Thu 17 May 2007
Update on Diversity Initiatives
Posted by admin under Diversity Initiatives Report
Posted at 5:00 pmThe following message is from Michael Reed, sent to williams-students and williams-personnel:
To the Williams Community,
Williams has made some changes in how we work on issues of diversity and inclusion that I would like to inform you about.
I am particularly pleased that Wendy Raymond, Associate Professor of Biology, has agreed to serve in the new position of Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity. While continuing her teaching and research, Wendy will use course-release time to work with my office as we assist departments and offices across campus in making Williams a place where everyone, whatever their background, can thrive. She is already known on campus and nationally for her work on developing ways to support students from underrepresented minority groups in the sciences. I very much look forward to having her be part of our Office for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity.
To advance the coordination of the College’s work on diversity and
inclusion, our office, beginning this summer, will oversee the Multicultural
Center and the Office of the Coordinator of Special Academic Programs. They
have been part of the operations of the Office of the Dean of the College.
As part of this switch, we’ve begun discussions with the MCC Advisory
Committee of the Center’s purpose and direction to ensure that it’s as fully
engaged as it can be with the College’s academic life. The Coordinator of
Special Academic Programs runs, among other things, the Mellon Mays
Undergraduate Fellowship Program and the Williams Undergraduate Fellowship
Program. Molly Magavern currently serves in that role, though we are in the
process of appointing an interim coordinator for the coming academic year,
when Molly will be on leave.
An important contributor to the College’s efforts on these issues has been
the faculty-student-staff Committee on Diversity and Community (CDC). As
effective as this group has been, some of its members have felt that it
could be more so if there was greater alignment between the activities of
the CDC and the objectives of this office. To achieve this outcome, the CDC
will work in close collaboration with our office to best address the goals
of creating a more diverse and inclusive college.
Finally, to coordinate the many efforts at inclusion throughout the College,
we have formed a Links Committee. This group will play a role similar to
that of the Coordinating Committee of the College’s recent Diversity
Initiatives–to minimize duplication and maximize cooperation. In addition
to me and the Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity, the group will
include representatives of the following offices, departments, and programs:
Two Academic Departments and Two Academic Programs
Admission
Alumni Relations and Development
Athletics
Dean of the College
Dean of the Faculty
Exploring Diversity Initiative
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Multicultural Center
Provost
Vice President for Operations
Our thanks go to all who have agreed to serve in these capacities and to the
very many people on campus who have contributed over the years to making
Williams a more inclusive community of learning. Over my first year in this
position, I’ve been pleased to see how much Williams has done to open itself
to the increasingly diverse society the College exists to serve and how much
stronger those changes have made Williams itself. I am equally convinced,
however, that, as shown in the Diversity Initiative’s Self-Study and reports
from two consulting groups, we have much more work to do. With the changes
described here, I believe we’ll be in a stronger position to advance. I’m
honored to be in a position to work on issues I care so much about at an
institution that means so much to me. And I look forward to being a partner
with you all in this effort.
Regards,
Mike Reed
Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity
May 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Damn. With that many committees, it should be possible to solve all of the problems at Williams and have time left over to start on Iraq!
May 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Has anyone ever attempted to explain how diversity benefits the college, a community or society? Claims for diversity are made in a religious fashion that is never explained and not subject to questioning.
Such a comparison should be made against non-diverse colleges, communities and societies, both in the present age and historically.
If the best qualified people are admitted, they are here because of ability and their particular race or background is not important. They are a de facto natural part of the community because of ability, not their race or background. In this way the role of the diversity office is irrelevant.
How does diversity benefit the majority and result in generally better outcomes? Is the U.S. today a better society because of its diversity or was it a better place say in 1950 when most people had more in common?
Putnam’s recent study at Harvard showed diversity reduces trust. Perhaps this is why people now lock their doors, install security systems and even arm themselves, all the while retreating from involvement in their communities and society in general.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
May 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’m with HWC here … if you need a “links committee” to coordinate all the other diversity committees / offices, things are out of hand. Williams only has 2000 students … you’d think a single diversity committee would be sufficient (and a lot more efficient) in addressing these issues on campus … kind of echoes the needless multiplcation and duplication of residential life staff. But if institutional bureaucracy is good at one thing, it is perpetuating itself. Particularly so in a non-profit setting where there are no shareholders to appease.
