Kesten Taking SCU Down Wrong Path
Throughout my term as GUSA president, I have been a steadfast supporter of the efforts of the student association’s Student Commission for Unity to research diversity issues at Georgetown because I believe that fostering unity and celebrating diversity are central to our mission as a Jesuit university. But I have also felt uncomfortable with the lack of clarity regarding how the SCU’s research might ultimately be interpreted and used to inform university policy.
The defining moment for me came when SCU Chairman Brian Kesten (COL ’10) told me that the research he was undertaking — partially funded by GUSA — was merely the “gunpowder” for an advocacy movement that he planned to carry out with or without the consent of student government. Affirming my worst suspicions, the SCU has decided to cut ties with GUSA in order to unilaterally petition administrators for a number of controversial diversity-related policy changes. This development raises serious concerns about what is being advocated on the behalf of students without their informed consent.
It is absolutely imperative that students and their elected representatives be given the opportunity to scrutinize, evaluate and ultimately choose to accept or reject the initiatives that Kesten hopes to implement. Kesten’s proposals would impact all students — if they are to be implemented, they ought to reflect the will of students. Kesten is seeking to circumvent the accountability measures that formerly governed the SCU’s relationship with GUSA and independently pursue major changes.
The SCU would not be where it is today were it not for the generous support it has received from GUSA. Over the past year, GUSA has provided the SCU with thousands of dollars in financial backing. This is in addition to the substantial time and attention that GUSA senators have devoted toward guiding the SCU’s progress, despite the disconcertingly self-righteous and often polarizing approach that Kesten has taken in his dealings with the GUSA Senate and Executive Staff. Most notably, the SCU has been the beneficiary of the legitimacy and access to administrators that come along with being part of GUSA.
What I think Kesten regrettably fails to understand in choosing to part ways with GUSA is that the legitimacy and access he has so far enjoyed are contingent upon the continued consent of Georgetown students and their elected representatives. It is an unfortunate disservice to the student body that, by unilaterally dissociating from GUSA, Kesten is forcing the SCU to forfeit that legitimacy.
Why is it that Kesten is so eager to shirk the accountability and transparency measures that defined the SCU’s former relationship with GUSA? The most likely answer seems to be that he accurately senses that many students — if given the opportunity to weigh in — would take issue with his approach, which has been hotly debated for months in the GUSA Senate.
Ultimately, it is unclear to me how dissociating from GUSA in any way furthers Kesten’s ostensible goal of promoting “unity.” It is my hope that the next GUSA president will take the time to critically evaluate the findings of the SCU research project and put the proposed policy changes to a referendum vote by students. Only then can any policies based on the data be deemed legitimate.
Hopefully, Kesten will have the decency to consult with the next student body president and his or her administration (which will be in place by the end of this month) before taking any further action to promote his proposals. I challenge Kesten to try to work with the next administration rather than act alone. Lastly, it is my hope that administrators, as caretakers of our community, will take the time to evaluate how closely the recommendations of an independent SCU reflect the broader opinions of Georgetown students.
Patrick Dowd is a senior in the School of Foreign Service and president of the Georgetown University Student Association.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
Feb 17 2009 at 10:15 a.m.
My basic understanding of this issue is that Dowd is preventing the development of diversity programs. Right? It's not like GUSA could get something done regarding this issue
Feb 17 2009 at 2:23 p.m.
No, NIThoyas.
Kesten established the Student Commission on Unity as a GUSA Commission, in order to gain student legitimacy for the project, receive GUSA funds (to the tune of several thousand dollars, as mentioend above) and be able to meet more easily with administrators and throw events without having to charter itself as a SAC group.
Many Senators were concerned that giving the 'GUSA' stamp to the SCU without any strings attached would mean that he might use his group to advance divisive, controversial policies under the banner that the student body supported them. So the Senate said we'll give you your commission and money, BUT in exchange we want to give a final yes/no vote on your recommendations - to show which ones were truly endorsed by GUSA and which ones weren't.
Kesten came back with the recommendations, and the Senate approved six out of the eight - a high amount by any regards. It voted down some of the more controversial pieces that many students, as well as the Hoya and the Voice, disagreed with.
