Archives
A memo from President William R. Greiner
In June 2003, landmark Supreme Court rulings concerning the University of Michigan's admissions policies sparked a national debate on issues of race, education, and their relationship.
While the University at Buffalo has for many years observed the essential principles upheld by the court and the impact of these decisions upon UB is therefore likely to be negligible, the dialogues generated by these decisions serve as a reminder that it is incumbent upon our entire community to actively foster, value and celebrate diversity throughout our university.
In 1985, as provost, I wrote a letter to the deans urging them to renew their commitments to affirmative action and encouraging them to promote like commitments from their faculty and staff. One decade later, in a 1995 statement on affirmative action published in the Reporter, I asked the university community to revisit the tenets presented in that letter. In 2003, those same fundamental arguments underlying our affirmative action policies still strike me as valid and pertinent; indeed, the views expressed therein anticipated the outcome in the Michigan cases. The following are pertinent excerpts from that 1985 letter:
"Affirmative action in faculty and staff recruitment has been university policy for many years, yet we have achieved less than fully satisfactory results in realizing a faculty and professional staff which includes substantial representation of minorities and women. That we have not done better does not indicate that we have lacked commitment, since there are many factors affecting the results of our affirmative action recruiting efforts. There is, however, some reason to believe that the academic community is at least somewhat ambivalent regarding the concept of affirmative action.
"We are, in the main, a community which holds particularly meritocratic values about appointment to and advancement in the faculty and professional ranks. Those meritocratic values are a strength of the institution, and they are fully consistent with a commitment to equal opportunity in employment. That concept requires commitment to the proposition that every applicant for a position must be evaluated on the basis of his or her academic and professional merits and attainments, without prejudice as to his or her race, creed, ethnic origin, or gender. I honestly believe that all members of the academy must accept the equal opportunity norm, else they betray the ideals of the academy. Moreover, I believe that this norm is broadly and well nigh universally embraced on this campus. But the concept of affirmative action goes beyond the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action recruitment means that extra steps will be taken to seek out candidates from groups whose members are underrepresented in the academy. Moreover, affirmative action implies and requires that in making the final choice for a position, extra and special consideration will be given to candidates from underrepresented groups who have emerged in the search.
"That extra consideration should take into account the fact of the candidate's status as a member of an underrepresented group. That fact should be treated as a significant factor among the several factors weighed in evaluating a candidate's qualifications, achievement and potential for contribution to the unit, its programs and its discipline or profession. Most of those factors are difficult to measure and quantify in determining the balance of advantage between one candidate and another. In making that determination, however, if the weight of other factors is equal or close to equal between leading candidates, the affirmative action factor should tip the balance in favor of the minority or woman candidate.
"It is this aspect of the affirmative action concept which is most troublesome to many members of the academy. The concept seems to elevate characteristics which may appear unrelated to merit, e.g., race, ethnicity and gender, to the level of criteria by which choices are made or influenced in the appointment process. In other words, affirmative action, unlike equal opportunity, seems to run counter to the meritocratic values of the academy. If that be true, then what is the defense for affirmative action in the academy? There are, I think, significant benefits that accrue to this institution as a result of affirmative action.
"The first of these benefits relates to the fact that, as a public institution, we must, and gladly do, serve a student body which is broadly representative of the society in terms of race, ethnicity and gender, among other characteristics. It is argued, and I believe validly so, that students from underrepresented groups need and deserve good role models from their own groups among the faculty and staff who serve them. It is argued as well that the presence of such role models enhances the total intellectual and personal growth of these students, and thus contributes to the educational mission of the university. I believe this argument is valid, but it has been stated more fully and effectively by others, so I will not pursue it further.
"A second reason for affirmative action is that persons from underrepresented groups bring a special perspective to scholarship, teaching and creative activity. There is a feminist, an African-American, a Hispanic perspective, etc., which inform scholarship, particularly in the humanities, social sciences and arts. If we lose these perspectives, our students will be educated in ways which do not adequately reflect the full range of human intellect and vision. I find this argument valid and believe that it is an especially important reason for affirmative action appointments.
"Finally, what is for me the most important argument for affirmative action in the academy derives from the social, cultural and historical milieu of American higher education. As enlightened and liberated as we are in this university, we are nevertheless a product of our society. Less than 30 years ago, that society countenanced de jure segregation of the races and de facto segregation still exists. Less than 50 years ago, blacks, Jews, Asians, other minorities and women had limited or no access to prestigious universities and colleges, and this situation still persists in many significant institutions outside the academy. Less than 70 years ago, women were denied the vote in this country and full equality for women is yet to be achieved.
In sum, we are not very far removed from a time when our larger society was not committed even to the concept of equal opportunity. In the academy, we have moved very close to full adoption of that ideal, but I believe that we must work assiduously to overcome any residual, perhaps not conscious, effects our national history may still have on our judgments regarding appointments. Affirmative action—that is, the commitment to go an extra step, to give special consideration to the factors of race, ethnicity and gender—helps to assure that in our appointment actions we will work very hard and consciously to overcome any lingering effects our history may still impose on our otherwise enlightened and meritocratic judgments."
We have had considerable success at UB in developing and maintaining a racially and ethnically diverse population of students, faculty and staff, and this success has unquestionably enhanced the learning environment of our university. However, we can and must do more to secure a campus climate that is supportive and accepting for each and every member of our community. With this imperative in mind, UB moves forward in the 21st century as an institution rich in diversity and in equity for all, but with the knowledge that together we must actively uphold our university's lasting commitment to affirmative action.