Wednesday, March 30, 2005

senate task force: public higher ed needs $400 million

the full report is here. a story from the berkshire eagle can be read here.

among the recommendations, summarized by the berkshire eagle:

  • $400 million in spending over five to seven years to compensate for budget cuts.

  • $3 billion in borrowing to fund capital projects over 10 years, including $1.7 million [this should say "billion" - US] for the five-campus University of Massachusetts and $1.2 billion for state and community colleges.

  • $150 million to fund new UMass laboratories, equipment and facilities to enhance research and development.

  • $24 million in new funding for financial aid.

  • $20 million to endow UMass science and technology professorships.

  • $1 million in work-force training funds to expand high-demand programs such as nursing.

Monday, March 28, 2005

picketing code

your graduate student senate met last tuesday. it was well attended, in the sense that we barely made quorum. the senate passed several resolutions, including a resolution to reject chancellor lombardi's restructuring plan, and the following resolution, to not recognize the picketing code.

passed: March 22, 2005

Whereas the administration's Picketing Code is unreasonably restrictive, for example setting strict standards for noisiness of demonstrations, and

Whereas the Picketing Code empowers the administration to impose unreasonable punishments for minor infractions, for example permitting the university to expel a student for being noisy, and

Whereas the attitudes and conduct of some administrators towards students have made it clear that they cannot be entrusted with disciplining students, and

Whereas the Wellman Document delegates primary responsibility for student issues, explicitly including student discipline, to student governments, within the overarching power of the Board of Trustees, and

Whereas the Picketing Code exclusively concerns student conduct and discipline, and

Whereas the Amherst campus administration has neither consulted student governments in its formulation of the Picketing Code, and

Whereas the Board of Trustees has not enacted the Picketing Code,

Therefore be it resolved that the Graduate Student Senate does not recognize the Picketing Code to be university policy, and views any attempt to impose punishment based on the picketing code as entirely arbitrary;

Be it further resolved that the Graduate Student Senate work with the Student Government Association to draft a new Picketing Code, which balances the free speech rights of students, and the right to be free from unusually severe punishment, with the need of the university to conduct its business. The administration should be invited to provide input into the process, as appropriate.

from the graduate voice: "the diversity proposal that wasn't"

here be an article i wrote for "the graduate voice" - now available at newspaper stands all over campus.

The Diversity Proposal That Wasn’t
by Uri Strauss

On March 12, the first day of Spring Break, Chancellor Lombardi posted a plan entitled “On Improving Diversity at UMass: A Draft Action Plan”, ostensibly a response to the set of recommendations contained in the March 1 report of the Commission on Campus Diversity. In reality, the Chancellor has broken his promise to implement the commission’s recommendations. His proposal rejects or ignores most of them, including its main recommendation and all the ones regarding student affairs. Instead, he proposes to destroy independent student government, reversing decades of a proud UMass tradition, while considerably strengthening Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Gargano, who undergraduate students voted no confidence in last November. In this space I’ll present my analysis of the Chancellor’s proposal, as well as an insider’s view of the Commission on Campus Diversity (I was one of two students who sat on the Commission).

Not a diversity proposal

On the first day the Commission met, the Chancellor delivered the charge in his typical plain-spoken, easy-flowing style that fools many people into thinking he’s a straight-talking, no-bullshit kind of guy. During this speech, he made a very clear promise to the Commission: whatever it recommends, he will do. It could not have been said more clearly or less ambiguously. As a result, his subsequent breaking of the promise could not have been more dishonest.

Let’s start with the Commission’s main recommendation: the creation of a senior administrative position to be the main point-person for diversity initiatives. Though it was not flagged in the Commission’s report as being the main recommendation, in internal discussions the Commission treated it that way. Certainly, the fact that it is at the top of the list in the report’s executive summary, and the fact that it in terms of restructuring it is the biggest recommendation, make it more prominent than the Commission’s other 26 recommendations.

The Chancellor rejects this recommendation out of hand, on the pretext that since diversity is a key priority for all areas of the university, and since the Chancellor is the chief official of the university, he himself is the accountable official for diversity concerns. Obviously there’s something wrong with this reasoning. The Chancellor has not been fired nor otherwise held accountable for the serious diversity failings of the University, including the events that led to the formation of the Commission. The reality is that if diversity was truly a core value, like academics, research, administration, and student life, there would be a senior official in charge of it, as there are for those areas. The only reason the Chancellor can get away making such cynical statements about diversity is precisely because it is not a central value of the university.