Kesten's response? Take the money and run. Cut ties with GUSA and pursue his divisive policies.
I agree with Dowd: it will hurt them in the long run.
Feb 17 2009 at 2:32 p.m.
Oh thank God! Finally someone will set up diversity initiatives! Oh glory glory, it's finally happening!
Or maybe, instead of peddling a tired word—diversity—which has long stood as a proxy for real solutions to all sorts of underlying social problems, we should GET RID OF THE GROUPS/INITIATIVES THAT SEGREGATE CAMPUS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Every racial and ethnic group has its own campus organization to which far FAR too many minority students dedicate all their extracurricular time, leaving the broader (often overly-white) Georgetown groups minority-less. Minorities for some reason get out through their own "Minority Student Orientation" for some completely inexplicable reason (http://cmea.georgetown.edu/programs/studentorientation/). Seemingly, the only point of such an Orientation is to welcome minority students to the Hilltop with a quick "'Your' clubs are that way. See you in four years! Try not to make too much noise." Well as a white Georgetown student, I want the black Hoyas, Filipino(a) Hoyas, South Asian Hoyas, Middle Eastern Hoyas, etc., etc., etc. (even Canadian Hoyas) to get involved in the groups in which I as a boring white kid can actually participate.
THAT will be diversity: when everyone comes out and plays on the same playground. A class on diversity won't do it. A super-happy-fun-time event on the Esplanade won't do it. Imposing ridiculous requirements on students (like sitting through hackneyed NSO-style nonsense) won't do it. It will take a few courageous leaders from a few specific groups to say that enough is enough and that it is time for them to take their place as CAMPUS leaders, not just leaders within small and segregated subsets of the University population. And it will require courage from the predominantly white student leadership, who will have to accept that there are a lot of talented and intelligent minority students who are about to show up in (and possibly take over) some campus organizations that are sorely in need of new faces.
Of course, this integration of campus will never happen because the quick fixes are easier. And the quick fixes can be put on a resume, whereas truly accomplishing the goal is too much a process for any one person to take credit for. Most importantly, the quick fixes will not challenge anyone—especially Georgetown's minority population—to step outside of its world of race-based student organizations. And it will never challenge white Georgetown to grow and incorporate actual diversity in its student groups.
But good luck with the initiatives. At the end of the day, Down, Kesten, and everyone involved with this nonsense will waste a lot of your time rather than actually do the hard work of bringing people together at Georgetown.
Feb 17 2009 at 2:37 p.m.
It seems like Kesten's proposals were too radical for the broad cross-section of students in the Student Senate's 30-something people. From what I could tell from the website, that's true. Some of the recommendations are just plain nuts.
Perhaps the student body would understand this better if someone explained exactly why this relationship has turned sour and let the student body speak for itself on whether it views Kesten's proposals as too radical. The diversity-huggers in the CSP and Student Affairs will otherwise probably just give in to whatever Kesten asks. More education on the SCU would be good.
Feb 17 2009 at 2:40 p.m.
After reading my own comments, I just want to clarify something.
First, "Down" is "Dowd." Apologies for that.
Second, I do not advocate totally getting rid of race, ethnicity, and culture-based student organizations. They certainly have their place on campus, and they can be important and valuable contributors to the community. But I do think that they need to stop being a refuge for students who are, for some reason, being told that they are not welcome in the broader Georgetown organizations.
With all the time that students in BSA spent last year arguing with The Hoya over its Jenna coverage, several members of BSA could have walked into The Hoya office and become writers, editors, and columnists. THAT is diversity. THAT will lead to equality in information flow and ideas. THAT is a more real and lasting solution than any that will come from SCU.
Feb 17 2009 at 7:38 p.m.
Any student group/individual student can lobby the administration to make any type of changes. GU Pride lobbied for an LGBTQ center and Solidarity advocated for a living wage. None of those students were elected and none of those proposals were voted on in a referendum. And that's totally fine because neither of those groups were selling themselves as approved spokespersons for the campus at large, but as interest groups advocating for a cause they deeply believed in because they felt that the campus at large would benefit.
