On May 19, 2005 Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau charged the Senior Advisory Group on Diversity and Inclusion (SAGDI) “To recommend an administrative structure for the Berkeley campus that would have the authority and resources to provide focus and accountability on issues of diversity and inclusion.”
Three terms focus SAGDI’s work. “Diversity, a defining feature of California’s past, present and future, refers to the variety of personal experiences, values, and world views that arise from differences of culture and circumstances. Such differences include race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, language, socioeconomic status, geographical context, and abilities/disabilities, among others.” [1] A diverse campus values people for the breadth and depth they bring to the common enterprise and life. Inclusion means that the campus respects, values, and empowers every person as a contributor to the community. Equity underpins diversity and inclusion; people are treated as valued individuals according to commonly agreed upon, transparent, humane, and fair principles; all people have an equal opportunity to succeed.
The history of Berkeley’s community is a 137 year continuum from homogeneity to ever increasing diversity. The pace of change accelerated in the 1980’s; Berkeley’s community today is very different from the entering class of 1868, and even from the class of 1968. Berkeley’s response to its own diversification over the last third-century has been clear; principles of diversity and inclusion have been widely embraced in all areas of campus life by students, staff, faculty, and senior management. Indeed, in comparing Berkeley to other major American universities, it has displayed a very strong commitment to these ideals: Berkeley provided access to students from rural areas, working class backgrounds, foreign countries, and a wide variety of high schools serving a wide range of social strata. After one year, Berkeley in 1869 opened its doors to women. Compared to other major universities, public and private, Berkeley has done a good job. It is true that the diversity of Berkeley’s students, faculty and staff has never matched the diversity of the larger population that Berkeley serves. But with respect to our student body, for example, when compared to peer institutions, Berkeley does extremely well in terms of poor students, students from poor schools, immigrants, refugees, disabled students, gay students, women, children of immigrants, non-native speakers of English. The key question is: Has Berkeley done as well as it can and should in order to have a diverse and inclusive student body, faculty, staff, and senior management? We believe the answer is ‘no’. The philosophy of inclusion has been embraced; there is still, though, a ways to go. The Chancellor’s charge to deal with ‘issues of diversity and inclusion’ assumes the need to convert our philosophy into reality for every aspect of campus life. SAGDI does not, therefore, consider it necessary to ‘prove’ the need to address these issues, nor to define them in detail. We deal with the reality the Chancellor presents us.
SAGDI urges the Chancellor to take up the challenge to act swiftly and decisively to enhance diversity and inclusion at Berkeley and provide leadership through audacious, effective action.
Berkeley has long been committed to the ideal of a diverse and inclusive community. However in important ways, the campus still falls short of that ideal. Chancellor Robert J. Birgineau charged the Senior Advisory Group on Diversity and Inclusion (SAGDI) to recommend an administrative structure which could lead the culture change necessary to address that shortfall. The members of SAGDI developed two administrative models, believing that either could provide the mechanism for desired advances in diversity and inclusion on the Berkeley campus; in either model, success is dependent on the necessary leadership, support, and resources from the Chancellor. These two models are the Strong Centralized Model and the Moderate Centralized Model. Both models require
a more centralized governance structure for policy-making, campus-wide coordination, programs and services, as well as other campus efforts to promote diversity and inclusion
the creation of an administrative structure with a new executive level position with a substantial support staff performing essential functions: data analysis, communications (internal and external) and public relations, legal advice, development, office management and administrative assistance
an executive given responsibilities and authority that enable her/him to bring about change. A key aspect is acting as the point person for campus-wide goals on diversity and inclusion, including relevant aspects of review of budgets, FTE allocations and divisional achievements within the goals set for the campus
significant resources in order to promote successful programs and initiate new ones
the Chancellor to provide strong, sustained encouragement and support.
Where the models differ is in the reporting lines of current programs and services for diversity and inclusion. The Strong Centralized Model moves a number of these programs into a direct reporting line relationship with the new executive position; the Moderate Centralized Model creates a collaborative (or dashed) reporting line with no direct authority.
SAGDI recommends the adoption of the Strong Centralized Model. Through providing unified leadership in a unit committed to working with the entire campus, the Strong Centralized Model has the most potential for affecting change in the highly decentralized administrative and academic culture of Berkeley.
