K-State 2025 Diversity Strategic Action Plan Feedback Report
Between March 25 and May 5, 2014, the K-State community was invited to provide feedback on the K-State 2025 Draft Diversity Strategic Action Plan. This report compiles the online comments and suggestions received during the formal comment period.
Do you agree with the proposed goals in the K-State 2025 Diversity Strategic Action Plan?
Total Responses: 39
Suggest reducing key activities listed. Seventy-nine (79) key activities is either not practical to achieve or there are redundancies in the list.
Very general and open proposed goals nothing really going on for Native people? Looks like window dressing with no resource behind the goals? Needs targeted data and actual numbers to measure from? To really see if you are making a different on campus recruiting and retaining underrepresent student and staff...
Need to define "diversity" itself. Does diversity include individuals with disabilities? Those with faiths (or no faith) other than the majority? Are international students counted as multicultural or in another group? How is diversity measured? For example, "every unit reporting on status of diversity" -- this may mean different things to different units. Does it mean number of minority students enrolled? Does it mean incorporation of multicultural competencies in the curriculum?
My yes should be qualified as yes with comments! In general, there are many very good outcomes listed. However, one seems particularly challenging. The concept of funding tied to success (5% of U revenue..) is concerning. What about the academic area? What about non-trad services? What about tutoring? What about K-State First? Currently K-State does not have a fiscal model for this. It could cause ripple impacts that would be divisive. If diversity initiatives are underfunded then establishing desired levels of funding and setting them as goals (using the % model as justification) would possibly be more in line with K-State's current practices.
Summary. We all share the goals of increasing diversity among our faculty, staff and students, and increasing the cultural competence of our graduates. We have made progress toward those goals in the past, and will continue to do so, even if the rate of progress is not what it could be in a university with abundant resources. Prioritizing how KSU allocates its limited resources will require difficult decisions, but in all cases the parameters for prioritization must rank the core missions of the university very highly. In that situation it might be difficult to find adequate resources to fund all aspects of this plan, even if they are all worthwhile. Particular aspects of this plan, revolving around the two themes of resources and pedagogy, require additional thought and consideration, since they could result in outcomes that are at odds with the worthy goals of increasing diversity and cultural competency among KSU faculty, staff and students. Specific comments on the Draft k-State 2025 Diversity Strategic action plan Section I. All of the questions in this section revolve around resources. Elevating the associate provost to a vice-presidential status (#4) will certainly come with an increased salary for that position, for example. But the major problem with this section is the identification of 5, 7 and eventually 10% of the “university revenue generated by diversity success in enrollment and retention” that will be provided to the Office of Diversity (outcome G). It is not clear how this revenue number will be calculated, but it seems quite clear from the rest of the plan that the calculation will be done by the office that will be the beneficiary. The fox guarding the hen hose seems to be the most apt analogy. That is never a good idea. In addition, instructional units on this campus have been hoping for equitable division of tuition revenue based on student credit hours for years; that has not happened and does not seem to be happening in the immediate or short-term future. It will be deeply problematic if a unit that does NO instructional service is now going to reap tuition revenue based on some metric that is a lot harder to calculate than student credit hours. That is simply not acceptable until we get to a position where the units generating tuition revenue have an opportunity for a similar percentage distribution plan. An additional problem that surfaces in this section (#7), and throughout the report (see below), is the enhancement of the roles of the Diversity Point Persons (DPPs). The DPP concept is part of the problem with the outrageously burdensome and unresponsive hiring process for faculty members at KSU. The DPPs add an unnecessary step to the hiring process, deliver no value to the hiring process, and need to be abolished rather than enhanced. Section II. The resources needed for several of these planned initiatives will be substantial. Adding a retention data specialist to the Office of Planning and Analysis (outcome O) is a great idea, but that person should not just focus on diversity retention data if that position is added. Tracking and monitoring every HUR student (#18) will be a substantial task, requiring resources which are not identified in the plan. Providing tutoring for “high-failure rate classes” (#21) will also be quite expensive, depending on the definition of “high-failure rate”. Best-practice training for STEM instructors (#25) will also be expensive, and it is disturbing to see that STEM classes are singled out as being “high-failure rate”. But the most disturbing aspect of this section is #25 – “…holding faculty accountable for student learning”. We should all understand that students are responsible for learning. Instructors are responsible for instructing to the best of their ability. But they cannot be held accountable for a poorly prepared student, or a student who does not take responsibility for his/her own learning. I know a lot of instructors at KSU, and every one of them will go the extra mile to help a student learn. But we cannot learn for them, and it is frankly insulting to be told that we are accountable for something that is dependent on too many factors beyond our control. Section III. The DPPs (mentioned in #28c) should be abolished, as mentioned above. A “standard set of interview questions” (#28e) is just another top-down, one-size-fits-all suggestion that will not solve any problem, and implementing this “standard set” of questions will be just another hurdle in the already arduous and over-complicated hiring process for faculty members. Item #29 (a budget line in the Office of Diversity to “assist with hiring”) is another top-down additional obstacle to efficient hiring. This position would be expensive, and difficult to evaluate, since hiring to increase diversity is very dependent on many other factors besides this alleged assistance. The mandated diversity training for all (#36), and orientation for new hires (#38) will also require significant resources for a program whose effectiveness cannot be measured. Section IV. “Culturally competent teaching strategies” and inclusion of “specific language about promoting multiculturalism and culturally competent teaching strategies” in promotion and tenure documents (#46) sounds like a great idea, but is, once more, a top-down solution that has limited applicability in many disciplines. It is, for example, difficult to see how cultural competence components could be added to a class on electrical circuit design. Forcing instructors to fit into specific boxes that are not necessarily appropriate to their discipline might actually cause resentment and distrust of the worthy goal of increasing diversity on this campus. Sections V through X. Additional resources, in some cases at a significant level, will be needed to support initiatives in all of these sections (e.g., items 50, 52, 55, 56a, 57a, 58, 59, 62, 63a, 64, 69, 70, 76, 79, and others). Fundraising will account for some of the funds needed, but in many cases the university general funds will be needed to start or continue these activities. General comments on the plan. Resources. All of the strategic plans submitted across campus require new resources, and many of them are more tightly linked to the core missions of the university (imparting and creating knowledge). It is not clear where we can find the resources for our core missions, and much less clear where we can find the resources for worthwhile initiatives that are not firmly embedded in our core missions. Prioritizing our scarce resources will be difficult, but it is hoped that our core missions will not be sacrificed to support other activities. In particular, if a dedicated portion of tuition is diverted to any activity, it should be diverted to support the activities that generate tuition income. Academics. Embedding cultural competence in appropriate academic disciplines is ongoing, and will continue. But a top-down mandate to embed this in all disciplines is an overreach that might backfire and generate resentment toward the very goals that are driving this strategic plan. In addition, student learning is just that, student learning. Factors beyond the control of instructors determine student learning, and holding faculty members “accountable” for learning is both unrealistic and unfair.
