Recommendation D.1
Establish an umbrella structure (e.g., “Inclusive Leadership Academy @ Cornell”) for diversity education across the university, with the goal of reducing uncoordinated redundancy and instead enabling a synergistic collaborative approach.
The ideal is to develop a holistic strategy that takes into account the specific needs of each segment of our university population, including the best mode and timing of training delivery, and desired strategies for reinforcing what is learned through training so that it is actually retained and utilized by trainees. The diversity education that people actually receive can then be compared against the meta-strategy to identify gaps and formulate a plan for how to improve impact by coordinating across training providers11 to fill those gaps.
This umbrella structure would also serve as the one-stop shop to which units on campus can turn when in need of training to minimize the chances that units attempt to develop and deliver their own content because they are uncertain what university resources are available. For example, we learned through our outreach that when diversity training for student leaders of Greek life and for new members was mandated for the first time this spring, the training was rolled out as two separate initiatives, managed by different people. This is unfortunate because despite the best of intentions, what leaders learned did not align with what new members learned, thereby diluting overall impact. We also heard that in the absence of unified leadership and messaging surrounding the training for leaders versus new members, students were confused about what was expected of them. With a centralized structure in place, it would become possible to align the strategies, content and timing of diversity education such that community members receive a clear message about the behaviors that are expected and valued by the university and why.
Additional benefits of investing in a coordinated structure include the increased likelihood that impact is amplified through reinforcement12; leaders can provide support for a unified strategy; and experts ensure that the diversity training that is offered leverages accumulated wisdom from research. For example, research has established that diversity training is more effective when it focuses not just on awareness building but also the development of behavioral skills, and is interactive (vs. one-way delivery of information), longer in duration (i.e., overall hours of training) and supported by leaders. 12For a recent Time article on the limited impact of standalone diversity training, see: http://time.com/5287082/corporate-diversity-training-starbucks-results/
Indeed, research supports the idea that exposure to multiple, coordinated training episodes is more effective than one-off, standalone approaches. The compounding benefits emerge not only because repeated exposure facilitates practice and protects against learning decay, but also because it signals leadership commitment to diversity and inclusion far beyond what can be communicated by offering a single course or workshop.
Another important byproduct of longer training programs is that participants benefit from the opportunity to develop lasting relationships with their co-participants. A large proportion of staff respondents to the task force survey mentioned that participation in training programs such as “Turning Point,” which is a five-day leadership program, engendered a sense of belonging for them.
Recommendation D.2
Visible Leader Support for Diversity Education*Ensure that there is visible top-down support for diversity education, beginning with the president and cascading down through all levels of leadership.
When individuals in positions of authority do not visibly support community members’ participation in diversity training, it generates resentment and confusion, and weakens messages about the value of diversity and inclusion to the university.
When leaders do not actively support individuals’ participation in diversity training, it is much more likely for individuals to interpret the institution’s espoused messages about the importance of diversity and inclusion as mere window dressing. We heard examples of this in our outreach, for example when a supervisor tells a staff member that the training “doesn’t apply to you so you need to stay at your desk,” or coaches express discontent when athletes have to miss practice to attend training. In contrast, when diversity training is “blessed by higher authority,” individuals are more motivated to learn.
This likely explains why a recent meta-analysis of diversity training effectiveness involving 260 independent samples – which was co-authored by Jamie Perry, a Cornell researcher –showed that mandatory training is more effective.13 Although it is true that people prefer to have a choice over whether to participate in diversity training, voluntary training does not yield the strongest effects on learning and behavioral change, particularly since it means that we continue to preach to the choir – faculty, staff and students who are intrinsically motivated to advance diversity and inclusion are the ones who participate in seminars, workshops and other educational opportunities. What this suggests is that the university should be bold in requiring diversity education.
Recommendation D.3
Institute a university-wide diversity course requirement, with carefully developed guidelines about the types of courses that can fulfill the requirement.
Our university was founded on a commitment to diversity and inclusion; we believe there is no better time for the university to fully honor that commitment.Barnard’s15 “Thinking about Social Difference” and Stanford’s16 “Engaging Diversity” requirements impose narrower guidelines to ensure that students are not just studying different cultures or societies but rather the complex identity, power and interaction dynamics that are introduced when multiple different cultures intersect within a single society. By requiring students to take a course on “Cultural Diversity in the U.S.,” Penn17is even more explicit about requiring students to study how diversity dynamics impact their immediate societal environment. Perhaps, the best example that we were able to find of a bold institutional commitment to diversity education is at Georgetown,18where students are required to take two “Engaging Diversity” courses, one domestic and one global in orientation. Careful attention should be paid to how the requirement is defined so that it is not unduly diluted
Despite the fact that we can reliably predict that every student will continue to face diversity in their workplaces and communities throughout their lives, Cornell hast not yet committed to providing all students with at least some minimum level of preparation for engaging effectively with a diverse world.