If GUSA does not like two of SCU's proposal than they have the right to make that counter argument to the University. SCU might have greater legitimacy as part of GUSA but they aren't completely lacking in it as a seperate entity since any student due to the fact they pay tuition in entitled to a voice. They just can't misrepresent themselves as having some sort of popular mandate. That is the system that currently is in place at Georgetown.
I don't know anyone personally involved in the debate between GUSA and SCU, but I am disappointed that this editorial is so personal and passive aggressive. This is the type of sentiment you get out in a private meeting, not in a public opinion piece.
Feb 17 2009 at 8:26 p.m.
Yes, let's hold up the LGBTQ Center and the Living Wage: shining examples of what petulant students can do when they combine bad ideas, a lot of time, and bullhorns to bully the University into making ineffective changes that it can't financially afford.
Feb 18 2009 at 1:59 a.m.
What were the two recommendations that were rejected?
Feb 18 2009 at 2:53 a.m.
http://www.thehoya.com/node/17796
In so far as I can read it, the two recommendations that were not approved were:
1. An additional two-course requirement called "Equity Through Diversity", in which students would be required to take two courses that "would fulfill existing general education requirements with elements of religious, cultural, social and political diversity." It also called for recruit and tenuring more diverse faculty.
2. $10,000 to fund “collaboration of unlike groups,”
In addition, due to severe scrutiny, Kesten withdrew his proposal before the vote that would have required mandating a 4:1 majority:minority student racial quota in freshmen residence halls, so it was not voted on.
The proposals that the Senate passed were:
1. Calling for a pilot program of one-credit, student-led courses in “diverse studies”
2. Calling for increased marketing and visibility for the Bias Reporting System
3. Mandatory diversity training for all club presidents (The Hoya actually came out against this, but it was passed by the Senate)
4. Calling for resident advisers to be trained to create a more inclusive environment on their floors and to generate creative programming ideas focused on diversity
And 5 & 6:
Two propositions aimed at increasing the number of minority students at Georgetown and the amount of collaboration between students of different social groups (the report was unspecific as to exact recommendations)
* * *
So, all in all, I think that the Senate reviewed the recommendations with a critical eye, had substantial debate and ultimately approved most of them, including even some that I think many students might find controversial.
Feb 18 2009 at 4:39 a.m.
This is all garbage! First of all, the dining hall thing isn't even constitutional! The rest of this stuff is nonsense, and it will be wildly ineffective! Please, for the love of God stop making Georgetown look this stupid.
Mandatory diversity training? I ran several organizations in my time at GU. I would not have attend that training if you paid me.
Feb 18 2009 at 7:16 p.m.
I still doubt the validity of SCU's findings, and I think their dubiousness is made more apparent by Kresten's inability to tolerate disagreement with his recommendations. Where can we see the raw data?
Feb 18 2009 at 7:17 p.m.
*Kesten, sorry.
Feb 18 2009 at 10:38 p.m.
The SCU report and data can be found here: www.scunity.org. You can view the administered survey and the full final report, which contains all the data.
Feb 19 2009 at 4:58 p.m.
Thanks. I've reviewed the raw data (admittedly cursorily), and it appears that my suspicions are confirmed: the SCU has spun the raw numbers to fit its agenda. Note: I am not a statistician, so these are just a layman's concerns. I'd appreciate discussion if I'm wrong in my analysis or confirmation if I'm right.
In many places, the report's sweeping conclusions dubiously compare overwhelmingly positive responses (e.g., greater than 50% saying that they have not witnessed discrimination, etc.) to the aggregate of all other answer choices out of the five available (e.g., "rarely," "sometimes," etc.) in order to support the proposition that x% of students have "ever" witnessed y occurence on campus. For instance, when a majority of students selected "never" to the above-described question, their majority was compared with the subtotal of all of the "rarely," "sometimes," etc. choices, making it seem a much slimmer majority than it really was. Curiously, we hear very little about these overwhelmingly positive numbers and very much about their aggregated counterparts.
