(NAME-MCE) So Rich, So White, So What?

[Anselmo Villanueva]

Here is the link to the report mentioned in the two articles below:

http://www.sonoma.edu/Senate/DiversityStudyPhillips.doc

Anselmo


[image: Phaedra]

*QUEUE:* A new report suggests that SSU purposefully goes for students whose
families earn more than $100k a year and are not of color.
So Rich, So White, So What?

SSU diversity study pegs campus as a 'public ivy,' troubling faculty

http://www.metrosantacruz.com/bohemian/02.18.09/news-0907.html

By Lindsay Pyle

Professor Peter Phillips is not afraid of controversy. Within the first two
minutes of a recent interview at his Sonoma State University office, two
different women come in to tell him that he has angered a lot of people with
a report that he has just made public. Phillips shrugs. He admits that
people aren't happy with his findings. Phillips, a sociology professor and
head of Project Censored, oversaw students in compiling a research paper
titled "Building a Public Ivy" that chronicled SSU's transition into what
the report terms is the "richest and most likely whitest public institution
in the state." And indeed, the report incites further debate, claiming that
SSU's recruiting and admittance policies have "deliberately tried to
increase student wealth and maintain a non-diverse student population."

When he speaks on the issue, Phillips' words are harsh and breathy, like
verbal karate chops. "We want diversity on campus so that it's a real-life
experience," he explains. "You come to college to take classes, but you also
come to campus to meet people and interchange and learn from others and make
friends with people who are diverse, so it gives you a broader, more liberal
understanding of the world." Durkheim and Habermaas books crowd his shelves,
posters of Malcolm X and an American flag covered with advertising logos
where the 50 stars would be hang above his desk.

"Building a Public Ivy" documents SSU's admissions over the last 15 years,
showing that its recruiters attended college fairs at high schools 75
percent wealthier than others in the area. Some 78 percent of the
undergraduate population is white, just 12 percent Latino and almost half of
incoming freshman, 48.7 percent, come from families whose income exceeds
$100,000 a year. According to the report, staff also spent more time in
private high schools than in the entire Los Angeles County school system, a
very diverse area.

Sonoma State requires the highest SAT scores and GPAs in the California
State University system other than CSU Cal Poly, an engineering school.
Phillips says that "SAT/GPA scores are clearly correlated with income
levels, and do not correlate to success in college." All of this research
seems to indicate that SSU intentionally recruits and admits wealthy,
Caucasian students to campus, and lacks in efforts to search out and
maintain students from poorer or more diverse backgrounds.

In the end, the report leaves much of the responsibility on the
administration, if not directly on the shoulders of university president Dr.
Ruben Armiñana. The report does more than suggest that Armiñana's interest
in creating a "public ivy," founding of the Green Music Center for the Arts
and raising of admissions standards has resulted in the transition of SSU
from "being a . . . working-class, local-transfer campus, to being a
sophisticated, upper-income, 'safe' residential university for students from
families with interests in the mystique of wine, theater and intellectual
pursuits."

The issue is a hot-wired bomb. Some faculty refuse to comment about it, and
all questions are redirected to SSU's communications and marketing manager,
Susan Kashack. Her response is careful and calculated; nobody wants to be
misunderstood. She assures that Dr. Armiñana cares very deeply about
diversity, and while the administration does already support local programs
designed to bring in students of diverse ethnicity, there is still more to
be done.

"On the one hand," Kashack says, "it's a good thing that reports such as
this come out, because it forces us to look even deeper into what we do and
how we do it. On the other hand, reports like this sometimes include
selected data, or there's a perspective in looking at the data that is
skewed." Is she suggesting that the report is biased or inaccurate? Kashack
stresses, "It's a campus effort. It's not one person trying to create a
specific program. It takes all 10,000 of us to help increase diversity here.
Students must be encouraged to come to SSU, and once they're here, they need
to feel welcomed."

Chuck Rhodes is the assistant vice president of student affairs and
enrollment at SSU. He says that he still recruits for SSU, but not as much
as he used to. His office is located within the SSU Residential Life
building. Hanging on the walls of the Res Life office are five or six large
posters that read "DIVERSITY," each depicting different images of what
exactly "diversity" looks like. The word itself, in light of this
controversy, has somehow lost definition.

Rhodes says that he's been meaning to write a letter to the university
addressing the report, but he just hasn't found the time. "We have 23
campuses in the CSU," Rhodes explains. "SSU is one of four or five that gets
more entering students from outside the service area than from inside." The
university gets 19 percent of incoming freshman from within its own service
area and 81 percent from outside.

Rhodes, who is black, is clearly comfortable with the topic, saying, "We can
yak, we can pass resolutions, we can form committees, but the six counties
that we serve are very white. So why the people who are yakking and going
crazy would choose to come to a white area and then complain about the lack
of diversity just befuddles me." This small, local pool of eligible
candidates requires SSU to recruit students from out of the area. "We can
talk all this intellectual and philosophical bullshit, but you have to have
real people here," Rhodes says. "We're not going to fill our 1,600 to 2,000
freshman slots with people from our local service area."

