A history of interest covergence in University of Utah diversity related policies and programs

This paper will look at the history of interest convergence of the University of Utah Administration hi the implementation of diversity related programs and policies. Diversity programs and policies, especially with the pending ruling on Affirmative Action from the Supreme Court, are continuously under scrutiny and called into question throughout the broader University community. In order to develop a strong platform for these programs and policies there needs to be an understanding of the history of why these initiatives were implemented and who the main actors were. Without understanding the history of the development of a policy or program there cannot be a sufficient understanding of the current relevance or success. The main method used throughout this thesis is interviews with key players during the creation and implementation of a policy or program. The secondary methods were fact checking and detail research through University and Marriot Library archives. For the last section of the paper most of the research was centered on current day students and discussion groups created to gather their perspectives of today's campus climate at the University of Utah. This last section will provide readers some insight of today's problems and to use the lessoned learn from history to find solutions for today. Utah and the University of Utah has a culture of niceness where not many people are willing to actively work against ideas of diversity and inclusions. What has been commonly found though is that the policies and programs that have been successful have had a series of interest convergences. These convergences are not normally negative, but the policies or programs are stopped when white privilege and power are checked or no longer have converging interests. Understanding how interest convergence has a role in the history of diversity policies and programs allows current day students, faculty, and staff here at the University of Utah to understand how to navigate these tough situations when developing new policies and programs. Understanding the history allows for a closer look when evaluating current policies and programs and could help the University figure out the best way to keep these programs and policies effective for the members of the University community.

A HISTORY OF INTEREST COVERGENCE IN UNIVERSITY OF UTAH DIVERSITY RELATED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS By Geneva EB Thompson A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In The History Department Dr. Ronald G. Coleman Faculty Advisor Department of History and Ethnic Studies Dr. Isaoel Moreira Department of History Chair Department of History Dr. Wesley Sasaki-Uemura Faculty Honors Advisor Department of History Dr. Sylvia D. Torti Dean, Honors College A HISTORY OF INTEREST COVERGENCE IN UNIVERSITY OF UTAH DIVERSITY RELATED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS By Geneva EB Thompson A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In The History Department April 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 Abstract This paper will look at the history of interest convergence of the University of Utah Administration hi the implementation of diversity related programs and policies. Diversity programs and policies, especially with the pending ruling on Affirmative Action from the Supreme Court, are continuously under scrutiny and called into question throughout the broader University community. In order to develop a strong platform for these programs and policies there needs to be an understanding of the history of why these initiatives were implemented and who the main actors were. Without understanding the history of the development of a policy or program there cannot be a sufficient understanding of the current relevance or success. The main method used throughout this thesis is interviews with key players during the creation and implementation of a policy or program. The secondary methods were fact checking and detail research through University and Marriot Library archives. For the last section of the paper most of the research was centered on current day students and discussion groups created to gather their perspectives of today's campus climate at the University of Utah. This last section will provide readers some insight of today's problems and to use the lessoned learn from history to find solutions for today. Utah and the University of Utah has a culture of niceness where not many people are willing to actively work against ideas of diversity and inclusions. What has been commonly found though is that the policies and programs that have been successful have had a series of interest convergences. These convergences are not normally negative, but the policies or programs are stopped when white privilege and power are checked or no longer have converging interests. Understanding how interest convergence has a role in the history of diversity policies and programs allows current day students, faculty, and staff here at the University of Utah to understand how to navigate these tough situations when developing new policies and programs. Understanding the history allows for a closer look when evaluating current policies and programs and could help the University figure out the best way to keep these programs and policies effective for the members of the University community. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 General History of the University of Utah 7 Late 1960s and Affirmative Action 8 Creation of the Center of Ethnic Student Affairs 1970s-1980s 22 Creation of Ethnic Studies Program, 1970s-1980s 28 1990s and the Critic of Affirmative Action and Ethnic Studies Programs 34 Today and Conclusion 40 Bibliography 45 iii 1 The University of Utah, as all institutions of higher education, has been and still is affected by the political climate of the nation. Two prominent issues of the political climate, past and present, are civil rights and the promotion of equality within our society. This paper will look into how the University of Utah has reacted, and continues to react, toward these social issues and the motivations for the creation and implementation of a variety of programs and policies addressing social justice and diversity within the campus community. The United States' higher education system has, since its creation, been an institution that promotes the white male privileged hierarchy of society, and changing this system has been a series of converging interests. These changes can be argued as either progressive or detrimental, but nonetheless they are still working within a hierarchical system. The University of Utah, like most United States universities, has been a traditionally white-male-dominated institution, and the policies and programs created to promote equality have centered around finding mutually beneficial resolutions, interest convergence, with those in power. What is unique with the University of Utah is its culture of niceness around issues of diversity and the hesitancy of the University to engage in any outright conflict and the preference of solving issues in private. The University of Utah with its culture of niceness on the other hand still only operates in continuing its interest and will not agree to any policy or program that directly harms those who are in power from keeping their power. This paper will work to identify this culture of niceness while looking at the interest convergences of the creation of diversity programs and policies and relate them to the political climate of the time to provide some understanding of the inner workings of the University of Utah's diversity work today. 2 Literature Review Academic work around issues of diversity and social justice uses a variety of terms and theories with variations of their definitions and use. This paper uses Critical Race Theory (CRT), a race-based theory looking into American public schools, as its theoretical structure for analysis when looking at the history of American universities and their campus climates. Margaret M. Zamudio, in the introduction of her book Critical Race Theory Matters, provides a simplified definition to help with the understanding of the complexity of CRT, She writes, Critical Race Theory (CRT) offers us one such race-conscious approach to understanding educational inequality and identifying potential solutions... CRT takes us beyond the traditional approaches and understandings of educational inequality. It foregrounds race as the central construct for analyzing inequality, and it offers educators and students alike with an alternative perspective in identifying more effective solutions to the challenges students of color face in school. 1 CRT utilizes five key lenses when looking at the institutional discriminations within American schools. Zamudio clearly spells these out as race, history, voice, interpretation, and praxis". Out of the five, race is the concept that works with the identity of students and how society is built around reacting to that identity. I would like to expand on this lens to incorporate students who identify as gender and sexual minorities because of the similarities with racial minorities and their societal struggles. Understanding history is one of the most critical tools for learning how the present came to be and is the central discipline for this study. Many, if not all, of the problems addressed came out of a long line of historical events, and by understanding the reasons and catalysts behind these problems, answers and solutions can emerge. Both voice and interpretation are the tools 3 for CRT to empower those who are underrepresented to share arid teach from their experiences and varying disciplines. The last lens used by critical race theorists, praxis, provides the motivation for the research around diversity and social justice issues. CRT was never intended to be used for passive research or knowledge, but was to be dedicated to the work and promotion of social justice and provide the information needed for 111 critical action. By the end of this paper I hope to not only contribute to the knowledge base around the history of American universities, but to provide meaningful information to help those students who are actively struggling to change then institutions. Cheryl 1. Harriss's article, "Whiteness as Property," clearly elucidates the concept of the power of white privilege within the United States' educational system and how efforts to check this power are continuously hindered. Harris's article is central in the discussion about understanding how white privilege is the "neutral" or "normal" for our society and for our higher education. She formulates correlations between white privilege and property and how working to break down white privilege calls into question white people's claim to power. She opens her article with the statement "[wjhiteness and property share common premise—a conceptual nucleus—of a right to exclude" and this right to exclude is the focus of her main argument in looking at white privilege in lv society. This exclusion aspect can be directly related to the history of the changing policies within higher education and how this has influence over the policies in creating an inclusive campus community. Her claim "whites have come to expect and rely on these benefits, and over time these expectations have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by the law" helps her readers understand how higher education was created and 7 the barriers put in place for underrepresented students. Harris spends the first half of her 4 article discussing how slavery and the removal of the Native Americans from their lands created the concept of connecting race with property and this connection being perpetually enhanced through our legal and societal progression/' Understanding the concept of whiteness as property helps readers see why changing the policies and programs in higher education is a series of converging interests. The second half of Harris's article focuses on defining court cases and affirmative action and how it relates to whiteness as property. The two court cases she focuses her argument around are Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The Plessy case deemed having separate but equal schools for whites and students of color was constitutional. The Brown case overrode Plessy and deemed "separate but equal" unconstitutional. In both cases she points out how each decision helped to reaffirm whiteness as property in our educational system and that a movement toward breaking down this process is met with advent resistance. In discussing Brown v. Board of Education, her critique that "the courts refused to extend continued legal protection to white privilege, yet it simultaneously declined to guarantee that white privilege would be dismantled, or even to direct that the continuation existence of institutionalized privilege violated the equal protection rights of blacks." This points out that even when the decision helped break down discriminatory practices in education, the courts failed to 11 hurt the institutional white privilege/ This failure to check the power of white privilege is seen by Harris, as the cases "failed to address the full measure of the harm" of discrimination within the school systems, as the fundamental problem when looking at the issues of equality/ 111 The idea of whiteness as property and thus the need to protect this property through exclusion created large road blocks when creating policies to help 5 with inclusion, Harris quotes Kimberle Chrenshaw's idea that "whites have an actual stake in racism" to clearly point out that whiteness is dependent on the exclusion of other to keep the power formed around a white identity.