Chapter 10:

 Enhancing Human Relations

.

INTRODUCTION

An institution's history can be extremely helpful in setting an appropriate frame to a challenge. Based on a limited view of their history, many American educators continue to misperceive the challenge of human diversity as one where universities must change in order to respond to a new world with greater human diversity. In so doing, they somehow miss that the human diversity surrounding them was always there. Thus, the challenge to address human diversity is old and relatively unchanged. The true change is in the growing willingness of universities to be responsive to all of their constituencies.

.
The university’s history is interesting in this regard. One of the original motives to create the institution that was later named San Francisco State University was to train teachers who would be competent to address the needs of the multilingual, multicultural, San Francisco Bay Area of the late 1800’s. SFSU’s history is rather rare, then, since from its founding, its charge included addressing cultural diversity. SFSU, like other institutions, however, struggled most of the twentieth century with the practical challenges of implementing this ideal. Oftentimes, SFSU was a national leader in this regard. The university produced one of the first Black Studies departments and the first and only College of Ethnic Studies, housing Asian American, Black, Raza, and American Indian Studies. It has longstanding programs in women, human sexuality, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual studies. More recently, the university has added a Jewish studies program (one of the few in the nation), and an Institute on Disability.

.
The demographics of the campus continue to evolve. The student body has not had an ethnic majority for over a decade. Currently (Fall 2000), the student body consists of approximately 38% White, 35% Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander, 14% Chicano/Mexican American/Other Hispanic, 7% African American, 1% Native American, and 5% other non-White students. Although the faculty, staff, and administrative ranks are less diverse than those of the students, they, nonetheless, represent a moderately diverse community. The faculty include approximately 70% White, 14% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 6% African American, and 4% other non-White. The administration composition is 69% White, 15% Asian, 7% Hispanic, and 9% African American. The staff data show more representation from underrepresented groups. Whites are 49%; Asians 30%; Hispanics 11%; African Americans 8%, and other non-Whites 2%.

.
In terms of gender, women represent 43.5% of the tenured/tenure-track faculty. In administrator ranks, they constitute 47.3%. Regarding staff, women represent 57.7% but still are underrepresented in traditionally male occupations such as trades and public safety.

.
The current strategic plan has recommitted SFSU to its original charge and expanded that early vision to address ethnic, cultural, social, and personal diversity in a broader regional and global context. This chapter addresses the university’s plan for addressing a range of human relations areas, particularly as they foster a healthy learning environment for all of its community regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or other social or personal characteristics. The strategic planning process has suggested numerous initiatives that will be addressed under four general rubrics: general human relations, affirmative action, disability, and extracurricular activities.

.
Much of the activity regarding human relations between 1992 and 1998 was a result of recommendations from the University Commission on Human Relations. This commission was formed in February 1989 by President Corrigan to "study how the campus community…deals with human relations…focussing on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion." The commission embarked on a comprehensive study of the university. In May 1990, the commission submitted ten primary recommendations that best captured the core issues presented in its seven-volume analysis of data concerning the state of human relations on campus. The full listing of those recommendations can be found at the end of this chapter.

.
In response to the commission’s recommendations, the "Principles of Conduct for a Multicultural University" were published and distributed [see www.sfsu.edu/~hrwww/directives/p530D.htm]. Various departments have conducted workshops on aspects of multiculturalism in the curriculum and the workplace. The president and other university units have condemned racism and other forms of hate-related actions in a variety of public fora. A Task Force on Multicultural Perspectives in the Curriculum [www.sfsu.edu/~ senate/RS91-93.htm] was formed to examine and expand the academic opportunities for studying human diversity in the curriculum. (See Chapter 11 for more detail.) Also as a result of this report, the Office of Human Relations (OHR) was created in 1994.

.
The Office of Human Relations [www.sfsu.edu/~ohr] first opened under the leadership of a director and focused much of its energy on examining models of inter-group social conflict resolution. After this initial foray, the president appointed the first university dean of human relations in 1995. This intentionally raised the visibility of the office and broadened its purview. As a university-wide academic administrator reporting directly to the president, the dean was encouraged to examine, more broadly, issues of diversity in academic and non-academic campus life. The new dean commissioned a second human relations survey (completed in 1998) as a follow up to that done in 1989 in order to reassess the campus climate. He focused the office on inter-group relations and increased the relationship of the OHR to offices concerned with affirmative action and access.

