From the current UC Santa Cruz Currents:
Regarding the campuswide diversity initiative, [Chancellor Denise D.] Denton is launching quantitative and qualitative studies with an eye toward implementation beginning this fall. Diversity is central to excellence, she said, adding that her own definition of diversity encompasses gender, ethnicity, race, class, physical ability, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, and nation of origin. [But as usual, not religion — jsr]
One of the first tasks of the Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity will be to identify a campus definition of diversity, she noted.
Well, yes. If it’s “central,” it probably would be a good idea to define it.
Personally, I found this portion of the article the most interesting –
A student intern required surgery for serious injuries suffered during the career fair, at which students protested the presence of military recruiters on campus, said Denton. In addition, staff members were knocked over during dining-hall gatherings that preceded the recent AFSCME strike, and rocks were thrown through the living-room windows of a provost’s home and the tires of the provost’s family’s vehicles were slashed, she added.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking that diversity thing should probably be slipped to number 2 on the priority list.
I was struck by “physical ability” in that list. I assume that this is meant to encompass the blind, the deaf, people who use wheelchairs, &c. But diversity in “physical ability” could equally mean “not being able to run more than thirty yards” vs. “champion sprinter.” Are couch potatoes now a “diversity” category?
I was struck by “physical ability” in that list. I assume that this is meant to encompass the blind, the deaf, people who use wheelchairs, &c. But diversity in “physical ability” could equally mean “not being able to run more than thirty yards” vs. “champion sprinter.” Are couch potatoes now a “diversity” category?
Posted by Michelle Dulak Thomson May 28, 2005 01:33 AM
===========
Maybe it’s just me but I thought that ‘diversity’ always meant *not a straight white heterosexual American male*. I really doubt that a disabled SWHM fits this diversity slot, being of the oppressor class and all that.
Apparently conservative women don’t fit the bill either, which surprises me a bit.
But this is what most women on campus have been supporting for decades, is it not?
Rich
Although not constitutionally implicated, as religion is, wouldn’t political philosophy be one of the most important diversity issues for a UNIVERSITY?
Age? Language spoken? Education? Income and/or wealth?