™ This stake proves to be difficult barrier when looking into changing policies and programs within higher education, Cheryl Harris also discusses affirmative action and how for the first time white interests had been questioned and then reaffirmed through proceeding court cases. She uses examples of reverse discrimination cases to show how "the very constitutional measure [equal protection clause] designed to guarantee equality for blacks—is based on the court's chronic refusal to dismantle the institutional protection of benefits for whites that have been based on white supremacy and maintained at the expense of blacks"/ In all of her examples, the court continuously undermines the original reason for the creation of affirmative action. Her insight on the stake of whiteness in affirmative action can be seen in the current Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas, where the courts are looking into the constitutionality of admittance to higher educational based on racial identities. This case will be a defining moment in the fight for the control to exclude or include students in higher education. The second fundamental article for this paper is Derrick A. Bell, Jr's, ""Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma," where he continues the argument presented by Harris and comes to the conclusion that in order for a policy or program to be implemented and kept, there must be some benefit for those with privilege and power. He opens his article with the discussion of various professors who were happy with the decision of Brown, but were disappointed in how narrow the vision was of the court. Professor Charles Black was quoted in Bell's article discussing how most 6 whites would agree that discrimination of blacks is unjust, but that "few [whites] are willing to recognize that racial segregation is more than a series of quaint customs that can be remedied effectively without altering the status of whites".*' This lack of willingness to recognize that the privileges of whites must be altered for true equality is the fuel that encourages interest convergence when discussing issues of equality. Bell provides a strong statement about this lack of willingness when he writes "[t]he interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interest of whites"."" He continues his argument by stating, "racial remedies may instead be the outward manifestations of unspoken and perhaps subconscious judicial conclusions that the remedies, if granted, will secure, advance or at least not harm xl societal interests deemed important by middle and upper class whites". " Bell provides two examples of interest convergence with the court case Brown v. Board of Education and how white citizens benefited from ending segregated schools. First, Bell argues that segregated schools were hurting the creditability of the United States in the eyes of the third world countries that were center stage in the fight against communism and Soviet Russia. The perception of equality was deemed more valuable than the discrimination and separation of students within the public school system. Bell illustrated his second point on how white interests converged by pointing out how it became important to stop negative sentiment from black World War II veterans who were told to fight for freedom, but many of them came home to see discrimination inflicted on their own children. xlv Both of these examples show how it was more beneficial for white citizens to create an image for the world of freedom and equality in the United States, than it was to keep segregation. Bell's theory of interest convergence can been seen in decisions made in higher education institutions as they look into policies and programs for undeirepresented students in relation to that of white students. Both articles, Harris's "Whiteness as Property" and Bell's "Brown v. Board of Education" provide the fundamental theoretical base for starting the discussion on the history of the University of Utah's interests in working toward providing more inclusive programs and policies for underrepresented students. As in many cases, the use of interest convergence can be used as a tactic toward the promotion of equality, and when necessary, has been used in creating some of the most notable and successful programs at the university level. General History of the University of Utah For analyses of how universities use interest convergence when working to create diverse policies and programs, this paper uses the history of the University of Utah and its motivations to change the campus for a more diverse community as a case study as well as to show the unique culture of niceness that paints a different style of change on a campus. As Utah and the Latter-day Saints pioneer community grew, there became a need for more elementary school teachers to educate the growing numbers of children. With this motivation, the University of Utah was founded in November 11,1850, and held its very first classes for men in the home of Mrs. John Pack, With a rocky start, a formal university with variety of classes was not built until 1868 under the direction of Dr. John Rockey Park. From of the history of the University of Utah's formation, there is clearer understanding how it was built under the idea of being a school for the middle to upper class, white, and predominately male students and that women and people of color 8 were not expected to attend any institution of higher education. Because of the history of its formation, the policies and programs were also written and carried out for the use of white men. These policies and programs moving forward become the status quo and sites for development and improvement to build an inclusive, diverse campus. The University of Utah, since its foundation, has been directly affected by state and national politics, culture, and economics and each have many examples of being the catalyst for change. Each tuition increase can be comiected to economic factors, new classes and degrees can be traced to a community or market need, and policies and programs are directly influenced by the changing demographics of the community around the University. In this next section of my paper, I will be looking at some examples of the creations of singular policies or programs to understand how the time, environment, and external and internal factors helped shape the motivations of key administrators to push for or support change on the University of Utah campus. With a narrow look a specific moments of change, I hope to provide insight on how interest convergence coupled with a culture of niceness tends to be the normal motivation of change on the University of Utah campus and to analyze this concept to show both its strength and weaknesses of past and developing programs and policies. Late 1960s and Affirmative Action As the 1960s played out in United States history, the demand for more equality and civil rights grew, putting pressure on all aspects of society to change to be more inclusive to the growing diverse American population. Lyndon B. Johnson inherited the presidency during the tumultuous time following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 9 1963, and was forced into trying situations where he had to make difficult decisions. After his election in 1964, equal opportunities and civil rights became leading issues for the nation, which then made it leading issues for President Johnson. Fortunately for Johnson, he had a series of executive orders as precedence to follow when looking at the issue of civil rights and equality. The United States Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) had a short history and description of this series of executive orders Johnson was able to use as a resource for his own executive order as well as showing the progression of the United States in advancing civil rights. The motivation for Executive Order 8802, signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on June 14, 1941, was due, in part, from protest leaders, A. Philip Randolph and Baynard Rustin, talking about the issues that African American/black workers faced and how they were prevented from jobs within the segregated defense industry factories. Executive Order 8802 outlawed racial discrimination within federal government and xv defense industries. During the 1940s, the nation was in the middle of the second world war and Roosevelt needed as many laborers and defense equipment as he could get. This economic need to have African American/black workers in the defense labor force, as well as a somewhat progressive mindset, points to how the signing of Executive Order 8802 made sense. In 1943, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9346 to extend the range of Executive Order 8802 to include all government contractors, thus ending legal segregation within government occupations and opening up a broader pool of employees. These two Executive Orders became bedrock Presidential documents for pushing toward equality in the work place. 10 The next two Executive Orders signed strengthened President Roosevelt's legacy through incorporating a compliance element to the non-discrimination policies set in the 1940s. Executive Order 10308, signed by President Harry S. Truman in 1951, created a Committee on Government Contract Compliance to become a watch dog agency for government contractors."' It can be implied that since President Truman felt the need to create a committee to work on compliance, that the government contracting agencies were having difficulty complying with the non-discrimination policies. Executive Order 10479, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953, continued the idea of compliance by requiring all government agencies to obtain an agreement to the non­ 7 discrimination laws from contractors before setting up contracts/ " Both of these orders gave the needed teeth for Executive Order 8802 and created the precedence of enforcing compliance that Johnson would soon depend upon for his Affirmative Actions. Lastly, Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, built the structure for President Johnson and his ideas. President Kennedy an created a broader and more proactive approach to providing jobs for those, who in the past were disadvantaged. Not only were people protected when applying for jobs and during employment, but government agencies had power of executive enforcement throughout a federal contract and could break said contract if the contracting agency fell out of compliance with non-discrimination. President Kennedy's Executive Order also created a new Presidential Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, chaired by the Vice President (Johnson), to create additional oversight for non-discrimination in the work xvl place. " This structure helped to set up President Johnson for his famous Executive Order 11246 that continues to affect society today. 