And folks wonder why college tuition increases far faster than inflation, year in and year out … I wonder how fast the administration has grown at Williams over the last few decades? David’s probably already suggested someone write a thesis on that …
May 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Big Brother Is Watching You!
May 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I also wonder about all the committees. I tire of committees. I was tired of committees by the end of sophomore year on issues of diversity.
as for turtle’s comment…umm…try Bowen and Bok’s book Shape of the River to begin. Then, if you doubt that, feel free to read any of the many amicus briefs filed in the supreme court. Putnam’s methodologies, though I have not seen this study, have generally been proof that he’s a political scientist doing sociology. I wonder how he accounted for endogeneity in that study at all, nor do i think a simple control for income is adequate for accounting for the connection between race and class in society in this case.
considering putnam himself has said he prefers this editorial to the article you link to, I have my doubts about how much his model is able to quantify these interactions adequately:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0626611e-57fc-11db-be9f-0000779e2340,_i_email=y.html
Nor do I just trust Putnam to put together the methodologically rigorous model necessary to have these findings. I’d like to see his actual article, especially as diverse neighborhoods are, the bulk of the time, transitional neighborhoods. They don’t stay diverse in general, so catching them during a “diverse” period is an indicator of an outside stress affecting the neighborhood, not necessarily that diversity leads to anything. In other words, I doubt his ability to show causality, and the association between diversity and mistrust can be theorized to come from the outside economic stress that leads to the diversification of a neighborhood, a variable that I cannot imagine is in the model (not because I impugn Professor Putnam’s work or effort, but rather that the variable does not lend itself to quantification).
Are you suggesting a return to the 1950s? to segregation? really? Nor were the 50s nearly as idyllic as one might believe from TV–within non-white areas, the 50s were a period of intense struggle and pain that burst open in the 1960s. I wouldn’t want to go back to the 50s. no way, no how.
Addendum: Also, Putnam’s work on this, according to his bio online, appears to be getting published in the Scandinvanian Political Studies Journal. An odd journal to publish this in, unless it still isn’t getting published and this is a separate article. If so, why not publish the article considering the press has written about it?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Yes. Many times.
The Cliff Notes version: if you are college age today and do not learn to successfully interact and work with people of many ethnicities and nationalities, it is quite possible that you will be unemployable.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:14 am
So to you college is just vocational training?
No wonder the quality of education continues to decline.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:33 am
and unidentified snark continues to be incomplete and thus foolish.
hwc gave a clear benefit to the individual–if not able to adequately interact with people of diverse backgrounds, one will be unemployable. as he noted, it was a cliff notes version.
diversity improves the ability of a community to avoid groupthink, ethnocentrism, and senses of authority. the “mistrust” putnam finds (supposedly) may be a byproduct of the newness of diversity–being exposed to it through college or earlier experiences woud likely decrease that distrust. etc. etc. etc.
no wonder, then, that those who complain about diversity and such efforts are losing power in society (outside of the occasional stupid question on a state ballot. they certainly aren’t winning many policy battles outside of a couple states)…they offer nothing as a legitimate alternative except a false idealism of the past and snide comments about today without proving a damn thing about why they are so snide. Are williams graduates today worse than those form the 80s? 60s? 50s? really? prove it.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
As a group they are very different from those of the 50s.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Totally agreed. Looking at the past helps no one because times have changed. Western civilization is no longer western nor civilization so you have to tough it out with a new approach.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Great. Let me guess. Another embittered white male bellyachin’ about allowin’ wimmen and blacks and hispanics and asians at Williams.
Feels like I’m watching the Republican Presidential debates all over again. If we don’t build a fence and keep “those people” out, who will “protect Western Civilization”?
May 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
hwc: You forgot the indolent poor and all them preverted homos.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Them bigots! What Williams REALLY needs is more sociology, anthropology, and womIn studies professors, who could expose all the deficiencies, and Western biases. A couple of newly hired “community organizers” would be good too. For example, more classes about phalic symbolism would be a good (first) step. In the long run, we should also add more classes that deal with the social implications of the arts and crafts industry of the native people of Java island in the pre-colonial era.
Never mind that there is not a single class at Williams that teaches the meaning of the phrase “Generalized AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroschedasity,” or “random walks with stochastic volatility.” I mean, who needs that junk?