.
After the departure of the first dean, a task force was commissioned by the president and the Academic Senate to review the framework for the Office of Human Relations. After a one-year hiatus in the operations of the OHR, the task force recommended the reopening of the office with a still broader charge. The new charge encouraged broad university oversight concerning human relations issues, including reviewing and proposing policy related to human relations; providing services and education to promote conflict resolution; supporting educational training and programs designed to enhance campus climate; and insuring compliance with university, state, and federal regulations involving equity. These aggressive changes in such a short period reflect SFSU’s commitment to address the challenges and opportunities presented by our rather uniquely diverse campus and region.

.
The strategic planning process identified a wide range of initiatives related to human relations. Many came from the final report of the "Toward Combating Discrimination Planning Group" [www.sfsu.edu/~ acadplan/cdtoc.htm], one of the six CUSP planning groups, while others were incorporated in reports from other planning groups. The inclusion of human relations and diversity initiatives across almost all areas of the original CUSP planning group reports reflected the importance of nurturing human relations and diversity as integral parts of the fabric of the university. The "Draft Implementation Report" [www. sfsu.edu/~acdplan/crispcover.htm] written to complement the strategic plan summarized most of these recommendations into four major areas: improving the general climate and nature of human relations on campus; reaffirming our commitment to affirmative action and equitable access and treatment; supporting full access to individuals with disabilities; and supporting extracurricular activities which enhance the university’s ability to address diversity and its positive impact on the educational experience of our students. This chapter will use these same foci.

.
CREATING A GENERAL CLIMATE
FOR POSITIVE HUMAN RELATIONS

.
CUSP proposed a wide range of ambitious recommendations to nurture the general climate of human relations on campus. Some recommendations were as specific as calling upon the university to reaffirm its "Principles of Conduct for a Multicultural University." Other recommendations were broader and more far-reaching, such as developing a general harassment policy and modifying the assessment of university employees to include their ability to provide equitable treatment for all students and be sensitive to issues of human diversity. The strategic plan also recommended on-going education, training, and programming concerning diversity that would encourage equitable treatment of all members of the community.

.
As was mentioned earlier, concurrent with the CUSP strategic planning process, the president appointed the Human Relations Task Force (1997-1998) to re-evaluate the Office of Human Relations and related matters. Their recommendations included opening a newly re-organized Office of Human Relations with broader scope to bring together more of the human relations concerns into one office. The OHR was re-opened in July of 1998, a new dean was appointed, and the former Office of Affirmative Action and Equity Programs was incorporated into the OHR. Staff from Affirmative Action and new OHR staff were moved to a single location, and the Human Relations and Affirmative Action programs were integrated. The Office of Human Relations is part of the Office of the President; and the dean reports to the president, though with a functional, administrative, working relationship with the vice president for student affairs. The office includes a second administrator, the assistant dean of human relations, who is also the director of affirmative action and equity programs. These administrators are supported by two administrative analyst staff and one clerical staff member. Consistent with the vision to bring greater coordination to university-wide efforts regarding human relations, on July 1, 2000 the OHR expanded again to include disability programs. The current office now includes the staffing associated with the earlier mentioned OHR and affirmative action functions, and the combined staffing of the Disability Programs Unit, handling employee accommodation, and the Disability Resource Center, handling student accommodation. [Please see www.sfsu.edu/~hrdpu/ and www.sfsu.edu/~drc/.]

.
The OHR is also supported by a Human Relations Advisory Council. The council, chaired by the university dean of human relations, includes a member from each of the vice-president's cabinets, the chair of the Academic Senate, the president of the Associated Students, and the assistant dean of human relations. The council functions as a strong body to provide on-going advice to the dean and liaison with the university vice presidents on human relations matters. It also serves as a university-wide administrative oversight group on human relations.

.
The strategic plan recommendations included broadly publicizing existing human relation’s policies, reevaluating policy, and recommending new policy. In response to these recommendations, the "Principles of Conduct for a Multicultural University" have been reaffirmed and distributed to all campus offices. The principles are published regularly in the Class Schedule and Student Handbook and are included in staff and faculty orientations. Poster-style presentations of the principles have been printed and distributed to offices for posting.

.
The existing non-discrimination and non-harassment policies and procedures have been published and distributed to all offices. In addition, these separate policies are being reviewed by the OHR Advisory Council to determine if they can be combined to produce a single comprehensive discrimination and harassment policy.

.
In Fall 1999, the OHR Advisory Council and dean collaborated with the provost in providing guidance to the university with regard to accommodation of students, staff, and faculty in the observance of religious events. The provost reissued a CSU policy stating that the campus supports accommodation of religious practices for students and employees. A more articulated policy that indicates guidelines and suggestions for methods of accommodation has been suggested by the OHR Advisory Council and is under review by the Academic Senate.