11 President Johnson described his vision for a "Great Society" for the Howard University graduating class of 1965, stating, "We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result" X1X Later that year, Executive Order 11246 was signed and officially made the Secretary of Labor primarily responsible for the compliance of non-discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion, color or national origin as well as working preemptively with a strong affirmative action plan to enforce the hiring of qualified diverse employees."" This order made it clear to all government agencies that there needed to be active change within their departments. Executive Order 11246 had was written with some certain specifics to include that all federal agencies with 50 or more employees or programs receiving $10,000 or more dollars from the federal government was required to develop an affirmative action plan to 1 insure equal opportunity employment."" These requirements not only required many federal agencies to comply with affirmative action, but many grant receiving universities who could not afford not to comply fell into this camp. Executive Order 11246 made compliance for most universities in their interest because they were forced to obey federal law with the acceptance of federal monies. This was especially true for the nation's universities. The fear of falling out of compliance of Executive Order 11246 sparked a huge administrative focus on hiring and recruiting faculty, staff, and students from underrepresented communities. This push was felt nationwide and reframed the racial tensions on university campuses as the perception of power and privilege began to shift. This set up the average American university to find that balance between complying with federal law but at the same keeping the power dynamics at be the same. This transition took on different forms for each university, some very negatively and others with a sense of civility. History of Universities with Affirmative Action American universities had five years after President Johnson's Executive Order 11246 was signed to develop their campus affirmative action and equal employment opportunities policies before extensive federal enforcement demanded their compliance. Universities at this time were slowly admitting a diverse student population and were experiencing the chaos of the 1960s anti-war and civil rights movements on their campuses. Students were demanding more from their institutions well before President Johnson ordered affirmative action. The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education report, Making Affirmative Action Work in Higher Education, looks at the process the universities were going through at the time to adhere to affirmative action. The first important aspect discussed in the report was showing the difference between the average business job market and that of the academic job market. Where businesses could create an affirmative action plan and quotas, universities and the faculty hiring market could not effectively incorporate the same model. xxn This hiring culture caused many universities to not pass initial compliance reviews and sparked controversy on campuses. For faculty hires, the key aspects were to find highly specialized, highly educated people who not only had experience teaching, but could research, be published, and add to the intellectual community within their area. Secondly, new hires had to fill a specific vacancy within a department, which sometimes required the new hires to have worked in the industry. Lastly, the applicant would be judged by the university or 13 department within a university on which university s/he graduated from and would be 1 given preference for higher ranked institutions.™ ' These different factors in the hiring process made the adoption of affirmative action much more difficult for universities over other employing institutions and complicated the compliance of Executive Order 1246. To evolve away from the average business model of quotas and numbers, the report emphasized moving away from entitlement for proportional representation to the idea of the "creation of more adequate pools of talent, active searches for talent wherever it exists, revision of policies and practices that permitted or abetted discrimination, development of expectations for a staff whose composition does not reflect the impacts of discrimination, provision of judicial processes to hear complaints, and the making of decisions without improper regard for sex, race or ethnic origin" . XXIV With this new understanding of how universities should work toward affirmative action and equal employment opportunities, universities could still uphold their similar hiring practices as long as they could prove to be behaving in an equitable manner. With these concepts in place for hiring, universities had to move to new policies effectively and quickly. These university affirmative action plans were only required to be reported to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's (HEW) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) unless subjected to a compliance review or because of the tiling of a complaint. Most universities were required to submit their plans under a compliance review because of their large numbers of federal-contract funds and employees. Out of the large number of universities who submitted to these reviews, only an average of 16 percent were approved. xxv As the Carnegie Council report indicates, very clearly universities were having a hard time creating affirmative action plans to fit the HEW's standards. Dr. 14 Cecelia H. Foxley, one of the first directors of equal opportunity/affirmative action programs in the nation, was able to explain this phenomenon. Dr. Foxley started her academic career at the University of Minnesota as an Assistant xxv Professor and then later became the Coordinator of Staff Educational Programs. ' This new position placed her as chair of a committee looking to see if the University's admissions of students and hiring, promotion, and salaries of faculty and staff were unequal between men and women as well as between minority and majority people. Her quality work on the final report showed substantial differences and caught the interest of the University of Iowa, and in 1971, landed her in the newly created position of director of equal opportunity/affirmative xxv action program. " During a personal interview with Dr. Foxley she described the difficulties of gaining the support of the University of Iowa community to subscribe to non-discrimination federal policies. The general negative concern toward these new programs was centered on the concern of diminished quality of faculty within academics. For people with this concern, it was believed that the best academics came from the historically central group within the university system, or other words, the middle to upper class white men. Dr. Foxley, on multiple occasions during the interview, stated she would have never successfully implemented an affirmative action and equal employment policy if the University president of the time was not actively supporting her and her work. One story shared in her memoir was when a senior dean of one the larger colleges on campus stated, "if we follow these policies and procedures, we will ruin the quality of our faculty at this institution. I, for one, will not follow this 'Foxley policy'." Coming to 15 Dr. Foxley and her policy's defense, President Boyd replied, "This is not a Foxley policy. This is not a Boyd policy. This is University of Iowa policy, and as a dean at this institution, you will follow this policy". xxv,il Dr. Foxley and her experience not only shows the general reticence to affirmative action, but exposes the broader issue between theoretical belief of equality and the actual tension of policy actively working against institutionalized privileges. Dr. Foxley and the University of Iowa's success as one of the first universities to successfully create an affirmative action plan, quickly caught HEW's attention. During her interview, Dr. Foxley described her experience in working with HEW training their compliance officers when working with universities in assessing their observance of federal laws and regulations. To her surprise, the compliance review officers were taking a business solution and approach to universities and did not have any type of understanding of the faculty tenure process. This lack of understanding was a major reason why the majority of university plans were failing in their affirmative action plans. The major hurtle when working with HEW was to overcome the idea of quotas in hiring women and minorities and to adopt a plan similarly described by the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education in 1915™ Dr. Foxley's experiences helped provide some national understanding of the slow transition of universities in developing their affirmative action plans and the internal issues of power and privilege when working to implement these new policies. 16 Affirmative Action at the University of Utah Affirmative Action sparked new policy changes on the University of Utah campus, which provoked both those in favor and those against such changes. The administration took a safe approach of complying with the law to avoid future problems with the federal government and still maintain eligibility for federal grants. The key part of understanding how the University of Utah reacted to the move toward the new required affirmative action policies is to look not only at the successfully crafted end policy, but to look at the mistakes made by many during the process. The first archived document on the University of Utah's Affirmative Action policies was a short article written July 7,1969, noting the newly approved statement of Equal Employment Opportunity at the University of Utah. This document stated it was the "intent of the University to raise the number of minority group faculty and staff members" 4 and to solve the apparent disparities problem within employees.™ This document sited a statistic that out of the 7,000 university employees, only 320 were of minority status and that the University was advised by Mr. Owen P. Kicly, the Director of Contract Compliance Division Office for Civil Rights, to quickly create an Affirmative Action plan before the anticipated HEW compliance review."™ This anticipated review seemed to kick start the University in its documentation of equal employment attempts and policies. A letter from Ernest L. Poulson, the Director of Personal, to Jerry R. Anderson, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, in December of 1969 described an issue with the University's documentation of employees, especially with faculty, and this would hurt them in the upcoming review process. Poulson wrote, 17 "We have a rather well-organized effort in this regard as concerns non-faculty employment. However, I am not aware of a similar effort on an overall campus basis relative to faculty. An essential aspect of an 'affirmative action' program is being able to prove you have on through documentation showing policy statements, plans, objectives, special development programs, etc .. . " , xxxn These two documents begin to define the converging interests between the upper administration and that of current and future underrepresented faculty and staff of the University. It was the quickly approaching HEW compliance review and the fear of failing that review that made the documentation of "policy statements, plans, objectives, special development programs, etc ..." atop interest of the administration. The question is, without this compliance review looming in the future, how quickly would have the University of Utah moved to comply with Executive Order 11246? With this growing interest of coming into compliance with the new federal policies, President James C. Fletcher, documents not only his "full support and endorsement" to the creation of an Affirmative Action and employment program at the University of Utah, but also provides a clear buileted list of actions to implement hiring more diverse 1 employees.