Mityagin said that when the committee makes such an emotionally charged statement, it must back it up with facts and figures that hold a specific meaning.
“You must be specific and provide actual dates and numbers,” Mityagin said. “This is not just a philosophical discussion — this is about real people.”
Edward Crenshaw, associate professor of sociology, noted that the Diversity Action Plan conveyed a sense that OSU has engaged in “a lot of wrongdoing,” and to him, the university seems like the last place one would find such discrimination.
He called the Diversity Action Plan “a dinosaur.”
“Plans such as these were very common in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s,” Crenshaw said. “It seems to come from the top down, without leaving much room for autonomy on the part of individual departments.”
He is afraid that the university is trying to do too much too fast, he said, adding that most universities have favored a more subtle approach.
The low representation of minorities holding down senior and associate faculty positions is a reflection of the pool of applicants, he said, citing a 1996 study which found that only 3.5 percent of doctorates awarded went to minorities.
On the other hand, David Ashley, dean of the College of Engineering and a member of the Diversity Action Plan committee, pointed out that colleges and universities can and are striving to take steps to increase the number of well-qualified minority applicants. Diversity and high qualifications go hand-in-hand, he said.
“But different units have different priorities,” he said. “For instance, in the College of Engineering, the under-representation of women faculty is an issue.”
The data contained within the Diversity Action Plan doesn’t prove it, Mityagin said.
“The report is one-sided,” Mityagin said. “It doesn’t include different points of view and does not provide any argument to justify their point of view and recommendations.”
Anderson argued that the data on the graduation rate of minority students shows that “we need a map for action.”