.
Responding to strategic plan recommendations, the Human Resources Department has reviewed and revised performance evaluation policies and procedures for staff and administrators. All evaluation processes for hiring, retention, salary adjustments, bonus, or other recognition have been revised to reflect priorities regarding diversity. Copies of these forms may be found at www.sfsu.edu/~hrwww/. The academic units have begun to consider how human diversity skills, experiences, and expertise can be incorporated into their job descriptions and hiring and evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria and processes regarding faculty are governed by contract and implemented at the college level, making change a more deliberative process. All colleges assess, in some general fashion, how responsive and accessible faculty are to students. The Academic Senate and Academic Affairs are reviewing the potential for broader implementation of this charge for faculty in ways that are consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.

.
The strategic plan also asked that the university document, report, and annually publish the handling of complaints and grievances. This task is more complex than it would appear at first. Complaints and grievances vary widely and are addressed in different offices across campus in somewhat different ways, depending on the specific type of complaint. For example, employment and contractual grievances may be handled by Human Resources or the Office of Faculty Affairs; student complaints and discipline by Student Affairs; sexual harassment claims by one of three complaint officers; academic complaints filed by undergraduate students about academic policy by the assistant to the dean of undergraduate studies; discrimination claims by the director of affirmative action and equity programs; and civil or criminal charges by the Department of Public Safety. At this time, each unit receiving complaints has its own process for reporting. A committee of complaint officers representing each of the offices mentioned above has convened to examine how it might provide a comprehensive review of complaints. The committee has not yet provided a recommendation for a comprehensive system.

.
The strategic plan recommended that in-service training, workshops, and human relations materials be developed. A number of offices currently provide some form of training concerning human relations, discrimination, harassment, and related areas. The OHR has assisted with many of these programs. The OHR has sponsored three major conferences on race and ethnicity since it reopened in 1998. The first examined the legacy of race and racism in media education and the profession of journalism. The conference, co-sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, included educators from SFSU and elsewhere, journalists, media executives, and journalism students.

.
The second conference, in 1999, focused on public education’s response to the legacy of race and racism from K-16. It included collaboration with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), City College of San Francisco (CCSF), and SFSU. Presenters for the conference sessions included experts from SFSU, SFUSD, CCSF, and elsewhere (e.g., Tomas Almaguer, formerly of University of Michigan and recently appointed dean of SFSU's College of Ethnic Studies; Edgar Beckham of the American Association of Colleges and Universities; Michael Omi of UC Berkeley; and Marshall Segall of Syracuse University). The program included "Six Billion Races," a photo-essay on the fallacies of the scientific bases of race, with a half-day program examining the social construction of race. This was followed a week later with a half-day program looking more specifically at public education’s role in providing solutions to problems originating from the legacy of racism. Two weeks later, the program followed with a workshop addressing best practices for teaching about race in the K–12 grades.

.
The third and most recent dialogue (October 2000) was very campus-focused and practical. It included a keynote from Dr. James Anderson, associate provost at North Carolina State, and panels examining how individual departments and units can develop diversity plans to meet both the university’s mission and their own particular needs. The dialogue was critical in beginning a new process of diversity strategic planning at the department level.

.
The OHR has brought together a set of university partners to create a university-wide celebration of cultural diversity and identity, first held in 1999 during the university’s centennial celebrations. The event was repeated April 11-13, 2000 as Festival 2000; and Festival 2001 is being planned. It included on-campus and off-campus events coordinated by a core committee with representatives from the Associated Students Governing Board, Associated Students Performing Arts, the Cesar Chavez Student Center and its staff, and Student Affairs, with the OHR representing the Office of the President. Along with the on-campus events, the festival included off-campus, multicultural, social events hosted by alumni for both campus members and alumni.

.
A wide range of units take responsibility for infusing multicultural perspectives in their programming. For example, the Student Health Center sponsors African American Health Day. The AIDS Coordinating Committee conducts programming for the Multicultural AIDS Day. The women studies program includes International Women’s Day in its programming. The university also engages in partnerships with off-campus agencies. For example, the OHR coordinated a partnership with the Television Race Initiative (TRI) and KQED (public television) to host a program on March 27, 2000 addressing the "digital divide" as it relates to race and gender. The program, "e.Equity: Higher Education’s Solutions for the Digital Divide," was a town hall forum that featured a preview of a TRI/KQED documentary on the digital divide and a forum of educators, activists, and corporate leaders discussing promising practices for addressing differential access to technology.