™ " Each item from this list had specific policy implementations, but one especially interesting was the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Committee. This committee was given the charge to look for discrimination, write recommendations to offending departments, and report to the University's Equal Employment Off!ce. xxxlv This charge seemed to have little to none enforcement capabilities, which brings into question the 18 exact motivation for its creation. This message from the President not only shows the importance level of Affirmative Action at the University, but it also helped explain how quickly the policy plan was implemented without working to gain the approval of all of the University community before policy change. Similar to this document was a statement given by the Vice President of Academic Affairs Jerry R. Anderson, to freeze all vacated faculty positions and not recruit for the 1972-1973 academic year, and that "here after, no new male or non-minority appointment to the faculty will be endorsed by my office unless it is clear from the appointment dossier that a concerted, conscientious effort was made in the recruitment process to locate, to make contact with, and to attract appropriately qualified female and minority candidates for the position". xxxv This statement clearly takes power away from departments to use their own agency in hiring new faculty members and shows the higher administration's zeal to comply with the idea of hiring quotas and numbers. This statement shows the urgency of the higher administration interest in working toward and documenting their processes of increasing a diverse faculty team. The deans of the time had their own reactions to the affirmative action policies some negative and some overly excited, like Dr. Irwin Altaian, the Chairman of the Psychology Department, in his new faculty search in 1973. As seen in the included image, Dr. Altaian in his interpretation of the administration's requests, advertised his faculty search for only minority members. This decision sparked a huge debate on campus as well as throughout the national psychology community. In a stream of letters found communicating about this debate, there can be an understanding that affirmative action policies were new on campus and in the nation, but that there was still some animosity toward framing faculty hires as quota hires. In one letter, from Dr. John Darling from the Psychology Department at the University of Minnesota, to Altaian in October of 1973, Darling asked if it was either the University or the department that set the policies informing the job posting and he stated his concerns of said policy. Darling also wrote, "Certainly we all are under serious *** UTAH *** •a 3 | | | I | | I U N I V E R S I T Y O F U T A H : Minority faculty positions (1-2) at any level, either full time in Psychology D e p a r t m e n t or p a n time in P s y c h o l o g y and part time in •University Ethnic Studies Program. Candidate should have strong interest ,in teaching and research in one or more of the following areas: Clinical, Developmental, Animal or Human Experimental, Physiological or Social. Teaching at graduate and undergraduate levels; supervision of graduate student research. Salary. . c o m p e t i t i v e ; • negotiable. Start September 1974. Send vita to Dr Irwin • Altaian;- Chairman, Dept.. of Psychology, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. obligation to increase the numbers of members of our faculty both from minority groups and from women, but it seems to some of us at least, that the policies under which you now are working might be interpreted as a reverse discriminatory practice about which some question could be raised" . xxxvl Altaian, in his response to Darling's letter, did not deny reverse discrimination claims, but fully embraced them in "spirit of affirmative action." He stated, "University faculty from minority groups and women I am personally in favor of such reverse discrimination. And, as an administrator, site visitor and faculty member I have seen very little evidence in most universities to go beyond the verbal statement of obligation and responsibility. Unless funds are made available and administrative decisions are made at higher levels, I do not expect to see very much movement in this direction". xxxv " These two letters show the debate of how institutions approached affirmative action on a philosophical way. The next few letters on the same job posting give some insight on the motivations of departments to actually increase faculty of color and women. In a letter from Dr, Brendan A. Maher from the Harvard University Department of Psychology to Altman, he asks for the basis of this hiring policy on the grounds that it is possibly illegal and discriminatory.'™" Altman in his response to Maher's letter, gave insight to how the University of Utah was incentivizing departments to hire minority and women faculty members. His response was, "A few years ago the University set aside a certain number of positions specifically for minority faculty. These positions were essentially treated as 'bonus' positions for departments and there was University-wide competition to fill these positions The intent was to provide recruiting in accord with federal affirmative action guidelines. In no way were these funds intended to supplant regular departmental positions or programs and no restrictions were put on departmental recruiting for established line positions". xxxlx Not only does this response show interest convergence of the hiring of minority faculty members with that of Altman and his department receiving more money, but that the University of Utah put into place a safeguard for white faculty members that none of their positions would be given away to minority or women faculty. The University's position on increasing minority and women faculty not only gave financial incentives to successful departments, but also was able to protect the power and privileges of the white male members. Issues of how to hire faculty members continued well beyond Altman and the Department of Psychology in 1973. John Florez, the University of Utah's first Director of Equal Employment Office and Affirmative Action, discussed the processes he went through to develop the University of Utah's Affirmative Action plan in 1974 that was eventually signed off and approved in 1975. First and for most, Florez stressed the importance of his success was the active support of President David P. Gardner in the creation and implementation of affirmative action throughout campus. After Gardner hired Florez the agreement was made that Florez would have equal standing as of all the other Vice Presidents on the executive cabinet and if the Vice Presidents refused to enforce affirmative action plans within their respective departments, Gardener would intervene until the problems were fixed. Having the University President on board was key because Florez did not have to worry about convincing anyone in helping or xl accepting the new program, Gardner enforced it. President Gardner was also in the position of seeing creating an affirmative action plan was in not only his interest, but the interest of the whole University. The harshness of falling out of compliance with the new federal law was enough motivation to give Florez everything he needed to successfully create and implement a new affirmative action plan. Florez described the key players in the process of creating the affirmative action plan as reluctant to go through the actual writing process of the new plan, but overall in favor of creating a program for the University. The overall idea was to have all the main people running the University of Utah at the table when creating the plan to ensure that people felt ownership to the goals created, thus more likely to enforce them. Florez also asked Gill Raymond and Ralph Fernandez from the Department of Health Education and Welfare's Office of Civil Rights to help the University of Utah develop a successful 22 affirmative action plan in a timely manner. They obliged and after Florez and Gardner were successful in presenting the plan to HEW in 1975 the University of Utah was the first school west of the Mississippi River to have a successful Affirmative Action plan. The University of Utah's success in implementing their affirmative action plan in a timely manner because of Florez and Gardner's interest in advocating for fairness within the work place and the U.S. government and Executive Order 11246 making affirmative action the University's interest to comply the creation of the affirmative action plan became an example of a converging interest translated into policy . xU Executive Order 11246 was one of the largest policy influencing orders to change the modern university. The University of Utah went through massive growing pains through the 1960s and 1970s as the administrators maneuvered the balancing act between a culture of niceness and keeping the University's interest at the forefront. By the end of 1975, the University developed a plan that was within the compliance guidelines of HEW and fit somewhat comfortable into the status quo of University departments on campus. Finding the converging interests in developing a workable affirmative action plan proved successful for the University of Utah and created a policy that worked toward increasing faculty, staff, and students of color on campus. Creation of the Center of Ethnic Student Affairs, 1970s-l 980s The University of Utah as well as the Nation began developing Center for Ethnic Students programs around the same time as the universities were establishing affirmative action policies. The huge concern was that after successfully recruiting larger numbers of students of color on campus there would be no institutional support built to ensure their 23 college success. The University had an interested in see these students graduate, not only because it would help their graduation numbers, recruit more people of color in academics, but that there was a sense of duty to see that these students were successful. The 1960s turmoil as a huge influencer of change in many different social programs and these influences greatly affected the University of Utah. The initial steps to quickly increase the diversity of the student body, the University developed a onetime most expenses paid for program in 1968 to bring a group of inner city Chicago African American/ Black students to Utah for their college experience. During this time there was also a large growth of Utah based Latino/a student population, who's numbers also added to the mass of students of color on the campus. The Academic Affairs Vice President, A.C. Emery, in a letter to the members of the faculty stated, "this is a very worthwhile venture both for these students and for ourselves, for we think that they may have as many important things to teach us and our students as we may have xl to teach them". " These students for their time here became the base of the ethnic studies program and the spark for the creation of student support programs for students of color. During the late 1960s the University of Utah had very few students of color and especially students who identified as African American/Black outside of athletics and before the national trend toward civil rights, the arrival of the Chicago students, and the growing number of Latino/a student population, the University had little to none motivation to