A diverse and inclusive community is within our grasp. Berkeley has made significant strides; Berkeley has many, many people committed to this ideal. Berkeley now needs the most effective possible administrative leadership to carry forward that commitment and to bring diversity and inclusion into every aspect of campus life. Through our deliberation and advice, SAGDI is proud to have been able to contribute to that end.
Over the last fifteen years and, particularly, over the last five there have been numerous reports and recommendations regarding diversity at Berkeley.
Asian Americans at Berkeley: A Report to the Chancellor, 1989
The Diversity Project, 1991
Promoting Student Success at Berkeley (Report of the Committee on Responses to a Changing Student Body), 1991.
Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Diversity, 2000
Exploring the Impact of a Post-209 Environment: A Black Staff Dialogue, 2000
Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategies for Hiring Diverse Faculty, 2001
Asian Pacific Americans at Berkeley: Visibility and Marginality, 2001
Promoting Academic Achievement and Opportunity, 2004
The UC Berkeley Chicano/Latino Community, 2004
Chancellor’s Op Ed in the Los Angeles Times “Anti-bias law has backfired”, 2005
Chancellor/Academic Senate Diversity Project, 2005
Recommendations to the Chancellor to Promote Faculty/Student/Staff Racial Diversity from the Berkeley Black Community Working Group, 2005
Chancellor’s Meeting with Chicano/Latino Students, 2005
Chancellor’s Meeting with African American Students, 2005
Chancellor’s Meeting with Native Students, 2005
Chancellor’s Meeting with Asian/Pacific Islanders, 2005
Academic Senate Committee on Women and Ethnic Minorities (SWEM) annual reports
Office for Faculty Equity analyses of Faculty Demographics, Career Advancement, Climate, Work and Family, Leadership, and Recruitment (some available at http://facultyequity.chance.berkeley.edu/research/research.html)
Here is not the place to review all the observations in these reports. Their central concerns are clear: First, that diversity and inclusion continued to be an issue throughout these years; second, that while some measures taken to deal with the issue have been implemented, these have failed to make Berkeley the diverse and inclusive community we desire and deserve. We highlight:
The Diversity Project (The Duster Report) (1991) Chaired by Troy Duster, this in-depth study remains a standard treatment of the problems and challenges regarding diversity at Berkeley. Reading it reminds just how little has changed over the years since the report was written. In essence, the report calls for a focused effort to confront the issues, including concerted administrative action. The report called for the development of focused energy through a group of administrators to deal in a hands-on manner with issues of diversity. This led to the creation of the Multi-Cultural Action Team and, especially, Project DARE (Diversity Awareness through Resources and Education); however, programs were rolled back or defunded in the economic crises of subsequent years.
"Promoting Student Success at Berkeley" (Report of the Committee on Responses to a Changing Student Body) (1991). The report made 40 recommendations for improving diversity on campus and enhancing the quality of education; these were a set of documents regarding campus diversity complementary to the material in The Duster Report.
Report of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Diversity (2000) Among its recommendations is: “Create the post of Vice Chancellor for Equity and Diversity, reporting to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, with the resources and authority to promote diversity and hold units accountable for their performance.” The recommendations of the Advisory Committee were not implemented.
Diversity Briefing for the New Chancellor [Robert J. Birgeneau]. Prepared by Vice Provost Christina Maslach, June 2004 This report is an excellent introduction to the state of diversity and inclusion on campus in 2004. While it does not recommend an administrative structure, it recognizes the challenge of addressing diversity issues in the decentralized Berkeley administrative environment and calls for “strong, visible, and public leadership” to address those issues.
Chancellor/Academic Senate Diversity Project Coordinating Committee Initiated by Chancellor Robert Berdahl and the Campus Community Initiative, the Diversity Project Coordinating Committee issued a report in January, 2005: “Diversity as Integral to Excellence”. This report outlined the connection between excellence and diversity and urged measures to enhance both. SAGDI’s appointment is a direct outgrowth of the work of this Committee; its charge is taken from a key recommendation of the Committee. The Committee sponsored a campus forum on diversity in the Spring of 2005 and continues its work. Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative Working Group Formed to advise action on how to increase on research focused on diversity issues at Berkeley as a land grant institution.
SAGDI’s recommendations complement the work of the Diversity Project Coordinating Committee and the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative Working Group by providing an administrative structure that can take the lead in enhancing diversity and inclusion at Berkeley.
Disability Resources