.
The OHR was also charged by the strategic plan with creating and maintaining a diversity web site and a resource room of human relations-related materials. The web site includes data and information about diversity programming on campus, provides complete access to the university-wide Affirmative Action Plan, and provides bridges to selected off-campus diversity initiatives. The page includes links to diversity-related policies; e.g., sexual harassment, discrimination, and the multicultural and user-friendly campus principles. In addition, the OHR began collecting a core set of educational materials for the campus in its resource center. There are selected texts, journals, and videotapes, including video materials that were created by the OHR during its other programming.

.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INITIATIVES

.
When addressing the issue of affirmative action, CUSP targeted several rather bold initiatives. First, it recommended that the university continue to make affirmative action a matter of institutional importance and commitment by requiring each academic and administrative unit to develop an action plan to diversify its workforce. Second, it supported appropriate staffing of the Office of Human Relations, the Affirmative Action and Equity Program, and related offices. Third, it proposed that all administrators, faculty, and staff participate in university-sponsored workshops dealing with the legal and social consequences of behavior related to diversity, discrimination, and harassment. Fourth, in reaffirming the university’s commitment to equity and affirmative action, CUSP recommended that each department develop and implement a local affirmative action plan that supports the university-wide mission.

.
The OHR’s Affirmative Action and Equity Program completed the university Affirmative Action Plan in July 1999. It is available on the OHR web site [www.sfsu.edu/~ohr]. The plan provides data measuring the current work force diversity and the continuing areas of underrepresentation in that work force. Updates will allow for periodic comparisons and evaluations of the success rates of various units in achieving their goals to diversify their workforces. (The university's academic affirmative action policy may be found at www.sfsu.edu/~senate/S99-124.htm.)

.
The strategic plan also recommended that there be individual affirmative action plans at the level of academic and administrative units. The OHR is working with the vice presidents and the academic deans to develop a process by which administrative and academic units could most efficiently and effectively complete unit-level affirmative action plans by Fall 2001. The OHR is committed to hosting trainings and workshops throughout Fall of 2000 and Spring 2001 to support this program.

.
In a related action, the Academic Affirmative Action Committee has been revitalized and is actively advising the OHR. It is examining new initiatives to expand its role. The president has been requested to either reconstitute the Administrative/Staff Affirmative Action Committee or expand the current Academic Affirmative Action Committee to address both academic and non-academic personnel.

.

DISABILITY INITIATIVES

.
The goals of the university include maintaining and augmenting its support of programs and functions to ensure full access to persons with disabilities; actively including persons with disabilities in all aspects of campus life; and educating the campus community about the values, goals, and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The university continues to address the challenges that all large institutions with aging infrastructures have in providing access to all persons with disabilities, trying to provide resources as quickly as possible while balancing a range of priorities on campus.

.
The university’s response to providing equitable access to people with disabilities has developed over the years in three related areas: accommodation services for staff and faculty, accommodation services for students, and compliance and complaint processes for faculty and students. Until July 1, 2000, these three areas were represented in separate offices: the Disability Programs Unit (DPU), the Disability Resource Center, and the Affirmative Action/Equity Office, respectively.

.
Accommodation Services for Staff and Faculty: The Disability Programs Unit (formerly the Office of Disability Programs) focuses primarily on consultation and service provision to university employees with disability-related needs. The office was successful in a national competition for a three-year grant offered by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. The purpose of the FIPSE grant was to train students with disabilities on the various provisions contained in the ADA. The students would then train covered entities in the community.

.
By March of 1995, the Disability Programs Unit had completed the university's first programmatic self-evaluation, as mandated by Title II of the ADA. This evaluation process involved 68 of the university's departments, colleges, and units. In addition, the office completed the university's first Reasonable Accommodation Procedural Manual. This manual, in the form of a reasonable accommodation handbook and resource directory, was a result of a collaborative effort involving the Department of Human Resources and the Office of University Counsel. The manual was distributed to deans, administrators, and department chairs. An updated version of the manual continues to be distributed at the beginning of each academic year. Additionally, the DPU has been involved with the investigation of ADA/504 complaints. The DPU drafted the first 504 Grievance Procedures that were later adopted by the university.

