A DECLARATION OF COMMUNITY


REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITYWIDE CAMPUS COMMUNITY TASK FORCE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

1993







Campus Community Task Force
Student Academic Services
Office of the President
University of California
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 94612




 Campus Community Task Force Members

 University of California

Dennis J. Galligani, Chair

Michael Aldaco
Francine Martinez
Karen Biestman
Horace Mitchell
Dario J. Caloss
Gary Morrison
Susanna Castillo-Robson
Kim Nakahara
Trevor Chandler
Myron H. Okada
George Chang
Jane Permaul
Troy Duster
Gregory Portillo
Veronica Escoffery
Paula Rudolph
Eleanor Fontes-Fulton
Alma Sisco-Smith
Robert Gentry
Janet Vandevender
Amy Glick
Lea Van Meter
Stephen J. Handel
Gregory K. Tanaka
Francisco Hernandez
Allen Yarnell
Maryann Jacobi
Michael Young
Carl Jorgensen
Zizwe

Principal Report Authors:

Stephen J. Handel
Dario J. Caloss



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


A Declaration of Community: The Report of the Universitywide Campus Community Task Force establishes a framework upon which a common understanding and appreciation for the concept of a campus community may be constructed. The Task Force, composed of faculty, students, and staff, undertook two objectives: to articulate the principles upon which the University community is founded; and, building on these principles, recommend actions to achieve and sustain it. In addition, the Task Force developed a research agenda to study further the variables that affect the University community.

Principles of Community

The Task Force adopted seven principles to assess the state of community at the University. These principles, derived from the core values which define and sustain the University, delineate both the individual's rights and responsibilities that flow from being a member of the campus community, as well as define the community's obligations to its members. A University community should be:

¨ Purposeful;

¨ Open;

¨ Disciplined;

¨ Just;

¨ Caring;

¨ Diverse; and

¨ Celebrative.

Recommendations

The Task Force examined many of the central issues affecting the University community and focused its work on three: 1) Diversity and Affirmative Action; 2) Campus Safety; and 3) Campus Intergroup Dynamics. As a result of this examination, the Task Force delineated a set of recommendations addressing each issue:

Diversity and Affirmative Action

¨ The University must better communicate its affirmative action and diversity policies to the campus community as well as the citizens of California, including explicit rationales for the application of these policies in admissions and student services.

¨ The campuses as well as the Office of the President should address misperceptions and misinformation about affirmative action and diversity.

¨ The University's policies of diversity and affirmative action must be articulated within both a short-term and long-term vision of the University's place in California society.

¨ The University must better link the creation of a diverse University with its central educational mission.

¨ The University must explicitly acknowledge that the policies of affirmative action and diversity, in addition to their advantages, are controversial and raise a variety of issues, including admissions practices at the University, educational equity, and access to higher education for all Californians.

¨ Campuses and the Office of the President must support affirmative action as a comprehensive policy affecting the composition of the entire University community.

Campus Safety

¨ Campuses should continue to work with the police and safety personnel in their surrounding community to help ensure the personal safety of students on and off campus.

¨ Campuses should develop methods to increase the vigilance of community members in making their environment more secure.

¨ New students and their parents, as well as others entering the University community for the first time, should continue to be informed at orientation sessions about safety issues and the ways in which they can help secure their personal security.

¨ Campuses should continue and expand their substance abuse awareness and referral programs, particularly those which address the relationship between substance abuse and crime.

¨ In order to assure psychological safety, campuses should continue to encourage free and open debate among community members, while, in the process, promoting civility and sensitivity towards one another.

¨ Faculty and relevant Academic Senate committees should continue to expand their efforts toward diversifying the faculty.

Campus Intergroup Dynamics

¨ New traditions and/or ceremonies should be established that blend traditional academic rituals with rituals that include new cultural groups.

¨ All campus and Universitywide ceremonies such as freshman convocations, commencement ceremonies, and other gatherings (e.g., alumni festivities) should serve to strengthen the links among all members of the University community, as well as the surrounding communities.

¨ Campuses should identify and encourage the creation of "commons" where faculty, staff, and students come together informally.

¨ Campuses should continue to provide psychologically safe opportunities for students to engage in inter-ethnic and inter-cultural gatherings, both formal and informal.

¨ Faculty and staff who serve as "bridge builders" should be recognized and rewarded for their efforts to enhance their communities. Likewise, student-run programs that build bridges among different groups should be supported and recognized for the important role they play.

Finally, a set of wide-ranging recommendations are presented in the Report with the aim of encouraging faculty, students, and staff to extend the work of the Task Force to the specific issues and concerns affecting community on their campuses:

¨ Each campus of the University should establish its own campus community task force that includes broad student representation.

¨ The Office of the President should convene a meeting of the University's institutional researchers to discuss expansion or modification of the issues raised in the Task Force Research Agenda.

¨ The campuses and the Office of the President should add the seven principles of community as essential criteria in the evaluation of programs and services.

¨ The campuses and the Office of the President should add the seven principles of community as an additional element in performance evaluations.






The ideal university...is a community of learning...[and] ought to be a community of persons united by collective understandings, by common and communal goals, by bonds of reciprocal obligation, and by a flow of sentiment which makes the preservation of the community an object of desire, not merely a matter of prudence or a command of duty.

Robert P. Wolf, 1969



Table of Contents

Preface 1
Task Force Charge 2
Scope of Deliberation 3
Outline of the Report 4

Part 1: The University Community: Change and Renewal 5

Chapter 1: The Campus Community of the 1990s 6
The Importance of Community 7
The New Campus Community: Definition and Principles 8

Chapter 2: A Purposeful Community 11
University Efforts 12
Challenges 13
Recommendations for Renewing the Purpose of the University 14

Chapter 3: An Open Community 16
University Efforts 16
Challenges 18
Recommendations for Increasing Openness 18

Chapter 4: A Disciplined Community 20
University Efforts 23
Challenges 23
Recommendations Supporting a Disciplined Community 24

Chapter 5: A Just Community 26
University Efforts 27
Challenges 28
Recommendations for a Just Community 29

Chapter 6: A Caring Community 30
University Efforts 31
Challenges 32
Recommendations for Creating a Caring Community 34

Chapter 7: A Diverse Community 35
University Efforts 36
Challenges 38
Recommendations Supporting Diversity 40


Chapter 8: A Celebrative Community 42
University Efforts 43
Challenges 44
Recommendations for Celebration 44

Part 2: Issues Affecting Community at the University 46

Chapter 9: Diversity, Affirmative Action, and the Community 47
Student Views of Diversity and Affirmative Action 48
Student Perceptions of a Just Community 50
A Diverse Community Endangered? 51
Recommendations for the Creation of Diversity and Community 52

Chapter 10: Campus Safety 56
Physical Safety and a Caring Community 56
Substance Abuse: A Matter of Discipline 58
Psychological Safety and an Open Community 60
Safe Havens 61
Recommendations for Improving Campus Safety 62

Chapter 11: Building Bridges Among Campus Groups 64
The Value of Group Membership 64
The Disadvantages of Group Affiliation and Fears of Campus "Balkanization" 65
The Importance of Bridge Building in a Diverse Community 66
Recommendations for Building Bridges Among Campus Groups 67

Chapter 12: A Task Force Research Agenda 69
Criteria Used to Select Students for Admission 69
An Appraisal of the Current State of Community on Campus 70
The Factors Which Cause Students to Leave the Community 70

Chapter 13: General Recommendations 72

Appendix A: Members of the Campus Community Task Force 73

Appendix B: Irvine Campus Principles of Community 76

Appendix C: Davis Campus Principles of Community 77

Appendix D: Berkeley Campus Statement Regarding Respect and Civility 78

Appendix E: Academic Senate Statement on a Fair and Open Academic Environment 79

References 81


Preface




America!
Land created in common,
Dream nourished in common.

