Introduction
Background
A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: 2004 - 09
Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations
Representation (Access and Success)
Education and Scholarship
Institutional Viability and Vitality
Conclusion
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Notes
Framework Main Page

Archive
A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State:
1998 - 03

Printable Version
A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State:
2004 - 09 (PDF 2,606 KB)

Adobe Acrobat Reader

A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State 2004–09

Introduction
Penn State has long demonstrated a commitment to diversity and equity that is deeply rooted in both our historic mission and our philosophy of higher education. This document launches the second stage of Penn State’s strategic planning process for diversity. It builds on the progress achieved under the guidance of its predecessor, A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: 1998-2003, by advancing diversity as an essential component in Penn State’s quest for greater excellence, and increasing the synergies between diversity initiatives and the other goals set forth in the University’s strategic plan.

As we launch this stage of strategic planning for diversity, our efforts are reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 rulings in the two cases surrounding the University of Michigan’s admissions practices. The Supreme Court’s landmark decisions clearly affirm the significance of diversity on college campuses and support Penn State’s approach to affirmative action in admissions. As President Spanier stated,

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that racial diversity is a compelling educational purpose . . . . The Supreme Court rulings in the Michigan cases reaffirm Penn State’s approach to inclusiveness.1

Given these milestone decisions, institutions of higher education must extend their vigilance in not only recruiting and retaining a diverse student body, but also in cultivating a positive and inclusive climate. As the American Council on Higher Education indicated, in upholding racial and ethnic diversity as a compelling state interest, the decisions “enable our institutions to maintain their strong commitment to be welcoming places to students of all races and walks of life and to continue to pursue a wide range of legally permissible means of attaining a diverse student body.” 2

Our longstanding commitment to diversity and equity grows out of our historic mission. As a land grant institution, Penn State is charged to make education available to the sons and daughters of the working classes. This emphasis on access is addressed, in part, by our recruitment and retention of a diverse student body. While efforts to address inequities experienced by racial/ethnic minorities and women constitute an important foundation for diversity efforts, they by no means delimit the scope of efforts necessary for an inclusive institution. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1990, for example, mandates equity of access to academic programs and employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, including appropriate accommodations to facilitate successful program completion and/or performance of job responsibilities. Penn State’s nondiscrimination statement includes sexual orientation as a category for which protection against discrimination and harassment is mandated. Veterans and adult learners constitute important populations that contribute richly to diverse classroom experiences, particularly at locations other than University Park.

Significant progress has been made in the area of student recruitment. In the last ten years Penn State’s minority enrollment has increased from 7.9 percent to 11.8 percent. In each of the last six years we have set new records for the total number of students of color enrolled. Fall 2002 data indicate that African American students now number more than 3,700 and Hispanics number 1,944. Both figures are all-time highs. The six-year graduation rate for University Park students of color is 69.4 percent, over twenty points above the national average, with our overall rate for all students being 79.8 percent.3 While we must continue to improve in every area of recruitment and retention, these data signify that we are making good progress. Continued progress will require that we overcome new challenges such as those presented by increasing tuition necessitated by shrinking state support and increases in the costs of delivering high quality education.

Penn State’s student profile is inclusive of many additional diverse populations. Women students make up 47 percent of the total University enrollment. Nearly 3,500 international students (graduate and undergraduate) are enrolled, representing approximately 140 countries.4 Approximately 1,700 students University-wide are registered as having a disability,5 and adult learners comprised 13 percent of the total fall 2002 undergraduate enrollment, with more than 8,700 students University-wide.6 Although it is difficult to determine the exact number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, a significant number of Penn State students identify as not being heterosexual. The broad range of perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds inherent in our demographic diversity create rich learning communities from which all our students have the opportunity to benefit.

Complementing our diverse student profile is our continued progress in diversifying our faculty and staff. We have continued to add women to both faculty and administrative ranks. A recent Commission for Women survey of tenured faculty members at University Park revealed significant satisfaction among women faculty.7

Penn State’s diversity goals are also rooted in sound educational philosophy. The purpose of higher education is to promote the life of the mind and the world of ideas. This intellectual inquiry is dependent upon free and robust discourse representing a multitude of perspectives. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Powell argued in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978):

The atmosphere of speculation, experiment and creation – so essential to the quality of higher education – is widely believed to be promoted by a diverse student body.

. . . It is not too much to say that the nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples.

Justice O’Connor, in Grutter v. Bollinger et al. (2003), also addressed the importance of a diverse educational setting in preparing students for citizenship and
leadership:

In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training.

Citing the many briefs submitted to the court in support of the University of Michigan, as well as studies on the impact of a diverse learning environment on majority students, the court stressed the substantial educational benefits of diversity. In addition to promoting cross-racial understanding and breaking down racial stereotypes,

Numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals” . . . . These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.

We might add that a diverse faculty, staff, and administration further enhance the likelihood of a dynamic, high-quality learning environment.

It should not be lost on us that Justices Powell and O’Connor referred to the development of the nation’s future leaders. U.S. Census 2000 data reveal that the Hispanic population has grown by 60 percent from the 1990 Census and is now roughly equal to the African American population, each at about 12 percent of the U.S. population. White Americans now make up about 75 percent of the U.S. population, down from approximately 80 percent in 1990. As the demographics of the American population continue to shift, diversity must be recognized as essential to higher education not only to produce future leaders, but also to assure an educated and productive citizenry.8

Still, despite the educational and pragmatic arguments for diversity in higher education, regressive forces have been marshaled to stem progress. Diversity efforts will likely continue to be challenged, despite the Supreme Court’s affirmation of diversity as a compelling interest and its deference to universities’ ability to shape their student bodies to create the most dynamic learning communities and educational opportunities. What is at stake is far more than legal determination of specific admissions procedures: the academy must remain free to educate all the nation, opening doors of opportunity to all our fellow citizens. Penn State has long been committed to this work and intends to continue it, improving on our successes and learning from our failures. Our historic mission, contemporary educational philosophy, and the national interest require nothing less.

TOP