.
In a May 1996 re-organization, the DPU was reassigned to the university's Human Resources Department. At this same time, the California State University's Board of Trustees elected to decentralize the reasonable accommodation program. As a result, each campus assumed the responsibility for its own reasonable accommodation program, with DPU focusing specifically on implementing Title I provisions of the ADA and establishing medical verification and return-to-work standards. The DPU took a leadership role in incorporating ADA employment concepts in the university's job analysis and position description development process and classification review process. The DPU reviews and monitors all university employment policies and practices to determine compliance levels. The unit was successful with effecting the university's first re-assignment as a reasonable accommodation, pursuant to relevant provisions contained in Title I. The DPU also conducted the university's first Title I self-evaluation on employment policies and practices and made necessary recommendations to achieve baseline compliance levels.

.
In 1997, the DPU designed a comprehensive ADA and employment training program for university officials involved in hiring. The program objectives were to minimize potential litigation and provide hiring officials with the information necessary to extend to qualified individuals with disabilities an equal employment opportunity. To increase the representation of qualified individuals with disabilities in the university's workforce, the DPU researched and developed an extensive accelerated recruitment and hiring program for prospective applicants and candidates with disabilities. In 1999, the DPU successfully completed the university's second programmatic self-evaluation. Based upon the data collected from the survey process, the DPU's immediate plans involve working closely with department and unit representatives to develop and carry out a tailored implementation plan.

.
The DPU has built a comprehensive web page that highlights the university's commitment and effort in regard to complying with ADA provisions. The page also serves as an effective recruitment tool. The web page [www.sfsu.edu/~hrdpu/] allows the DPU to conduct a significant amount of its business on-line.

.
Accommodation Services for Students: The Disability Resource Center (DRC) was originally established as a full-time student services office in 1975. The center’s primary goal is to provide individualized direct services to students with disabilities so that they may have equivalent access to the university both physically and programmatically.

.
In Fall 1989, the DRC served a total of 475 students with disabilities; by Fall 1999, this number had increased to 778 students. Within these totals, students are identified under the following disability categories: deaf; communication; learning; visual; mobility; and functional. In 1989 the mobility category had the largest percentage of the total students served. By 1999, the learning disability category had the largest percentage.

.
In 1992, the DRC secured a California State Department of Rehabilitation Grant called WorkAbility IV, providing job readiness experiences for students who are Department of Rehabilitation clients; this program is still in existence. In 1996, the center secured a three-year FIPSE grant to provide students with disabilities who are new to SFSU with extra support and resources in order to improve retention.

.
The center’s Campus Liaison Program (CLP) was introduced on campus Fall 1996 in order to formalize the DRC’s outreach efforts in fulfilling the university’s legal obligation to provide students with disabilities notice of their rights and responsibilities. The advent of the CLP has provided the campus with structured information about opportunities to learn how to work with students with disabilities. This information has included:

.
• A brochure introducing the CLP and outlining potential presentation topics
• A personalized annual letter of general interest to each of the approximately 200 department heads on campus
• Campus-wide distribution each semester of "SOURCE," a newsletter that provides resources for working with students with disabilities at the university
• The DRC email "tip of the month" sent out to all department heads informing them of current topics of interest or issues of concern
• Targeted presentations such as the one given at the all-university retreat in January 2000 on methods for faculty to streamline delivery of accommodations to students in the classroom.

.
Compliance and Complaint Processes: The final section of disability-related responsibility, handling complaints and overseeing compliance, has resided with the director of affirmative action and equity programs. It has been the director’s responsibility to conduct internal investigations of all claims of discrimination or harm based on disability. As of 1998, the Office of AA/E became part of the Office of Human Relations as the beginning of a process to consolidate diversity and equity-related programs.

.
Starting in 1999, the university has been engaged in a disability-related lawsuit that it takes very seriously. The principles espoused by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are compatible with those of the university, though the parties disagree on details or timetables for implementation of some projects. The suit is still in the process of being settled; hence, detailed discussion would be inappropriate and premature. However, one example of an initiative that the university has completed and that appears to be in concert with the basic tenets of the settlement discussions is the re-organization and consolidation of disability-related programs. As mentioned, as of July 1, 2000, the Disability Programs Unit and the Disability Resource Center were consolidated in the Office of Human Relations, bringing all disability-related officers into the same unit and providing one-stop accessibility to disability-related services. This re-organized disability program (now called the University Disability Programs and Resource Center) will be headed by a director who, when hired, will report to the university dean of human relations. The director will oversee all areas of disability accommodation, university-wide, working with all vice-presidential units. This director will work with all units to implement any agreements from the current lawsuit and to assist in integrating these specific solutions into the university’s overall disability strategy.

.
Directions for the Future: The university’s work in the disability area is nationally recognized. In Summer 2000, the university hosted a diverse group of philosophers, literature professors, theater scholars, historians, and others in an institute, financed by the National Endowment for the Humanities, aimed at creating disability studies in the humanities.

