[Formal title: Resolution Supporting Voluntary Participation by Faculty in Educational Programs to Address Issues of Racism and Systemic Injustice and to Enhance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.]
Passed: May 18, 2021
Posted: April 30, 2021
Sponsors: Tomas Arias, Thomas Bjorkman (Senator), Brian Chabot, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck (S), Yuval Grossman, Sol Gruner, Tj Hinrichs, Natasha Holmes, Andre Kessler (S), Risa Lieberwitz (S), Joanie Mackowski (S), Liam McAllister, Brad Ramshaw, Neil Saccamano (S), Chelsea Specht (S), Robert Thorne
Background:
We were concerned by the extent of criticism of the antiracism reports F and S, some of which individuals among us were sympathetic with. This prevents our support of the general endorsement resolutions before the Senate. However, we do support the general objective of these reports and some solutions. Consequently, we offer three compromise resolutions all having the intent of identifying specific actions that we hope the majority of Senators can support. We note that many departments and most colleges have already acted to address racism, bias, and related issues. Approving our resolutions will allow departments, colleges and the university to continue to make progress on social issues of deep concern to all of us.
This resolution endorses voluntary participation by faculty in anti-racism and bias educational programs. We feel that this along with positive incentives is the place to begin. A number of departments have already engaged in this approach, often bringing faculty, staff, and students together in a shared appreciation of the issues and experiences involved. Because our resolution involves voluntary rather than mandated programs, this should substitute for and replace the current endorsement resolution before the Senate.
The Resolution
Whereas President Pollack and #DoBetterCornell have called for faculty to be educated about systemic racism and bias,
Whereas the Faculty Senate seeks a strong and effective institutional response to address issues of racism and systemic inequalities,
Whereas the Faculty Senate has received and considered the “Working Group-F Final Report to the Faculty Senate,” dated April 5, 2021,
Whereas a faculty that collectively commits to understanding and addressing systemic inequalities and enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion is better able to fulfill the university’s mission and guide Cornell’s diverse student body,
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate strongly encourages voluntary participation by the faculty in educational programs addressing systemic inequalities and ways to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate supports developing positive incentives for faculty to participate in such educational programs, such as supplemental funding for departments with high levels of faculty participation.
Vote Results:
Yes = 49, No = 48, Abstain = 10, DNV = 19
The motivation behind this alternative is that the coercive methods that have in the past been used to suppress minority viewpoints are not appropriate for any purpose. Inviting immoral methods because they happen to support your immediate cause is not justice. We can provide better antiracist change by using just and effective methods.
Resolution F2 is the right choice for those who support antiracism, who support justice and who support evidence-based policy.
The motivation behind this alternative is that the coercive methods that have in the past been used to suppress minority viewpoints are not appropriate for any purpose. Inviting immoral methods because they happen to support your immediate cause is not justice. We can provide better antiracist change by using just and effective methods.
Resolution F2 is the right choice for those who support antiracism, who support justice and who support evidence-based policy.
I suspect it took longer to draft this counter-resolution than it would have taken to just take these trainings and support students of color.
Perhaps. But no one coerced the drafting of this proposal. Moreover, I would object to generalizing about all “students of color.” I do my best to regard each of my students as an individual. I try not to stereotype them — drawing conclusions about who they are or what they believe — based on the color of their skin. But it is precisely that way of thinking that the proposed programming encourages. If so, I take that to be a decisive reason against it.
I’m a little hesitant to reply to this, because there’s been so much negativity abounding in the Cornell community, but are you kidding me? If you don’t care about the well-being and safety of students of color on this campus, just say so. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that a 2 hour educational requirement is infringing on your academic freedom, and exempt yourself from learning about DEI issues. Do students of color matter so little to you that we’re not worth 120 minutes of your time? Really? After all the efforts undertaken by students and faculty this year to enact meaningful change, it’s disappointing to see the lengths that our faculty members will go to avoid progress. Also, how ironic that the letter from ACTA mentions American history—please consider what side of history you’re on, and how teachers and students years from now will consider your actions. You’re about to go down in our history textbooks as a group of stubborn individuals who, in the wake of policy brutality and violence against Black and Indigenous communities of color, chose to side with white supremacy and ignorance instead of doing the bare minimum to accommodate people of color. Not exactly a good look.
I think this is a particularly insensitive response to what I took as a perfectly sensible series of comments. And I say that as a person who is generally receptive to the report’s findings, and open-minded on the question of how best to educate our community about the black experience on campus and in America. You do not advance your cause when you deride and dismiss genuine criticisms or concerns this way.
If Cornell goes down the path of coercing conformity to “learning about DEI issues,” I would submit that history will judge it has taken the wrong path. DEI is part of an ideology, or perhaps a religion. It is not presented that way, but that is how many see it. Indeed, I believe they are right. No one should worry about a warning that, unless they support this proposal, they will find themselves on the wrong side of history. History only exists from the point of view of the future, and the future has a funny way of not turning out the way people predict. No. This proposal is a very bad idea, the product of passion and good, but misguided, intentions, and no one should fear believing otherwise for fear history will condemn them. I’d bet the opposite will be true. In the end freedom of thought and freedom of conscience will prevail over coerced “learning.”
Rather than accuse those who oppose this measure of “siding with white supremacy and ignorance,” it might be good to pay more careful attention to the concerns that have been expressed. I am not a white supremacist, nor am I ignorant. Like you and everyone else I know, I find racism abhorrent. The issue for me is that the proposal very clearly involves compulsory indoctrination to a particular political viewpoint. This is a step that has never been taken before at Cornell and it is alarming. I believe it has no place in an institution of higher learning grounded on the principle of free thought and free inquiry. This objection has nothing to do with promoting white supremacy; the proposal would be equally objectionable if it came from the other end of the political spectrum.
