Author: Jason F. Siegel
Finally, the long-awaited Human Relation Committee (HRC) Report has arrived. The report includes a fair number of surprises. Here's a peek at what's inside:
The Good:
Middlebury is only 1.2 percent more domestic Caucasian than the national average.
It suggests that there be a protocol in response to critical incidents of anti-diversity behavior as well as a public inventory of such events.
There is an emphasis on facilitating an increase in diversity of the staff, faculty and student body alike.
All the 1999 recommendations for improving religious diversity have been established.
The Bad:
The terms PALANA and "diversity" are occasionally used synonymously, though PALANA does not include things like difference of ability, gender, and sexual orientation.
While the 1999 HRC report had several specific recommendations for sexual orientation that went unfulfilled, this report did not suggest remedies. For example, sexual orientation is left off housing questionnaires for reasons of "privacy," but semi-closeted gay students are expected to mention-unprompted- concerns that their orientation might engender on that same sheet that their parents might see. This logic is inconsistent.
The definition of diversity was not updated to reflect the College's non-discrimination policy, so that gender expression and expression were left out.
The Ugly:
Women make up only 13 percent of tenured faculty.
Hispanic and African American people are woefully underrepresented in all areas of the College.
Socioeconomic difficulties continue to be an obstacle for many low-income students.
Many of the 1999 recommendations, such as the critical incident protocol and involving minority students in recruitment, were never completed.
Overall, despite my emphasis on some negatives, the report is thorough and well done. It is also not binding. It is imperative that the administration step in and implement the vast majority of its recommendations without delay.
- Jason F. Siegel
Focus Editor
NOTES FROM THE DESK
Comments