Langston Hughes, 1959

The idea of community has always held a special attraction for Americans. From the chronicles of Tocqueville, who wrote that the power of the American community rested in the commitment of "individual resources, organized to act in harmony" (see Reeves, 1982, p. 146), to the current national debate focusing on the place of the United States in the post-Cold War world community, the idea of community in all of its forms -- familial, professional, political, societal -- asserts a profound hold on our consciousness. Community offers the promise of collective security, prosperity, and wisdom. It embodies the ideals upon which the American systems of justice, individual and civil rights, and civic responsibility are constructed. It is where habits of citizenship are born and nurtured; where bonds among citizens are forged; where rights originate and obligations are carried out.

Community also is an important concept upon which our colleges and universities stand. The university strives to be a community of educators and students dedicated to a set of shared goals, principles, and practices. Today, some discern an erosion of individual attachments to these shared goals, principles, and practices, which, in turn, is said to undermine community. Like American society in general, our colleges and universities are believed to be splitting into special interest groups or enclaves whose goals of individual progress or personal achievement may outweigh their contributions to the community at large.

Whatever the nature of the problems regarding community on campus, and regardless of the eventual solutions advanced, it is incumbent upon our colleges and universities to play a central role in enhancing the American community. The ideals that link Americans -- justice, civility, purpose, and community -- are learned. This learning has many roots, but chief among them are our colleges and universities. By strengthening community at our colleges and universities, we strengthen community in America. Our college campuses need to serve as both laboratories and classrooms in the endeavor to enhance a sense of community among Americans.

Our commitment to community on campus is consistent with Tocqueville's principle of "self-interest rightly understood." A strong and dynamic campus community defines a robust university. It is vital to support the free pursuit and open transmission of knowledge. The inherent values and practices that guide and structure the campus community shape both the processes and products of inquiry and learning. A strong shared sense of community is necessary to insure the preservation and advancement of learning and research. A university that lacks a healthy sense of community can never reach its full potential, can never attain excellence. The importance of community obliges members to ensure the community's growth and renewal through periodic and systematic evaluation. One of the more important tasks in the waning years of the Twentieth Century will be to articulate a strategy to sustain and enhance the campus community. Such is the intent of the Campus Community Task Force at the University of California.

Task Force Charge

Given the importance of community for the well being of the University, the University of California Vice Chancellors for Student Affairs, Undergraduate Affairs, and Enrollment Management concluded that the time was right for the University to address the topic of community and assess its impact on students, staff, and faculty. The Vice Chancellors, in consultation with then Senior Vice President William Frazer, convened the Universitywide Campus Community Task Force in May 1991. The Task Force, chaired by Assistant Vice President Dennis Galligani, consisted of students, staff, and faculty who expressed a special interest in the issue of campus community.

   

A roster of Task Force members is presented in Appendix A.


In establishing this Task Force, the Vice Chancellors aspired to build a common understanding and appreciation of community among students, staff, and faculty. To do so, there was a need to define clearly the meaning of community, to articulate the manner in which it contributes to the quality of life on campus, and to propose multiple strategies to achieve and sustain it. Though members of the University community may share both the values and goals of the institution and understand the standards of behavior expected of them, the values, goals, and standards need to be clearly delineated and effectively communicated to all who make up the University community.

Given this background, it was the overriding goal of the Task Force to set out the principles upon which the University community rests. Specifically, the Task Force was asked to undertake the following:

¨ Review existing definitions and principles of campus community for application to the University.

¨ Articulate the University's "principles of community," outlining the values of the University community and the community members' rights and responsibilities that accompany these values.

¨ Inventory campus policies and programs whose goal is the enhancement of campus community; review their effectiveness and make recommendations for policy and program changes that may be needed.


¨ Identify exemplary programs that enrich students' participation in their campus communities.

¨ Describe the ways in which campuses can best assess the health of their campus community.

¨ Identify academic and administrative barriers to building community and recommend measures to remove them.

¨ Determine the need for additional initiatives or programs to support the University's principles of community.

¨ Identify effective methods of informing the campus communities of the University's principles of community and the attendant standards of behavior.

¨ Identify existing methods of educating the campus on problems that challenge the campus community and recommend additional methods where needed.

¨ Establish a research agenda for issues that require further investigation.

The Vice Chancellors believed that, by meeting the requirements of this charge, the work of the Task Force would help to support individual campus efforts to build a strong campus community, establish methods by which campuses might best assess the status of their community, and suggest strategies to enhance its vitality. In addition, by encouraging the coordination of academic, administrative, and student support service programs, the work of the Task Force would provide opportunities for campuses to share information about their efforts at building community and, in the process, build upon existing studies and programs that encouraged the establishment of a cohesive and dynamic University community.

Scope of Deliberation

The Task Force met for the first time in July 1991 and discussed many aspects of academic life at the University of California, from campus safety to the culture of the classroom. While such wide-ranging discussions were stimulating and often enlightening, Task Force members feared that the sheer breadth of the University's activities would make the task of the group unwieldy and superficial. Given the host of issues related to community, the Task Force used Campus Life: In Search of Community (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching [Carnegie Foundation], 1990) as a framework for discussing the essential characteristics of an "intellectually and socially vital campus community." Moreover, it was agreed that the focus of the Task Force should be primarily, though not exclusively, on student affairs and services; that is, an effort focused primarily on what occurs outside the classroom. Such a perspective encompasses the expertise of the majority of Task Force members, many of whom work on a daily basis with students and who, in addition, help to shape University policy in this area. While a student affairs perspective limited the breadth of the Task Force's deliberations, such an approach still required the Task Force to review many other areas of University life outside the scope of student affairs that might influence the University community. In addition, the Task Force believed that evaluating the community outside the classroom would encourage discussion of community within it.

Outline of the Report

The report is divided into two parts. Part I is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the forces that challenge community on campuses today, together with a discussion of the importance of community, and a definition of community for the University that includes seven central principles. Chapters 2 through 8 are dedicated to each of these principles of community and is divided into three sections: an overview of the principle; a description of University policies and programs that support this principle and hence strengthen community; and, a summary of the challenges associated with this principle that affect the University.

Part II consists of three chapters. Together, these chapters present a set of central issues that the Task Force believes is currently affecting the quality of the University community and that should be assessed using the seven principles of community. The three issues identified as central to the development of an enhanced community for student affairs at the University are: 1) Diversity, Affirmative Action, and Educational Equity; 2) Campus Safety; and 3) Building Bridges Among Campus Groups. While each of these issues could be analyzed using all of the seven principals of community, only the most relevant principles for each issue are presented.


Part 1: The University Community: Change and Renewal

Today our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant, and to face the challenge of change.

Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967


The nation's colleges and universities are undergoing extraordinary change. The catalytic pressures that underlie this change generate challenges and opportunities with the potential to both imperil and enrich the campus community. The social, political, and economic problems confronting America and the world increasingly affect the welfare and cohesion of our campus community. The forces confronting the campus community always have been a part of the American experience. From the earliest beginnings of the Republic, the creation of a national community based on liberty, democracy, and tolerance has bound diverse peoples to settle in pursuit of their individual, as well as their collective, destiny. The effect these forces have on colleges and universities will depend, to a great degree, on the ability and willingness of the campus community to reconcile the demands placed upon it with the values, goals, and traditions on which the institution is founded.