To what extent is the Chancellor’s proposal a rejection of the Diversity Commission’s recommendations? I can think of six levels at which a set of proposals could fail to live up to the diversity recommendations that supposedly form the basis for them. In order of increasing offensiveness, they are: (1) ignoring the recommendations; (2) rejecting the spirit of the recommendations; (3) rejecting the recommendations outright; (4) making proposals that are explicitly against the recommendations; (5) using the cover of the set of recommendations to implement an anti-diversity agenda; and (6) distorting the recommendations in order to make them seem to be supporting the anti-diversity agenda.

The Chancellor’s proposal contains all six of these. Many of the Commission’s guidelines are simply ignored or rejected, and the whole tone of the proposal goes against the values of diversity and inclusiveness that are emphasized in the Commission’s report. A good example is the Chancellor’s theorizing that students’ frustration and dissatisfaction results from student programs being “scattered throughout the campus bureaucracy” in “relative isolation”. The Commission’s report, in contrast, validates students’ own explanation for their frustration and dissatisfaction, which is quite different from the Chancellor’s, and largely has to do with the deprioritization of diversity programs and with the contempt that the campus leadership shows for them, exemplified by the Chancellor’s rejection of students’ own accounts of their frustration.

The proposed restructuring of Student Affairs in the Chancellor’s proposal includes a hostile takeover of SGA and GSS agencies, which directly contradicts the Commission’s insistence that “student voices should be valued and the integrity of student government and its agencies respected”. The proposed Student Affairs restructuring is an attack on diversity under the cover of a diversity proposal, a cynical exercise worthy of George W. Bush. By taking control of the SGA and GSS agencies and putting them under the programmatic control of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the proposal hands the reins of the historically most committed and effective advocates for diversity on campus to a man who is well-known for his hostility towards diversity, as well as a range of problematic attitudes towards students.

The most cynical kind of dishonesty that the Chancellor’s proposal exemplifies is its attempt to justify its reactionary agenda by appealing to the Diversity Commission’s recommendations. For example, the Student Affairs part of his plan is directly counter to the spirit and letter of the recommendations, as I have just briefly reviewed. Yet the proposal cites seven of the Commission’s recommendations in an attempt to justify it. Evidently, the author is not aware that such overjustification usually looks suspicious to the intelligent reader. I don’t know whether the author is Chancellor Lombardi, displaying contempt for the intelligence of the reader, or Vice Chancellor Gargano, displaying his own lack of intelligence.

Actually, it seems fairly clear that Gargano had a hand in writing the document. The hodge-podge nature of the proposal, with its reasonably progressive and useful Academic Affairs section and its backwards and pathetically argued Student Affairs section suggest that the former was written by Provost Seymour while the latter was written by Gargano. Some of the language in the Student Affairs section, such as the reference to students of color as “non-majority” students, as well as the pseudo-hippie passages about all students just getting along, are pretty good indicators.

An Alternative Proposal: UMass Community Action Plan

In response to the clear inadequacies of the Chancellor’s proposal, the student members of the Commission – Eddie Bustamante and I – wrote up a set of guidelines along which to implement the Commission’s recommendation, and then wrote an alternative proposal, the UMass Community Action Plan, based on those guidelines, which include being consistent with the Diversity Commission’s report and being written in the spirit of respect for all members of the UMass community. The proposal implements all 27 of the Commission’s recommendations and makes additional suggestions for improvement of the campus.

The UMass Community proposal offers a clear alternative to Chancellor Lombardi’s proposal, one which would improve campus diversity if enacted. It is available on the Take Back UMass website (http://www.takebackumass.com) and will be presented to different sections of the UMass community for feedback and support. The Graduate Student Senate, at its March 22 meeting, rejected Chancellor Lombardi’s proposal and called for an alternative proposal, based on the guidelines of the UMass Community Action Plan.