May 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
wow…
hwc: i think the anonymous comment to which you replied was actually agreeing with my and your argument. it certainly sounded like that to me.
anonymous at 11:43: You seem to have a very pathetic understanding of anthropology and sociology as disciplines. Further, much of your critique should be geared (the phallic aspect) to psychologists who follow freud and the white men of French philosophy who were behind postmodernism and its interest in the phallus. In other words–you completely missed with your criticism. 100% of a miss.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
My appologies. I am not well-versed in the academic study of the worship of phalluses [phalli?].
May 20th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
so then perhaps snarky comments hinting at the idea that such study is a sign that non-white and/or women professors are not worthy of williams because of that ignorance are not such a good idea?
It is amazing to me how often condescending attacks on non-white professors are so often fillied with incorrect assumptions and ignorance. Perhaps if people who so quickly dismiss things like gender studies or even anthropology took a class beyond the intro survey in those fields they’d have an appreciation…kinda like what liberals arts colleges are supposed to do.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
My discipline is more demanding than yours.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
rory,
my “snarky comments” have more to do with the fact that I am currently going through a living hell (dramatic pause) HELL (dramatic pause) because I did not have to opportunity to learn as much statistics and econometrics as I needed to at Williams.
One of the reasons for that is that Williams obviously has different priorities, than, say, hiring statistics/econometrics professors, although like 95% percent of the students end up going to consulting/finance/economics.
To best of my knowledge, there is no course at Williams that teaches time series at any meaningfully level.
On the other hand, how many courses do we have that teach people about phallic symbolism? How many people take these courses? How many people take these courses because they are not forced to given the peoples and cultures requirement.
I am not advocating that Williams should become a trade school like Wharton or Babson, but it needs to get its priories straight.
May 20th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The only department in which I have ever talked about phallic symbolism as more than a quick passing mention was…Classics. This despite taking the vast majority of my courses in departments mentioned above as the likely suspects for that! You can’t really avoid it in a culture that invented satyr plays, though. Sorry, the dead white men are failing the stereotypes.
Classics would not teach you econometrics, of course. Sorry about that.
May 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“To best of my knowledge, there is no course at Williams that teaches time series at any meaningfully level”
One bitter, bitter eph: this is simply not true. When did you graduate from Williams? For the last 5 years, Peter Pedroni has been offering “Empirical Methods in Macroeconomics” that teaches time series techniques at the graduate school level.
Moreover,there are plenty of statistics/econometrics courses that are available.
We have THREE statistics professors, which is unheard of for a liberal arts college. The 300 level course by Dick Deveaux, with a high dose of linear algebra, proofs, and programming, is quite advanced for an undergraduate course.
Also, there are 3 different econometrics courses offered by the Economics department (2 at the college, 1 at the CDE). The course at the CDE, offered by Lara Shore-Sheppard is now more advanced than the one at the college.
“One of the reasons for that is that Williams obviously has different priorities, than, say, hiring statistics/econometrics professors, although like 95% percent of the students end up going to consulting/finance/economics.”
Again you are completely wrong. What do you mean by 95% of the students go to consulting/finance/economics? It is certainly not true if you mean 95% of the whole student body goes to consulting/finance/economics.
Moreover, the economics department is already huge at Williams even while taking into account the number of majors. Both the quality and quantity of hires they have made in recent years is phenomenal. Even schools with PhD programs donot hire 2-3 people every year consistently. For example, the department is at least double the size of Amherst’s while the number of economics majors is not twice as much.
If you did graduate from Williams less than 5 yeas ago, then you just did not take the courses that were already being offered.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:53 am
“Peter Pedroni has been offering “Empirical Methods in Macroeconomics” that teaches time series techniques at the graduate school level.”
– you obviously don’t know what “graduate school level” means; still, I was unfortunately not able to take the course since it is not offered every year, and I had a conflict the year it was offered.
“The 300 level course by Dick Deveaux, with a high dose of linear algebra, proofs, and programming, is quite advanced for an undergraduate course.”
– took that one; it’s a very good introductory course to this stuff (BTW, Deveax has been at Princeton for the last 2 years; if he eventually decides to stay there, it would be a terrible, terrible loss to Williams)
“Also, there are 3 different econometrics courses offered by the Economics department (2 at the college, 1 at the CDE)”
– the two courses in the econ department (253 and 255) are basically 2 versions of the same course (I think that 253 is dubbed “metrics w/o calculus” or something like that). 255 is very similar to Deveaux’s course. My experience with the CDE courses is that they are a joke.
