CIDR Diversity Statement History

At CIDR, we often hear that instructors agree in principle to campus diversity policies, but many remain unsure how to translate these policies into more inclusive classroom practices. Our own staff has faced a parallel dilemma, knowing that diversity issues are central to questions of teaching and learning, but remaining uncertain how to integrate attention to diversity into our work with instructors and administrators in their efforts to improve teaching and learning on campus.

In our work with instructors, we often have opportunities to raise questions related to diversity among their students and its implications for their teaching, but we found that as a group we were not necessarily thinking about diversity in the same ways or systematically assessing our work in the area. We also discovered we were not consistent in our decisions about bringing diversity issues into consulting: Because our Center's goal is already focused on better learning for all students (Banks, 1993), should we proactively raise diversity issues, only respond to instructors' explicit questions about diversity, or speak in terms of better learning for all students even when instructors explicitly ask questions about student diversity?

Part of our challenge is the nature of the topic: Diversity spans many issues, from individual learning styles to institutional equity, each associated with a wide range of possible actions (Gay, 1994). Much of the campus conversation about diversity has been in terms of recruitment and retention, issues that are only indirectly related to our work. Thus we found ourselves wondering how to best represent and respond to the complex array of issues that are included under the umbrella of "diversity," how we fit within the university's broader commitments, and how to prioritize among the many possible actions we could take.

Adding to these challenges is the fact that diversity is a politically charged topic. It is dismissed by some as political correctness; for others, it revolves around a single issue such as racial inequality. Our institution expresses commitment to diversity, but public reaction is mixed: Surveys show that most people want graduates to be able to work effectively in culturally diverse settings, but many are opposed to affirmative action or hiring TAs with accents. Each of these perspectives potentially influences our clients in their work and, therefore, potentially influences how we work with them.

We found it fairly easy to agree about the challenges of addressing diversity, but we were not satisfied to continue leaving the challenges unmet. To paraphrase social activist and educator Myles Horton (1990, p. 136), we felt we knew the basic reasons for our problems, but we wanted to get further than that. As a result, we began to take intentional steps to expand our knowledge, skills, and understanding of ourselves (Kardia, 1998; Marchesani & Adams, 1992), and also to articulate our assumptions and document our efforts so that they are subject to review and critical examination (Banks, 1998). Rather than trying to develop a singular measure of "inclusiveness" as a basis for assessing our work, we began assembling our expressed beliefs, records of actions taken, and assessments into the Inclusive Practices Portfolio. With the help of the portfolio, our goal is to "analyze, clarify, and state [our] personal values related to cultural diversity, and to act in ways consistent with [our] beliefs" (Banks and Banks, 1995, p. 157).

The cornerstone of the portfolio is a Diversity Statement, developed through a series of interactions with one another, the diversity literature, and other members of the campus community. This statement attempts to make explicit the implicit assumptions guiding our practices (Rando and Menges, 1991), identifying our roles on campus and the actions we are uniquely situated to take with respect to diversity. We used the Diversity Statement as a basis for the Standard Practices Survey, an assessment instrument which asks staff members to examine their own consulting practices and indicate (1) the extent to which it is part of their typical consulting practice, and (2) the extent to which they think it should be part of their typical consulting practice.

Survey responses indicated that staff consulting practices were most consistent (that is, ratings for "is" most closely matched ratings for "should be") for items directly related to exploring immediate classroom contexts and teaching practices. Practices were least consistent for items that implied working collaboratively with individuals or offices outside of our Center. The next least consistent practices were for items most explicitly related to diversity.

The survey results provided us with important information about our consulting practices, which we used in three ways. First, we revisited the original statement and discussed possible revisions; for example, do all staff members need to take time to stay informed about university policies and departmental changes, or is it sufficient for Center leadership to keep informed and pass information along as needed? Second, in our discussion of the survey results we discovered areas that we unintentionally neglected in our draft statement: explicit attention to faculty diversity and identity development (in addition to diversity among students), and as part of our beliefs about how change takes place, explicit attention to ongoing follow-up with clients and encouraging them to share their experiences with colleagues.

Third, and most importantly, we used this information to help us start examining our practices and identify areas in which we need to put our commitments into practice more effectively. Based on the survey results, staff were asked to select a professional development activity designed with the specific goal of examining attention to diversity in our consulting practices. Examples of professional development activities included maintaining a journal of interactions with clients, taping consultation sessions, inviting colleagues to observe consultations, and presenting cases for peer review. Reports and reflections on these experiences were documented and added to the Inclusive Practices Portfolio for others to review. Individuals can then target specific areas for continuing development by referring to colleagues' records in in order to see who has worked in that area previously and who might be interested in additional collaboration.

Our work with the Inclusive Practices Portfolio has provided a structure for ongoing critical self-examination. Noffke (1995) describes this action research process as one in which:

understandings and actions emerge in a constant cycle, one that highlights the ways in which educators are partially correct, yet in continual need of revision, in their thoughts and actions. The process does not end, as with traditional notions of research, with richer understandings of education for others to implement; rather, it aids in an ongoing process of identifying contradictions, which in turn, help to locate spaces for ethically defensible, politically strategic actions (p. 4)

Collaboratively documenting and reflecting on our practices has helped us locate these spaces, take action, and look forward to ongoing growth together.

Works Cited

Banks, C. A. M. & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory Into Practice, 34(3). 152-158.

Banks, J. A. (1993, September). Multicultural education. Development, dimensions, and challenges. Phi Delta Kappan, 22-28.

Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7) 4-17.

Gay, G. (1994). A synthesis of scholarship in multicultural education. North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook, IL: Urban Monograph Series.

Horton, M. (1990). The Long Haul. New York: Doubleday.

Kardia, D. (1998). Becoming a multicultural faculty developer: Reflections from the field. To Improve the Academy, 16, 15-33.

Marchesani, L., & Adams, M. (1992). Dynamics of diversity in the teaching-learning process. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 52, 9-19.

Noffke, S. (1995). Action research and democratic schooling: Problematics and potentials. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational Action Research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 1-10). New York: Teachers College Press.

Rando, W., & Menges, R. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 45, 7-14.

Links to related CIDR documents:

See also, "CIDR Puts Beliefs into Practice in Year-Long Effort," University Week, 5 October 2000.