This problem is amplified by the study's lack of a sense of time and use of ambiguous answer choices. Whether a student has witnessed a single incident of discrimination is of relative importance in that it is wholly contingent upon the length of time that student has been at Georgetown. If, for example, a senior has only witnessed 1 incidence of discrimination in 3.5 yrs on campus, this ought to be treated as relatively better than a freshman or sophomore having seen the same number, because of the substantial disparity in time spent on campus. I understand that the survey breaks out its results by class year, but this is insufficient, because the answer choices do not reflect quantifiable numbers of incidents (e.g., 0-2, 2-4, etc.) a student has witnessed; that is, "rarely" and "sometimes" are sufficiently ambiguous as to permit two students of different class years with completely different experiences to choose the same result. This naturally creates a distortedly high number of "sometimes" and "rarely," and it also creates an extraordinary amount of room for misinterpretation of the true nature of things on campus.
Indeed, the report leaves no room for such a meaningful distinction. A quantitative study (i.e., "how many incidences of ____ have you witnessed at GU this year or over x period of years (broken down by class year)) would have been more productive and would surely have yielded less malleable results. Indeed, the only real quantitatively significant answer choice was "never," (i.e., "0"), further exemplifying the significance of the frequency with which students chose that answer to some of the more relevant questions.
Also, it's not clear whether the online survey was voluntary or truly random, or whether its availability was spread by word of mouth. This is obviously significant as it relates to the makeup of the subjects.
I'm sure someone smarter and better trained than me could further examine the accuracy of the study's conclusions. The problem, however, is that no one has bothered to do so.
Please don't misunderstand, I support the aims of the study; I am simply yet to be convinced that the evidence demonstrates as high a level of un-diversity and animosity on campus as its authors suggest. We ought not rely on such a dubious record to support such sweeping change. Frankly, I think GUSA and the majority of students have campus have effectively communicated this to the SCU by rejecting the more radical of the study's recommendations.
Feb 19 2009 at 9:32 p.m.
Well said, Grove East.
I had the same reactions to the report. It frequently lumps "rarely, sometimes, and frequently" data together to make it sound like Georgetown is a bastion of racism and oppression.
I'm pretty sure we've all, at least once in our four years at Georgetown, witnessed an instance of "discrimination" -- so vaguely defined it could be anything. It's very different from saying that most Georgetown students have witnessed at least one drunken off-color remark to saying they witnessed an actual hate-crime beat down or someone barring them from a party and calling them the N word. I reckon most of the responses tended to be on the lesser extreme (though of course, there's no survey data on that account).
It also fails to compare it with the world outside of Georgetown. That is to say, is Georgetown /more/ accepting or less accepting than peer universities or home communities? I believe it would be more accepting than most (except for homosexuals, which I think -is- a sore point here).
Feb 20 2009 at 6:24 a.m.
Grove East, you make some really truly insightful points about this research. Would you mind if I ask who you are, to possibly speak with you more about this? If you do not feel comfortable posting in this forum, please do e-mail me at mjwagner@gmail.com - I look forward to hearing from you. Your willingness to look in to this is very, very impressive and GUSA could really use some smart and objective people like yourself.
Best,
Matt Wagner
GUSA Senator, McCarthy 2-6
Chair, GUSA Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee
Feb 20 2009 at 3:33 p.m.
I am not sure why people are so opposed to SCU and what they are trying to do. I feel that some people are opposing recommendations that they do not completely understand. Have people who are against mandatory diversity training even ever been to a diversity training...My guess is no. These diversity trainings are put on to help foster dialogue amongst people of different communities and to gain understanding of people who are different than you. Not to try and accuse you of being racist or homophobic. I thinking that in general people can look at recommendations and the report any way that they want, but at the end of the day the truth of the matter is GEORGETOWN NEEDS TO CHANGE. I really liked what DIVERSITY said in their suggestions that minorities should come out of their comfort zones and join these so called "mainstream" organizations, but have we really examined the experience of those who have tried.
How many white students have really joined the BSA or the KSA or JNET. You would probably say that they would not do this because they feel that these organizations do not represent their interests, but the feeling that I have gotten is that a lot of minority students feel the same way about the "mainstream" organizations.
I think the overall goal of SCU is really to make the campus a more inclusive and tolerant place and I really don't see anything wrong with that. You have to understand that in general, people who are intolerant and are completely comfortable with their homogeneous groups of friends will not willingly accept these changes. I do not believe in forcing people to accept diversity trainings or anything like that, but I do feel that these recommendations provide needed incentives to in participate in some cross cultural dialogue. If you read our mission statement you will understand that this is what Georgetown is SUPPOSED to be and at the end of the day SCU and all other organizations who advocate for diversity are just trying to keep Georgetown honest.