Currently, only the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) has a contemporary diversity course requirement with clear guidelines that restrict the types of courses that will satisfy the requirement.14 Although the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S) and the ILRSchool have a “cultural analysis” and “cultural perspectives” distribution requirement, respectively, that could be satisfied by diversity courses, it can also be satisfied by a broad range of other courses that would not necessarily prepare students to engage and lead effectively in a diverse society. Our benchmarking suggests that many of our peer institutions (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, UCLA, U. Washington) have adopted an approach that appears similar to that at A&S and ILR – they have broad distribution requirements rather than more specific diversity requirement. We encourage Cornell to similarly respond to the intense challenges and opportunities presented by our diverse world by introducing a university-wide diversity course requirement.
The CALS Human Diversity Requirement: “It is expected that in the process of earning a degree, students will enhance their abilities to communicate with people of different cultural perspectives; to listen carefully and respectfully to views of others, especially views with which they disagree; and to employ ethical reasoning in judging ideas, actions, and their implications. These courses explore the challenges of building a diverse society, and/or examine the various processes that marginalize people and produce unequal power relations in terms of race, nationality, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, gender, age, or economic status. All courses that satisfy the Human Diversity requirement have at least 50% content in one of the following areas: (a) critical analysis of historically or contemporary marginalized* communities; (b) examination of diverse processes that produce unequal power relations in terms of race, nationality, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, gender, age, or economic status; or (c) review of the challenges of building a diverse society.
Recommendation D.4.1
Mandatory Dialogue-based Orientation Workshops
Replace our historical approach of content/awareness-based diversity training during new student orientation with skills-based training, particularly about how to engage in effective dialogue across difference.
It is critical that all students recognize that being able to engage in constructive dialogue will accelerate their learning and enhance their leadership capacity (and therefore their future careers) and, moreover, that it is an essential competence expected of Cornellians. Workshops should be designed to help students understand how people’s lived experiences have been shaped by their place in societal, historical and cultural systems, and that as a result, the lenses through which they see and experience the same set of events can differ. Students should also be introduced to the importance of recognizing differential experiences of privilege. An excellent entrée into this discussion is to acknowledge the Cayuga Nation territory on which Cornell University is situated. These orientation workshops should be delivered in small groups, despite the cost, to personalize the experience and enhance engagement. Given widespread support for the IDP model across campus, the university can leverage its approach and deploy IDP-trained facilitators to deliver the workshops.
We have already stated our recommendation that first-year students receive orientation training on how to engage in productive dialogue across dimensions of difference and, furthermore, that what they learned be intentionally role modeled and applied within their living/learning communities. The value of integrating more dialogue-based programming throughout the FYE was echoed by members of the Student Assembly’s Academic Policy Committee. In fact, there was strong consensus across many different outreach conversations that greater investment in a shared FYE is important for developing stronger identification with the Cornell community, clearer understanding of our core values and more integrated social networks.
Recommendation D.4.2
Reinforce Orientation Training
Reinforce the impact of what students learn through IDP orientation workshops by training students in key positions of influence using the same IDP-based framework.
The recent decision to require diversity-related training for all Greek leaders and new members offers an excellent opportunity to reinforce what students learn in their orientation workshops. Also, as described in section G below, leaders of student organizations have also expressed a desire for additional support. Providing IDP-led training for them will further reinforce the importance of dialogue-based inquiry and leadership. Although these post-orientation workshops should revisit some of the key principles and tools taught during orientation, they should also include distinct content that extends the range of students’ awareness and behavioral repertoire. Training should be offered not just for undergraduate students but for leaders of graduate and professional student organizations as well.
Recommendation D.4.3
Parallel Training for Residential Leaders
Provide parallel workshops to faculty, staff and student advisors on North and West Campus so that they reinforce what students have learned by adopting similar language and dialogue tools to facilitate difficult conversations and resolve conflicts within students’ living and learning communities.
Recommendation D.5
Guarantee TA training
Guarantee that teaching assistants, many of whom have little or no prior teaching experience, receive structured orientation prior to assuming their roles.
We repeatedly heard concerns about the limited training provided to teaching assistants in many colleges. Although it is understandable that instructional demands vary across the disciplines and therefore TA training may be more appropriately designed within the colleges, all TAs should receive standardized training about inclusive pedagogical practices. The College of Engineering already offers extensive training to its TAs and, as such, may serve as a valuable model for other colleges.
Recommendation D.6.1
Communicate Expectations for Faculty Response to Bias Incidents
Clarify for faculty that the most important thing they can do for students is to demonstrate empathy and show that they care for the well-being of students.
Most faculty who choose not to discuss bias incidents in their classes are afraid to do so because they are concerned that they might say the wrong thing or be unable to effectively facilitate a tense or emotional conversation. When we explained this to students, most said that they didn’t expect to have a full-blown discussion about the incident in class, but would have appreciated hearing something like, “I read about the incident and realize that some of you may feel quite distressed. Please remember to reach out for support,” with some reference to available resources.
Along these lines, faculty could be encouraged to post announcements periodically on their course website to remind students of their availability through office hours, as well as about resources that exist on campus for specialized support.