There is no definition of diversity and because the PCMA headed this effort, it is clear from the list of activities that only race and ethnicity were considered. Diversity should include gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, religion, veteran status, and national origin. Of all places, our diversity strategic action plan should be inclusive and reflect the complexity of the K-State community. The Office of Diversity is sited throughout this document, however other entities on campus are not such as, the Women's Center, LGBT Resource Center, Student Access Center, Office of Veteran's Affairs, International Students, etc. There also seems to be significant focus on the hiring process and the Office of Diversity. The hiring process should continue to be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Institutional Equity.
2. Who is going to hold the leadership accountable? 4. If the CDO is suppose to support faculty, staff, and students, then maybe the position should report to the President; however, the position should be available to everyone to apply because an inclusive leader is necessary to advocate for services of women, minorities, LGBT, individuals with disabilities, and veterans. Those offices should be considered into the reporting structure. 10. Shouldn't the university address the recruitment of the LGBT community too? This list does not seems inclusive. Who is advocating for same-partner benefits? These faculty and staff have issues that are not being addressed. 12. Define diverse representation? Does this include veterans? 14. Shouldn't we include LGBT, disabled, veterans in recruitment efforts? 17. Shouldn't all students be a part of success? How is this measured? 26. Do we track the satisfaction of all students? Is there information shared and distributed to leadership in the colleges? 28. Including DPPs in the search process will lead to a more cumbersome process. Shouldn't we give the HR professionals the tools they need to be successful strategic partners to create strategic diversity recruitment plans? Shouldn't we develop subject matter experts to assist the hiring officials in outreach to diverse talent. This seems to add to the responsibility of a DPP and throughout this document, the tasks may add up to a full time position focused on only these initiatives. The hiring practice should be streamlined to include the involvement of HR professionals. Maybe this task should be reassigned to the VPHC strategic plan. 29. The creation of a budget line should be established in the VPHC. The hiring process needs addressed, so give HC the tools to be successful. If a budget line is established then it should be identified what the funds are available to accomplish. The funds should not only benefit a certain group. It should be inclusive. 31. Who will hold the deans, etc. accountable? 33. Is there a mentorship available to all employees? This should be established in VPHC because this is learning development and an opportunity to address the needs of all employees. Many of the items in this document are requested for underrepresented staff, but they are not established as best practices or tools for all staff. 35. Exit interviews should be conducted by HC for all employees and the data should be shared with colleges. An action plan should be established to address the retention themes/trends for all employees regardless of race, and gender. 40. There should be a standard practice to establish retention of all employees. This metric is not being measured and it should be conducted by VPHC. 41. The VPHC should establish a best practices to recruit and retain diverse talent. Where is their involvement? They should lead this process. 42. Why would the university create a tracking system of historically underrepresented faculty and staff? This makes me uncomfortable. Does that mean I should only go to one of those persons if I have a problem? This is very problematic and creates an environment of separatism. This does not foster an inclusive environment. 43. Why would you track grievances/discrimination suits brought by historically underrepresented individuals and the outcomes. This seems to foster additional problems. What will be done with this information? Is all discrimination unwelcomed regardless of who reported it? How does this impact the climate in a positive environment? Where do we send everyone else for help? 47. Shouldn't this be in the College of Arts and Science Strategic plan? How can this plan dictate to a dean the creation of tenure positions? If so, how were these two units chosen? What about other departments that have underutilization of women and/or minorities. Where is the focus on improving opportunities to diversify those departments and improve our student interaction with diverse faculty? 50. Can we increase partnerships with LGBT, disabilities services, veterans, and other diverse schools and individuals? Where is the focus to assist the international students? Fundraising doesn't seem to address diverse partnerships in the Arts; such as; Beach Museum, McCain, or the library. 62. A salary structure should be analyzed by an HR professional who has the experience and knowledge for all employees.
