At Pitzer, "Diversity is Life"
Trombley Showcases Increased Faculty Diversity
Janet Alexander
Last Updated: 5/7/08 Section: Opinion
During Pitzer's annual Parent's Weekend, Laura Trombley appeared cocksure as she listed the college's various advancements during her six years as President. But in the midst of this statistical barrage of so-called improvements Trombley paused to announce, "And I'm particularly proud," that as of this year, female tenure-track faculty members have increased 45 percent and under-represented minority groups by 36 percent." She received applause and affirmative nods from parents and administrators alike.
So what led to this achievement? A "Diversity within Faculty" plan established by the school's College Council eight years ago. Its goal? Increase by 50 percent both the female and the under-represented minority number of tenure-track faculty members from 2001-2015. (At that time, it should be noted, Marilyn Massey was the college's President).
Despite the good will intended by this goal, its implications ironically reinforce the same prejudices and biases that President Trombley and Pitzer College have rejected. To establish gender and race quotas presupposes that being female or not being Caucasian has somehow prevented prospective faculty members in the past from being hired by institutions at least comparable to Pitzer.
Apparently, Trombley's former position as an affirmative-action official is becoming an increasingly influential in her administrative decisions. In the September 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Trombley explained, "If you look at the percentage of deans who are people of color or women, then you see some startlingly small numbers. What needs to happen at the departmental level is for administrations to actively promote people or think of alternate ways in which people can reach the presidency."
Trombley's proposed solutions implicitly question the ability of non-whites and women to advance vocationally on their own merits. The "active promotion" of certain people and the necessity of finding alternative methods for advancement suggest bias and specialized treatment, the basis of which is the presumed ineptness of women and non-whites.
Furthermore, Trombley advises, "Colleges can accomplish that by asking diversity experts to come in and help educate various groups on their campuses." The existence of this service, or any an authority on increasing diversity, suggests that a school is lacking if it does not have a certain number of female or minority faculty members or students on campus. But then at what point does an institution have enough? Somehow it is determined that there are too few racial minorities on campus and that this makes the institution defective. As a result, colleges across the country, including Pitzer, begin to regard race and gender as commodities.
In 2003, the Los Angeles Times noted the college's decision to make an applicant's SAT test results only optional for submission, because, as Trombley said, the SAT is "a test on which white students score 206 points higher on average than nonwhites was inconsistent with our values." The SAT reveals disparities between class curriculums and also between the scholastic aptitudes of whites and non-whites, the basis of which lies in varied and innumerable social factors; the differences in scores do not reflect an anti-minority bias within the test itself. And while it may not be a perfect indicator of college success, the SAT still allows the recognition of valid differences between students. The extent to which Pitzer's concern with gender and racial quotas circumscribes student acceptance decisions is unjust and unsound. For any institution of higher learning, the most important consideration upon which to base acceptance decisions should be academic success.
I recently had the opportunity to sit and share lunch with President Trombley. When asked how she felt these "goals" were impacting employment procedures and decisions, she explained, "This aspiration ensures Pitzer has a larger pool of candidates to choose from."
The school should be less concerned with racial and gender quotas and more concerned with the actual teaching abilities and past experience of prospective faculty members. Sanctioning this mode of thinking employs a skewed hierarchal value system in which the color of one's skin or the biological sex of a faculty candidate is indicative of the quality of teaching.
This logic undermines the merit of past vocational experience, and more importantly scholarship itself. "Here at Pitzer," Trombley concluded, "diversity is life"; and in accordance with this unofficial school motto, Pitzer expects to achieve its gender- and race-based tenure quotas within the next two or three years. • Janet Alexander is a freshman at Pitzer College.
So what led to this achievement? A "Diversity within Faculty" plan established by the school's College Council eight years ago. Its goal? Increase by 50 percent both the female and the under-represented minority number of tenure-track faculty members from 2001-2015. (At that time, it should be noted, Marilyn Massey was the college's President).
Despite the good will intended by this goal, its implications ironically reinforce the same prejudices and biases that President Trombley and Pitzer College have rejected. To establish gender and race quotas presupposes that being female or not being Caucasian has somehow prevented prospective faculty members in the past from being hired by institutions at least comparable to Pitzer.
Apparently, Trombley's former position as an affirmative-action official is becoming an increasingly influential in her administrative decisions. In the September 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Trombley explained, "If you look at the percentage of deans who are people of color or women, then you see some startlingly small numbers. What needs to happen at the departmental level is for administrations to actively promote people or think of alternate ways in which people can reach the presidency."
Trombley's proposed solutions implicitly question the ability of non-whites and women to advance vocationally on their own merits. The "active promotion" of certain people and the necessity of finding alternative methods for advancement suggest bias and specialized treatment, the basis of which is the presumed ineptness of women and non-whites.
Furthermore, Trombley advises, "Colleges can accomplish that by asking diversity experts to come in and help educate various groups on their campuses." The existence of this service, or any an authority on increasing diversity, suggests that a school is lacking if it does not have a certain number of female or minority faculty members or students on campus. But then at what point does an institution have enough? Somehow it is determined that there are too few racial minorities on campus and that this makes the institution defective. As a result, colleges across the country, including Pitzer, begin to regard race and gender as commodities.
In 2003, the Los Angeles Times noted the college's decision to make an applicant's SAT test results only optional for submission, because, as Trombley said, the SAT is "a test on which white students score 206 points higher on average than nonwhites was inconsistent with our values." The SAT reveals disparities between class curriculums and also between the scholastic aptitudes of whites and non-whites, the basis of which lies in varied and innumerable social factors; the differences in scores do not reflect an anti-minority bias within the test itself. And while it may not be a perfect indicator of college success, the SAT still allows the recognition of valid differences between students. The extent to which Pitzer's concern with gender and racial quotas circumscribes student acceptance decisions is unjust and unsound. For any institution of higher learning, the most important consideration upon which to base acceptance decisions should be academic success.
I recently had the opportunity to sit and share lunch with President Trombley. When asked how she felt these "goals" were impacting employment procedures and decisions, she explained, "This aspiration ensures Pitzer has a larger pool of candidates to choose from."
The school should be less concerned with racial and gender quotas and more concerned with the actual teaching abilities and past experience of prospective faculty members. Sanctioning this mode of thinking employs a skewed hierarchal value system in which the color of one's skin or the biological sex of a faculty candidate is indicative of the quality of teaching.
This logic undermines the merit of past vocational experience, and more importantly scholarship itself. "Here at Pitzer," Trombley concluded, "diversity is life"; and in accordance with this unofficial school motto, Pitzer expects to achieve its gender- and race-based tenure quotas within the next two or three years. • Janet Alexander is a freshman at Pitzer College.
Be the first to comment on this story