“Both the quality and quantity of hires they have made in recent years is phenomenal”
— So is the growth in the number of econ majors. How many of the new hires specialize in Finance/Econometrics? There is a huge wait list for Gentry’s “Corporate Finance.” I heard that there were years when even some seniors could not get in.
“What do you mean by 95% of the students go to consulting/finance/economics?”
—It is very sad that a Williams student is not able to recognize a hyperbole
May 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am
the last post was me
May 21st, 2007 at 2:01 am
“you obviously don’t know what “graduate school level” means; still, I was unfortunately not able to take the course since it is not offered every year, and I had a conflict the year it was offered.”
Bitter, Bitter eph: I know what graduate school means–I am in an econ PhD program. How are you able to judge the difficulty of Pedroni’s class if you never took it? I took it and I know it was taught at the graduate level. True, the quantity was less than what they would cover in a whole semester in a PhD program, but you cant really expect a complete replication of a PhD class. Otherwise, it was extremely demanding.
In any case, this was a repsonse to your claim that no time series class is offered at Williams: turns out you knew the course existed. So I am not sure why you claimed otherwise. (By the way, the only year it was not offered was when Pedroni was on sabbatical).
“So is the growth in the number of econ majors. How many of the new hires specialize in Finance/Econometrics? There is a huge wait list for Gentry’s “Corporate Finance.” I heard that there were years when even some seniors could not get in”
As I said in the previous post, the hires are more than enough to keep up with the growing enrollment. Check the faculty to majors ratio in Economics at Williams and it has not declined. Moreover, it is far higher than any other comparable school.
Your previous post was related to stat/econometrics courses. And I pointed out that we now have 3 permanent stat professors and a time series course–something that simply does not exist in a similar school. Now you are also including finance courses/profs into your argument. Even then, there have been hires recetly of people who do finance. Check out the department website.
My basic points are:
#There are plenty of statistics/econometrics faculty/courses at Williams. Far more than at other liberal arts school and even comparable with other big schools.
# The expansion of the Economics department has MORE than kept up with the increase in enrollment of students. This is simply not an example of where the colleges priorities are misplaced, unlike what you claim.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:25 am
“I am in an econ PhD program. ”
Well, I guess that that makes two of us. So here’s my experiance: I was virtually much the ONLY person person in the program who had not seen the maxim likelyhood, GMM, ARMA and GARCH before; what was a review for other people was completely new stuff for me. And let me tell you: it was hell. Williams did not prepare me nearly as well as it should have. Personaly, for my current predicament I blame my college guidance councelor for being an idiot (she was biased towards liberal arts colleges — she went to Swarthmore).
PS. I never claimed that there is no a time series course at Williams. I claimed that there is not a time series course at Williams that teaches this stuff at a “meaningful level.”
May 21st, 2007 at 4:37 am
Today aren’t excellent doctorate programs normally hell from time to time for most of their students? They were in my discipline during the 60s.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:04 am
Well, I don’t care to do any actual research across other schools, but I can tell you that the faculty hires have not kept up with the surge in majors. If you search around a bit you’ll see that there has been a drop in higher-level electives offered because there are not enough professors to teach 251/252 and other intermediate courses. I tried to get into Pedroni’s class in Spring, ‘06, but it was over-enrolled.
Now, this is essentially becoming a moot point: measures have been put into place to effectively discourage those less mathematically inclined from completing an Econ major. I’m pretty sure the biggest bulge in Econ enrollment was in the class of ‘07, so things should be better down the road.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
anonymous bitter eph,
you’ve clearly got a grudge that has not allowed you to think particularly rationally or outside of your own experience on this issue. The sad point is, you’ve repeatedly used hyperbole, false statements, and assumptions to make a claim that might have been valid (williams should teach more econometrics) had it been presented without bringing in strawmen (the phallus issue), assumptions about particular courses (you don’t know what the time series course covered), and use of anecdotal evidence (your one admittedly crappy experience at a ph.d program).