develop ethnic studies or student programs for minority students. The Chicago students sparked one of the earliest changes on the University campus, not only 24 because of their identities, but because of their world views and ideas of how the University needed to work for them. The student body government was one of the first to develop support networks for students of color slowly moving into the University of Utah. In 1969 Kerry Segel, the Associated Students of the University of Utah (ASUU) Special Assistant for Community Equality, wrote a report discussing the proposal to establish a Urban Student and Minorities Involvement Program at the University of Utah to institutionalize student support for at risk students. The direct motivation for the creation of the Urban Student and Minorities Involvement Program was directly encouraged by the student desire to learn about and practice the knowledge gained in the community. The first item listed for the purpose of this new program is to "to develop an academic program that will allow for large numbers of students the opportunity to develop some understanding of urbanity'\ xlm The desire of students to learn from the environment around them as well as create a center for the study of underrepresented communities is a telling sign of the changing times. Students for the most part have been the motivating factor for the development of new programs and policies and it is in the interest of the University to listen and take into account the student's wishes. Even though there was no documentation found for the actual creation of the center spelled out in this report, there is documentation of similar ideas and plans being discussed and implemented. The University runs on a culture of niceness where concerns are heard and the University will work toward solving those concerns as long as interests converge and the ruling powers stay in control. 25 In a University ad hoc committee for the education of minority groups March 27, 1969 minutes there was the discussion that the committee was created and asked to write a report on the situation of the black athletes here on campus. The minutes discuss how low numbers of their athletes graduate and the need of the University to commit resources and change how teaching students of color to help with graduate rates. sllv These minutes were the first to start this discussion of developing institutionalized support for students of color and they were centered around the black athletes. With this being the case, it can be understood that the University had an interest in making sure their athletes were graduating and that most of the students of color on campus were also athletes. This was the campus climate when looking at students of color, thus framing the issue around the University interest of supporting athletes. Attached to the minutes from the committee was a draft statement for a long range plan improving the University's support for students of color. The draft talks about providing "support" counselors, finding future students, developing of educational program for the University, and the development of staffed department to work with students. The closing section of this draft stated this, "the proposed plan implies in it that the University of Utah delay admitting high risk students until it is prepared to make a maximum commitment to a well developed educational program". xlv From day one, the University of Utah understood that its programs were not built to be supportive of minority groups and with that black athletes were not being served and with the culture of niceness it was in the University's interest to see that the athletes' were successfully graduating from the institution in order to prove the validity of the athletics program. 26 In the "Minority Group Education and the U Cultural Benefit Proposal" rough draft written in May 12, 1969, gives some insight to the actual thoughts of the administration when "daft Vo st^ViWHtaj.! U ' f t h f 8 1 working with the development of programs for -.wm<s •nitmi minority students. The basic proposal was written m» WEEK, m& %m&*m II«VE W K6Wt STATU, A MfcQ Cftfl S A U l MifttQ tQktlt (OMTIWUftD RfiPR6Sai«M wmiftftweRto utowwioM NMNUMMTIS, m for a program to solve three different student MUCH THE TIME HAS C0MC 70 STRIKE ..0]»Bfe**ltfN MftltIM T i l t f*0!>U6. related problems. First, the observation was made that there was student unrest and a delayed or slow administration response to these concerns causes a STRIKG FOR: 1 t U B f o i f t M R D s p nun tmustau at « M * n t s « negative campus environment where students feel like the administration is not there for them. The lack of appropriate response to student concerns was perpetuating the campus wide protests that were proving harmful for the institution. The third concern, was that the University of Utah wasn't solving any of the issues fully, but were "give a little, take a little, hope a little" that never completely ended a problem. xlvl Those few students of color who were able to attend at the University were putting intense pressure on the administration to better the institution for their needs. The solution discussed in this proposal was to quickly increase the number of student s of color on campus. The plan asked for the creation of a one year experience for 150 students of color on the University of Utah campus. This year would allow those students to see if academics was for them as well as "allow the Anglo-American students at the University of Utah to experience xlv and have meaningful exposure with members o f minority groups". " This proposal clearly shows how both the pressure from student unrest and the desire to provide 27 "meaningful exposure with members of minority groups" became the leading reason for the University to quickly increase the number of students of color on campus. The University felt the need to find a solution to the problems on campus, but at the same time worked to keep white and University interests in mind. This "reciprocal relationship" not only shows the culture of niceness, but how strong interest convergence played a role in the initial development of the ethnic studies programs. Another leading factor at the University of Utah was the student activism and demand for more support programs for students of color. In a memo discussing educational programs for disadvantaged students provided some simple student demographic information for support for University departments and their developing programs. It is quoted that the minority student population grew from 75 people in 1968 - 1969 to over 500 people in 1971-72 with a projection of more increases in the upcoming y e a r s x,vm . With this information there can be the understanding with growing numbers came the growing student activism and demand from the University, which became another influencing factor in finding converging interests in the promotion of diversity programs and policies. A strong example of this student influence is that of the Black Student Union list of demands to President Emery in 1971 about how the University of Utah should function 1 ill relation to the African American/Black students on campus . The demands ranged from having complete control on the faculty, classes, and support of the Black Studies program, to the refusal to take to general education courses, to that of the creation of an autonomous Black University community where they would handle all of their own 1 issues.*' * President Emery in his response, captures the Utah ideal of the culture of niceness, where he not only speaks to all of their concerns, but at the same time does not 1 budge on issues not in the interest of the University. These two documents show the interactions between student activists and administrators, where students were able to voice their opinions and see the Universities change to incorporate those opinions, but at the same time the University was always able to keep its interests at the for front of any issue. This is how with the growing student of color population there was also a growth in student support programs, but also the issues with students feeling like they were not being heard in those decisions. Creation of Ethnic Studies Program, 1970s - 1980s During the same time as the development of CESA the University of Utah was working in improving the Ethnic Studies department. This work was encouraged by the need to have a department for the study of ethnic minorities not only to provide resources, but to have an academic center dedicated to hiring and recruiting people of color to the University of Utah. The creation of this department followed some of the same controversies as the creation of CESA. 1 During Dr. Coleman's interview he talked about how the creation of non negotiable lists of demands was a common tactics used by student activist across the nation during this time. Shows Utah students were informed and connected with other students pushing for the same rights. 29 To best understand how the University of Utah developed its Ethnic Studies program it would prove to be helpful to have a nationwide understanding of the creation of these departments. A brief history found on University of California Berkeley Department of Ethnic Studies website discusses how in 1969 student and community pressure from The Third World Liberation movement demanded the development of a department that taught alternative histories because these histories would not be given 1 adequate attention in the traditional university settings. ' This insight provided by UC Berkeley is cleaned up and with a little more research a more complex story of a physical struggle between the University and the students emerged. Ling-chi Wang worked on a chronology of the events that took place before the creation of an Ethnic Studies program and it reveals a story of tension and protest between the different players. Student were protesting, being arrested, and suspended fighting for five specific action items. First for the establishment of a new college with four different departments focusing on the different minority groups. Second, the appointment of people of color into all levels of the administration, faculty, and staff. Third, increased financial support for minority students to help with the affordability of attending UC Berkeley. Fourth, minority persons who control all minority-related programs on campus to ensure their interest would be at the for front. And lastly, that there would be no disciplinary action against the student strikers as they worked toward these goals.'" Not all of these demands were initially met, which sparked protests and police intervention harming many students as they demanded their University meet their needs. A compromise was created, which created the Ethnic Studies department which allowed students the institution they needed to study, but at the same time kept the powers at be still in control. 