Fueling the challenges facing university communities are developments that have both positive and negative effects. Most encouraging of these developments is the increasing admission and participation of traditionally underrepresented groups on college campuses in America and, most especially, in California. Much less positive has been the encroachment of intransigent societal problems at our colleges and universities, including reduced federal and state support for higher education, rising levels of crime on campus, and an overall decline in the public's confidence in higher education (see "Winds of Change," 1992). In response to these developments, new tensions have emerged within the campus community placing higher education under greater public scrutiny. As a result, faculty and student affairs professionals have been compelled to revisit the basic values and goals of the university community.

Chapter 1: The Campus Community of the 1990s

The great country, the great society, the great community is, first of all, the well-educated country, the learned society, the community of excellence.

Benjamin R. Barber, 1992

A number of ongoing developments confronts the accepted conventions of community at our colleges and universities, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the creation of a new form of campus community in the 1990s. In the past, universities served as the arena in which proponents of new or different viewpoints challenged the established order. Criticism of the dominant social, political, and economic conventions came from within the academy, led by students and supported by many on the faculty. Dissatisfaction was directed at society or government in general. The image of college campuses removed from the problems of society, with faculty and students engaged in singular and scholarly pursuits amidst pastoral lawns and resplendent Greek Revival buildings, no longer represents -- if it ever did -- the true picture at most American colleges and universities. Today this has certainly changed. The nation's institutions of higher education are now among the primary objects of scrutiny from those within and those outside the institution. Increasingly, the policies and practices of institutions of higher education are questioned.

Demographic changes have brought increasing numbers of individuals from diverse backgrounds into the college-age population. Concerted efforts on the part of colleges and universities have resulted in a student population that is more diverse than at any previous time. Accompanying this rapid increase in nontraditional representation is a change in the manner in which students interacted with the institution's administration, faculty, and their fellow students. Prior to 1965 the campus population was, in general, racially and ethnically homogeneous, and students of color and other groups sought to assimilate in order to succeed. Today, assimilation has given way to a strong positive sense of cultural and ethnic identity. Student-led calls for minority rights and sensitivities within colleges and universities have led to challenges of the established curriculum and a call for a "new curriculum" which includes non-European contributions to Western Civilization. Women, students with disabilities, and gay and lesbian students have joined with ethnic and cultural groups in turning to the academy for recognition, protection, and increased representation.

Contemporaneous with increased racial and ethnic heterogeneity on American campuses is a decline in the ability and will of state and federal governments to maintain a standard of support for postsecondary education commensurate with the public's expectations and with actual needs. In California, this has led to an intensified competition for access to the University of California. As more of California's citizens turn to the University for a quality education at affordable prices there has emerged a widespread apprehension that the University is dangerously close to enrollment capacity. This has become especially true in the most recent past where significant California state budget reductions have threatened the University's Master Plan mission of ensuring a place for each eligible University student on one of its campuses. This trend has produced a perception that there are, or will soon be, real winners and losers in the quest for enrollment at the University of California. Among students, admission to the University has become highly competitive and controversial. University efforts to increase the diversity of the student body have become increasingly contentious due to a belief that one group can expand its representation only at the expense of another (see Chapter 9 for a detailed discussion of this issue).

The Importance of Community

Campus community has a profound influence on the effectiveness of the educational process. Such a community includes not only the formal or classroom intellectual exchanges, but the entire range of campus social interactions. Research has demonstrated that the extent to which students are integrated into this intellectual and social community defines, in large measure, their ultimate academic success (see University of California, 1989). The Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body at the Berkeley campus (1991) concluded that:

[S]tudents who feel they are a part of the campus community are more likely to be successful in their academic program. These students report a sense of belonging, feeling connected to the purpose of the University, to other students and to faculty...A lack of connectedness to the University can result in alienation, loss of confidence, and a loss of motivation (p. 19).

So strong is the concept of community that the Davis and Irvine campuses have delineated "principles of community" for their campuses. These principles are presented in Appendices B and C.

Thus, a campus community that is strong and cohesive, that values its students and provides appropriate educational support services, is more likely to sustain students in their educational pursuits resulting in higher retention and graduation rates. Of course, in addition to a strong institutional commitment, students also must make an effort to participate in, and contribute to, the campus community. If students feel isolated or alienated from the campus community, either as a result of a negligent campus administration or students' own inability to engage the community, then their commitment to the institution is threatened and, in the process, so is their ability to complete a course of study successfully.

The importance of the campus community for the success of students provides a sense of urgency for colleges and universities to examine explicitly the entire spectrum of the campus culture, including campus values, goals, codes of behavior, and rituals, to assure that the most essential elements are supported and sustained in the service of the educational mission of the institution. This process takes on added importance in light of the increasingly diverse student population being assembled on our nation's campuses, especially at the University of California. Students who have been traditionally underrepresented at the University bring fresh intellectual and social perspectives, challenging the institution to assure that its curricula, programs, and services provide an opportunity for students to meet their unique educational goals and, in the process, contribute to the vitality of the campus community.

If a vital campus community is to be sustained at the University of California, the members of the community must articulate their vision of this important California institution and the core values upon which this community is founded. Community members must clearly and unequivocally declare the principles and policies which will sustain and advance those values and reaffirm their individual commitment to the idea of community in all its forms. In order to reap the blessings of a vital campus community, its members must be prepared to surmount the challenges of supporting it.

The New Campus Community: Definition and Principles

A definition of community, by its very nature, must include both empirical and normative components. While an attempt is made to sketch the main features of a community in the pages that follow, it is clear that the normative component precludes any single definition that will be agreed upon by all.

Empirically, a community may be described in terms of two components: the individuals who comprise the community and the system of shared values that binds them one to the other. In a broad definition that encompasses the diversity of this idea, the authors of Habits of the Heart describe community as:

[A] group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices...that both define the community and are nurtured by it. Such a community is not quickly formed. It almost always has a history and so is also a community of memory, defined in part by its past and its memory of its past (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985, p. 333).

A university community differs from all other types of communities in the character of the values, goals, activities, and organization which flow from it. A university is a community devoted to the preservation and advancement of knowledge, to the pursuit of truth, and to the development and enjoyment of each member's intellectual powers. Further, the members of the university community are devoted to the pursuit of these goals collectively, not merely independently. It is this devotion to an essentially collective activity that makes a university a community rather than an aggregation of individuals.

University communities have been sustained by several core values. Included among them are freedom of expression and the sanctity of the individual. The late A. B. Giamatti, former President of Yale, describes these values thusly (1988):

The values of this academic family...are distinct and deeply rooted in our community: openness, honesty, intellectual inquiry for the truth and mutual respect. These values foster debate, disagreement, diversity of ideas and opinions; they protect freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas, because that is the essence of a free, independent university in a democracy (p. 83-84).

Consistent with the spirit of President Giamatti's declaration, the Task Force concluded that the community of the University should include the following seven principles, six of which were adopted from Campus Life (Carnegie Foundation, 1990), while the seventh, diversity, was created by the Task Force, because it is particularly salient for the University of California. Thus, the community at the University should be:

1) Purposeful: "a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning on the campus" (p. 9);

2) Open: "a place where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed" (p. 17);

3) Disciplined: "a place where individuals accept their obligations to the [community]...and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good" (p. 37);

4) Just: "a place where the sacredness of the person is honored and where diversity is aggressively pursued" (p. 25);

5) Caring: "a place where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged" (p. 47);

6) Diverse: a place where diversity in all its forms is acknowledged as vital to the pursuit of knowledge and the development of free, productive, and enlightened citizens; and

7) Celebrative: "[a place] in which the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared" (p. 55).

While Campus Life established a basic framework for the study of community, the Task Force extended its analyses and definitions so that they apply uniquely to the University of California. It should not be assumed that each of the principles to be reviewed reflects conditions present on University campuses today. Each principle may be used as a standard by which the University can evaluate itself regarding the type and extent of community that exists on each campus. Indeed, it is unlikely that all campuses will achieve these standards at all times, yet it is the hope of the Task Force that the quest to achieve these ideals will influence the work of all members of the University community.