Rhodes' impatience with colleagues who choose to gripe rather than make a
difference is palpable. "They want to spend most of their time in meetings
trying to embarrass the president or tying to embarrass somebody rather than
get their ass in gear and do something meaningful."

For Rhodes, Phillips' research report is "junk paper" because, he says, "it
talks about the past and doesn't give us any solutions about where to go in
the future, and I honestly believe that those solutions have to be made by a
personal commitment."

Phillips does offer solutions, though. He talks about a clear administrative
plan of action that can help diversify the university, including lowering
SAT/GPA standards; admitting students based on geography, like the much more
racially- and financially-mixed University of California campuses do; hiring
more faculty of color, although this, he admits, takes time; and reversing
the recruiting trends by visiting high schools in less affluent areas,
especially in areas around the Bay Area that have higher minority
populations. Phillips says that he is shocked, for example, that SSU
recruiters failed to show up for the East Bay Consortium this year, a
college fair widely known for its ethnic diversity.

Rhodes contends that college fairs themselves don't do the bulk of the work,
saying, "If you go out to schools and college fairs, particularly in new
populations, you're just passing out pieces of paper, you and a hundred
other schools. You have to have a personal relationship with those schools."
Rhodes also says that reaching the minority culture is different than
reaching the majority culture, and unlike the latter, it cannot simply be
done with a brochure.

For Rhodes, the solution to this problem begins with himself. To that end,
he makes a point of seeking out and guiding students of color. "As a black,
gay man, I am consistently evolving in how I develop my own awareness, my
skills and my abilities in working with diversity," he says. "Most of these
people have not done any real work; they just think they've got it together
because they are nice and liberal and passionate about it. They don't go to
conferences, they don't go to workshops to develop their skills. They don't
participate in activities with students of color. They don't mentor students
of color or low-income students."

On the topic of Dr. Armiñana, Phillips is clear that this is not a personal
vendetta. "It's not about Ruben, per se, or anybody else on this campus," he
says. "It's not about bashing the administration; it's about showing that,
institutionally, decisions have been made that create barriers to the
admissions of people of color and low-income people." Rhodes may feel
differently, saying only of Armiñana, "For a man who is 'not interested' in
diversity, he certainly does show lot of support for it." But is it the
support that Phillips would like to see?

In the end, Phillips is hoping to shake things up while Rhodes is tired of
talking about the issue. Although Phillips' intention was not to solve the
problem, it is clear that he is ready to see a change. "We now have a black
president," he emphasizes. "It's more than the time; it's always been the
time. I've been doing this my whole life, which is why I was motivated to do
this study."

Meanwhile, Rhodes is working through solutions of his own. For him, change
requires personal involvement. "All these resolutions and reports make us
feel like we are doing something really important, but," he concludes, "they
don't mean shit in my book."

---------------------------------------------------

February 25, 2009

Not So White Noise About Diversity

Faculty report charges that Sonoma State deliberately began targeting
wealthier students to boost its image and, in the process, became the
“whitest” public institution in California.

For related stories, go to:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/25/sonoma

Not So White Noise About Diversity
February 25, 2009
 By David Moltz <david.moltz at insidehighered.com>
david.moltz at insidehighered.com

A faculty report has stirred some racial tensions at Sonoma State
University, following claims from its author that the institution’s
administration has deliberately targeted those from higher-income families
as potential students for the past decade. In this process, the report
claims that the university has become the “whitest” public institution in
California, effectively preferring white students to minorities in an
admission practice that it deems “reverse affirmative action.”

One aspect of Sonoma State that is decidedly diverse is the administration,
where the president, provost and director of admissions – all criticized in
the report – are Latino. The professor who brought forth this report,
however, is white.

Peter Phillips, a sociology professor, wrote the report with help from
student researchers and funds from the California Faculty Association – the
National Education Association-affiliated union of professors in the
California State University System. He argues that Sonoma State
“deliberately tried to increase student wealth and maintain a non-diverse
student population” during a time period in which the demographics of the
state and the Cal State system have been changing.

*Becoming Richer and Whiter *

The report notes that, from 1994 to 2007, the system increased the number of
non-white students by nine percent, bringing the number of white students to
a system-wide low of 44 percent. During the same time period, the racial
profile of Sonoma State remained relatively static: the white student
population at the institution fell by just one percent, leaving the number
of white students at 78 percent in 2007.

The report also notes that Sonoma State has increasingly attracted students
from wealthier families. Since 1994, the number of Sonoma State freshmen
with family incomes of greater than $150,000 has increased by 59 percent;
the number of freshmen with family incomes of less than $50,000 has
decreased by 21 percent. By 2007, nearly 50 percent of freshmen had family
incomes of over $100,000.

The report argues this is greater than the Cal State average, though there
is only system-wide data from 2000 provided to support this claim. Though
acknowledging there is no way to know for certain whether Sonoma State has
the wealthiest students of any public institution in the state, the report
says that it is “most likely richer than most.”

Phillips believes that an administrative decision, made in the mid 1990’s,
to reposition and rebrand Sonoma State as a “Public Ivy” is mostly to fault
for these changes in the institution’s student profile. During this time
period, Ruben Armiñana, Sonoma State's president, sought to transform the
institution into a “beta site” for innovation within Cal State.