The Banality of Evil Administrators

One of the Commission’s recommendations that never made it to the final document, for reasons of tact mostly, was the recommendation that Vice Chancellor Gargano be fired. Rather than put it in writing, the Commission asked Chair Taylor to convey this recommendation to Chancellor Lombardi in person. Those who think I’m being too harsh on the Vice Chancellor in this article should read the transcripts of the Commission’s proceedings when they become available. They will provide insight into his character and an understanding of why the Commission was so repulsed by him, while sparing the reader the discomfort of an actual interaction in close proximity to the Vice Chancellor. I’m disappointed that the transcripts have not yet been released – they would have worked well in The Voice’s entertainment section.

What the transcripts would show is the following: our Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs shows an exceptionally poor capacity for understanding simple questions, even when they are asked repeatedly. But his comprehension varies based on the identity of the person posing the question, and he understands questions much better when men ask them than when women ask them. (How would he perform if asked a simple question by a transgendered person? This is an interesting question that can only be investigated empirically.) The Vice Chancellor, in a manner that suggests not linguistic disorder but abnormal psychology, will sometimes use descriptions to refer to himself, rather than first person pronouns, as in: “When the Vice Chancellor came to UMass on June 1, 2003, the Vice Chancellor noticed such-and-such”. Gargano came across as a person constitutionally incapable of accepting responsibility for anything. When particular criticisms or questions of decisions regarding Student Affairs would be raised, he would not address the substance of the criticism, but repeatedly assert that he is not responsible, saying things like, “I came to UMass on June 1, 2003. Anything that happened before then can’t be blamed on me”. When not using that excuse, he was blaming students for problems within Student Affairs, such as lack of cultural programming. All the while, he presented himself to the Commission, in a pathetic, self-pitying tone, as a victim of unfair accusations of racism.

The Commission was not impressed with the Vice Chancellor, and one commission member blasted him more than once (he seemed not to understand). After he left, off-campus members expressed their disbelief, asking, “how could you let this guy become a Vice Chancellor”? The Commission had no trouble reaching the conclusion that Gargano, besides being completely unqualified for his job, is a serious obstacle to diversity at UMass. The only debate that took place was about the best way to recommend that he be fired.

The final decision was to make the recommendation privately to the Chancellor. Clearly, the recommendation was ignored. As I’ve mentioned, Gargano appears to have written a chunk of the Chancellor’s proposal, and without a doubt it is his agenda that has been proposed. I’ve been told that the consolidation of all student services, cultural centers, agencies and organizations into a “Center for Student Development” under two directors and an associate vice-chancellor will create a structure exactly parallel to the Student Affairs structure at George Washington University, where Gargano last worked before coming to UMass. Apparently the reason the proposal leaves the Commuter Services and Housing Resource Center out of the Center for Student Development is that there is no analogous office at GWU, which must have created great conceptual difficulty for the Vice Chancellor.

The Chancellor’s proposal strengthens Gargano’s hand: by creating several new staff positions under him, by consolidating forty organizations directly under him, and by taking control of the student government agencies away from students and putting it in his hands. Gargano has been after these student agencies for a long time, denying the SGA its ability to fill vacant staff positions in the Office of ALANA Affairs and the Student Center for Education, Research and Advocacy, holding up the salary of an employee at the Office of ALANA Affairs, and stopping pay for positions in the Commuter Services and Housing Resource Center, in violation of a signed agreement with student government.

Since the Diversity Commission’s recommendations were made, Gargano has gotten rid of Director of Housing Michael Gilbert, with whom he reportedly had differences of opinion. The vacancy has not been filled – apparently Gargano’s strength is in firing, not hiring. W.H. Auden could have been writing about Gargano when he penned his poem “August 1968”, which reads:

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

That the Chancellor chooses to retain and even strengthen Gargano says something about his priorities. The Chancellor is surely not retaining him for his management skills – Gargano probably couldn’t manage a bowling alley, let alone a major administrative area at a large university. But while he may be very stupid, he does have a talent for senseless destruction – which may be why Lombardi hired him and keeps him around. The destruction of independent student government, a historic UMass institution and a great source of pride to students and alumni, could well be Lombardi’s agenda. It would dovetail with his transformation of the university into a corporation, by replicating the authoritarian model of corporate management, so that the destruction of thepublic university in Massachusetts can proceed without interference from theuniversity community.

