University at Buffalo: Reporter

President issues university affirmative action statement

The United States has a 350-year legacy of discrimination based upon race, from chattel slavery through Jim Crow laws and into the civil rights struggle of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Western world has an even longer history of discrimination against women. And, in recent years, we as a nation have been increasingly sensitized to ways in which we have disadvantaged others on the basis of their membership in certain groups or classes, rather than on their individual abilities and merits.

Some of our country's most obvious discriminatory practices and traditions are a thing of the past-for example, the maintenance of separate public accommodations for members of different races, or the posting of employment opportunities for members of one gender only. In other instances, however-such as last year's Texaco case-we are reminded that egregious discrimination still exists, and too many members of our society are daily aware of far more subtle, invidious discrimination.

In the academy, we have a keen sense of these legacies of de jure and de facto discrimination and segregation, partially because we have studied them, and partially because we know our own institutions have historically participated in them. We also have a meritocratic academic culture, based on principles of intellectual and professional achievement. And most of our current generation of faculty and university officers have grown up with the civil rights and feminist movements.

For all these reasons, we in the academy strongly support equality of opportunity in all aspects of our academic community; we also support affirmative action programs, both as remedies for the effects of past discrimination and as means of assuring true equality of opportunity. This ethical position is reinforced by our tradition of academic freedom and the firmly held sense of independence which arises from it. We expect to make decisions about academic policy-including particularly admissions and the hiring of faculty colleagues-without significant political or judicial intervention.

Political and judicial events of the past five years mark an apparent shift in the public policy environment for colleges and universities, particularly where matters of racial diversity are concerned. National attention has focused on several high-profile cases in higher education:

­ the University of California Board of Regents' 1995 vote to end racial preferences in hiring and admissions;

­ the 1995 decision by the Supreme Court not to hear arguments in Podberesky v. Kirwan after the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit ruled against a race-based scholarship program at the University of Maryland; and

­ the Supreme Court's similar 1996 refusal to intervene in Hopwood v. University of Texas, in which a Fifth Circuit appellate court ruling effectively barred colleges and universities in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi from considering race as a factor in admissions.

In the current judicial posture of the nation's courts, all preference programs based in race are suspect under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena has created a new emphasis on "strict scrutiny," requiring that institutions use affirmative action programs only to address a "compelling public interest"-such as remedying either demonstrable current discrimination or demonstrable effects of past public discrimination. Such programs must also be "narrowly tailored" to remedy specific instances of discrimination by the institution which creates them.

In creating and maintaining these positions, it is generally judicial policy to defer to the findings of elected public officials in the executive and legislative branches, or of specially appointed and/or expert agencies such as the Civil Rights Commission. Even these officials and agencies, however, must now be prepared to meet rigorous judicial scrutiny regarding findings that justify affirmative action programs.

These recent events have led a great many of our colleagues in the academy to re-examine the relationships-and the differences-among affirmative action, equal opportunity, and racial and gender-based preferences, and to ask how they can appropriately preserve their commitment to affirmative action. While colleges and universities may be particularly aware of and sensitive to past and present societal discrimination, we are accorded no special standing to remedy such discrimination, and we must be prepared to justify everything we do in terms of remedying demonstrable past or present discrimination at our institutions.

Does this environment mean that universities must stop working to ensure balance and diversity among students, faculty, and staff? No. It simply requires us to do careful analysis of decisions involving admissions, hiring, and professional advancement, and to ensure that what we do is justifiable based upon our institution's specific situation and our academic and professional needs. At UB, that analysis is the business of a range of university offices, committees, and leaders (see sidebar at right).

Does the current national re-examination of affirma tive action change the University at Buffalo's commitment to maintaining and promoting diversity among our students, faculty, and staff, and to ensuring a climate in which that diversity is respected and considered an asset? No.

­ UB still upholds all state and federal laws that ensure equal access to educational and employment opportunities for all Americans, regardless of age, religion or creed, color, physical ability, national origin, race, ethnicity, gender, and marital or veteran status.

­ UB also subscribes to New York State's Executive Order Number 28, prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual preference, and to the SUNY Trustees' policy that no judgment concerning any member of our university community shall be based on personal matters, such as sexual orientation and private expression, that are unrelated to performance.

­ UB remains committed to creating an environment in which all the many differences among the members of our university community are respected, appreciated, celebrated, and seen as the source of new insights into ourselves and our world.

At UB and throughout the United States, our diversity is and must be our great source of new strengths and new perspectives for the century ahead. It is our task at UB to preserve that diversity as a living resource, so that students, faculty, and staff alike are better able to serve our community, state, and nation in years to come.

William R. Greiner
President

[Current Issue] [ Table of Contents ] [ Search Reporter ] [Talk to Reporter]