Chapter 2: A Purposeful Community

First, a college or university is an educationally purposeful community, a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning on the campus.
Carnegie Commission, 1990

The fundamental purpose of the University community is the preservation and advancement of learning and the pursuit of truth in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect. A university is a community in which the intellectual freedoms of teaching, learning, and research are guaranteed absolutely. While such a community comprises many visions of knowledge and enlightenment, its central mission is characterized by a common intellectual quest.

A purposeful community begins in the classroom, where faculty not only transmit information, but also create a common ground of intellectual commitment, stimulate active learning, encourage creativity, and inspire learning throughout one's life. Because knowing and learning are communal acts, the classroom experience should be collaborative, not simply competitive. The curriculum too must illuminate the larger and more integrative ends of community. Teaching and learning should reach out to departments, residence halls, student service units, and the campus commons. A purposeful community should strive to provide every individual with the opportunity to reach his or her potential.

In order for members of the community to reach their potential, the purposeful community is necessarily pluralistic, embracing several core values: among them are freedom of expression; civility; humanity; discipline; sacredness of the individual; diversity; and tradition. The members of a university community should be devoted to the pursuit of these values collectively, not merely individually. As noted earlier, it is precisely the devotion to an essentially collective set of values that makes a university a community rather than an aggregation of individuals. Individuals build community best when they hold common goals, seek shared ends, and engage in collective labors. This is true of the fundamental human unit, the family, but also is true of the neighborhood, state, and nation. The core of collectively shared values ought to inform and direct all aspects of the University's educational mission.

A purposeful community must provide for the safety and security of its members. It should strive to provide an environment that is an intellectual, emotional, and physical sanctuary. A purposeful community should be a place where people are secure to pursue their common intellectual quest, shielded from harm. It should be a safe harbor, but not an island. A purposeful community simultaneously encourages disagreement while promoting collaboration; balances freedom and responsibility; respects difference and celebrates diversity; invites intelligent risk-taking; encourages trial and error opportunities within a context of caring and support; affirms both tradition and change; and fosters the intellectual and personal development of all its members.

University Efforts

Universitywide, a number of new programs and services have been developed to enhance the classroom experience and, in the process, help to create a purposeful community; a community guided by a common intellectual quest, aiming for the highest possible achievement on the part of students and faculty. Representative examples of efforts already underway include:

¨ The establishment of workshops for faculty to enhance their teaching skills. At Berkeley, the Office of Educational Development (OED) supports faculty teaching efforts to strengthen students' educational experiences. OED offers workshops, publications, and other services, all designed to enhance faculty members' effectiveness in the classroom.

¨ The allocation of instructional improvement grants designed to promote the use of innovative pedagogical techniques in the classroom. At Davis, the Teaching Resources Committee provides support for the improvement of classroom instruction by allocating mini-grants to be used by faculty to implement innovative teaching strategies.

¨ The establishment of programs offering instruction for students outside the traditional classroom. The UCLA Field Studies Program provides students with experiential learning opportunities that combine classroom activities with field work and research in the community.

¨ The promotion of programs that allow undergraduate students to participate directly with faculty on research projects. The Student Research Program (SRP) at UCLA provides undergraduates with an a opportunity to work directly with senior faculty on research projects. SRP provides funds to reimburse students or departments for research-related costs.

¨ The establishment of programs that encourage senior faculty to become involved more directly in undergraduate instruction. At San Diego, three of the five undergraduate colleges have established first-year core course sequences that are taught by senior faculty and are required for all in-coming students. Faculty provide students with an understanding of the underlying principles that are the foundation of the college.

¨ The promotion of mentorship programs to encourage undergraduates to pursue graduate careers. The Santa Cruz Mentorship Program recruits students, especially underrepresented students, into graduate school. Along with a faculty advisor, the program helps to build sophisticated research skills that are required for graduate study.

Challenges

The importance of faculty-student interaction for the development of a purposeful community, especially day-to-day classroom exchanges, cannot be over-emphasized. Thus, some of the obstacles that hinder the achievement of a purposeful community can be overcome using relatively simple pedagogical strategies. The following discussion summarizes some of the challenges and solutions suggested by Barbara Gross Davis, Dean of Educational Development at UC Berkeley (see Davis, in press):

Student Passivity. Collaborative learning should be used to overcome student passivity. Instead of individual achievement and competition, more emphasis should be placed on cooperative learning. Students need to learn to articulate, clarify, and restate to one another the nature of problems and the methods they used to find solutions. Students must learn to seek and accept criticism from peers, solicit help, and give credit to others. They must learn to negotiate -- to explain their own needs, to discern the needs of others, and view the world from the perspectives of others. Students must learn to find mutually beneficial solutions to complex problems and to resolve problems in ways that are broadly acceptable to all members of the community.

Informal and formal learning groups, along with study groups, are means to engage students in learning and encourage a cooperative learning environment. Faculty should be further encouraged to design, organize, guide, and evaluate study groups. A number of efforts by faculty in this area are already underway and have proven to be very successful. These should be acknowledged and rewarded. New efforts to expand the cooperative learning environment, both in the classroom and out, should be encouraged. These efforts should not be limited to just faculty. Learning and tutorial centers also should encourage, where appropriate, cooperative learning.

Student Feelings of Anonymity and Isolation. Lectures should be designed to reduce students' feelings of anonymity and isolation from their instructor and their fellow students, especially in larger lecture halls: "Students who feel anonymous in class are less motivated to learn and less likely to do the required work...Conversely, students who feel a sense of community pay more attention and participate more" (Davis, in press, p. 73). Faculty should create a flexible class plan to allow time for students to entertain questions and comments; allow their personalities and interests to come through in their lessons; and create a greater sense of intimacy by standing in front of lecterns, moving about while lecturing, and using aisles when appropriate.

Student Diversity. Faculty and other members of the community should be sensitive to the backgrounds or circumstances of their students as a means of overcoming alienation and miscommunication in the classroom. Davis (in press) offers a variety of strategies intended to help faculty work with the broadest range of students. These strategies include:

¨ being cognizant of biases or stereotypes;

¨ treating students as individuals and respecting them for who they are;

¨ revising language patterns that exclude or demean any groups;

¨ being sensitive to terminology; and

¨ becoming more informed about the histories and cultures of groups that constitute the campus student population.

Recommendations for Renewing the Purpose of the University

1) Campuses should encourage students to take a more active role in their education.

Large lecture classes often encourage passivity rather than participation, and students often feel alienated from both the professor and each other. To create a more interactive classroom community, the University should support greater use of:

¨ collaborative learning (e.g., undergraduate research projects);

¨ team/group assignments;

¨ undergraduate seminars or tutorials; and

¨ informal or non-classroom opportunities for students and professors to interact.


2) Campuses should create orientation courses for in-coming students.

Such classes should be offered to ease the transition of new students into the University and to foster discussion about the mission and goals of the University. It is hoped that such classes will help students build a sense of shared community. Courses like this should be offered to entering freshmen and transfer students, as well as re-entry students.

3) All campuses should provide freshmen and sophomores with opportunities for small group interactions.

At least one of these opportunities should be in the form of a seminar. Sophomores, in particular, must be considered for these efforts since for many of them, the shock from the dissolution of the freshman year support system can affect retention.




