The Emerald reported Friday that the University is spending at least $4.1 million on administrative offices, programs and scholarships aimed to increase the diversity of the faculty and the student body. John Moseley, the University’s senior vice president and provost, stated in an e-mail outlining the expenditures that diversity funding represents less than 1 percent of the general budget and about 7 percent of scholarships.
But $4.1 million is not chump change. Noting this, associate economics professor William Harbaugh has proposed a plan that deserves attention as an alternative to traditional thinking about how to diversify the University’s faculty.
Under his plan, roughly $1.2 million in diversity-related spending drawn from the general fund would be redirected from its current use as incentives and financial support for minority faculty members. Instead, Harbaugh envisions creating a free summer program targeting low-income eighth-graders that would encourage them to pursue higher education.
Because many low-income students are theoretically members of minority groups, these camps would contribute to “filling the pipeline” – starting children on a path toward attending college and perhaps becoming professors.
Harbaugh wisely argues that current efforts are flawed because they emphasize recruiting and retaining minority faculty members from a minuscule national pool. Thus when the University recruits a minority faculty member it deprives another institution of that hire and vice versa.
Because the University receives such limited funding as a result of poor decisions by the
Oregon Legislature, it simply cannot afford to compete to retain minority faculty members. The departure earlier this year of associate history professor Martin Summers, who was wooed by the University of Texas-Austin despite the protests of minority students, demonstrates this reality.
Summer programs, Harbaugh points out, are a cost-effective means to reach underrepresented groups. They can also be effective, as evidenced by the School of Journalism and Communication’s Summer Journalism Workshop for Minority High School Students.
There are two fundamental problems with Harbaugh’s plan, however. First, as physics professor Michael Raymer noted on Harbaugh’s blog, a “chicken and egg” relationship exists between soliciting underrepresented students and the current number of minority faculty members; students would probably be more likely to come to the University if they see an existing commitment to maintaining a diverse faculty.
In addition, filling the pipeline is a protracted process that will not necessarily yield results. Even if the University successfully lures minority students through summer programs, educates them and grants them doctoral degrees, what will stop other universities from attracting them with the incentive of higher pay?
Hence such attention to starting minority recruitment at an early age must be a state or national initiative. This institution simply cannot stand alone in needed efforts to swell the supply of minority youths interested in attending college and becoming academics.
Despite its shortcomings, Harbaugh’s plan demands attention because it challenges the
University’s current strategy, which continues to receive mixed feedback. Some combination of the two methodologies would likely best serve the University. The bottom line remains, however, that methods are needed to forge an institution that includes a variety of political views, ethnic backgrounds and gender identities.