30 The University of Utah community when looking at this issue of ethnic studies program was also stringed with controversy on how to properly integrate students of color within the University. The one advantage the University of Utah had over UC Berkeley was the example of previous campuses going through the same struggle and the culture of niceness that permeated most departments at the University of Utah. The University of Utah did not have huge protests, because the administration worked hard to make sure student concerns were being heard, but at the same time the University of Utah did not fundamentally change the power dynamic between those with power and those without. The suggestion of the development of a cultural awareness center was written and championed by the Director of the Center for the Study of Social Problems, Dr. Clark S. Knowlton, in May 1969 with the goal of improving the socio-economic levels of the state, increase the numbers of minority students, and help all students gain a cultural and social 1 1 experiences for the future. " Dr. Boyer Jarvis on the other hand was not supportive of the creation of an Ethnic Studies Center or with that the hiring of a Dean over the program. His reasons were not because of his lack of support for the goals, but that he felt it would become a marginalized role and other departments could pass the buck. He believed in a more holistic approach where all departments would be required to integrate ethnic studies and minority support within their programs. In summary, his four main points were first, the Dean of Ethnic Studies and Programs would be asked to carry all of the work dealing with diversity issues. Second, the new appointment would not be given enough resources required to accomplish the job and could easily be cut during hard times. Third, if all deans and programs integrated the specific needs of minority students 31 there would be a wider commitment of the University in helping these students. Lastly, the cost of the new dean could easily be earmarked for new programs, scholarships, etc 1 that would have greater impact on minority students. " These two differing opinions on developing institutional support shows the initial discussions on campus on the proper way of establishing new policies and programs for students. Eventually the Knowlton argument won the debate and the University developed an Ethnic Studies program. This eventual solution is a clear indicator of the University of Utah developing a way where the Administration in the spirit of cultural niceness could easily develop a program working with minority students without the larger task of fully changing University wide policies. This is a strong example of interest convergence in the fact that faculty, students, and staff of color received a program, center, and dean specific for their needs and the University as a whole did not have to drastically change how other deans ran their departments. Both sides also gained by seeing new positions opening up for faculty of color to fill when developing the Ethnic Studies program. These converging interests can help explain why the Jarvis argument was never seriously taken into account. It became too much of a institutional burden to integrate ethnic studies and student of color support networks into each University department and the creation of the Ethnic Studies program was an easy way for both parties to gain benefits. Dr. Ronald G. Coleman in his interview provided some insightful knowledge not only about the relationship between the Administration and the students but also useful information about the development of the University of Utah Ethnic Studies programs and its relations with members of the University community. To begin, Coleman has had 32 a long history with the University of Utah from his start as an Undergraduate student athlete, to his appointment as the first titled position Associate Vice President of Diversity and Faculty Development, to today where he is an Associate Professor in both the History Department and Ethnic Studies Program. His insight on the University of Utah has been a central piece to this research. Coleman started his University of Utah faculty career in 1973 and after seven years of being away from the University he could see huge changes all over campus. During his absence the University was bringing the Chicago students to Utah and starting conversations about the Ethnic Studies Program from its beginning was created to serve all of the undergraduate student populations regardless of racial/ethnic background. Coleman had some memory about the Chicago students being some of the main student organizers in the development of the times diversity policies and programs. Their experiences from Chicago during the civil rights movements and the University focusing on their success, as well as them being the biggest group of students of color outside of the athletes, set them up in the prime position to be the leading student leaders for the creation of Ethnic Studies. The national climate as well as the student push and the University's culture of niceness with the reluctance to say no that sparked the creation of programs and policies that held the interest of both parties. lv In 1973, the same year that Coleman began his faculty career here at the University of Utah was also the year where the Ethnic Studies program began to develop, Coleman discussed how in the beginning there were only three programs, Chicano studies, Native American studies, and Black studies, in place for the Ethnic Studies program that allowed the opportunity for students to learn about their own cultural and 33 historical identities within the nation as well as provide a department for the University to easily hire faculty of color who specialized in Ethnic Studies and who can be jointly appointed with another academic department. It was not until Coleman's serve as the Associate Vice President of Diversity and Faculty Support from 1989 to 1999 did both CESA and the Ethnic Studies program incorporate Asian American studies and Pacific Islander studies within the department. CESA was able to provide more support for students by hiring two new academic advisors to specifically work with Asian and Pacific Islander students at the University, where the Ethnic Studies program increased class offerings around both Asian and Pacific Islander studies. This work in broadening the programs and policies to help Asian and Pacific Islander students showed the continuous creation of new policies and programs both for the University's and the students' benefit. Coleman throughout his interview expressed the idea that the University of Utah provided the needed resources for the job was continuously working to keep the University's interests in line with that of the students'. ,vl The Ethnic Studies program and CESA were ways the University reacted to the activism of the 1960s and worked to appease the national and student demand. When looking to understand the University structures in relation to CESA, Coleman was able to explain the reporting lines of the Ethnic Studies program was to the Vice President of Academic Affairs with the motivation of providing an institutional implementation of the ideals behind the program. As seen early with Boyer Jarvis's concern with a creation of a center focused on diversity, this program becomes the place where all of the University's problems and solutions for diversity fall. The debate between centralized or institutionally wide programs for underrepresented communities directly plays into how the University saw its interests with the creation of the programs. The University was not required by law to implement an Ethnic Studies program, but because of the University's interest to work with the majority of students' demands as well as its own interest in keeping cost low and not disturbing the University as a whole the solution was the creation of one department for diversity and not implemented within each institutional department. Both options have positive and negative aspects with its implementation, but at the time the University of Utah decided a centralized diversity program best satisfied the student demands and kept the University's interests in mind. From the introduction of the Chicago students to today the University of Utah has kept to its culture of niceness and have never failed to develop some kind of program for students of color, but at the same time has always kept the University's interest within the creation of any new program. Finding the converging interests of both students and the University is a slow process that never completely creates the ideal solution for a true equal playing field, but does provide for small steps forward. 1990s and the Critic of Affirmative Action and Ethnic Studies Programs The 1990s in America became a time of question and revitalization due to many of the ideas coming out of affirmative action and the civil rights era. The nation seemed to be questioning if the U.S. was seeing the benefits of the 1960s and 70s affirmative action programs and policies. June 23,1992, the Supreme Court ruled (5^1) in favor of the University of Michigan to consider race in the admissions process to enhance the educational benefits from students learning in a diverse student body. The ruling of this case seemed to the outgoing University of Michigan Law School Dean, Jeffery Lehman, 35 to be saying, "[t]he question is no longer whether affirmative action is legal; it is how to 1 hasten the day when affirmative action is no longer needed". ™ The first half of Lehman's statement is an example of how the nation was in question about the importance of affirmative action and this act of questioning was sparking movements both for and against the incorporation of race into the university. The University of Utah was not left out of this discussion, and with the work of a handful of students, entered into the realm of providing opportunities for learning about and integrating race and diversity into the university experience. Twenty years ago, Dr. Tamara Taylor was the leader of the student voice wanting to have a diverse educational experience at the University of Utah. The mission was to add a new diversity requirement to the undergraduate general education, with the hope to help educate the campus to navigate diverse communities. In an interview on November 16, 2012, Taylor helped explain the process she, and the group of students helping her, had to go through in getting the new requirement approved. She first became involved in this work when the 1991-1992 student body president, John Wundelri, called together a working group of students, faculty, and staff to discuss how the Associated Students of the University of Utah (ASUU) could have a role in finding the solution to concerns of diversity on campus. Taylor, being invited because of her position in the Black Student Union student group, could not remember the exact trigger which led to the formation of this working committee, but remembers some discussion about the results of a campus survey being an important 1 1 factor. ™ After some investigation, I found the Student Issues Subcommittee of the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Commission's August 1990 student survey. Tins survey proved to show significant results regarding the issues and concerns Taylor and her team were working to alleviate. The survey broke the student population down into five demographic categories; Asian (this included Pacific Islanders), Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Native American. While reading through the survey results, a few questions stood out for being key data for the need of a diversity requirement. The first question I found was, "would you say that ethnic prejudice or discrimination at the 1 University occurs never, rarely, sometimes, frequently, or always?".' * The results were all above 50 percent of the respondents choosing the sometimes category. To follow up with this question, the survey asked who was the primary person involved in these incidents? Again, 50 percent or more of the respondents identified fellow students as the primary perpetrator.'