Julia Lee, Jesse Salazar & Chevon Walker: More change is necessary

We would like to respond to the recent guest column by President Judith Rodin and Provost Robert Barchi ("Gaining ground for a decade: Defending a positive record on diversity", The Daily Pennsylvanian, 11/25/03). It appears the University administration has begun to enter a conversation of contention with minority leaders, which was never our objective. We all know that issues of equity and race are not new. Student leaders have had unsettling conversations with Rodin and Barchi about these matters for years. Minority groups have invested far too much time and effort into these initiatives to bring forth erratic and uninformed changes for the University.

We thank the administration for the positive steps that have been taken in the past on behalf of the well-being of Penn's students. It is important for the University to understand that minority groups do not believe that Rodin and Barchi have a malicious desire to hinder the progress of diversity at Penn. Indeed we feel the opposite; the administration has shown a desire and willingness to engage minority leaders and attempt to cure the "virus of racism and prejudice." However, the past actions of the University administration, progressive as they may have been, have not resulted in sufficient successes.

Rodin and Barchi's guest column misleadingly focuses only on successes relative to the University's previous realities. They cite numerous instances of increases in funding and staff, but what Rodin and Barchi neglect to address is how Penn looks in comparison to other similar universities.

U.S. News and World Report, in its annual rankings, ranked Penn 54th in terms of diversity among national universities. This is not a statistic that indicates a "positive record on diversity," as Rodin and Barchi indicated. Penn is located in a major urban area with a large black population, yet its black enrollment figures are little better than its Ivy League counterparts. According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education's diversity rankings from fall 2002, Penn ranks 7th among the eight Ivies for diversity. It has an overall diversity ranking of 17 out of the 25 major universities in America, due to the continually low black enrollment, lack of diverse faculty, low black student yield, and continuously poor black student retention. More rural schools, like Duke and Emory, have been more successful in recruiting and retaining black students and faculty by implementing many of the changes which we assert are necessary for Penn.

As for Latinos, we found it interesting that there was no mention of their student recruitment numbers for this year in Rodin and Barchi's editorial. Only 6 percent of the last class (out of 12.5 percent of the national population) was identified as Latino. The number of Latino students admitted to the University increased, but the yield went down, which seems to indicate that more and more Latinos are unhappy with either their financial aid packages or aspects of University life. When asked for specific admissions statistics, the admissions office said that it does not have that data. We doubt that this is true, but if it is, why would the University not compile data on race admissions?

Monetary investments in ethnic studies have increased. There is no question. Compared to other universities, though, Penn's ethnic studies programs lack the resources and prestige to make them world class. Penn is not using its ethnic studies courses as a tool to combat cultural ignorance at Penn. The purpose of a diverse student body and broad range of academic coursework is to raise awareness of multicultural issues. For example, Dr. Palmer's class on race just spurred students into creating a minority advocacy group, the Unity Coalition. Perhaps if other students knew about the benefits of multicultural education, then they would be more inclined to take classes like Dr. Palmer's.

This brings me to our last point regarding the accountability of the Division of Public Safety. There is absolutely no way that we can expect one individual, the vice president of Public Safety, to be completely sensitive to issues of not only this diverse campus but the surrounding community. There are other cases in which civilian review boards have been successfully installed in order to increase accountability and vigilance. Why shouldn't Penn investigate the feasibility of such a board? Why did it take the Student Movement for Change to get the administration to acknowledge the obvious racial tensions?

Anyone who cares to join our movement in all sincerity, we welcome you. And let our desire for equality, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy by unthinking and stupid labels. For years we have brought forth ideas and proposals to Penn administrators and received little or no response. Let us remind the Penn community that decisive action in defense of equality is no vice. But inaction in the face of injustice is no virtue.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.