Chapter 3: An Open Community

[A] college or university is an open community, a place where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

An open community promotes freedom of expression in all its forms for it safeguards the aims of the community and those who labor within. It is the guarantee underlying the freedom to seek the truth, the freedom to teach, and the freedom to learn. Freedom of expression is important both to the development of the individual and the welfare of society. Freedom of expression enables the individual to participate in an intellectual exchange. It provides the means to develop and exercise the distinctively human qualities that find expression in ideas, values, and imagination. Artificial or unreasonable constraints upon free expression jeopardize the search for and acquisition of knowledge and inevitably slow the growth of human understanding. In the words of Bertrand Russell: "[I]t is only by keeping alive the spirit of free inquiry that the indispensable minimum of progress can be achieved" (in Egner & Denonn, 1961, p. 406).

An open community also must be a civil community. The community's commitment to free expression must be balanced with the need to insure the individual's intellectual, emotional, and physical safety. The guarantee of free expression must acknowledge that at times this liberty may result in mistakes, misperceptions, and, occasionally, real harm. While an open community should be a free market for ideas -- a forum in which ideas can be openly exchanged, debated, and put to the test -- it is not an unbridled state of nature. It is, rather, the structured freedom of a forum constructed and maintained by the rational methods of proof developed by the various academic disciplines and bound by the standards set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

University Efforts

The University's commitment to freedom of expression has a long and rich history. The commitment to an open community supportive of free expression is deeply rooted in the evolution of the modern university and, more specifically, in the historical development of the University of California. The University is dedicated to creating an open community in which the rights of free, robust, and passionate expression, together with reasoned inquiry and discourse, are prized; where understanding is sought; where differing opinions, perspectives, and expressions are encouraged and appreciated; where the standard of civility is respected. Freedom to express competing versions of truth is a core value of the University.

The University of California is committed to maintaining an open environment that promotes the free expression of ideas and encourages sensitivity to the expression of the ideas of others. The University of California encourages intellectual risk-taking by its commitment to the protection of the physical and psychological safety of the members of the campus community. The University's commitment to these ends is based upon the belief that an open community dedicated to free expression promotes the University's other values and purposes: integrity of scholarship, excellence in teaching and learning, and commitment to public service. Students, faculty, and staff are encouraged to foster openness in both academic and social environments by assuming individual responsibility for helping maintain the ideals of an open community. A noteworthy expression of these ideals is a recently released Berkeley campus statement titled, Respect and Civility in the Campus Community (see Appendix D).

The University's commitment to free expression acknowledges that at the extremes, this liberty can unwittingly produce statements of misinformation, stereotyping, and bigotry which may result in personal intimidation. It also can result in honest mistakes and unintended insensitivity. The University strives to address this dilemma by:

¨ Teaching and encouraging, by example, openness in all University activities. Paths to the achievement of openness include: communicating with mutual respect and civility and facilitating such communication; listening with attention, analysis, and empathy; reasoning with clarity and objectivity; and investigating with direction, impartiality, and thoroughness; and

¨ Developing responsible strategies for preparing individuals to cope with and learn from anger and hurt. Since the University recognizes that the way to create an open community is to teach and learn openness, it should use all available mechanisms that support its practice and development. Such mechanisms include disavowal by the appropriate University official of any form of communication he or she believes intimidates or harasses members of the community as individuals or groups, inhibits the free exchange of ideas and reasoned inquiry, and so hinders the University's mission. As Derek Bok, former President of Harvard University said, "The right to condemn a point of view is as protected as the right to express it."

In 1988, the Faculty Senate of the University issued the Statement on a Fair and Open Environment (see Appendix E) which was distributed widely and which read, in part:

The University of California is dedicated to bringing the benefits of higher education to all of its students. To that end, it is the University's policy to provide a fair and open academic environment; one in which all students feel encouraged to realize their potential, and one that is free from practices, whether intentional or not, that may affirm or reinforce stereotypes based on personal characteristics such as race and gender.

Following distribution of this statement, a plan was developed in 1989 to implement this policy at each campus of the University. This implementation plan included an inventory of campus individuals, offices, and organizations which have a direct bearing, active interest, or program associated with the creation of a fair and open academic environment.

In addition, an information packet which included a copy of the Statement on a Fair and Open Academic Environment, a letter of transmittal from the President of the University, and a copy of the local campus inventory of resources relating to a fair and open environment was to be sent to all current faculty members. This packet was to be put in the hands of all new faculty members and teaching assistants at the beginning of their employment and be given appropriate emphasis during their orientation to the University. Lastly, the implementation plan included a recommendation that the University Committee on Educational Policy and the Office of the President cooperate in a periodic review of the inventory contents and the status of a fair and open environment at the University.

Challenges

While the University supports the concept of a free and open academic environment, there have been occasions in which the liberty of free speech has been abused through the use of racial epithets and similarly insensitive remarks. This has affected the degree to which people of color, women, people with disabilities, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, and other groups have felt welcome on campus. In recent years, the University has made progress in creating a diverse community, yet there is much more that the University can do to foster tolerance and appreciation of diversity in order to create a truly open community. The University must continue by word and deed to do everything possible to eliminate unreasonable and arbitrary discriminatory behaviors, particularly those associated with race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. Such discriminatory behaviors, at their most extreme, can manifest themselves in intimidation, undermining full participation in the intellectual life of the University.

Recommendations for Increasing Openness

Each campus has a myriad of formal and informal mechanisms to combat discrimination and interactions aroused by fear and intimidation, and their effects on the campuses. Elimination of abhorrent activity, while critical to achieving an open campus, is not enough. Other obstacles exist. Campuses should work towards:

1) Developing faculty expertise, involvement, and commitment to classroom activities which promote open dialogue between faculty and students and among students.

2) Examining curricula systematically to see how the skills which engender openness can be integrated into and taught within the content framework.

3) Promoting programs that support innovative and effective teaching methods and refine existing ones to enhance the skills that encourage openness. Such programs also should address explicitly the obligations of participating in an open academic community by focusing on the need for civility and mutual respect among community members, and emphasizing a balance between free expression and the need to insure the intellectual, emotional, and physical safety of community members.

4) Developing campus-wide forums or symposia that address controversial issues of broad social significance as a means of promoting and modeling openness among members of the campus community.

5) Developing ways of recognizing and acknowledging faculty, staff, and students who have modeled and promoted openness.

6) Continuing to support existing environments that are effectively teaching and promoting openness. Many of these environments have been created by Student Affairs and student organizations on the campuses.



Chapter 4: A Disciplined Community

[A] college or university is a disciplined community, a place where individuals accept their obligations to [that community] and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

A university that is a disciplined community of learning must have a system of governance and justice that serves the collective purposes of the community and protects the liberty and rights of the individual. A genuine community of learning may be established among men and women who are willing to pursue the common goals of truth, rational discourse, and the preservation of learning. This willingness, however, is not by itself a sufficient condition for the creation of a community. A disciplined community is one in which reciprocal obligations between the individual and the community flow from a collective commitment to the values and purposes of that community.

A disciplined community must be founded on a system of justice that protects individual liberty, academic freedom, and the integrity of the community. In a disciplined community, the rights and freedoms granted to the individual are embedded in a system of justifiably expected duties and responsibilities that bond each individual to the other and all individuals to the community. These obligations should be articulated in a community's policies, regulations, and approved procedures. In a disciplined community, the means and methods by which these reciprocal obligations are established and enforced should be agreed upon and made known through clearly articulated rules of procedure. An unflagging commitment to procedural justice is the hallmark of a disciplined community. There can be no justice in a community that does not abide by due process of decision.

