibitions, poetry readings, film screenings, and participation in Rutgers events, students explore topics of social, scientific and philosophical significance. The Colloquium served as a model of co-curricular programming.

The process for development of co-curricular activities related to the newly revised courses was developed as a result of input from the Steering Committee members and subcommittees. Representatives of the deans’ offices of the undergraduate liberal arts colleges headed the committees and were invited to meet with the Intercultural Faculty Fellows. The Fellows explained their curricular concepts. The deans in conjunction with the Fellows, academic administrators, and student affairs staff together developed ideas for co-curricular activities that reached large numbers of students and complemented the new and revised courses. The leaders of these units came together as a subcommittee and developed a grant process to provide support for co-curricular collaborative programs. This incentive allowed student affairs staff and faculty to become familiar with one another. The more successful cross-disciplinary collaborations of faculty and student affairs staff received special recognition in the form of additional funding and/or articles printed in the faculty newspaper highlighting special achievements. The President and Deans gave recognition awards and praised the fellows, staff and working teams at Board of Governors and Trustee meetings as well as at public events.

Professor Nazario concluded her presentation with concrete lessons learned from the process including the importance of obtaining “buy-in” from senior faculty, even though it was the junior faculty in most cases who were the ones most willing to work across disciplines. She indicated that getting “buy-in” entailed networking to tap into the informal social relationships that exist at all institutions. Hindsight also taught her that assessment needed to be built into the change process from the beginning in order to have a snapshot of the institution pre- and post-implementation as well as to guide future efforts and resource allocation. Finally, faculty development featuring pedagogical strategies on how to broach difficult dialogues related to race and ethnicity was essential.

Discussion:

The discussion focused on how attendees could apply what was presented at their respective institutions given their own cultures and restraints. For example, an attendee noted that the University of Berkeley has a university-wide graduation course requirement on diversity entitled, “American Cultures” dedicated to examining issues of local, domestic diversity and inclusion, but the impact of Proposition 209 has been to exclude minorities from the class. Thus, given the environment resulting from Proposition 209, how can diversity initiatives be implemented? Ms. Nazario suggested that diversity be conceptualized in research centers and institutes in addition to course work stating that the scholarship of the course work provides a conceptual framework for students to connect to what is happening locally in the community. It is the responsibility of faculty to help students go from the conceptual to the practical level, which is the real challenge. At this point, Julio Nazario, Assistant Dean of Academic Programs and Director of the Honor Program at Rutgers’ Livingston College, described the new restructuring process currently underway at Rutgers which involves the centralization of its individual liberal arts colleges to create a common core curriculum, various campus living/learning communities, a consolidation of services, etc. He noted that the process of the restructuring always includes discussion of local issues of race and how we see others in an effort to incorporate diversity issues.

Another participant emphasized that while it is important to make diversity central to scholarly work, a distinction must be made between interpreting cultural competency in terms of inclusiveness and tolerance versus using it as a lens for a more critical pedagogy aimed at social and institutional change. Since critical pedagogy drives institutional change, Ms. Nazario noted that another positive outcome of the Bildner Diversity Initiative was that Rutgers has been able to identify and disseminate the best practices of faculty regarding critical pedagogy. Institutional change will happen as respected, recently-tenured scholars of color are groomed for future leadership positions. Socially-conscious faculty who were appointed in the 70’s are now in positions of power and are active in the recruitment and mentoring of diverse faculty. In addition, Rutgers has created a faculty diversity office that mentors junior faculty and monitors who receives tenure.

One participant asked how, as the only faculty member of color at her institution, she could initiate such enormous changes as the ones being described at Rutgers. Professor Nazario suggested that she identify key alliances with other like-minded faculty and staff while not discounting the importance of bringing her own diverse perspective to the table. She further stated that one has to “take the pulse” of one’s own institution which may necessitate negotiating one’s position with the institution differently. This point led others to discuss the difficulty of recruiting faculty of color to institutions with reputations of having predominantly white faculty due to the perceived lack of support. Professor Nazario responded by relating how Rutgers sometimes “cluster” hires faculty of color so that they create a support structure for new faculty. Another strategy is to court a professor by offering a three-year, part-time contract to teach every other semester so that he or she has an opportunity to develop their own comfort level with the institution before committing to full-time.

An attendee from the University of Cincinnati made the point that there is no reason why white faculty cannot talk about race using as an example how he calls on his straight colleagues to teach sexuality in complex ways thereby opening up new space to talk about gender power relations as opposed to only queer faculty discussing them. Dr. Nazario responded by emphasizing that faculty development is key since even gifted scholars sometimes will not broach subjects of race and social justice issues in the classroom out of fear of saying the “wrong” thing to students. As part of the Bildner Initiative, two consultants were brought in to conduct faculty workshops on how to have serious discussions about social justice with students. Another participant suggested that the fear of saying the wrong thing comes from a position of privilege.

The discussion then focused on how individual faculty members can take responsibility for their own development through grassroots networking among each other. A participant from the University of Maine related how at her predominantly-white university, faculty have formed a Diversity Leadership Institute where they attend the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity (NCORE) and then informally meet once a month to discuss issues that they can take back to their classroom. She emphasized that this work is done all for personal development by individual faculty members. Professor Nazario responded that while there is an organic synergy that can induce change, without a structure it will not be institutionalized. Too often programs are started based on vision and effort of an individual. When that person leaves, the program disappears unless it has been institutionalized. She further emphasized that the structure created also needs to be assessed to know what parts work and to guide future efforts.

Recommendations:

Individual Institution Recommendations:

1. Assess where the institution is along a diversity continuum from nominal where few diversity initiatives are present to institutionalized which is characterized by diversity being viewed as a core value synonymous with academic excellence, integrated and pervasive throughout the institution. This first step of assessment will guide what goals and strategies are realistic given the particular stage of diversity development at the institution.
2. Before undertaking any diversity initiative, identify the institutional history and develop key alliances to build upon past efforts.
3. Given the significance of the need for funding to transform institutions with respect to diversity, develop a network across institutions devoted to helping each other with grant writing, technical support and identifying opportunities for funding.
4. Institutionalizing diversity initiatives needs to be supported by the university’s top administration and tenured influential faculty.
5. Faculty development on how to initiate and guide difficult dialogues related to race and social justice issues needs to be conducted.

Recommendations for the Reinvention Center:

1. The Reinvention Center should consider a mid-conference summit to develop a programmatic agenda to make diversity and its various implications, (i.e. engagement, public scholarship) the focus of the next conference.

References/Resources:

Armstrong-West, S., Balliet, B., Bahory, B., Brickmayer, K., Dejong N., Dennis, E., et al. (2000). Report of the Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes Curriculum Task Force. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://diversityweb.rutgers.edu/taskforcereport.pdf

Knox, M., and Teraguchi, D.H., (2005) “Institutional Models That Cultivate Comprehensive Change.” Diversity Digest, Volume 9, Number 2. 10-11. http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/vol9no2/knox.cfm