* Another key question asked in this survey was centered around the amount of lecture and textbook materials discussing ethnic minority issues. The majority of all five groups fell into two categories, in either too little or about right, a small number of Caucasian students felt there was too much and a handful of students said the 1 1 question was irrelevant to their studies. * In looking at these questions, the conclusion can be made that since students were seen as the main perpetrators of discrimination on campus and that there was a shortage of classes about ethnic minorities, there was a need for the diversity requirement for campus. The survey results became the motivation for the student body leaders to take the charge in convincing the University of Utah higher administration that the campus needed the proposed diversity credit. For the students, the pressing issues discovered by the campus-wide survey needed to be addressed, and as Taylor described in her interview, became a long three-year process. The students working with and lead by Taylor were affiliated with the student government, ASUU, under the newly created Diversity Board. They started their work by creating a comprehensive document looking at all of the diversity measures at the University of Utah and comparing them to the sister institutions to gain a fuller understanding on the correct steps to improve the University of Utah. The process further enhanced the understanding of the need for a new diversity requirement and gave the students the knowledge needed to pursue this goal. Taylor discussed their process of meeting with all of the deans from the various colleges, faculty, the Office of Undergraduate Research, the University President, and the University of Utah Board of Trustees. Her philosophy, and the leading reason for their success, was to have a grassroots movement through face- to-face discussions and reasonable conversations to overcome any concerns or objections. Taylor talked about how she never met much opposition and felt that the majority of the University's administration reacted positively and supportive to her and the ASUU's goals for a diversity requirement. The few concerns they did face were regarding administrative details around double dipping of class requirements and the discussion about including international studies into the diversity requirement. Which never, as Taylor said, were understood to hinder the work she and the ASUU were pursuing. In understanding the process Taylor and her fellow students went through, it is important to understand how their interests converged with that of the University of Utah's and how with this convergence the students were 1 victorious in implementing a new diversity requirement. "" The national political climate, as well as the three-year-long push of the student government, created an environment where the higher administration could see how 38 incorporating the diversity requirement to undergraduate studies could be a benefit for the University of Utah. The push from a loud student voice gained public attention and the University of Utah, as the flagship university in Utah, was put in the spotlight about the issue of diversity. Taylor, in her interview stated, it would have been an embarrassment for the University of Utah if they had not approved the new diversity requirement. Another aspect was the fact that the ASUU, as an institutional organization for the student voice, used its resources and power for three years to push the new requirement through the proper channels. Taylor admitted that she believed a group of students outside of ASUU would have never been successful because they lacked the institutional authority needed to prove this work was in the University's interest. Lastly, there were many key senior leaders within the University's higher administration who fully believed in Taylor's work and provided to be very useful in helping create an environment of interest convergence. With these three factors and the work of Taylor and her team, the University of Utah's interests converged with the interests of underrepresented student's interest of a diverse education, and in 1993, a new general education diversity requirement was created for all undergraduate students. This success was only possible because of Taylor's ability to create an environment of interest convergence because there was (and still is) no motivation to move the University away from privileging majority white students. This can be understood by the second half of Taylor's interview where we discussed the actual definition of the diversity requirement and the concessions made in order to pass the policy change. The University of Utah Faculty Affirmative Action Committee's report in 1995 (two years after the creation of the diversity requirement), documents the reasoning 39 behind the diversity requirement that students are "required to take a course that enhances 13 1 their understanding of people from life backgrounds different from their own". " ' It also documents the following statement from the Undergraduate Council's Diversity Requirement Subcommittee that, "critical thinking in the current era requires an awareness of the distinct values and standards of knowledge represented in our society; it involves the ability to consider explanations and ethical decisions from multiple frameworks... it is now clear that awareness of cultural diversity is essential to the education of citizens in the United States". lxlv Both statements clearly articulate how it is important to understand others (meaning non-majority white citizens) to enhance the education of students (meaning majority white students). However, each statement does not discuss the importance of educating students (meaning majority white students) about power and privilege in society and how both are key factors in the problems of discrimination in the United States. The fact that these statements leave this integral part of social justice education out is exact point where the University of Utah's and Taylor's, representing minority students, interests did not converge. When asked, Taylor commented that there was refusal of administrators to discuss power and privilege being incorporated to the description of the new diversity requirement. She was told that it was "too much." It was too much in the sense that it crossed the line of interest convergence. By having the diversity requirement definition include the discussion of power and privilege, meant that the University would be backing the idea of challenging the power and privilege of majority white citizens. This would then be analyzed by majority white students as a move on the University's part in checking and actively working to remove power and privilege from them. A move like i 40 this is far from the University of Utah's interest and thus comes as no surprise why Taylor was not successful in creating a diversity requirement class with the discussion of power and privilege built into its definition. Even with a less than ideal definition, Taylor was successful in navigating the University of Utah and building an environment where underrepresented students' interests converged with that of the higher administration's interests, She successfully created a new diversity requirement that, to this day, is a requirement for students as a part of their undergraduate education. That many faculty members, on their own accord, teach about power and privilege to help the social justice mission of equality and inclusion is an added benefit and speaks highly of those faculty members' own sense of the need for diversity education. lxv Today and Conclusion Today the University of Utah, as well as the Nation's universities as a whole, are preparing for the Supreme Court's ruling on Fisher verses the University of Texas cases that could possibly remove the use of race in university admission decisions. The Supreme Court heard the case October 10, 2012 and as Adam Liptak's article in the New York Times discusses, the ruling could have three possible outcomes. First, the court may rule in favor of the University of Texas, which would not alter affirmative action at all. The second option would be a narrow option, where universities are ban from using race based admissions where non-race methods are working. The last option the courts could rule on would ban race in all admission decisions as a whole, thus effectively ending 1 affirmative action. ™ This pending decision has the Nation's universities waiting in suspense to adapt their policies to lit compliance to whatever ruling comes from the Supreme Court The University of Utah as it waits for the Supreme Court ruling is already working on alternative options for its day to day operations in anticipation of anti affirmative action ruling. Part of the process in vetting out the possibilities of future policies is to determine what the University believes to be in its interest and how the depending on a future ruling the University can protect and continue pursuing the determined interests. The University of Utah has decided since the 1960s and Executive Order 11246 that it is in the University's interest to teach and support a diverse student body through hiring faculty with diverse pedagogy and experiences, creation of institutionalized metrics of support, and the encouragement of all students to learn about the issues around diverse populations, Now the task at hand is to determine how these interests stay a priority after a potential Supreme Court ruling. Throughout history in the United States of American, universities have had the work of balancing between the interests of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the current political atmosphere, which at times has produced conflict on many campuses that have shaped the perception of how universities change. The University of Utah has developed a culture of niceness, where the struggle is internalized and kept quiet until a policy or program can be created with converging interests in dealing with an issue. This culture, having its pros and cons, shape how many people at the University of Utah work with each other in the creation of diversity related programs and policies. 42 The use of Critical Race Theory and the concept of interest convergence when looking at the motivations for U.S. universities to change their policies and programs is not only helpful from a historical stance, but can give some insight for those who are currently looking to pursue change on their campuses. The specific examples from the University of Utah show not only the uniqueness of the Utah culture of niceness, but also the varying levels of interest convergence and how those interests produce both positive and negative results in policy and program decisions. Each positive step forward brings our universities closer to providing an equally positive educational experience for all students. This process in creating a more just society, as Silvia Hurtado stated in her 2012 lecture presentation at the University of Utah, . . is like moving teaspoons of water out of the ocean," and each step seems small and ineffective, but with enough teaspoons, we can empty the ocean". Ixvn ' Margaret M. Zamudio, Critical Race Theory Matters: Education and Ideology (New York, London: Routledge, 2011), 2. " Ibid. 3 Ibid. 3-7 m IV v Cheryl I. Harris, Professor of Law, Whiteness as Property (Harvard Law Review, v. 106, n. 8, 1993), 1714. Ibid. 1713. v i v Ibid. 1718. " Ibid. 1751. Ibid. viii ™ Ibid 1759 * Ibid. 1767 xi D.A. Bell Jr. Professor of Law, Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence (Harvard Law Review, v. 93,1980) 522. " Ibid. 523. Dilemma x Ibid. ™ Ibid. 524. x u United States Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP); History of Executive Order 11246 (http://vvww.dol.Rov/ofccp/about/Historv E011246.htm, Accessed March 19, 2013) 1. Ibid. Ibid. x v l x v i i Ibid. *lbid. ™ Ibid. Ki 43 X1(l United States Department of Labor, "Office of Federal Contract and Compliance Programs", (Washington, DC, http://www.dol.fiov/ofccp/reRs/compliance/fsll246,htm, Accessed: 4/20/13). " Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Making Affirmative Action Work In Higher Education: An Analysis of Institutional and Federal Policies with Recommendations (Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1975) 56. Ibid. 57-58. " * l b l d . 