In a disciplined community, each individual must observe the basic social obligations required of every member of a civilized society. For example, each must fulfill contractual agreements; refrain from acts of deception; abide by the requirements of law; and, endeavor not to inflict harm on others. Within this framework of social obligations, members of a disciplined community have obligations to uphold certain academic values essential to the progress of learning and discovery. Primary among the academic obligations is the commitment to maintain an atmosphere within the institution that leaves every member as free as possible to learn, to search for knowledge, and to express his or her own individual beliefs and opinions (Bok, 1982). Among the obligations unique to the University are those described by Robert Wolff (1969). He states:

Beyond the primary commitment to truth and the subsidiary obligations which flow from it, lie other obligations which bind together the students and teachers of a university. A professor is morally bound to present his material honestly, to prepare himself adequately, to exhibit patience with students who are slow to learn. He has an obligation not to abuse or misuse his classroom authority, for example, by turning aside with ridicule a question he cannot answer, or by attempting to persuade students of his own beliefs with meretricious arguments. Students have an obligation to prepare themselves for class, to attend to their classmates as well as to the professor, to press objections and raise questions, in short, to participate in the public discourse of the university as active members of the community (p. 130).

Members of a disciplined community must acknowledge the difficulties associated with reasoned inquiry and accept responsibility for establishing effective policies to insure the viability of both the inquiry and the community. This often means dealing with a clash of ideas and the tension and ambiguity that are associated with it. Discipline is required in the University community, because reasoned inquiry is often (and rightly) a contentious process. Challenges to accepted orthodoxies often stress and strain the comity of the community. A disciplined community is orderly but not harmonious. Rules of conduct are established with a twofold purpose: to maintain the integrity of the process whereby ideas are expressed; and to insure respect for those who express them. The rules governing a disciplined community must be clearly articulated. Rules of conduct can be explicit, as in the case of University regulations that specify the time, place, and manner of speech. The rules also can be implicit, as in the case of civility, truthfulness, and other accepted standards of our academic culture.

At the University, a diversity of ideas must be expected, indeed encouraged. The promotion of new ideas can and will create tension as established ways of thinking are questioned and challenged. A disciplined community allows this to occur as part of the University's obligation to society. Nevertheless, reasoned inquiry has specific boundaries. These boundaries include for example:

¨ intellectual parameters which define the processes of reasoned inquiry, such as the use of scientific methodology; and

¨ social (civic) parameters that demand civility, mutual respect, and tolerance for the viewpoints of others, such as codes of conduct.

A diagram of the conceptual linkages among the University mission, reasoned inquiry, and codes of conduct is presented in Figure 1. The connections among these concepts is recursive; the mission of the University creates the need for a disciplined community (i.e., support for reasoned inquiry) which, in turn, leads to clearly articulated codes of conduct. Conversely, these codes of conduct must be consistent with the ideals of a disciplined community which, in turn, help sustain the mission of the University.





University Efforts

The University has many means by which it encourages a disciplined community, among them:

¨ The faculty of the University model the basic tenets of reasoned inquiry by engaging in research and teaching. Regardless of academic department or theoretical orientation, all faculty are engaged in some form of these activities, which, by definition, are examples of reasoned inquiry.

¨ The University has established a variety of explicit policies that support the concept of a disciplined community. These include student regulations as published in Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students (Part A and Part B) and campus implementing policies. The faculty of the University also have developed standards and codes of conduct that define their teaching and research responsibilities. Finally, staff have explicit rules and regulations that establish the conditions for their employment at the University.

¨ The University community also is a member of a larger community. Thus, in addition to University policies applying to students, faculty, and staff; other relevant policies, developed in response to Federal and State legislation, have helped to define the parameters of a disciplined community. These parameters include Federal and State nondiscrimination statutes and sexual harassment regulations, the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, the Student Right-to-Know Act, and "hate crimes" legislation. These laws, as well as other Federal and State mandates, regulate the type and extent of behavior that can be demonstrated at the University.

Challenges

Linking Policies with Practices. Although the University has developed explicit policies for student, faculty, and staff conduct, these policies need to be linked better with the idea of a disciplined community and the development of an enhanced and safer campus community. It is possible that current policies detract from such a goal, since policies regulating conduct are sometimes seen as arbitrary and solely punitive.

The University community rarely discusses the core values of the institution, including discipline, and the role that these values play in the development of the University community. In order for policies and regulations to be effective, they must be tied to the basic values and mission of the University. No community can come together unless there is a shared mission and a common vision of how one contributes to its achievement.

The Challenge of Diversity. The University cannot isolate itself from the concerns of the larger community around it. In many ways, the University is a microcosm of the larger community, reflecting the stresses and strains of the State and of the nation. The changing demographics of California are dramatically reflected in the student body of the University. The attendant challenges that the State faces are similar to those at the University. Greater diversity means greater opportunity, but it also means a re-examination of the traditional ways in which the University has conducted its business. Core values and codes of conduct may have different meanings to different groups within this diversified University community. How should we articulate and communicate the standards we strive to achieve in a disciplined community? Change is always difficult, yet the University must attempt adjustments using the tools of a disciplined community: reasoned inquiry, civility, and mutual respect.

Individual Responsibility. A just community seeks not to coerce behavior. Statutes, policies, and goals serve only as maps for an individual to use in pursuing activities within a larger group. An additional challenge to the University's community is how to rekindle in each of its members the desire to contribute toward the re-emergence of an epoch of personal responsibility. An appreciation of discipline implies knowing one's powers and limitations, and in so knowing, living within one's personal responsibilities and the boundaries that they impose. In a community this can only happen when each individual respects the other members' rights and their own responsibility to develop their talents to the best of their abilities.

A disciplined community can be created only by members committing themselves to living within their means and abilities and nurturing that ethos in others. "Collegial," a term that is at the root of how the University views itself, is defined by Webster's Dictionary as a place "marked by power or authority vested equally in each of a number of colleagues, characterized by equal sharing of authority." The University community must never forget that each member is responsible for the University's ultimate successes and that each is responsible for its failures.

Recommendations Supporting a Disciplined Community

1) The University's explicit and implicit codes of conduct should reflect and support the mission of the University.

Campuses and the Office of the President should undertake a review of its student conduct policies to assure that they serve essential University purposes.

2) The University should communicate more effectively to its students the high standards of academic achievement that will be required of them, as well as the discipline it will take to meet their educational goals successfully.

While the University has a well deserved reputation for educational excellence, the institution rarely discusses, at least formally, the obligations of membership in an academic community. This is particularly important for new students to the University. The University must be more direct about what kinds of efforts and dedication will be needed to succeed at the University and the shared responsibility of students, faculty, and staff in assuring student success.

3) The University should review codes regulating behavior to assure that they support the development of an intellectually and socially vital campus community.

The University has many codes and rules that are designed to regulate the formal behavior of students, staff, and faculty. However, the links between those codes and the values that support an intellectually and socially vital community need to be reviewed to assure that the University's codes sustain these community values.


Chapter 5: A Just Community

[A] college or university is a just community, a place where the sacredness of the person is honored and where diversity is aggressively pursued.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

A community that places a great value on free expression must necessarily believe in the dignity and sacredness of each individual. It is, after all, the individual who learns, who teaches, and who conducts research. A just community serves as the guardian of individual dignity and sacredness. It is a sentinel upon whose protection the individual relies to be shielded from injustice. The idea of justice within the university community must be understood within two contexts: procedural justice and distributive justice. A just community is measured both by how vigorously it protects the rights of the individual as well as how effectively it provides for the equitable sharing of the community's resources.

A just community encourages the natural growth of community by adopting modes of governance which foster, rather than stifle, community ties. It responds to the interests, opinions, and grievances of its members. In a just community the process of decision is open to criticism, review, and ultimately, control by the members of the community. A just community recognizes the importance of due process. The rules and procedures governing a just community must be clearly articulated, made known to all, and evenly applied. In a just community, rules of procedure serve as the bulwark against which the individual's rights are protected from unjust abridgement, whether by other individuals or by the community.

Given the sanctity of every individual, a just community should seek the fair and equitable distribution of the community's goods and resources. Merit, need, and the potential to succeed should influence that distribution. A community committed to the equitable distribution of its goods must be actively involved in insuring that this occurs. It must provide its members with equal opportunity to participate in and receive an equitable share in the allotment of the goods of the community.

