OPINION & EDITORIAL
UW’s diversity programs need consistency
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Politicking destroyed opt-out's proponents (April 14, 2003)
- Madison's annual hip-hop conference falters (April 14, 2003)
- Dear Dave: Post this near your desk (April 17, 2003)
- Redirecting control (April 23, 2003)
- Don't Cut Historical Society Funds (April 29, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Breaking in the concept of diversity (May 9, 2002)
- Diversity is more than race (September 6, 2001)
- In the Name of Diversity (September 6, 2001)
- Diversity vital on UW campus (May 3, 2006)
- UW’s top-secret admissions process revealed (June 28, 2001)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, November 25, 2002
As we understand and generally support them, the University of Wisconsin’s diversity efforts are aimed at exposing students to an environment rich with persons of a variety of cultural backgrounds and ideological viewpoints. Not only does such diversity contribute to the “sifting and winnowing” the university seeks to promote, but the business world is clamoring for applicants who have exposure to and are comfortable working with individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Thus, the university targets racial minorities, because they present a tangible means by which the success or failure of such diversity programs can be measured.
There is no data present to suggest that students of a non-traditional sexual orientation are an underrepresented minority on this campus. In reality, the opposite may be true. If the ultimate goal of diversity programs is to make Madison “look like society,” this is one area in which we may already have succeeded. Yet, the fact remains: There is no way to quantifiably affirm the above statement, just as there is no way to quantifiably disprove it. We feel the mechanisms in place to make Wisconsin a welcoming environment to lesbian, gay, bi or transsexual students are necessary and proper.
To be blunt, we are supportive of those who are courageous enough to “tell,” but there is no institutional authority granted UW to “ask.”
Should a student group wish to sponsor a “Shadow Day” with privately raised funds for prospective students who identify themselves among those who UW’s LGBTC target, we would find ourselves far from qualm.
But if any funding is directed through the admissions office for purposes of recruitment, as the university approved this weekend following a publicized misunderstanding last week, the goal of that recruitment must be consistent with broader university practices and initiatives. Thus, we believe it appropriate and necessary for the university to actively recruit traditionally underrepresented students, defined by the university’s existing policies.
It is a simple fact that sexual orientation plays no factor in admissions. UW created a conflict with its own policy by providing fiscal support, in the context of admissions, to an outreach program billed as an “LGBT Shadow Day.” When university administrators realized the error, they made an effort to change the program’s content, but conflict arose with the student planners, and they yanked UW funds.
Sexual orientation is not and should not be a check box on an undergraduate application. While funding this program certainly does not reach that level of inquisition, we feel that official fiscal support equates to de facto official endorsement.
Bascom’s u-turn over the weekend regarding this issue is also unsettling. After an outcry by ASM and other student groups, Vice Chancellor for Administration Paul Barrows decided to reinstate funding for Shadow Day. Simply because a particular decision may be unpopular with the constituency it affects does not make it wrong. The university must remain consistent in its approach to funding student-government initiatives as well as diversity programming in general. We implore university administration as well as ASM to make diversity-recruitment efforts consistent, quantifiable, fiscally efficient and socially responsible.