When you say, “I suspect it took longer to draft this counter-resolution than it would have taken to just take these trainings and support students of color,” and “Do students of color matter so little to you that we’re not worth 120 minutes of your time,” you are missing the point. I do care deeply about my students, and it is not my time that I am concerned about. There is much more than my time at stake here.
It is a noble goal to eliminate racism, and one which I am sure most of us on campus share. But coercion is not the way to do it. If the intention is to convince some people to change their behavior, it will in fact have the opposite effect in many cases. You cannot enforce a political viewpoint through coercion, because people do not respond positively to coercion. They double down on their beliefs and dig their heels in. Deep down, you know this to be true as well as I do, as we see it constantly in the media and the world around us. Whatever undesirable attitudes you are trying to change exist in people’s hearts, and you cannot change people’s hearts by coercion, but only by persuasion, and only then if you are very lucky.
I understand the level of frustration that we have not been able to eliminate racism and I hear the cry to do more. But coercion is not the way. I believe the best way is through aggressive recruiting and retention of students and faculty from diverse backgrounds, through high-level appointments from underrepresented groups, and through the everyday efforts of those of us who are committed to making Cornell a welcoming environment for everyone. Instead of trying to coerce each other, I would rather that we instead trust each other, uplift each other, promote mutual respect for each other and focus on our common humanity rather than on the things that divide us.
I don’t expect to change your stance with this message. But I do expect you, as a member of the Cornell community, to accept this opinion as genuine and sincere, as I accept yours, and not equate dissent with support of ignorance and white supremacy.
This resolution is ridiculous and spits in the face of students of color who have had, and will have, to endure microaggressions and even overt racism from Professors. It is beyond belief that full-grown adults have written this out and thought it was a good response to anti-racist and bias educational programs. Additionally, it is so insulting to insinuate that the worth of these trainings is “supplemental funding” for departments with high turnout. These programs should be MANDATORY for the safety, wellbeing, and academic success of students of color who have long suffered at the hands of racist and biased professors. If learning about diversity and inclusion is so difficult for professors, they shouldn’t be in this line of work.
One gets the impression from such comments that “microaggressions” and “overt racism” are another pandemic at the University. If that’s so, it should be easy to provide a long list of examples. That would be helpful. Moreover, once these actions are identified, it should be easy for the University to sanction the offenders.
Unsubstantiated claims that faculty are doing things that in some unspecified way compromise or jeopardize the “safety, wellbeing, and academic success of students of color” are not persuasive. Again, if specific actions can be identified, then they can be addressed. Unfounded and vague accusations of this sort are, I would submit, themselves threats whose effect, if not intent, is to cause others not to voice reasonable objections. In language too-often used these days, they are, in effect if not in purpose, ways of “silencing.”
The proposal will punish those who object to being “educated” in what’s called “diversity and inclusion,” but which others reasonably believe is part of an ideology — call it “anti-racism” or “critical race theory” or what you will — with which they reasonably disagree. Proponents may not see “diversity and inclusion” as part of an ideology, but failure to see it as such doesn’t make it any less an ideology, or part of an ideology. It is what it is.
Notice the way in which some of the above comments are framed: submit to DEI programming or else stand indicted for not supporting students of color. That, I submit, is a patently false dichotomy. It is a true dichotomy only in the minds of those already committed to the ideology of anti-racism and critical race theory, which the proposed coercive training is intended to get everyone to embrace and adopt as their own, or at least pretend they adopt, for fear of punishment.
Exactly who are the “racist and biased” professors the comment has in mind? We are told they exist, but not told who they are. If they are simply people who disagree with the ideological commitments of the author, then the words “racist and biased” have indeed taken on an expansive meaning. And if that’s so, notice the implication of the last sentence: people who disagree with me do not belong at this University. Remarkable.
Is the tenor of this comment the tenor one should expect when being compelled to be educated about “diversity and inclusion”? If so, then the faculty should brace itself to be berated.
Since the comment assumes that the proposal could not have been the product of “full-grown adults,” it must assume it to have been the product of non-full-grown adults, which is to say, children. Is that then to say that anyone who disagrees with anti-racist ideology should be regarded as a child? That would make sense, inasmuch as children are typically compelled to be educated, which is what the original proposal contemplated. If so, then the argument in favor of coerced education becomes clear: the faculty must be compelled to be educated because they are children in need of education.
So if one disagrees with coerced training, and offers reasons for one’s disagreement, one is not simply offering reasons to disagree: one is “spit[ting] in the face of students of color.” Notice how divisive is that way of framing the discussion. It isn’t simply a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, and of offering reasons. It is a matter of either being with us or against us. Of being part of the ideology or movement or religion of anti-racism, or not. And if you disagree with that ideology or movement or religion, then you do not belong in the University. Why? Because if you are not anti-racist — if you don’t subscribe to Kendianism — then you are “spit[ing] in the face of students of color,” and you must yourself be a racist, and racists have no place in the University. On its face, that claim is defensible: I would agree that racists have no place in the University.
But notice here the equivocation on the word “racism.” If you are “racist” because you are an anti-anti-racist, then all that means, so far as one can tell, is that you don’t believe something called “systemic” or “structural” or “institutional” racism is the only variable that explains racial disparities observed across various social domains. But that sense of the word “racism” trades on, and enlists the powerful condemnatory effect of, the older sense of the word “racism”: being someone who believes that people of different races are of inherently different moral worth, or being someone who harbors ill will toward people of different races. But, of course, racism in this older sense is very different from racism in the Kendian sense. That difference often is, but should not be, obscured. One can be a racist in the Kendian sense without being a racist in the older sense; moreover, being a racist in the Kendian sense, I would submit, lacks the condemnatory force associated with being a racist in the older sense.