The Commission’s Recommendations: Shortcomings

So far my remarks about the Diversity Commission’s recommendations have been positive, and I have limited my criticisms to the Chancellor’s refusal to implement them. However, things are not so simple. On one hand, the Chancellor’s proposal contains some useful parts. I’ve mentioned the parts I believe were written by Provost Seymour, regarding faculty of color recruitment, retention and development, and general education courses. On the other hand, there are some shortcomings in the Diversity Commission’s analysis and recommendations - chief among them the narrow focus on racial diversity.

From the beginning of the process, the two student members of the Commission – supported by others, most notably State Representative Ben Swan – tried to include on the Commission’s agenda other kinds of diversity issues, particularly economic and geographical. The idea is that for UMass to truly meet its mission as a public university, it is not enough to increase the number of people of color on campus, not enough to just improve the campus climate, but it is necessary to make UMass truly accessible to the people of the state. If this goal was reached, students would be able to come to UMass based on their demonstrated potential as university students, rather than as currently, based on their ability to afford a university education and their ability and willingness to tolerate the UMass climate. If the university became seriously accessible, it is a straightforward prediction that racial diversity, as well as diversity in other terms – economics, geography, gender, ability – would follow.

The main way in which we tried to nudge the proceedings in this direction was through the list of invited interviewees. We sought out individuals who could speak to the importance of UMass to residents of the Commonwealth who currently might be shut out of the system because of the difficulty of paying for a college education at the current rate, people who could speak to the philosophy of public education and the university’s mission. We also tried to use the Commission’s information-gathering process as an opportunity to get our hands on the demographic data that the university continues to deny us. Unfortunately, we had little success in these attempts, and the Commission was steered towards a position of considering only racial diversity. A number of individuals testified about the shortcomings of economic and geographical diversity, as well as about oppression based on gender and disability, but these did not significantly impact the committee’s report.

Moving forward

There are two possible responses to the Chancellor’s duplicitous plan: we can give up, or we can fight for what’s ours. We need to keep in mind that we are at a historic decision point. The administration is destroying the student organizations that were built up over the course of generations of struggle, the organizations that have made UMass such an enriching experience for many students and alumni, and which have done a great deal to promote diversity and social justice on campus. If we give up this battle, we will graduate from a university that gives us little to be proud of. If we fight and lose, then at least we can be proud of our integrity, and we will learn the lessons of struggle that will help us down the road. If we fight and win, we will gain so much more.

Monday, March 21, 2005

alternative diversity proposal

the chancellor's alleged "diversity proposal" blows in a big big way. it has some actual diversity proposals in the academic affairs section, but none in the student affairs section, where it rejects all of the diversity commission's recommendations, and instead proposes a significant weakening of student government and strengthening of vice chancellor gargano, a dim-witted troglodyte who despises diversity almost as much as he despises students.

eddie bustamante and i, with help from mishy leiblum and others from take back umass, wrote up an alternative proposal. it is presented here:

UMass Community Action Plan
A Proposed Implementation of the Diversity Commission’s Recommendations

Preamble

The Commission on Campus Diversity presented its report “Diversity and Inclusion at UMass Amherst: A Blueprint for Change” to Chancellor Lombardi on March 1, 2005. This was to be followed by a proposal by Chancellor Lombardi as to how to implement the report. After the chancellor’s explicit promise to implement all of the Commission’s recommendations within budgetary constraints. Yet on March 12th, 2005 the Chancellor issued a proposed "action plan" that consists of a patchwork of agendas, few of which are concerned with diversity. His proposal is inconsistent with the majority of the Commission’s recommendations, and it rejects the Commission’s main recommendation, as well as all of its recommendations concerned with student affairs.

After the release of the Diversity Commissions' report, the task of pushing forward the diversity agenda has fallen – as usual – to students and other concerned community members.

This alternative proposal was drafted by the two student members of the Commission on Campus Diversity, and it draws on the suggestions and feedback offered by many different members of the campus community. In addition, this proposal draws on the historical diversity demands found in the Living Document (1997) and in the university’s mission statement.

We realize that to support all forms of diversity at UMass will require more than the “review, modification, and adjustment” of the University’s “programs and approach to supporting minority students on our campus.” In addition, we recognize that it will require an analysis of the forces that have led to increased racial tensions and feelings of disenfranchisement on campus. Such an analysis cannot be addressed by a single document or a single commission. Rather, it requires the sustained engagement of the campus community. The Commission on Campus Diversity was one piece of this effort. This report suggests improvements to the campus which will facilitate this ongoing engagement, by improving the campus climate, revitaling existing structures that support diversity, and creating new such structures.