Feb 20 2009 at 5:02 p.m.
Diversity,
First, it's Jena. Second, BSA members have, in fact, joined the Hoya staff. Third, don't blame diversity issues on the minority student population. As a minority on this campus, I have had doors slammed in my face, been called racial slurs, and have been unwelcome at many "mainstream" events that I have tried to attend. The monthly BSA meeting is the one of the only times I've felt comfortable during my entire time at Georgetown. Maybe you should check into the groups that you're so busy taking issue with. BSA simply argues for the issues that it's members bring to the forefront, but cannot do anything about the latent issues with acceptance that this community faces.
Feb 21 2009 at 1:14 a.m.
I fully support the Student Commission for Unity's desire to create a welcoming and open campus environment. Sadly, I worry that the SCU has consistently isolated itself from critical opinions. By ignoring the valid opinions of other students on campus, I fear that SCU is entering a downward spiral of insular groupthink.
Although I supported the SCU, I felt confused and isolated by its findings. In particular, the SCU Executive Summary was representative of SCU's disconnect from the wider opinions of the Georgetown student body. Many of the SCU's recommendations were absolutely foolish, such as (the following are quotations from the Executive Summary):
- "during NSO...have a tour of the District of Columbia (e.g. a tour of Anacostia)". What purpose could that possibly achieve? Minority communities in D.C. are communities, not museum exhibits. How would leading 1,300 students every year to S.E. in some freakish guided tour possibly accomplish anything productive?
- "Intentionally diversify every floor in the freshmen residence halls by having a ratio of Minority:White::1:4 to broaden the experience of first year students..." Again, what real work would this accomplish? Yet again, SCU's suggestions only offer trappings of diversity, instead of building the diverse mindset so cherished by every student and faculty member on this campus.
Although these two examples do not represent the breadth and depth of the SCU's findings and recommendations, they illustrate how the SCU's recommendations are more REACTIVE than PROACTIVE. They assume that diversity can be institutionalized through absurd policies which trivialize the diversity of the District of Columbia and artificially "diversify" residence halls by ensuring a "proper" racial/ethnic balance on each floor.
Georgetown has made great strides in diversifying the campus community over the past 50 years. We have gone from being an elite Catholic bastion for privileged white men to a diverse, global institution which attracts students of diverse races, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic class and cultural background. What remains to be achieved, then, is not this silly, institutional, force-fed approach to diversity, but a grass-roots, discussion based effort to change mindsets in students, staff, and faculty. This is why SCU misses the point by isolating itself from critical opinions.
Kesten has stated to THE HOYA how he feels inspired by God to pursue diversity. I'm glad that his faith is strong, but he - and SCU - must never consider themselves better or above the rest of this campus simply by claiming the pedestal of "diversity". The vast majority - if not everyone - on this campus wants diversity. Shouldn't SCU realize that in a diverse atmosphere, it's important to have diverse opinions, even if those opinions disagree with the recommendations of SCU?
Feb 22 2009 at 7:11 p.m.
Confused Hoya,
I apologize for the Jenna typo. I am very much aware that it it Jena. That was a slip on the keyboard, not inexcusable ignorance. But sorry for the carelessness.
Second, I have not been a part of the Hoya since last year, so I'm glad to hear that BSA members did join. I think that the most progress can be made when different groups actually work together in real-world environments (like writing for the paper or being involved in other shared activities), not when forced together in artificial, often awkward settings (like "diversity training").
Third, in four years at Georgetown, I never observed any student called a slur or treated inappropriately at a campus event. That doesn't mean that it never happens, and it's awful that it does. The problem is that for many white Georgetown students (myself included), we feel that most minority Hoyas aren't willing to give us a chance to be accepting because they think that major clubs and organizations are "white Georgetown." Realistically, we can't join BSA. It would be disingenuous, and I just don't know what I could possibly contribute to such a group. But NSO, the Hoya, the performance groups, GERMS, etc., etc. are open to anyone. I've just always wished that there weren't such an assumption that those groups would be anything short of welcoming.