Phillips argues that Armiñana sought to market Sonoma State as “an
upper-income destination campus” by building what he sees as high-end
amenities for students, such as dormitories including private rooms with
bathrooms and a multimillion-dollar performing arts center modeled after one
used by the Boston Symphony Orchestra. He also argues the institution
marketed itself alongside area’s “wine country image” by making specific
note of local vineyards in campus materials and giving dormitories names
like “Sauvignon Village.”

Amidst this repositioning, Sonoma State introduced a “special admissions
program” in 1994 to “draw an applicant pool for a statewide market” and “to
admit the best class [it] possibly [could].” The institution used a more
selective screening index of SAT scores and grade-point averages than the
Cal State standard -- Sonoma State’s admissions index was 3200 compared to
the Cal State’s 2900. Though the institution marketed this as a way to
increase diversity, Phillips argues that it actually did the opposite.

Phillips also claims that the institution has limited its recruitment
efforts to predominately white public and private high schools in
high-income areas. In 2007, the report alleges, half of the schools visited
by Sonoma State recruiters had a greater population of white students than
that of their county. Of those schools, the reports also says that almost
three quarters of them had a lower percentage of students using the Free and
Reduced Price Meal program than the average in their county.

*Criticism of Report*

Administrative response to the report has been cold, at best. Eduardo Ochoa,
provost and vice president for academic affairs, said the report is being
released “amidst extraordinary efforts on campus to put diversity as a top
initiative” – efforts that he says are glaringly absent from the report.
Though the student profile data is “undeniable,” he said most of the
conclusions drawn by the report are both unfair and untrue.

“It’s entirely off-base to suggest that we would go out of our way to get
wealthier students to improve our fund raising,” said Ochoa, noting that the
high schools visited were often the hosts of multi-high school college fairs
and not specific institutional visits. “There’s no truth to the idea that
we're skewing our recruiting to upper-tier high schools. The real objective
of this report was obviously not to contribute to solving our shared
diversity goals but to drive a wedge between the faculty and the
administration. It wants to cast blame on the administration. We’re all
trying to solve these problems together, and this report seeks to drag our
campus back to where it was some time ago.”

Ochoa argues that some of the institution’s lack of diversity could be
explained by the lack of diversity in the area. This, he noted, is part of
the reason that the university has to recruit outside of the Sonoma County
region to attract more minority students. Still, he admits the lack of
diversity of the region may also be a barrier for these outside students,
who might not feel comfortable.

“It’s a challenge faced by every college in a rural, predominately white
community in the nation,” said Ochoa, noting that he believes it might not
be possible for Sonoma State to replicate the diversity of the entire state
but that it could do a better job of replicating what diversity exists in
the region.

The report also stirred some racial tension among the university’s
admissions and recruiting staff, a sizable segment of who are non-white. The
fact that this report has come from white faculty members with mostly white
students assisting in the research is not helping. “As for the report’s
characterization of recruiting, that hurt our staff a lot,” Ochoa said.
“Which, I might add, is more diverse than that of Professor Phillips'
research students. This is something that isn’t lost on our staff on campus.
They find it galling to be accused this way when that they have done a
better job of implementing diversity in their staff than many [professors]
have done in their own departments.”

Andy Merrifield, president of the local chapter of the California Faculty
Association and political science professor, said a subtle racial undertone
on campus has clouded reception of the report. He said he believes Phillip’s
report should further the dialogue on improving the institution’s diversity,
rather than leading to more division on campus. “Decisions about recruiting
are made not by the recruiters themselves but the administration,”
Merrifield said. “I never question someone’s commitment to diversity, and I
don’t think this report accuses the administration of being racist. We
[Phillips and the local CFA] are not a bunch of white people accusing a
bunch of non-white people of being secretly racist. I think that’s an ad
hominem attack. I’m not interested in pointing fingers. I think the purpose
of the report is to define concerns and move forward.”

*What Now?*

In an effort to make Sonoma State more diverse, Phillips said he would like
the instition to make a more concerted effort to recruit at low-income and
inner-city high schools. He argued that the institution should be able to
match the diversity of the state if it has the ability to recruit statewide.

“CSU's are public universities and shouldn’t be a refuge for the
upper-income and top third of society whose kids didn’t have the grades to
get into the UC system,” Phillips said. “This report certainly caught the
attention of the administration but, boiling it down, we have to look
forward.”

Gustavo Flores, director of admissions, said Sonoma State has to strive for
a “reachable goal” in terms of diversity and agreed with Ochoa’s goal that
it should at least mirror that of its local service area. He argued that the
institution is already doing a great deal to positioning itself for a more
diverse student body, citing changes among the staff.

“You’ll find that my staff is ethnically diverse, and this positions
ourselves as a university,” Flores said. “We have to be willing to make
change, and we already have great models on campus to do that. The report
seems to allege that there are no diversity efforts taking place. If you
call anyone in my office involved with anything diversity, they will tell
you that’s not the case.”