Cultural pluralism characterizes a just community. In a just community cultural pluralism is held to be a special principle of order and is regarded as an important component of the community's ideal. Cultural pluralism enriches and strengthens the community. A just community encourages the mutual exchange of cultural content and respect for different views of reality. Pluralism does not require assimilation. A just community recognizes and supports diverse cultures, different viewpoints, and alternative approaches.

In a just community there must be unity within diversity. Each member of the community must be aware and secure in his or her identity and be willing to extend to others the same respect and rights that he or she expects to enjoy. A just community acknowledges difference without second class citizenship. In a just community all individuals are entitled to be treated with equal dignity and worth. All members are entitled to equal protection. A community that does not value and protect a plurality of social and cultural forms can never be just.

Two elements contained in the Carnegie Foundation (1990) definition are fundamental to the current and future efforts of the University as it formulates and implements its policies:

¨ The "sacredness of the person" is particularly important as individuals from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds and others including, persons with disabilities, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, and immigrants, newly arrived, form an increasing part of our campus community. A just community is one that respects all members within it. Moreover, a just community for faculty, students, and staff should ensure that rules, regulations, and procedures are well communicated and equally applied.

¨ The idea that "diversity be aggressively pursued" requires that the University continue to pay close attention to the process by which it seeks to expand educational and employment opportunities to those who have hitherto been under-served. A just community cannot be attained in the absence of diversity. In our rapidly changing population, excellence and diversity; justice and diversity; and fairness and diversity are all inexorably linked.

In an atmosphere of increasing diversity, it is important to ensure that the concept of a just community be expanded beyond its current boundaries to include the widest variety of research, management styles, teaching methods, cultural viewpoints, and world perspectives.

University Efforts

The University's long history and tradition of fairness derived from persistent attempts to apply policies evenly as they relate to individual faculty, students, and staff speaks to the institution's attempts to meet the "just" standard. The provision of assurances that the sacredness of the person is honored is rooted in respect and is particularly important as persons from a variety of cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds; persons with disabilities; gay, lesbians, and bisexuals; and immigrants form an increasing part of our campus communities.

Existing policies provide a framework that seeks fairness and reasonableness in the University's academic programs and activities. One of the University's greatest accomplishments has been the early recognition of the "uneven playing field" and how it affects community members, particularly women, people of color, persons with disabilities, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty, staff, and students.

The aggressive pursuit of diversity is already a policy at the University and has been reiterated on various occasions. Strong affirmative action programs aimed at diversifying the student body have been particularly successful. But continuing attention needs to be focused at the faculty, senior staff, and management/executive levels. Diversity, in its truest sense, may require that efforts be made to expand the legally defined parameters of affirmative action to include a wider variety of individuals who more accurately represent the population of the larger community -- the State -- which is served by the University.

Challenges

A fundamental goal for the University is to ensure that fairness is so deeply embedded in the University's ethos that it is easily recognized by community members and the public at large. This is especially important as the University seeks to ensure continued and enhanced diversity in the composition of its student body and its administrative and faculty ranks. As the University population becomes more diverse, the perceptions of what is just can affect, for better or worse, the application of current policies that insure fairness. In fact, it is in the delivery of admissions decisions, financial aid resources, or programming dollars where scrutiny with respect to "fairness" often occurs. Moreover, in a season of diminishing resources, the debate over "fair" reductions only will become more strident.

In attempting to create a just community, the University must monitor itself constantly. For example, how well has the University formalized and institutionalized measures to protect the sacredness of the person? Are there clearly stated and universally understood mechanisms for complaint if one feels that his or her "person" has been violated? Does the institution currently collect data on various violations, and does it have an idea of the range of activity that can be perceived as violations given the increasing diversity of the University? Where does the responsibility for monitoring and resolving such instances reside?

In addition to the creation of formal policies and practices assuring a just community, it also is necessary for each of us, as members of the University community, to monitor our day-to-day actions when coming in contact with persons who are "other than ourselves." Does our support of a "preferred style" restrict our ability to evaluate properly the performance of others who are equally good at what they do? How is our behavior toward others affected by our perceptions of who is entitled to be at the University? How deeply imbedded into our behaviors are biases concerning gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and disability? A particularly noteworthy program on the Santa Barbara campus called, Education Program to Increase Racial Awareness (EPIRA), addresses these issues through role playing and other techniques. Recently EPIRA has been expanded to increase awareness of the issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other groups on campus, thus broadening the discussion of the nature of the campus community, the negative events that some groups experience, the roles others play in creating that environment, and the responsibility of each member for the implications of his or her own behavior. Programs such as EPIRA and those on other campuses help combat prejudice and sustain a just community.


Recommendations for a Just Community

1) Campuses should continue to provide opportunities for broad consultation on policy issues that affect faculty, staff, and students.

2) The Office of the President should monitor efforts in achieving diversity at all levels and provide help to ensure that a "level playing field" is maintained for all community members.

3) Campus and Office of the President leadership should provide a clear vision of the value of diversity to the University's mission of research, teaching, and public service.

4) Fair assessment tools should be developed cooperatively among community members to assist program managers in making reductions or enhancements to program budgets which may affect the development of a just community.

5) Training should be provided continually to all community members on cross-cultural, gender, sexual orientation, and disability issues to assure that individuals are treated with respect, within the context of their cultural or social heritage.


Chapter 6: A Caring Community

[A] college or university is a caring community, a place where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

The goal of a caring community is to provide opportunities for all of its members to join in an intellectual and social communion. In a caring community, individuals are encouraged and expected to participate freely and openly in the academic, cultural, and social affairs of the community. People draw sustenance from their active participation with other members of the community, and, in turn, share in the wealth of experiences provided by this rich environment. A caring community values and promotes participation for it not only enriches the individual, it enriches the community by including a wide diversity of people and introducing a broad range of ideas into it.

A caring community assists members to overcome feelings of isolation and separateness that can arise within an academic environment. The campus community's commitment to individual freedoms plus the academic traditions that place a premium on individual achievement and competition may, at times, leave individuals suspended in glorious, but anxious, isolation. In a community made up of individuals endowed with extensive freedoms, it is sometimes difficult to forge the bonds of attachment and cooperation so necessary to the establishment of a healthy community. Caring communities endeavor to break down the barriers separating individuals from one another by fostering the development of bonds between and among all members of the community.

A caring community is a nourishing community. The caring community strives to become a place where members of the community are nurtured; where members reach out to one another; where bonds are forged; where confidence in one's self and one's abilities is instilled; and where members can rely on one another. An atmosphere of mutual support, obligation, and trust characterizes a caring community. In this context, caring is used synonymously with the construct of "social support." House (1981) proposed four broad categories of social support. Ideally, these categories should be found within the caring community:

¨ Emotional Support (esteem, trust, concern, listening);

¨ Appraisal Support (affirmation, feedback);

¨ Informational Support (advice, suggestion, directives, information); and

¨ Instrumental Support (aid-in-kind, money, labor, time, modifying environment).

The concept of "care" or "social support" should not be viewed as unidirectional in which the institution "gives care" and members "receive care." Caring must be viewed as a reciprocal or transactional concept, with students, staff, and faculty giving as well as obtaining care.

Caring exemplifies the idea of community, because caring presupposes a "sense of belonging" which is at the core of any community. A sense of belonging is best achieved when community members work in concert toward common goals and concerns. While the University's basic mission of research, teaching, and public service provides an overarching community goal, it may be too broad to aid in the establishment of a caring community. Goals and common concerns developed in small groups may have a more direct and tangible effect. Small classes and seminars, research projects, clubs, and community service programs are among the types of small groups and organizations that best foster a sense of belonging. These small groups are best able to provide a caring niche for students to be nurtured and to nurture one another within the context of a large, sometimes impersonal, university setting.