There is a lot of good stuff in here; however I am surprised that the first goal is mired in administrativia. Why? The other goals are more important, and frankly can be achieved without the first goal -- especially on creating ANOTHER VP. Seems more about positional power than increasing diversity. Also ALL the other goals relate to academics, which means the diversity office should report to the provost. THIS LEADER SHOULD NOT BE A VICE PRESIDENT.
While the goals represented are admirable, they don't go far enough. I do not see the term "LGBT" used anywhere. I see no reference to persons with disabilities. This is a narrow definition of diversity that is based solely on ethnicity and skin color. diversity is much broader than that. C'mon folks, this is the 21st century. Let's act like it.
Comments on the DRAFT K-State 2025 Diversity Strategic Action Plan: 1. There is still no university-wide definition of diversity. Example: E. In the Short Term (2013-2015) activities, “racial/ethnic/cultural diversity on the President’s Cabinet” does not include queers (lgbtqqi) or disabled or military; “racial/ethnic” means skin color; we have to raise the level of diversity beyond skin color; if this university cannot raise the understanding of diversity beyond skin color, then we cannot claim to have begun to educate multiculturally; internationalization is not diversity Example: J. “functioning diversity committees in all colleges” SHOULD mean committees with representative committee members who represent the broad range of diverse employees; without a definition, there is no way to evaluate the success (or failure) of these initiatives and/or committees 2. Under Section III Goal, III, Retention, 35. “conduct exit surveys with historically under-represented persons who leave the university: these exit surveys should include every level of diverse student: disabled, queer, military, women, students with IEPs; again, concentration on skin color does not go far enough 3. Section V Goal, V. Diversity Partnerships should include international, national and community organizations beyond skin color and hbcu’s; PFLAG; Human Rights Campaign; Consortium for LGBT Higher Education Professionals; and others. 4. Every time multicultural is used, the definition must be made clear and all diverse students, staff, and faculty should be included. For instance, as far as I know, queer students are not invited or encouraged to attend any of the end of year “Multicultural” graduation events, to apply for scholarships, etc. Multiple identities have to be taken into account IF we are going to use the word, multicultural; internationalization is not multicultural education
I find it interesting that the term "GLBTQ" is listed on the abbreviations page, but appears nowhere in the document. It's time to broaden our definition of diversity to include LGBT issues in the plan. They are sorely lacking. It's hard to take this plan seriously, despite it's great detail, without recognition of a broader understanding of the term diversity. I suggest the document be reworked to include goals that relate to the LGBT community.
Concerns about the DRAFT Plan for Diversity 3. “Continue to evolve and position the Office of Diversity for success” What does this mean? Without knowing what “success” means, and with severe concerns about the current Office definition of “diversity,” I am not in favor of expanded support of this office. 4. I do not support transforming the current Chief Diversity Officer to be a Vice President. Her view of diversity is much too limited. 5. If a diversity fundraiser could seek funding for scholarships, that would be great. But do not seek extra funds for programming such as banquets, summits, etc. for faculty and staff. Most of the people who attend these programs do not need them, but our students do! 6. PCMA: it is described as having broad representation, but does it have students? Students with disabilities? LGBT students? Overweight/mentally ill/military/non-traditional? Multicultural does not only mean multi-racial or multi-ethnic. 7. DPP: it’s important to have leadership, but the DPPs should not be compared against each other, because each has a college with unique and diverse issues! 8. Similarly: do not give awards for the best diversity committee: that is divisive. Let’s encourage the committees to work together. 11-15: Make sure that recruitment and retention and scholarships go to HUR students who are not ONLY defined by their racial or ethnic profile. Students, faculty and staff of in all possible categories must be included. 17. Certainly all students, especially HUR students (including first generation, minority, LGBT, women—in some fields—disabled), need to be offered student success programs. But we MUST NOT measure our progress on whether they want or need or participate in such programs!—certainly not by tying a percentage of participation to our “success”! 21. Students are reporting a lack of 1 on 1 tutoring, which they desperately need and want. It costs money, but it is effective, and it demonstrates that we are investing in each student, one at a time. 22. I object to the term “hand off.” We should strive for a more seamless advising system across departments and colleges. Students do not like to be treated as items to be handed off or compelled to do something only because they are members of a certain demographic. To be an inclusive campus, we must offer opportunities to all, but not require participation of some because of their affiliation with one or another HUR category. 23. If the DPP could have funds for book scholarships, that would go a long way to helping a lot of students begin their semesters ready and able to learn. 25. I am not sure what is meant by “holding faculty accountable for student learning.” Faculty must never be made “more” accountable for working with HUR students than with students in general. We must continue to work toward a climate of inclusiveness. 28. The DPP should certainly have an advisory role in searches, but must not—indeed, cannot physically--be a part of every search. 33. Great idea to encourage more mentorship of HUR folks. However, everyone should be involved and should learn how to mentor others. The new Latina professor should have a Latino/a//Hispanic mentor, if possible, but also someone in her field who has been trained to be culturally sensitive. We need to mentor the mentors. We should all be mentors. A set of suggested questions for candidates would be a wonderful resource, but it must be suggested, not mandatory: Academic freedom; freedom of speech Section IV: section 44-47: We need sections on LGBT/military/disabled/etc! Multicultural competence needs to address much more than race and ethnicity. 35. Exit surveys: very important, but what will be done with them? Loop the results back with current students to praise successes and recommend changes. ***** Section V: Include partnerships with other types of diverse constituencies. Section VI: Fundraising must include funds for LGBT, SAC, Women’s Center, Non-trad/Military-affiliated, etc. We must be inclusive in our drive towards diversity!