It’s a shame that an aspiring economist would make those mistakes in a discussion. It’s even more frustrating to me that you make them and impugn the scholarship of non-white professors and (especially grating) my field of sociology amongst others (tangent: it’s statements like that that make sociologists dislike economists, especially when–not you, but others–that economist then turns around and does a sociology paper. but i’ll let it slide).
I also hate to say it, but teaching you econometrics at williams (just like teaching me sociology or any field) at “the graduate school level” is not Williams’ priority. Its priority is to teach the best undergraduate level liberal arts program possible. Its priority is straight–going through hell in a graduate program is life. Perhaps there will be other points where you have a better background than the other students. or, did you go straight into the ph.d and they had taken years off to do something else? Were they taking graduate courses while in undergrad? Perhaps your complaint is because you are comparing yourself to peers who aren’t exactly peers. I know I came from behind in my graduate program because others had completed masters in related fields already.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
rory,
RE: your accusations of me “impugn[ing] the scholarship of non-white professors”
I guess that this is why economists dislike sociologists: you overinterpret.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
well…no:
from you:
“Them bigots! What Williams REALLY needs is more sociology, anthropology, and womIn studies professors, who could expose all the deficiencies, and Western biases. A couple of newly hired “community organizers” would be good too. For example, more classes about phalic symbolism would be a good (first) step.”
This is, after all, a post on the diversity initiatives. One of the main goals of said initiatives was to make williams more inviting to professors of color and generally underrepresented groups (like women in the sciences, for example). So when you propose snidely that the answer is to hire in fields that you believe are not up to snuff (as the above post indicates you believe of many fields and theoretical frameworks) in that post, it really isn’t hard to put 2 and 2 together.
Note that impugn does not require motive…you might have done so accidentally or purposefully, but the point is that you presented in a post on diversity an argument that the solution to diversifying is to hire in fields you find intellectually lacking (implying either that people of color and woman can’t handle the “real stuff” or that they migrate to bullsh*t fields) AND that such hiring has a negative effect because, after all, what do williams undergrads need more than advanced econometrics?!?
Your satire, if it was such, was poorly done. very poorly done. perhaps the answer is that williams really needs a required class on satire for its students.
as they say on some other discussion boards i enjoy: you are coppin pleas.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
rory,
I oppose the said initiative for new hiring not because they “are not up to snuff,” but because I beleave that Williams already has more than enough of the professors in those fields, given the student demand for them — indeed, the demand that is not going away anytime soon. If someone suggested a signifficant extra boost in hiring classics, Greek, or Latin professors, (which is hardly a stronghold of diversity), I would object purely because of the demand reasons.
Why did I write (satirically) that “What Williams REALLY needs is more sociology, anthropology, and womIn studies professors, who could expose all the deficiencies, and Western biases[?]”
Because in class of 2007 there are 5 (in words: five) people majoring in sociology and anthropology COMBINED, while there are 11 proffessors in the department. Something tells me that these classes are not overenrolled.
I will reitterate: you over-interpret.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
anonymous,
i obviously know you were being satirical. satire is not the problem, its the poor construction of said satire that is the problem. had you made the demand arguments much earlier, that’d be an entirely different beast.
that said, for one, i don’t believe student demand alone is adequate for deciding what courses to have (a tangent i’ll just state and we can return to later if we so choose). Second, 2008 has 11 majors (which is the outlier, 5 or 11?), anthropology and sociology have a wide range of basic materials to be covered (its really two departments squashed into one) that can’t be covered by only a sociologist or only an anthropologist (making it a somewhat bloated department in size, but not replication of topics).
but here’s where i continue to be shocked by you: looking at the eleven faculty, three are visiting professors (two of which are there for only one semester), 2.5 FTEs are on leave (across 4 professors), Bob Jackall is in NYC for a semester, so it actually totals an FTE on campus equivalent of (drumroll)…7 by my count. not so big, is it now considering the sociologists teach something very different from the anthropologists.
So now your demand concerns should be satiated. Now you’re throwing in canards about classics too…
You’re ALSO insinuating that sociology and anthropology and women’s studies are the only places williams is looking/able to hire professors of color. that’s embarrassing if its true, but i doubt it is.
For a fellow ph.d student, you’ve really done a terrible job at making your point. and if your point is about student demand, why didn’y you just go to the registrar’s class size page to do your analysis? A quick scan of the classes indicates that the department has small classes, but not significantly smaller.
i will reiterate: do a better job with making your arguments.