In formulating our proposals, we have done our best to respect the voices of those who use the cultural centers, support services and agencies that promote diversity, social justice and the University's mission, as well as the staff of these offices, who have done a commendable job, despite dwindling resources in recent years.

Guidelines:

The guidelines for our proposal are the following:

1. It is a proposal to promote the closely related values of diversity, social justice, and the University’s mission of providing a high-quality education to all citizens of the Commonwealth. As such, it is written in the spirit of the Diversity Commission’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

2. It aims to be consistent with the recommendations of the Commission on Campus Diversity, and it is based on them.

3. The funds necessary for implementing the proposal will not be generated in a way that is likely to promote division in the campus community and generate hostility towards diversity initiatives. Accordingly, it does not propose a tax on general operations. Funding would come from the capital fund and from increased University revenues.

4. The proposal is presented in the spirit of respect for all sections of the campus community.

5. The proposal incorporates the parts of the chancellor’s proposal that we believe will improve diversity.


I. Actions

1. Campus Climate:

Commission’s recommendation 1a: “first and foremost, senior administrators, deans and leaders at all levels must possess a particular leadership style that sends a clear message that the concepts of diversity and inclusion are core values for the entire campus community. Administrators at all levels must be respectful of and responsive to the diverse populations on the Amherst campus. Student voices must be valued and the integrity of student government and its agencies respected as the campus pursues diversity and inclusion goals.”

Commission recommendation 1b: “The Commission believes that the University Police Department should report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance.”

Proposal 1a: The campus will propose a change to the University's mission statement. The University's new mission statement should note a commitment to anti-racism, equal opportunity, and social justice.

Proposal 1b: The University will enact a policy that states that support for diversity, social justice and the University’s mission are core criteria in selecting among candidates for administrative positions.

Proposal 1c: The University will produce a written document stating that it will allow the Student Goverment Association and the Graduate Student Senate to allocate their budgets as they see fit, as long as the allocations are legal and not in violation of Board of Trustees policy or student government policy. The University and the student governments will agree on an arbitrator who will resolve disputes, based on the principles of self-government articulated in the Wellman Document.

Proposal 1d: Change reporting lines so that the University Police report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance.

2. Coordination of Diversity Matters:

Commission recommendation 2a: “The Commission recommends that a senior level administrator be appointed to oversee and coordinate the implementation of initiatives relating to diversity and inclusion on the Amherst campus.”

Proposal 2a: We propose that the University create an Office of Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission, and create the position of Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission to be in charge of this office. The vice chancellor’s responsibilities should include reviewing and coordinating diversity, social justice and university mission activities on campus; developing appropriate programs and plans, collaboratively where appropriate, including incentive and reward systems for individuals and units who initiate special efforts to advance these values; fundraising for initiatives such as “pipeline” programs that reach out to high schools and community colleges with the goal of increasing the enrollment of undergraduate students of color on campus, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds; advocating for diversity, social justice and the university mission campus-wide; and making an annual report to the chancellor and the campus on progress towards achieving these goals. The appointment of this vice chancellor should not substitute for the expectation that all other individuals on campus practice and promote these values; rather, it should reinforce this expectation. The university should commit to a minimal annual budget of $2 million to support the office’s operations, the vice chancellor’s salary, and the incentive/rewards programs.

Proposal 2b: The University should establish an advisory council for the Office of Diversity, Social Justice and University Mission. The council should consist of three undergraduate students appointed by the SGA; three graduate students appointed by the GSS; three faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate; three administrators appointed by the chancellor; two representatives from the town of Amherst, appointed by Amherst Town Meeting; and one representative each from each of the campus’s unions.

Logic: The values of diversity and social justice, and the University mission of providing a quality affordable education to citizens of the Commonwealth, are considered core values by most segments of the University community, but not always at the top levels of the administration. Consequently, there is a need to create an office to ensure the accountability of the administration to those who hold these values, as well as to promote these values at all levels. The creation of this position will bring the priorities and accountability for diversity closer to the Chancellor. There must be a position with the sole charge to monitor and report the successful implementation of the diversity initiative.