This is more of what we have already had for the past decade or more: It's not inclusive of what encompassing diversity means.
Edit* CATL (Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning) is now called the Teaching and Learning Center.?
I do not believe it is broadly defined. This would be a wonderful time to include lgbt, people with disabilities, etc.
As I read through the Diversity Strategic Plan, I feel it has a rather narrow view of diversity. I was sad to see that the focus is on the older, traditional view of diversity rather than more recent definitions of diversity, which in most circles is broader and almost always includes students with disabilities. I ma not surprised that our faculty are woefully uninformed about how to accommodate students with disabilities since the university doesn't even mention disability in a supposed future look at diversity on our campus. I thought maybe I had missed it in my reading of the plan so I went back and did a search for the word "disability" in the document and there was not one occurrence. I know that many of the RFPs from the National Science Foundation specifically solicit proposals having to do with the recruitment of students with disabilities into STEM fields. If this population of students (and faculty) continues to be ignored in our planning as we move forward, I fear our university with go back 25 years rather than forward.
The plan is narrowly focused on and restricted to a very shallow definition of diversity. It seems like anything outside of the race, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation parameters simply isn't addressed. It goes to great lengths to address the concerns and shepherding of those included within their definitions, but anything or anyone outside of those defined groups simply doesn't exist and does not have needs addressed. For example, there is nothing in there that reflects efforts to recruit anyone with a physical impairment. Expand the definition of "diversity" to be inclusive of persons with all types of diverse characteristics.
I don't think that the Associate Provost for Diversity should be Vice-President.
THE ENTIRE PLAN NEEDS TO BE TRASHED. THERE WERE EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES GOING ON WHEN FORMING THE COMMITTEE TO DRAFT THIS PLAN. THERE IS NO LGBTQ STUDENT REPRESENTATION, NO DISABILITIES STUDENT REPRESENTATION, AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE STUDENT FROM BSU THAT REPRESENTED - WHERE IS THE STUDENT REPRESENTATION FROM HALO, AASU, AND NASA??? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. I BELIEVE THAT THESE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE HAND-PICKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANIPULATING THE PLAN INTO WHAT THE OFFICE OF DIVERSITY WANTED. I BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN CONSTITUENCIES WERE EXCLUDED ON PURPOSE DUE TO HOMOPHOBIA AND A RELUCTANCE TO RECOGNIZE CERTAIN POPULATIONS AS "DIVERSE" AND HISTORICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED. THIS PLAN IS GARBAGE. GARBAGE. GARBAGE. K-STATE SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED. ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED THAT THEY LET THIS HAPPEN.
They are unrealistic. More faculty and students of color need to join the university.
The plan is good but must include specific language to include the LGBT community and should include commitment to provide equal benefits when possible and the University should be a front runner in requesting the state to provide equal benefits as well.
Increase the scope of diversity. It is somewhat narrow. Provide a plan for partner hiring programs. It is well documented that women and minority faculty are offered partner hires less often than male counterparts. This is the case at KSU. A fair and institutionalized plan would be a major step forward towards removing this bias.
K-State has lived by tradition, with a capital T, and unfortunately lack of diversity has been and remains built in. We know this is the middle of Kansas and this small white, conservative community does not call out to ethnic or other minorities. Perhaps KSU will never have a truly diverse student body. That said, there is diversity among Kansans. We are here! I remember when the Diversity office didn't even "count" American Indians, let alone LGBT or disabled or other others. While KSU checks its boxes and covers itself legally, actual human beings - who pay taxes and are university citizens - are left to fend for ourselves. The Majority Culture, those who benefit from the status quo, don't know enough to want change.
The Strategic Plan does a fair job of representing underrepresented domestic minorities with respect to race and I am very glad to see this documented as one of the most important aspects of the President's 2025 visionary plan. However, I strongly assert that use of the words "Diversity" and "Multicultural" in the current draft of the Diversity Strategic Plan do not include ALL groups of underrepresented students, faculty, or staff. Diversity and Multicultural definitions should be all encompassing to also include Gay, Lesbian, Transgender students, faculty, and staff AND people with disabilities. I am also very concerned and perplexed by the LEGEND at the end of the Draft document that includes the term GLBTQ (Individuals who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning and/or queer) YET there is NO mention of this underrepresented group in the 2025 Diversity Strategic Plan. IF the intention was to include GLBTQ in the document, then it was omitted. Please consider including GLBTQ students, staff, or faculty on the President's Commission on Multicultural Affairs to represent the collective voice of this underrepresented and growing group at KSU.
For the most part the Strategic Plan acts as a continuation of previous plans in that it does not address a uniform definition of what diverse populations are being targeted or addressed. As of now, there is much debate as to whether the Office of Diversity is representative of underrepresented groups on the campus that are not racially distinguishable. Many students, faculty, and staff are aware of committees that have not been fully developed with equal representation that are the responsibility of the Office of Diversity. Additionally, there is a long-standing lack of interest or recognition from the Office of Diversity of sexuality, gender identity, non-Christians, international students, and other diverse populations that has undermined the capability of this Strategic Plan being effective in the future.
As far as they go. I have consistently supported, and still do support, strong efforts to enhance racial, ethnic and cultural diversity. But I think that the report does not get very far in becoming inclusive of the broader meaning of diversity.
