Cal Poly’s plans to increase diversity are long on jargon, short on substance

We’re going to say this in plain English: Cal Poly did a lousy job of communicating its plan to make the campus a more diverse and inclusive place.

Its recent draft Diversity and Inclusivity Action plan essentially is a three-page list that contains some worthy goals but few specific proposals.

One example: “Continue dialogues with the president and other senior university leaders.”

In other words … more talk.

Is it any wonder that SLO Solidarity — the student group that presented a list of 41 demands to the administration — is frustrated by Cal Poly’s response?

The skimpy, three-page plan is especially disappointing after the university extended a self-imposed deadline to give itself more time to respond. We expected a thorough, thoughtful reaction to most, if not all, of the students’ demands. Yet as SLO Solidarity points out, most of the 41 demands weren’t even addressed.

Faced with SLO Solidarity’s criticism, Cal Poly is defending its response, calling it part of an ongoing effort that will take time. That’s understandable, yet this is not a new issue for Cal Poly; it’s been wrestling with its lack of diversity for decades. What’s more, it already has a formal document called the Diversity Strategic Framework, which is meant to serve as a “foundation and road map” to create “transformational change.”

Along with some painful academic jargon, the framework does include several examples of programs aimed at increasing diversity and making all students feel included at Cal Poly. For example, the university has outreach programs at high schools with large populations of underrepresented students.

Yet for all its planning and frameworking, Cal Poly appears to be floundering.

We’re especially frustrated by the lack of specific benchmarks.

For example, one framework goal is to “support and retain a diverse campus community.”

That’s appropriate, especially because Cal Poly’s statistics show lower graduation rates for some minority and first-generation college students. So why not set a target goal of increasing retention rates by a particular percentage?

While we’re on the topic of percentages, what about SLO Solidarity’s request for a substantial increase in faculty of color — at least 3 percent per year until faculty demographics are representative of the state of California?

Is 3 percent not possible? If not, why not?

And what about the demand that Cal Poly accept more transfer students from Cuesta, Allan Hancock and other community colleges? Would that increase diversity? And practically speaking, what would it take to make more seats available to transfer students?

That’s the type of nuts-and-bolts information lacking in Cal Poly’s response.

We don’t doubt university administrators are committed to making the campus a more diverse and tolerant place. But if Cal Poly really is to undergo transformational change, it’s not going to get there by setting vague goals, scheduling more talks and speaking in educational jargon.

We urge the administration to tell us — in plain English — what it believes it can accomplish, how it plans to get there and how it will measure success.

This story was originally published January 17, 2016 at 12:23 PM with the headline "Cal Poly’s plans to increase diversity are long on jargon, short on substance."