3. Enrollment management:

Commission recommendation 3a: “The Amherst campus must develop a clear strategy for enrollment management and must appoint a highly qualified administrative official to coordinate such an effort.”

Commission recommendation 3b: “The Office of Admissions is better suited for placement under the aegis of the Provost than under the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs”

Commission recommendation 3d: “In the enrollment management plan, it is critical to the UMass Amherst mission that Commonwealth students who achieve against the odds are given the opportunity to attend the flagship campus.”

Commission recommendation 3e: “Encourage the Commonwealth College (Honors College) to increase minority enrollments, including definitions of academic excellence and potential that look beyond such traditional measures as grade point averages and SAT scores.”

Proposal 3a: The Amherst campus will hire a highly qualified administrative official to coordinate an enrollment management plan that emphasizes diversity, inclusion and social justice.

Proposal 3b: Restructure reporting lines so that the Admissions Office reports to the Provost.

Proposal 3c: The University will develop a plan for admissions that will deemphasize standardized test scores and weighted GPA. The Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Social Justice and University mission will also develop a plan for outreach to ALANA and low-income communities.

Proposal 3d: Implement section Ic of Chancellor Lombardi’s draft action plan.

5. Support Programs

Commission recommendation 5a: “UMass Amherst must act decisively to allay the fears of extinction and confusion within the ALANA community as to the worth of the ALANA support services... The administration should find a way, through some possible shift in funding, to signal its support and appreciation of the work that is being done."

Proposal 5a: The University will restore the staff and budget of the ALANA support programs (CCEBS, UALRC, BCP, NASS), the Every Woman’s Center and the Stonewall Center to their 2001 levels. The more than 50% decline in budget for these offices (from $276,000 in 2000 to $126,000 in 2004) will be reversed. Restore pre-major advising for ALANA students to the ALANA support programs.

6. Establish Goals Regarding Diversity

Commission recommendation 6a: “UMass Amherst should establish faculty diversity goals for both junior and senior faculty within each academic unit and within specified timelines.”

Commission recommendation 7a: “In collaboration with the Provost, college and school deans should be required to set annual minority enrollment, retention and graduation targets, held accountable for achieving them, and rewarded for their successes.”

Proposal 6a: Implement section II of the Chancellor’s proposal.

7. Assessment of Progress

Commission recommendation 8a: “Clear benchmarks must be established against which the Amherst campus can measure its progress in diversity and inclusion. A body similar to the Commission on Campus Diversity should be convened in 12 to 18 months to review progress of efforts on the Amherst campus to enhance diversity and inclusion.”

Proposal 7a: The University will set the benchmark that the undergraduate population will reflect the demographic composition of students in the Commonwealth graduating high school, by race, gender, and geographical area.

Proposal 7b: The University will set the benchmark that the graduate student and faculty population will reflect the demographic composition of the Commonwealth’s adult population by race and gender.

Proposal 7c: The Commission on Campus Diversity will be invited to reconvene in 12 months to assess progress towards the implementation of its recommendations. Subsequently, a body similar to the commission will be convened annually to review progress.

8. Faculty Development

Commission recommendation 9a: “The UMass Amherst campus should organize and offer increased opportunities for faculty, staff and administrators to acquire understandings and competencies required to meet the unique issues and needs often faced by students (and faculty and staff) of color on predominately white campuses. Such an effort should be conducted by professionally qualified experts.”

Proposal 8a: Implement Section III of Chancellor Lombardi’s action plan.

9. General Education

Commission recommendation 10a-d: “The UMass Amherst administration should support the development of more General Education Diversity courses that focus on issues of difference, culture, power and privilege.”

Proposal 9a: Implement Section IV of Chancellor Lombardi’s recommendation.

10. Additional recommendations:

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “The college advisors should liaise with the support programs…It is the expectation of the Commission that there be timely issuance of reports from academic units to the support programs to aid their retention efforts, as appropriate and determined in consultation with academic units.”

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “Reduction of Funds in ESL area…should be reviewed with an eye towards reinvestment.”

Commission Recommendation (Executive Summary): “The Presence of other ‘‘isms’ beyond racism that, while beyond the charge to the Commission, deserve attention from the Amherst Campus (e.g. issues revolving around such matters as socioeconomic class, disability, language preference, sexual orientation, etc.)."