Vice President for diversity should have experience and understanding of all diversity-those protected classes
1. There is in general at KSU way too much reliance on the Tilford Competencies, and lack of attention to national scholarship on race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, colonization and decolonization, disability, and their inter-relationships. This office needs to become more educated about scholarship relating to issues of diversity, and not pretend that the Tilford Competencies can stand in for this scholarship, which is wide ranging, deep, and by no means uniform. 2. The overall goals of this strategic plan seem to be to centralize control in the Office of Diversity, a plan I am not in favor of. I think other units on campus actually do better diversity work than this office has historically done. _Particularly_ on issues of sexuality and sexual orientation, but also on issues of race and gender understood beyond a black/white binary. 3. Specifically, I think that departments with expert scholars who have published on issue of power, identity, representation, privilege, critical race studies, etc etc should be involved in assessing university diversity and hiring practices, rather than assuming that the Office of Diversity is the best qualified to provide either assessment or training on these issues. 4. Given that there are already many existing and prestigious national journals dedicated to scholarship on relationships between dominant and non-dominant demographics in many fields, I think a new online journal on something vaguely titled "Diversity Research" is both a waste of resources and unlikely to measure up to existing publications.
Is there anything missing that should be included in the K-State 2025 Diversity Strategic Action Plan?
Total Responses: 39
If so, what is missing?
What are the base numbers you are starting out with?
Diversity of religion is missing. We are at a predominantly Christian university. Those faculty/staff/students who are non-Christian are in a minority group and are made to feel "other" with the extremely frequent mention of Christian related sayings in regular conversations and dialogue on this campus.
This may be the plan or implied but would Diversity Point People have a specific training and possibly form a group of "diversity allies" across campus?
Addressing allegations of discrimination based on protected class should be evaluated closely by the administration to understand where the problems are, and who is reporting them (not specifically but demographically). A true analysis of these investigations would paint the true portrait of life here at K-State. It is easy to walk in privilege and be uninterested in the work environment of those who are not like us. It matters and the University will never reach its goal without identifying and properly addressing these issues.
A better definition of diversity. Are we only speaking of students of color? Stating that to be diverse is reflecting differences, is vague. Caucasian students of multiple cultural backgrounds are diverse; are they included in this population? Are women considered underrepresented, even if they are Caucasian? Second there is no strategy for reaching out to the Greater Manhattan community for support. It is difficult to recruit and retain students and faculty in a town that reports a population of over 87% white. Friends of mine from "underrepresented populations" state that one aisle of "ethnic" foods in a grocery store is a joke and that they have to go to Topeka or Kansas City for hair appointments and/or specialty groceries. Partnering with the community to invite more diverse businesses to the area, would be a great start to supporting students, faculty and staff who are of color.
PleaK-State 2025 Diversity Strategic Plan contains important elements that should be pursued vigorously. These pertain specifically to generating new funds to help implement policies and activities that will in fact increase diversity on this campus: adding a Diversity Fundraiser to the Foundation will be essential as the university continues to depend on sources other than state funding. Increased scholarship support for HUR students at both undergraduate and graduate levels are sorely needed. (Section II). Increased tutoring for HUR students in a variety of courses (not just STEM) is laudable; initiatives are underway now to help coordinate our various tutoring efforts (and streamline reduplicative efforts) so this goal and outcomes should be coordinated with other tutoring initiatives on campus. Visiting Professor positions—for as little as a single semester, or for multiple semesters—as a way to enhance the richness of experience on our campus (for students especially, but also for the university community as a whole) is a goal we should see included in many of the K-State Strategic Plans and the Diversity plan is no exception. (Section III) This is a problematic tactic: as the university continues to eliminate positions during budget cuts, it may be argued that HUR faculty additions that are not tenure-track is the wrong way to build sustainable diversity on the campus. However, broadly conceived, diversity is multiplicity, and visitors who come even for brief periods of time bring fresh experience and perspectives that are highly valuable to overall campus diversity. Unlisted here is another resource-specific need. The Director of Diversity should be responsible for participating in fundraising. Similar to the work Deans (and to some degree, department heads) do in working with the Foundation to increase funds targeted for their units, the Director of Diversity should take a leadership role in this area, identifying specific needs and goals for diversity-related projects and initiatives and pursuing potential donors. .
Again, the definition of the term diversity must be included and broadened to include other protected classes. The use of the term historically under-represented excludes many people who should be included under the umbrella of diversity.
The plan fails to address the services and resources that should be provided to the LGBT, individuals with disabilities, international, and veterans faculty, staff and students. The plan is not inclusive to all diverse groups. In fact, the plan fails to define the terms diversity, underrepresented, and multicultural. Who is this plan tailored to assist? Is the MSO inclusive to all students? Is this a safe place for the LGBT, accessible to individuals with disabilities, international students, and veterans? Can this building be invited of all these groups? It may assist in fundraising and provide a safe place for everyone to enjoy. We can celebrate differences together in a welcoming environment.
There is a lot of focus on accountability, which is okay, but there is almost no mention of training or support for the departments as we work on diversity. Our college diversity office (AG) does that really well, but I don't see much coming out from the university. The tenor of this document is far more about sticks than carrots. Just don't see how that will really help us.
In general, an inclusive definition of diversity. The general campus feeling is that the current Office of Diversity and now this plan focus primarily on racial/ethnic definitions of diversity, with an overwhelming emphasis on African-American students and faculty/staff. We cannot rest in supporting this population, but we must not make them our perceived primary focus.