.
To maintain and advance the campus initiatives described above, the All-University Committee on Students, Faculty, and Staff with Disabilities proposes to:

.
• Promote the integration of students and employees with disabilities into university programs and services by jump-starting a training program on accessibility strategies for department chairs;

.
• Review, assess, and recommend any needed alterations to the current accessibility of information disseminated through electronic media to students and employees;

.
• Review and recommend any needed improvements in the effective application of university resources for the purposes of providing equal educational and employment opportunities to people with disabilities;

.
• Conduct an annual study of university programs and services to insure that people with disabilities are integrated into, served equitably by, and fully represented in them.

.

ASSESSING CAMPUS CLIMATE

.
The 1999 SNAPS Survey provided an opportunity to assess student perceptions about diversity on campus. Students were presented with eight attributes that related to campus climate and asked to indicate how often (1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Occasionally, 4=Frequently) they had personally experienced or directly observed insensitive behavior related to each attribute, as well as how often they had experienced or observed campus efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive behavior based on each attribute. Among the eight attributes, the most frequently observed experiences were related to non-English language background (24.8% observing occasionally or frequently), race or ethnicity (22.8%), and gender (21.3%). Campus efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive behavior related to race or ethnicity were observed most frequently (42.2%), followed by efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive behavior related to sexual orientation (38.4%) and gender (36.2%). The results of this question are found in the table below.

.
Q21IA-Q21RH. Listed below are several attributes related to campus climate. ON THE LEFT, indicate how often, during the past year, you have personally experienced or directly observed at this campus insensitive behavior and/or remarks directed at yourself or another based on each attribute. ON THE RIGHT, indicate how often, during the past year, you have personally experienced or directly observed campus efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive behavior and/or remarks based on each attribute.

.

1999 SNAPS Results Regarding Campus Climate

Q21IA-Q21RH. Listed below are several attributes related to campus climate. ON THE LEFT, indicate how often, during the past year, you have personally experienced or directly observed at this campus insensitive behavior and/or remarks directed at yourself or another based on each attribute. ON THE RIGHT, indicate how often, during the past year, you have personally experienced or directly observed campus efforts to reduce or eliminate insensitive behavior and/or remarks based on each attribute.

1999 SNAPS

Insensitive Behavior and/or Remarks

Observed/Experienced Incident

Observed Efforts to Reduce/Eliminate

Rank

n

%*

Rank

n

%*

Non-English language background

1

278

24.8

5

293

28.1

Race or ethnicity

2

260

22.8

1

446

42.2

Gender

3

242

21.3

3

377

36.2

Sexual orientation

4

223

19.8

2

401

38.4

Religion

5

181

16.1

7

264

25.5

Learning difficulties

6

164

14.6

6

265

25.4

Age

7

138

12.3

8

213

20.6

Disabilities

8

115

10.3

4

310

30.0

*Percent observing occasionally or frequently.

.
About two thirds of the SNAPS respondents found the university to be equally supportive of women and men (68.0%) as well as of all racial and ethnic groups (67.2%). Finally, when asked if they felt safe on the SFSU campus, 82.8% of the respondents reported they felt safe or were neutral.

.
The Student Pulse Surveys provide additional data about human relations and diversity. Approximately 80% of the respondents to the 1998 and 2000 Student Pulse Surveys rated the campus environment as open and tolerant. Similarly, over 86% of respondents in 1998 and 83% of respondents in 2000 never or rarely had experienced or observed mistreatment based on any discriminatory factor. Finally, 84% of the respondents to the Faculty/Staff/Administrator Pulse agreed that SFSU provides a non-discriminatory environment for students.

.

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES AND DIVERSITY

.
The strategic plan clearly highlighted the importance of extracurricular activities in the university’s overall efforts to address diversity on campus. It emphasized that administrators, faculty, staff, and students involved in planning extracurricular activities should do so with a goal of increasing student learning about diversity. During the early 1990’s, the university continued to change its student composition, becoming a campus where there existed no ethnic majority and where the variety of ethnic, social, and personal demographics had increased. Student organizations emphasizing various ethnic, cultural, social, spiritual, and sexual identities continued to become more active in student life. These changes were evident in the activities both for our day-student population and for our residential student population. The university recognized that there was a need to increase extracurricular activities that addressed this diversity and to better coordinate efforts that target the day student as well as the residential student. By 1998, both residential and non-residential student programming was consolidated under a single office, the Office of Student Programs/Leadership Development (OSPLD), an area of Student Affairs whose primary concern is centered on improving programming services for all students. [Please see www.sfsu.edu/~ ospld/.]