Recommendation D.6.2
Raise Faculty Awareness about Professional Support for Students
On an annual basis, (re-)educate faculty about available student support resources on campus.
Faculty need guidance about student support resources on campus. Responses to questions in the task force survey about how prepared they feel to respond appropriately to students who present with a wide variety of needs revealed that academic staff feel unprepared to respond to the types of needs that may be increasing in prevalence with the continuing diversification of the student body (See Table 2). These include knowing how to respond to current events related to diversity, incidents of perceived bias or discrimination, accommodations for disabilities, and concerns about physical safety or violence. Faculty reported feeling least prepared to respond appropriately to needs that are most likely among low-income students (financial troubles and food insecurity). There were no significant differences across faculty based on gender, socio-economic status when growing up, or status as a first-generation college student.
Assistant professors feel significantly less prepared than tenured faculty to respond to student needs related to family crises, emotional or social challenges, food insecurity, financial troubles, academic support, incidents of perceived bias or discrimination, and accommodations for disabilities. Notably, however, they are not any less prepared to respond to current events related to diversity. Correlational analyses suggest that the observed differences could be due to their lower participation in diversity training, but are likely compounded by the fact that they are less experienced than tenured faculty.
Interestingly, however, there were more differences between assistant and associate professors than there were between assistant professors and full professors. Differences based on faculty years of service provide parallel evidence that faculty who have been at Cornell for 11-15 years tend to feel significantly better prepared to address student needs than faculty who have worked at Cornell for fewer or more years
Recommendation D.6.3
Deliver Short Workshops to Faculty in their Academic Homes
Increase faculty exposure to diversity education by bringing it to them rather than relying on them to seek it.
Comments like the following made it clear that a substantial proportion of faculty are aware that they are ill-informed about a range of diversity issues and want guidance: “I need training on everything diversity-related. It’s a no-win snake pit. My feeling is that faculty are often blamed for bad behavior by other students. We’re not omnipotent. I feel very unsure about what to say that would not piss off at least some part of the students. I’m very afraid to say the wrong thing. So I try to avoid these topics.” However, the fact that participation in diversity education remains relatively low suggests that faculty are either unsure about where to turn to educate themselves or encounter barriers to participation. Faculty who were aware of workshops such as the Faculty Institute for Diversity often lamented that they simply cannot afford the time to attend such lengthy workshops.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop much shorter workshops for faculty and bring them to faculty in their daily lives rather than wait for faculty to seek them out. An example would be to have CITE or CTI present for one hour at an already scheduled faculty meeting. The hope is that even one hour of content is better than none, but that furthermore, the exposure would make faculty more likely to seek follow-up guidance from these training providers.
Recommendation E.3.1
Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure
Revise faculty guidelines for promotion and tenure so that descriptions of “excellence” in teaching and service explicitly describe the importance of promoting inclusion in the classroom and in the Cornell community.
Recommendation E.3.2
“Contributions to Diversity and Inclusion” Statement in Application Materials
Require applicants for faculty (and administrative) positions to include a statement in their application materials about contributions to diversity and inclusion. The intent is for applicants to describe relevant skills, expertise and experience, as well as their philosophy and willingness to contribute to initiatives that will advance the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion goals.
Recommendation E.3.3
Annual “Contributions to Diversity and Inclusion” Updates
Require faculty to include a diversity and inclusion statement in both their annual reports and in tenure and promotion materials. Statements should describe the specific actions faculty have taken to contribute to greater diversity and inclusion within their academic departments, courses, research groups and other learning opportunities. Teaching statements should include reflections about pedagogical strategies employed to promote constructive dialogue in and outside the classroom and enhance the inclusion experiences of students from diverse backgrounds. College deans have the discretion to formalize this even more by linking the content of annual reports to merit pay (SIP) increases.
Recommendation E.3.4
Teaching Evaluations
Convene a task force of experts in assessment, instructional methods and learning outcomes to carefully review the teaching evaluations currently used across colleges and recommend revisions to be adopted immediately. For many students, their experiences in the classroom are what signal to them whether or not they are a valued member of our university community. Including evaluation questions that assess classroom climate would signal to students that the university is taking their concerns seriously. It would also heighten faculty awareness about the importance of attending to these issues, and might motivate faculty to seek teaching resources to improve their performance in this regard. A priority is to supplement currently available two- and three-day workshops offered by the Faculty Institute for Diversity (of the Center for Teaching Innovation; CTI) with short, bite-sized workshops that can be delivered in the academic “homes” of faculty. To enhance participation, department chairs and deans can arrange for these workshops to be delivered during already scheduled faculty meetings.
Another goal should be the identification and removal of vague teaching evaluation questions that are most prone to unconscious bias in response patterns. Research shows that female faculty and faculty of color tend to suffer from negative biases in their teaching evaluations, particularly in disciplines where they are underrepresented. Given the role that teaching evaluations have in promotion and tenure reviews, this is obviously a problem.