A clear definition of what "diversity" involves. It MUST include AND go beyond racial diversity, otherwise we'll have more of the same. We do not need to keep ostracizing vital parts of our diverse and rich community because of a partial understanding of what diversity means.
My only concern is that race/ethnicity are usually the only foci of Diversity Initiatives. Please do not forget your dedicated LGBTQ Faculty and Staff (and students!) and those with physical disabilities or students with psychological/psychiactric disorders. More training/awareness is needed for working with these student cohorts (LGBTQ and students with disabilities of all kinds).
Any mention of lgbt nor people with disabilities.
An inclusive definition of diversity is missing, so an expanded definition and expanded goals need to be included. For example, there is nothing in there that reflects efforts to recruit anyone with a physical impairment. The lack of inclusion as diverse individuals communicates a message that those individuals are not important, and no effort needs to be made to embrace the needs or the talents of individuals in those groups. The tunnel vision of this strategic plan does not move the university forward in recruiting and retaining a truly diverse set of students, faculty and staff.? Take of the blinders used in the working definition of diversity.
A definition of "diversity" would be helpful. The closest thing to a definition ("diverse: reflecting difference") is not very specific. There are other kinds of difference among students (class, age, sexual orientation, ADA status, etc.) that the university has a legal and/or ethical obligation to serve better, but they don't seem to be reflected in this plan. I know one plan can't necessarily do everything that needs to be done, but when so much attention is focused on a plan like this, I worry that other kinds of diversity will be left behind -- which is not my idea of progress.
EVERYONE ELSE! HELLO?!
Faculty salaries need to be seriously addressed. The same happens with GTA salaries. In addition to icreasing GTAships, K-State needs to waive graduate students tuition in order to attarct high quality students to conduct research, otherwise other colleges will continue retainning the best qualified students. Most facilities are old and not appropriate for effective teaching. If these three components are not addressed, the strategic plan is just not reasonable or practical.
The plan is good but must include specific language to include the LGBT community and should include commitment to provide equal benefits when possible and the University should be a front runner in requesting the state to provide equal benefits as well.
Heart. Wholeness. Even logic. Fair-minded people in positions w/ enough power to make appropriate changes
I strongly assert that use of the words "Diversity" and "Multicultural" in the current draft of the Diversity Strategic Plan do not include ALL groups of underrepresented students, faculty, or staff. Diversity and Multicultural definitions should be all encompassing to also include Gay, Lesbian, Transgender students, faculty, and staff AND people with disabilities. I am also very concerned and perplexed by the LEGEND at the end of the Draft document that includes the term GLBTQ (Individuals who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning and/or queer) YET there is NO mention of this underrepresented group in the 2025 Diversity Strategic Plan. IF the intention was to include GLBTQ in the document, then it was omitted. Please consider including GLBTQ students, staff, or faculty on the President's Commission on Multicultural Affairs to represent the collective voice of this underrepresented and growing group at KSU.
A stronger and clearer commitment to expanding diversity to include marginalized groups other than just racial and ethnic minorities, i.e. people with disabilities and the LGBTQ community.
Definition of what diversity is on this campus and how the Office of Diversity will actively engage with and challenge preconceptions of a history of a lack of acknowledgement of underrepresented groups that are not racial in identity.
A modern definition of diversity, and examples of how to implement it. I fear that the working group has fallen into the trap of accepting the old definition of diversity as a code word for race. Hence they are still fighting a battle against reactionary forces rather than moving on to a positive more inclusive approach
LGBT issues! A better understanding of "diversity" rather than using it as jargon without any specificity. Didn't see much mention of Native American issues, none of LGBT issues.
General comments or suggestions for change
A number of key activities seemed vague. Such as "18. Track and monitor every HUR student. " It is not clear how these students would be tracked or monitored. Although well-intended and it is an attempt to put some "teeth" into the plan, it seems beyond the reach of the Diversity Office to have as key activities that they will hold administrators and faculty more accountable in several areas of diversity. They can make suggestions but would not be the ones rewriting or enforcing accountability and evaluation practices for faculty and unit leaders. a. Ensuring the performance evaluation process for all university administrators and leaders includes a diversity criterion. b. Tying the evaluation of administrators on diversity to merit increases and other university rewards. 31. Hold deans, department heads, and search committee chairs more accountable for hiring outcomes. (How can these folks be held "more" accountable" for hiring outcomes? Every full-time person hired must be approved by the Office of AA and deemed acceptable with respect to diversity) 34. Continually assess the climate for diversity and hold faculty and staff accountable for contributing to a positive climate for diversity.
If you look at your website it's very hard to find anything about diversity on it? I am glad you have started the process and whish you much luck and success!
Very excited to see the big effort to increase diversity and acceptance on this campus.
There is a separate Internationalization Plan from the Diversity Plan. Please be careful that international faculty/staff/students are not placed in a different category from multicultural faculty/staff/students. This creates a difficult climate where diversity in its broadest sense of acceptance of difference is only applied under certain instances.
I think the plan looks very bold and comprehensive. Like a lot of our plans, it will need quite a bit of funding. Hiring more fund raisers is going to be imperative in meeting this and other plans' goals. We have seen great progress to date and this plan will certainly propel us forward. Well done.
The general plan lists a lot of great goals but many overlap with other units. So a clear understanding of what needs to be done by other (or MANY) units on campus as well as what will be specifically done by the Office of Diversity might help my understanding. I fully appreciate the need for HUR leadership in Diversity initiatives but I also know the reality of our campus and our few HUR leaders cannot do it all. How can others help through participation? Or what second level activities can and will be delegated in support of diversity initiatives while retaining HUR voice and leadership?