.
There are numerous extracurricular programs that emphasize campus diversity, some officially sponsored by the university and some more spontaneously created by campus community groups. For example, in Fall 1999, there were 238 registered student organizations at SFSU. Of these 238 organizations, 87 could be described as primarily social, 89 cultural, 18 religious, 62 political, 148 academic, 38 recreational, 6 residential, and 4 service. These categories are not mutually exclusive and some organizations are cross-categorized. The designations, however, are useful in giving a general sense of the variety of choices available to students.

.
A representative, but not exhaustive, list of student organizations that address personal or social diversity includes: Afrikan Residents Association, Armenian Student Association, Asian Student Union, Black Student Union, Black Students in Psychology, Chinese Students Association, Ethiopian Students Association, General Union of Palestine Students, Hillel, Korean Students Association, La Raza Student Organization, League of Filipino Students, Middle Eastern Student Unity, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MECHA), Muslim Students Association, National Association of Black Accountants, National Society of Black Engineers, Pacific Islander Club, Pilipino American Collegiate Endeavor, Pilipino American Science Society, Queer Alliance, Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, Student Kouncil of Intertribal Nations, Turkish Student Association, and Vietnamese American Students Association.

.
These organizations sponsor a variety of cultural activities that often involve co-sponsorship by multiple organizations and collaboration with other university units. Technical support and coordination of these activities falls primarily to the OSPLD. Numerous other academic departments and administrative units are often partners with student organizations in their programming. Some examples of the larger events sponsored by these groups celebrating their unique cultural contributions to the campus include, but are not limited to, the Pilipino Cultural Shows (with Asian American Studies); La Raza new student orientations (with Raza Studies); Cinco de Mayo Celebration; the African American, La Raza, and Filipino Graduation Celebrations (with Black, Raza, and Asian American Studies, respectively); the "Step Show" by the African American Fraternities/Sororities; Queer Alliance’s National Coming Out Week; and Hillel’s Sukkah tabernacle for the holiday of Sukkot. In addition, there are a number of events co-sponsored to encourage multicultural interaction; e.g., the Multicultural Health Fair; the Student Activities Fair (a recruitment fair for all student organizations); the Multicultural Crafts Fair; and the annual university-wide cultural festival mentioned earlier, most recently entitled "Festival 2000: A celebration of culture and identity."

.
In Fall 1998, the OSPLD partnered with the Office of Residential Life (ORL) to provide a campus-wide perspective to student housing programs. Ten student organizations specifically target the needs of the residence community by providing a variety of academic, cultural, educational, and social programs throughout the academic year. The resident assistants also provide programs to support the living-learning environment of the residence community and are trained to handle the cultural and social diversity of the residential student body. [Please see www.sfsu.edu/~housing/residential_life.html.]

.
Two major student-led boards also contribute to extensive programming on campus. The Associated Students (AS) serves both as a student government and as a corporate board that manages funds from student activity fees. The board financially supports the activities of the registered student groups. The AS not only supports individual groups but also contributes to such programming as Black History Month, Cinco de Mayo, the several ethnic graduation celebrations, and other events. The AS maintains a performing arts program that is charged explicitly with bringing a variety of arts to campus that reflects the cultural diversity of the community. It also supports other student services that address diversity, such as the Women’s Center and EROS, the student-run office that provides educational resources regarding sexuality.

.
The Cesar Chavez Student Center Board manages the business affairs of the student center including providing programming. Here, again, the program office is charged to provide diversity in its programming. The center, named for the Latino labor organizer, Cesar Chavez, also includes the Malcolm X Plaza, the Rigobertu Menchu Room, the Robert Oakes Multicultural Center, and Jack Adams Hall. (Ms. Menchu is a native activist from Guatamala; Robert Oakes, a native North American activist and SFSU alumnus; and Jack Adams, a now-deceased gay AIDS activist who had been a director of the center.) The naming of the building and its areas is more than symbolic. It reflects the multicultural themes that the center has included in its programming and its strategic plan. Each named area has complementary cultural and educational programming associated with it.

.
Multicultural student leadership training is also provided by the OSPLD. In conjunction with the Counseling Department of the College of Health and Human Services, OSPLD offers the Emerging Leaders Leadership Institute of Student Affairs. ELLISA serves students and student groups as a university-wide umbrella for student leadership training and programming. Its curriculum helps students to develop and redefine leadership skills and an awareness of leadership opportunities on campus. This program is a unique opportunity for students to increase their understanding of complex social and organizational issues within the university community, San Francisco, and the larger world.