2. Ibid. 63. xx 51X1,1 * xv1 Alumni Association, "Information about Alumni", (Salt Lake City, Utah, http://www.alurnni.utah.edu/u- news/december04/mention.htm. Accessed: 3/30/13) 1. m i i Cecelia H. Foxley, My Years at the University of Iowa 1971-1981 (Memoir, XXXX) 1. Ibid. 3. Cecelia H. Foxley, Ph.D and Faculty at the University of Utah, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Interview by Geneva EB Thompson, March 19, 2013). Jerry R. Anderson, "New Approved Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity for the University of Utah", (Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 B o x l , Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1969) 1. Ibid. 1. Ernest L Poulson, "Letter to Jerry R. Anderson" (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1969) 1. " James C. Fletcher, "Affirmative Action in the Employment of Individuals from Minority Groups: A Personnel Program of the University of Utah, (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, date unknown) 2. lbid.3. Jerry R. Anderson, "Letter to Deans and Department Chairmen", (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1971) 1. ' John G. Darley, "Letter to Dr. Irwin Altman" (University of Utah Archives, ACCS06 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1973) 1. Irwin Altman, "Letter to John G. Darley" (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1973) 1. ™ ™ [vi her, "Letter to Irwin Altman" (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1973) 1. Irwin Altman, "Letter to Brendan L. Maher", (University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1973) 1. *' John Florez, Past Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action at the University of Utah, (Salt Lake City, Utah March 25, 2013, Interview by Geneva EB Thompson). Ibid. " A.C. Emery, "Letter to Members of the Faculty" (Salt Lake City, Utah, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, July 26,1968) 1. Kerry Segel, "Proposal for a Student Urban and Minorities Involvement Program at the University of Utah" (Associated Students of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 14 Student Affairs Office 1964-1976, March 1969) 2. Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups, "Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University Archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, March 27, 1969) 1. !bid.3. Ibid. " Ibid. 5. x x v m x x l x x x x KKKl xxxl1 xxxi xxxiv x x x v xxxv m v n B r e n d a n L a xli xl xlili xllv x!v M x,v xlwi1 ' Committee on Educational Programs for Disadvantaged Students, "Memo to Department Chairmen and Deans" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 14, Student Affairs Office 1964-1976,1972) 1. 44 x l l x Black Student Union, "List of Demands to President Emery" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 1 Student Affairs Office 1964-1976,1971) 1. I Alfred C. Emery, "Response to Black Student Union List of Demands" {Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 1 Student Affairs Office 1964-1976,1971) 1. Department of Ethnic Studies, "History", {California, Berkeley, http://ethnicstudies.berkeley.edu/history.php, accessed April 21, 2013). II '" Llng-chl Wang, "Chronology of Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley", (Newsletter of the Department of Ethnic Studies at U.C. Berkeley, Volume 2, Number 2, Spring 1997, http://Rlobalstudies.trinity.duke.edu/wpcontent/themes/cgsh/materials/events/ChronolofiV Berkeley.pdf, accessed April 21, 2013). "" Clark S. Knowlton, "Suggestions for the Development of A Cultural Awareness Center on the Campus of the University of Utah" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University Archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, May 1969) 1. v " Boyer J . Jarvis, "Letter to Jerry R. Anderson and Charles H. Monson, J r . " (Salt Lake City, Utah, University Archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989,1970) 1. iv lbid. Ivi Ibid. M University of Michigan, "Affirmative Action and Supreme Court Case" (University of Michigan, http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20237, accessed November 16, 2012) 1. Iviii Tamara Taylor, Ph.D. and Faculty at the University of Utah, (Salt Lake City, Utah, Interview with Geneva EB Thompson, November 16, 2012). 11 „ Student Issues Subcommittee of the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Commission, "University of Utah Student Survey: Ethnic Minority and Caucasian Student Experiences" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Survey Research Center, August 1990,1-77) 66. '* Ibid. 69. Ibid. 77. '* Tamara Taylor, Ph.D. and Faculty at the University of Utah, (Salt Lake City, Utah, Interview with Geneva EB Thompson, November 16, 2012). University of Utah Faculty Affirmative Action Committee, "Resources for Diversity" (Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah report, September 1996,1-4) 3. Ibid Tamara Taylor, Ph.D. and Faculty at the University of Utah, (Salt Lake City, Utah, Interview with Geneva EB Thompson, November 16, 2012). Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Faces Weighty Cases and a New Dynamic", (The New York Times, http://www.nvtimes.com/2012/09/30/us/supreme-court-faces-crucial-cases-in-new-session, September 29, 2012, Accessed 10/1/2012,1-5) 2. w lf M v l x v k v i h v " Silvia Hurtado, Lecture on Campus Climate Research, (Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah ASUU Presentation, September 2012). 45 Bibliography Primary Sources Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups, "Minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, March 27, 1969. Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups, "Minority Group Education and the U Cultural Benefit Proposal, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 19401989, May 12,1969. Altaian, Irwin, Letter to Dr. Darley, 1973, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 19401989,1. Altman, Irwin, Letter to Dr. Brendan Maher, 1973, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989. Anderson, Jerry R., "New Approved Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity for the University of Utah", 1969, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940 - 1989. Anderson, Jerry R., Letter to Deans and Department Chairmen, 1971, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940 - 1989. Black Student Union, "List of Demands to President Emery", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah, ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 1 Student Affairs Office 1964-1976, 1971. 46 Committee on Educational Programs for Disadvantaged Students, "Memo to Department Chairmen and Deans", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC 233 Boxl2 Folder 14, Student Affairs Office 1964-1976, 1972. Darley, John G., Letter to Dr. Irwin Altman, 1973, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, 1. Emery, A. C , "Letter to Members of the Faculty", M y 26, 1968, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989. Emery, Alfred C , " Response to Black Student Union List of Demands", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah, ACC 233 Box 12 Folder 1 Student Affairs Office 19641976,1971. Fletcher, James C , Affirmative Action in the Employment of Individuals from Minority Groups: A Personnel Program of the University of Utah, unknown date, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940 - 1989. Jarvis, Boyer J., "Letter to Jerry R. Anderson and Charles H. Monson, Jr.", 1970, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989. Knowlton, Clark, "Minutes Ad Hoc Committee for the Education of Minority Groups", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, March 4, 1969. Knowlton, Clark S., "Suggestions for the Development of A Cultural Awareness Center on the Campus of the University of Utah", Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah archives, ACC 506 Box 24 Folder 8 Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989, May 1969. 47 Maher, Brendan L,, Letter to Dr. Irwin Altaian, 1973, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989. Poulson, Ernest L., Letter to Jerry R. Anderson, 1969, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1 9 4 0 - 1989. Segel, Kerry, Proposal for a Student Urban and Minorities Involvement Program at the University of Utah, Associated Students of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 1969. Student Issues Subcommittee of the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Commission, "University of Utah Student Survey: Ethnic Minority and Caucasian Student Experiences", University of Utah Survey Research Center, August 1990, pp. 1-77. University of Utah Faculty Affirmative Action Committee, "Resources for Diversity", University of Utah, September 1996, 1-4. Secondary Sources Bell, D. A. Jr., Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Harvard law Review, v. 93, 1980, 518-533. Dilemma, Brickman, William W., American Higher Education in Historical Perspective. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 404, American Higher Education: Prospects and Choices, Sage Publications, Inc, November 1972, 31-43. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Making Affirmative Action Work in Higher Education: An Analysis of Institutional and Federal Policies with Recommendations, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1975. 48 Department of Ethnic Studies, "History"; California/ Berkeley/ http://ethnicstudies.berkeley.edu/history.php, accessed April 21, 2013. Harris, C.I., Whiteness as Property, Harvard law Review, v. 106, n. 8, 1993,1709-1791. Ison, Yvette D., "Beginnings of Utah", History Blazer, http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah chapters/pioneersandcowboys/thebeginningsof theuniversityofutah.html, January 1995, accessed November 16, 2012. Liptak, Adam, "Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College Entry", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-to-hear-case-on-affirmativeaction-in-higher-education.html?pagewanted=all, accessed March 14, 2013, February 21, 2012. United States Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP): History of Executive Order 11246, http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/History E011246.htm, accessed March 19, 2013. United States Department of Labor/ "Office of Federal Contract and Compliance Programs", Washington, DC, http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/ress/compiiance/fsll246.htm, Accessed: 4/20/13. University of Michigan News Service, "U.S. Supreme Court Rules on University of Michigan Cases", http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20237, June 23, 2003, accessed November 16,2012. Wang, Ling-chi, "Chronology of Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley", Newsletter of the Department of Ethnic Studies at U.C. Berkeley, Volume 2, Number 2, Spring 1997/ http://global5tudies.trinity.duke.edu/wpcontent/themes/cgsh/materials/events/Chronology Berkeley.pdf, accessed April 21, 2013. Zamudio, Margaret M., Caskey Russell, Francisco A. Rios, and Jacquelyn L. Bridgeman, Critical Race Theory Matters: Education and Ideology, Routledge, New York and London, 2011, 1-11. • 49 Interviews Coleman, Ronald G., Personal Interview with Geneva Thompson, March 25, 2013. Florez, John, Personal Interview with Geneva Thompson, March 25,2013. Foxley, Cecelia H., My Years at the University of Iowa 1971 -1981, published. Memoir, not Foxley, Cecelia PI., Personal Interview with Geneva Thompson, March 19,2013. Taylor, Tamara, Personal Interview with Geneva Thompson, November 16, 2012. Pictures Barbara L. and Norman C. Tanner Center for Nonviolent Human Rights Advocacy, "Staff and Board", University of Utah, http://humanrights.utah.edu/about/staff. board.php, accessed March 30 2013. Continuum, Student Advocate, Vol. 13. No. 4 Spring 2004, http://continuum.utah.edu/spring04/gazette.htm , accessed March 30, 2013. Darley, John G., Minority Faculty for Department of Psychology Job Posting, 1973, Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Archives, ACC506 Box 1, Folder 1, Associate VP for Academic Affairs 1940-1989. GoDevils95, "Utah halfback Ron Coleman out runs an ASU's Don Switzenberg", http://www.fanbase.eom/3-Ron-Coleman/photo/l 036191 ?n=0. February 8, 2012, accessed March 20,2013. 50 J, Marriot Library, "Becoming a Research Center 1970 - 1990", http://www.lib.utah.edu/collections/photo-exhibits/research-center.php, accessed March 30,2013. J. Marriot Library, "A Time of Tensions 1964-1973", http://www.lib.utah.edu/collections/photo-exhibits/time-tensions.php, accessed March 30,2013. University of Utah Alumni Association, Honorable Mention - Faculty, Staff and Student Recognition and Achievements, December 2004, http://www.alumni.utah.edu/u-news/december04/mention.htm, accessed March 30,2013.