It is important for the University to understand the challenges faced by faculty and staff members who are from under represented groups here at K-State. The University has serious challenges with perceptions of unequal pay, opportunities for advancement, and even throughout the hiring process. If the University is serious in its goal of maintaining a diverse environment, then it would be nice to see action plans, instead of metrics and committees. There is no commitment to diversity without a plan to commit to diversity. This roadmap appears to be a foot in the right direction, although it could also be lip service to maintain the status quo that has festered on this campus for years. Do better K-State.
I have a general comment about building relationships on campus. I have heard our supposed Chief of Diversity tell students of color that they were not "black enough" because they wanted to associate with "white organizations". Several student groups and "white" organizations have reached out to this office to partner on events and other programming, only to be told "we don't need your help" or "we don't need to know about your culture and you don't need to know about ours". She needs to work on thinking about reaching across party lines and being professional and inclusive herself. Diversity and inclusion go both ways. And if she continues to be hostile toward other organizations and offices this plan will be a mute point.
However, many items in this Strategic Plan are problematic. First, the plan largely ignores a major impediment to attraction and retention of diverse faculty: the consistent lack of financial resources. Salaries offered at K-State are hopelessly lower than peer institutions, and so the relative scarcity of minority scholars in some academic disciplines (there is great variety, of course) means that such candidates can command salaries far outstripping those offered at K-State. Either departments attempt to recruit such candidates and fail; or they introduce such enormous salary disparity as to eliminate other positions to fund these super-salaries (thereby inviting resentment, which no amount of diversity training can be expected to alleviate). I would like to see a mechanism for central financial contributions in such instances (e.g., but not limited to, a budget controlled by the Office of Diversity). This way, during the negotiating process, departments can appeal to the Office of Diversity for funds that could increase the likelihood that a job offer will actually be accepted. It is very unwise to create yet another Vice President position on this campus during this budgetary climate. The director of the Office of Diversity should remain as is: resources for the Diversity Strategy should actually go towards achieving NEW initiatives rather than bolstering the salary of an existing administrator. Second, the plan largely focuses on increased bureaucracy on campus. This is an especially unwise strategy since budget cutting continues to mean a reduced size in workforce; streamlining bureaucracy should be a goal rather than vice versa. Thus, “integrating Diversity Point Persons into the hiring process” (Section III) is unworkable. Job searches are already unwieldy, and outstanding candidates often cease to be available (i.e., get hired elsewhere) before our system grinds its way into making offers. So compounding low salaries with slow timing makes good hiring outcomes less effective rather than vice versa. We are just about to hire a new Vice President for Human Capital whose priorities must include streamlining our hiring procedures; to adopt a Diversity Strategy that will immediately need to be restructured with that individual’s inclusion is very unwise. Additionally, some of this bureaucratic specificity requires top-down directives for uniform implementation across the campus. This ignores another kind of diversity on our campus: diversity of discipline, unit size, and mission. “Standard questions that address cultural competence” are likely to be either so vague and broad as to seem ridiculous or to be specific in a mismatched way to suggest our own interviewing incompetence. Third, the Strategic Plan calls for inappropriate measures. Offering tutoring to students who struggle in classes is very appropriate (see comment above) but “holding faculty accountable for student learning” is not. Student Learning Outcomes are decided at the unit level and through our Assessment plans we regularly track how our programs achieve these outcomes. It is inappropriate for the Office of Diversity to insert itself into this process; it is even more inappropriate that tenure decisions, faculty raises or promotions will be dependent on student learning. Students are ultimately responsible for student learning. The university offers students support, but faculty are not “responsible” for whether the students learn; only that the teaching is high quality. Various of the “accountability processes” seem unworkable. How, precisely, would “faculty and staff” be “held accountable for contributing to a positive climate for diversity”? Who would determine what “contributions” would count? Who would conduct the evaluation? Etc. etc. Presuming that “high-failure” classes require remedial pedagogical training is unfounded. If an above-average “A” rate is found statistically, there is no expectation that centralized monitoring and re-training of the pedagogy must step in to correct the problem of grades without adequate learning. “High-failure” classes have Student Learning Outcomes that are approved by their departments and assessment programs that are implemented to monitor how the program delivers. A far better approach would be for the Diversity Office to communicate with the Assessment Point Persons and Department Heads in each unit to alert them to failure rates that reveal some statistical disproportion for HUR and offer support if necessary in addressing specific concerns
F- Short term- I don't think a "promotion" should be a part of 2025, Poor taste F-Intermediate Term- If 2025 is set on including infusing diversity throughout campus, this goal makes it more of a silo. There can be ways to increase communication if need be, but it is counter-productive to centralize all diversity-related units. W-Short term- To fully diversify search committees. What does this mean? The people of color on campus are already over-stretched to be on committees to fill a "diversity role" Z- thrilled that sexual orientation is mentioned in "diversity" It should be but usually is not recognized by some leaders. QQ- what is the relation to the Internationalization Strategic Plan?
The diversity strategic plan should be guided by other entities on campus in collaboration with PCMA so that the whole of the campus community is included in the continued efforts to bring diversity to campus.