.
OSPLD also engages in diversity education through a holistic program of leadership development classes. The program offers 4-6 courses in the fall and spring semesters. Classes include the Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL), the Leadership Institute, Leadership 101, Emerging Leaders Conference and Internship, and Empowered Student/College Success Skills. These classes are included on the students’ academic transcripts, allowing prospective employers to easily verify that the students have received formal training in leadership. There is an average of 150 to 200 enrollees in these leadership classes each semester. The plan is to expand these courses into an academic leadership minor, as leadership is crucial both to development within minority communities and to the rise of advocates for the community of diversity.

.
Effective in 1998, OSPLD has been the primary sponsor of a diversity education program called the STOP HATE program of Student Affairs. Currently in a pilot stage, the program presents speakers who have dedicated their life to articulating diversity issues. OSPLD was instrumental in networking with these speakers, outside community help agencies, and national/local media to present programs on such issues as children of bi-racial families, overcoming intolerance in small and large communities, and the experience of immigrants from countries estranged from the United States.

.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

.
SFSU has had a long history of embracing the values of human diversity in its access to curriculum, employment, and social climate. For all of its many successes, the university is committed to continued development in each of these areas. This chapter has chronicled accomplishments and provided a foundation for future initiatives.

.
Future planning must address several major issues which provide both challenges and opportunities related to diversity concerns, only a few of which will be mentioned here. The state university system is currently attempting to maintain diversity in a post-Proposition 209 era in which many mistakenly believe that all forms of affirmative action have been outlawed. This mistaken impression, probably more than the legislation itself, has caused a chilling effect on initiatives supporting human relations endeavors statewide. Additionally, there has been a decrease in support for university-level programs considered to be remedial or compensatory that are intended to assist students who arrive less prepared, yet who, based on some evidence from EOP data (see Chapter 6), appear to perform better than the average SFSU student after intervention.

.
At the same time, there have been no significant increases in K-12 programs to improve preparation for the state's diverse students. Within this context, the state projects a dramatic increase in college-bound students, a greater proportion of whom will come from communities that are economically disadvantaged and from communities of color. Finally, regarding the employment of a diverse complement of staff, faculty, and administration, the university can expect massive retirements and a commensurate challenge to replace these employees during a period of high competition with other institutions and corporations.

.
Regarding access, it can be expected that the student body will remain diverse. The equitable distribution of that diversity, however, may be challenged by both the number of students who may be applying to the CSU system and the inequitable preparation that these students receive prior to applying to SFSU. Since the quality of preparation for the university is correlated with ethnicity and social class, and increased competition for scarce resources usually encourages selection processes that favor advantaged students, historically under-served populations may be disadvantaged if no additional action is taken. The university, in partnership with the school districts and community colleges, will need to examine how it can do a better job in preparing and guiding a diverse range of students into higher education.

.
Changing employment patterns present the greatest opportunities and challenges to diversifying the campus' staff, faculty, and administrative ranks. The large number of retirements will give the greatest opportunity to diversify that has ever been afforded the university. SFSU will be attempting to hire, however, in the shadow of post-Proposition 209 fear and in competition with all of the other campuses that will be competing for the same pool. For this reason, it is even more imperative that the university succeed in developing new, aggressive affirmative action plans that are specifically tailored to be effective in each of the academic units.

.
University members continue to struggle with interpersonal and inter-group conflicts in a culture that has become more litigious. The university community will need to expand its ability to offer informal and alternative conflict resolution processes that encourage individuals and groups to settle their differences before they need to be addressed by more formal complaint or grievance processes, or by litigation. These new initiatives may include a range of options from conflict resolution training to alternative resolution processes such as mediation or peer-adjudicated dispute resolution. These options are being studied, and the university is examining the resource implications for initiating such processes.

.
With the recent reorganization of the disability programs, the university is in the process of refining its approach to disability access and services, with an emphasis on advantages from the consolidation of resources and expertise in a single unit. Continuing to improve physical access to older structures and designing universally accessible newer structures will be a high priority. In addition, the university will continue to encourage cross-department collaboration on educational programs that will improve the campus community’s understanding of disability-related concerns. The university will need to actively investigate new sources of revenue to support these important yet costly endeavors.

.
Finally, the university, through its "Pulse" and other survey methods, should continuously assess the quality of human relations on campus, and initiate programmatic responses where indicated, in order to become an increasingly accessible and nurturing community.

.

Return to Section D: A Diverse University | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page