This is in response to the May 10 Emerald article, “Philosophy students hold forum about diversity.” My name is Ashwini Prasad, I am a graduate student in the Philosophy department, and the Philosophy Department Student Affirmative Action representative for the 2005-06 academic year. I have been the contact person for some students who shared concerns about further building community in the Philosophy Department. I write this letter on my behalf only.
I am highly disappointed in Edward Oser’s lack of care and respect for participants who took part in the meeting. Oser covered the meeting and he did not identify himself at the beginning of the meeting or let anyone know that he was taking notes on our conversations. Students who had the courage to come out and engage in a dialogical process to better a department that takes diversity and pluralism seriously were not made aware that their concerns would be made public. This includes me; I did not tell Oser my name when he approached me after the meeting, and it was at this time that he revealed himself to be a reporter for the Emerald. I am upset at the lack of concern for my anonymity and for the students present at the meeting the reporter and the Emerald demonstrated.
I will now address misrepresentations about the process that led to the meeting that are rampant throughout the article. First, one of the concerns in the “Statement of Concerns” stated that higher education institutions needed to be aware of recruiting and retaining underrepresented people, and that these institutions needed to concern themselves with welcoming students to participate in academics. The “Statement of Concerns” addressed higher education institutions and not solely on the University of Oregon Philosophy Department. This was not mentioned in the article, even though Oser had a copy of the “Statement of Concerns.”
Second, the meeting was not held to address any “grievances” against the department, faculty or other students in the department. The meeting’s intention was to address concerns about community and climate in the department. I have not been informed of any “grievances.” The end of the article states that Philosophy Department Head Scott Pratt said that grievances had not been filed and he took issue to distributing concerns publicly. For the record, Pratt is correct that the term grievances should not have been used in any e-mail, and he encouraged us to hold a meeting to discuss ways to encourage and foster a climate of diversity and dialogue, which was excluded from the article. Oser did not mention these issues in his article, even though he was given a copy of e-mails that Pratt and I had in which I stated that the term “grievances” used in an e-mail was an incorrect term to use to discuss the concerns from students, and that this correction would be addressed in the meeting, which it was.
Third, Oser also states that I said students had approached me with “examples of students and teachers discriminating against them personally and against philosophers with non-traditional perspectives.” There were no reports or concerns of discrimination regarding students or teachers and no lack of consideration given to non-traditional philosophers expressed to me. Students wanted to see more work done to give them access to more materials from non-traditional philosophers than we have right now in the department. The philosophy department offers courses such as Philosophy and Cultural Diversity, Philosophy of Race, several courses in feminism, and courses that address non-traditional philosophies, and the concern was that the department should work to having more philosophically rigorous classes that addressed underrepresented groups.
Fourth, Oser fails to mention that Pratt and the Philosophy Affirmative Action faculty member, Mark Johnson, and I met to address the “Statement of Concerns.” In a meeting about a month ago, Dr. Pratt and Dr. Johnson responded favorably and with concern and regard to the content in the “Statement of Concerns.” They addressed each of the concerns and provided solutions to the concerns. Examples of solutions include, to train Philosophy GTFs to address offensive comments in the classroom, to inform undergraduates how to follow university procedures to respond to racist, sexist, and other discriminatory behavior, to develop readily available reading lists that challenged the received philosophical tradition, to propose to add a “diversity” requirement to the undergraduate major, and to encourage the philosophy undergraduate club to focus on issues of diversity and fostering open discussion.
Finally, the “Statement of Concerns” was intended to provide the groundwork for discussion of where the Philosophy department could continue to foster community and continue to be a leader and a vanguard when it comes to pluralism and diversity issues. This department has been, and is, and will be committed to these issues. I would say many students in the department do not feel that the Philosophy Department at the University of Oregon is a racist or sexist department as the title of the articles states, including myself. As a woman of color and philosophy graduate student, I have never felt uninvited during the two years I have been in the department or that it is a racist or sexist department. The “Statement of Concerns” was meant to demonstrate that students had concerns with the department that needed attention, and we wanted to have a dialogical process as a department to address these concerns. My hope is that we as department can continue to make the strides we have concerning diversity and pluralism despite some of the misrepresentations from Oser and the Emerald.
Ashwini Prasad is a graduate student in the Philosophy department.