The celebration of wins. I heard the faculty and staff recruitment of women and minorities has improved last year but I haven't seen any information from the Office of Diversity announcing the accomplishment. Where is the article in K-State Today? The PCMA should be used to help plan and execute some of the activities in the strategic plan, instead of spending two years developing the plan. The PCMA should be evaluated on an annual basis for the inclusion of faculty, staff, and students as dictated by the appointment letter. There should be broad representation in order to gain broad support. The committee should create allies throughout campus and become inclusive. We need to foster additional diversity champions, instead of relying on the same folks to do the heavy lifting.
The current leadership must not be given more power. Instead, the Office of Diversity could be transformed, with different leadership, to be truly inclusive: Multicultural, lgbt,/straight alliance, SAC, Women's Center, Non-trad/ military, first generation. If K-State is to become a leader in diversity by 2025, we must not focus only on the diversity issues of the past. Those issues have not been fully remedied, granted, but we can no longer ignore the diversity issues modern society has finally acknowledged. We will not be a top university if we cannot brag on our total inclusiveness.
If the chief executive officer for this unit is changed into vice-president, a very different structure for the office should be envisioned and thus a national search shall be conducted. In fact, no such re-classification of the position is needed for the plan above. We just need to improve its efficacy.
To achieve the goals of 2025, the university need to recruit students, faculty and staff from a broader definition of 'diverse groups'. Omitting groups like lgbt and others will not move KSU closer to its goals, but will further distance itself from them. Please reconsider inclusion of lgbt in this plan.
Expand the working parameters of "diversity" used in this plan and be more inclusive of a wider range of diverse individuals.
The plan sounds good in theory, but the question is always whether and how it can be implemented. The trend in higher education lately is to create more and more vice presidents or other high-level administrators, and not do much else. The people on the front lines then have more demands placed on them without the resources or time to actually effect the change that is needed.
KICK MYRA GORDON OFF THE COMMITTEE. WHEN SHE DOES THINGS LIKE THIS, IT PITS STUDENTS AGAINST EACH OTHER AND CREATES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR US. SHE IS DIVIDING US, NOT UNITING US. AND WE WANT THIS END NOW.
Increase faculty salaries, waived tuition for graduta students and update ALL buildings and facilities.
Members of the LGBT community are an important component of the diversity spectrum at KSU. In the current political environment in Kansas, there is blatant discrimination of LGBT citizens. Without an inclusive diversity plan, faculty, staff, and students will choose not to attend or remain at KSU.
Step back: imagine what a healthy diverse system/university/community would look like. You'll need diversity at the table to make necessary changes. That will probably mean ignoring equally conservative legislators and/or donors but smug, self-assured sameness will no longer work in this diverse world. You'll need diversity to survive in the long-term. P.S. These are excellent questions. I hope you invite NEW eyes to do what is right.
Invite representatives from the KSU GLBTQ community and the Student Access Center to join the President's Commission on Multicultural Affairs to ensure that all voices of underrepresented members of the KSU community are accounted for and are provided with the equitable allocation of resources and recognition as other underrepresented groups on campus and beyond.
As the father of a son with congenital blindness, I am familiar with the processes and consequences of inclusion and exclusion as they operate in the worlds of education and employment. The diversity plan presented here is focused on a traditional definition of "diversity", rather than current "inclusive" definitions used by people like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which I would not have suspected of being progressive. (Just do a google search and see what pops up.) I also believe that we cannot afford to fail in committing new dollars and new programs to under-represented groups of a different kind, if we want to produce a community that is both truly diverse and inclusive. The kind of diversity I am talking about cuts across all racial, cultural and ethnic groups. It is in no way competitive with them, except to the extent that we get into a fight about funding and struggle to share a fixed-size pie. When we are exclusive, we may be diverse, but only in a limited way. The exclusive small liberal arts colleges may have racial, and ethnic diversity, to near perfection, but they fail miserably to represent the actual diversity of the U.S. in other ways, especially economic. In most instances their strong emphasis on high achievement and academic meritocracy leaves little room for flexible physical accommodation of those with physical disabilities, for instance blindness, deafness or mobility impairments. Many staff there will even acknowledge as much, and some students notice it, and comment from time to time. But a solution is not yet a hand. There have been some excellent essays written on this subject describing what it is like to be a representative of "diversity" in an exclusive setting. (see "critical race theory" to bring up examples.) As a large public institution we have a larger duty. We need to recognize that the pool of students with any specific learning or physical disabilities is only a small fraction of the total population in KS or the U.S. So without deliberate recruitment, any particular category will only be a small presence here, unlike racial, ethnic or cultural minorities, that could approach majority status with only modest efforts to recruit and retain. However, the kind of diversity in abilities and skills that we are looking at, as a natural subset of all racial ethnic and cultural groups, must be represented to accurately reflect the real diversity of our society. More important, inclusion is a fundamental philosophical principle. Inclusion rather than exclusion, says something important about our community culture. The present plan, whatever its merits for the goals it aspires to, fails in that respect.
The plan did reveal the efforts that have been made for racially and ethnically diverse faculty staff and students since the Higher Learning Commission recommended it. It also clearly revealed the lack of interest and support of other important groups to include women, disability, LGBT, veterans and internationals.
I support the Action Plan's goals for fundraising and continuing to funnel resources towards academic departments engaged in scholarship and teaching related to diversity -- especially since those departments have an understanding of diversity that is in fact more demographically diverse, and that has more connection to critical thinking about existing structures rather than a focus on "success" within the givens of the existing structures. I would in general recommend all efforts to bolster the decentralized and scholarly work that is happening rather than putting more power and resources centrally. And it is very disheartening that LGBT issues in particular seem absent from this plan.