Proposal 10a: The University will maintain full funding for the affordable-flexible childcare classroom's voucher program at University Child Care. The University should restore the subsidy it provided to the full-day classrooms at UCC before 2001, so that the center can maintain its high quality and restore affordability. Affordable childcare is a key asset for the University in the recruitment of diverse faculty, students and staff.

Proposal 10b: The University will present a plan to substantially increase need-based financial aid by August of 2005.

Proposal 10c: The University will establish three liaison pre-major advisors to liaise with each of the four ALANA Support Programs. As well as, liaisons with the four support programs in each school/college.

Proposal 10d: The University will allow the four ALANA Support Programs access to member students’ mid-semester academic progress reports on SPIRE.

Proposal 10e: The University will plan and implement an ESL program for students that are motivated and capable but need to overcome the language barrier.

Proposal 10f: The campus will present a plan to make campus buildings accessible to individuals in wheelchairs, and to those who suffer from other disabilities that impede physical access.

Proposal 10g: The campus will convert one bathroom in each building to become a gender-neutral bathroom.

Proposal 10h: The University will end all practices that discriminate against international students, except where required by law. This includes, but is not limited to, higher rates for application fees and ineligibility for health insurance waivers. The University will pledge to not introduce new discriminatory practices.

Proposal 10i: The University will expand its bus system so that there are frequent (at least once an hour during the daytime) buses connecting the campus to Springfield, Holyoke and Greenfield. This system can be phased in, in tandem with the anticipated increase in enrollment from students who live in these population centers.


II. Funding

The Amherst campus’s financial master plan projects steadily increasing revenues for the Amherst campus. Funding for the proposals will come in part from these increases, and in part from the capital campaign.

Appendix A


The extent to which the UMass Community Action Plan is consistent with the Diversity Commission’s report "A Blueprint for Change" vs. the extent to which Lombardi’s diversity proposal is consistent with "A Blueprint for Change"

Lombardi’s Action Plan:

# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Accepted: 13
# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Rejected: 14

UMass Community Action Plan:

# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Accepted: 27
# of Diversity Commission's Recommendations Rejected: 0

Monday, March 14, 2005

social events listserve

i just joined this listserve, on which social events for grad students get announced. between this listserve and those etiquette classes, my social life - and standing - is sure to improve.

you can subscribe to the list by sending an e-mail to umassgrads-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Saturday, March 12, 2005

code of administrator conduct

below is a draft version of the proposed code of administrator conduct, to be brought to the student senates shortly.


DRAFT

University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Code of Administrator Conduct

1. Administrators must always treat students in a respectful and professional manner. If the university is to graduate students who are mature, thoughtful, engaged, and proud of the university, administrators must treat students appropriately.

2. Administrators must always tell the truth.

3. In all actions, administrators must respect federal, state, regional and municipal laws and policies, as well as the policies of the university's Board of Trustees.

4. Administrators must act in the interests of the university community, the state, and the public at large. The temptation to chase after money from corporations, the military, and intelligence and security agencies should not override the university's responsibility to the public.

5. Administrators must not use their office to promote their personal interests and agendas.

6. The Amherst campus is part of the Amherst community. Administrators must be mindful that the university's decisions have an impact on the town of Amherst and other surrounding communities. Administrators must be open to input from these communities, and should strive to serve their needs.

7. When making decisions that affect particular segments of the university, administrators must do so in consultation with those communities.

8. The university is a diverse center of learning. Administrators must respect and protect the ideals of diversity and academic freedom, as well as the political and civil rights of students.

9. Except in situations where it is illegal to do so, administrators must share information pertaining to the administration of the university with anyone who requests it.

10. Administrators must support, in word and deed, the public, land-grant mission of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, to provide a high-quality, accessible and affordable university education to all who wish to obtain one, and to serve the community and Commonwealth.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

no tasers

last week, both chancellor lombardi and vice chancellor gargano reported privately that umass is not in the process of purchasing tasers for the police department. they did confirm, however, that police are being trained for using tasers. gargano said that the police are routinely trained for use of all non-lethal weapons. the remarks were made in separate meetings with student and faculty leaders.

this contradicts stories in the springfield republican and the daily collegian, which reported that the taser purchases are in process. why the university has not stated in public that it has no plans to purchase tasers, i don't know.