University Efforts

The University of California has instituted a variety of support services, especially for students, that offer emotional, appraisal, informational, and instrumental support. Many of the most prominent programs and services are described below.

Student Services. These include financial aid, housing, health services, psychological counseling, and academic advising and are well represented on all campuses of the University. Financial aid offers instrumental support. Psychological and academic counseling offer emotional, appraisal, and informational support. First-year students (freshmen, transfers, new graduate students), who have not had time to develop support networks and who are facing high levels of demand for adaptation, may be most in need of these services. In addition, constituent-based programs and services reflect the University's commitment to caring for disabled, international, ethnic, female, and re-entry students. Need also may be high among nontraditional students who may not be able to obtain adequate support from the community due to the biases or ignorance of peers, or simply differences in values and habits.

Faculty. At every campus of the University, faculty play an essential role in providing social support for students. Faculty generally provide appraisal, informational, and some kinds of instrumental support (e.g., letters of recommendation). In addition, faculty may provide emotional support by acting as role models for students.

Graduate Students. Graduate students are in a unique position with respect to creating and belonging to a caring campus community. As their academic work becomes more specialized, graduate students often feel caught within the competitive atmosphere of their academic departments and isolated from the campus community at large. As teachers and mentors of undergraduates, they are an essential part of the academic support system, yet may not be receiving this type of support themselves. Although a certain serendipitous bonding often develops within cohorts of graduate students undergoing the same training and curriculum, efforts to benefit the graduate student community in this way are unsystematic and, in some cases, lacking. Campuses need to make special efforts through policies and programs to provide opportunities for graduate students to interact within and across departmental boundaries and to acquire a sense of belonging within the larger institution.

Campus Opportunities. A variety of campus programs provide social support, if only indirectly. For example, support for student participation in community or public service, opportunities for students to work on campus, or undergraduate participation in faculty research help to create a more caring campus environment.

Campus Environment. Both the physical environment and campus culture can contribute to experiences of social support. The University can boast generally first-rate facilities for teaching and research, as well as student centers that provide students with facilities to meet with one another in an informal, potentially caring atmosphere. The reverse also is true, however. For example, students who must wait in long lines to speak with a staff person seated behind a high counter or take notes in a crowded lecture hall are unlikely to feel "esteemed" by their University.

Student-Initiated Programming. A great source of social support comes from the interaction of students in the classroom, as well as extracurricular activities that characterize the vibrancy and excitement of the college experience. The rigors of the academic curriculum often link students to similar intellectual goals. In addition, every campus of the University has a myriad of student-initiated clubs, social events, public-service projects, student government activities, and the like that provide a necessary and supportive outlet for students.

Challenges

A number of challenges confront the University of California as a caring community. Two that the Task Force found most pressing are the competitive culture of the University and the provision of services to diverse constituent groups.

Competitive Culture. One obstacle to achieving a caring community appears to be the competitive culture of the University. Campus-based research suggests that students are experiencing a great degree of stress as a result of academic competition they perceive as inordinately high (Jacobi & Shepard, 1988, 1990a, 1990b). While some might view this as a typical and transitory response to the intellectual rigors of the University, preliminary research indicates that students are "burning out" from continued exposure to excessive competition (Jacobi & Shepard, 1988). Although additional research at other campuses is required to substantiate this conclusion, stress and academic competition may be important factors to consider when the University devises strategies to create an enhanced campus community.

Another possible obstacle impeding the development of a caring community may be the use of fear as a motivator. When students complain about a negative and competitive campus culture, they may be referring to the use and abuse of fear as a classroom motivator. Fear of failure is a common psychological response when students are introduced to the demands of collegiate life. Compounding this, fear may be employed -- unintentionally or otherwise -- by professors and teaching assistants as a means of motivating students. The extent to which fear interferes with student achievement is unclear, but its interaction with the development of caring community should be considered further.

Provision of Services to Diverse Constituent Populations. Particular groups of students may lack access to the resources and support needed to become integrated into the campus community. For example, gay and lesbian students, single parents, re-entry students, students with disabilities, first-generation students, and underrepresented ethnic or racial minority students may not fit the profile of the "traditional" University student. Thus, programs and services available on campus may not address fully the specific needs or concerns of each group. Student housing serves as one case in study.

Traditionally, family student housing has been seen as one example of the University's caring for the basic needs of students. However, housing for nontraditional families represents one way in which traditional definitions of the family may serve to exclude some members of the community from this basic need. A caring community, some have argued, should provide all families, traditional and nontraditional, with equal access to University housing. Such a recommendation is not without controversy. The question of what constitutes a family is an open debate, the scope of which extends beyond the immediate campus community.

The issues surrounding the extension of eligibility for family housing to students in domestic partnerships are complex. As a public institution chartered in the California State Constitution, the University historically has chosen to follow the State's lead in matters of public policy. Following the end of World War II, the State and the University embarked on an ambitious student housing construction plan designed to accommodate veteran students coming to college on the GI Bill. From this beginning, the University has continued to provide housing in a variety of ways, from apartment complexes for married students and students with minor dependents, to residence halls for single students. The former type of housing arrangements is designed to support members of the campus community who not only are students, but also have dependents.

The University considers how one defines relationships a matter of State policy and, subsequently, requires students to provide legal documentation to verify their eligibility for student family housing. These housing practices do not violate the University's nondiscrimination policy. University policy prohibits legally impermissible discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the Federal Employment and Housing Act permits the University to provide separate housing for married students or students with minor dependents. Despite this, the required legal documentation is perceived as an obstacle to a caring community because members of the gay and lesbian community cannot obtain marriage licenses. Absent this verification, students who are in long-term domestic partnerships are ineligible for student family housing. These discussions continue to occur, and it is important for the University's faculty, staff, and students to be cognizant of the changing portrait of the student body in an effort to address student needs and to create a more caring campus environment.

Recommendations for Creating a Caring Community

1) Campus and Office of the President leaders should demonstrate leadership and commitment in developing a caring community.

2) Campuses should support and encourage the formation of all groups, both traditional and nontraditional.

3) Campuses should support and encourage interaction among all groups to foster caring experiences across group lines. An example might be the development of community service projects which cuts across many campus social boundaries.

4) Campuses should sponsor and encourage staff development programs for all administrative levels that convey expectations about the caring community concept.

5) Campus and Office of the President administrators should continue their dialogue with representatives from all groups to help ensure a balanced approach to the delivery of services to students that help sustain and enhance a caring academic community.



Chapter 7: A Diverse Community

A college or university is a diverse community, a place where diversity in all of its forms is acknowledged as vital to the pursuit of knowledge and the development of free, productive, and enlightened citizens.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

The fundamental purpose of the University -- the preservation and advancement of learning and truth -- requires an active quest for and exploration of different intellectual perspectives.
The University's commitment to diversity, however, rests not only on intellectual grounds. Important changes are sweeping through America and the world creating the need for highly educated people who can envision the opportunities arising from these changes. Our future rests with people dedicated to building community, who have the critical skills to function effectively in a world of diverse ideas, peoples, and cultures.

We are living through a transformation that will rearrange the nation's politics and economics in the coming century. Seemingly intractable social and environmental problems beyond the ability of any single state acting alone to solve, together with expanding degrees of economic interdependency, make borders between nations increasingly meaningless and draw us all closer together.

Domestically, the composition of our population is changing, and nowhere is this more evident than in California. In the very near future there will be no single ethnic majority in the State. Groups of people with emergent political strength are calling upon political and economic institutions for recognition and acknowledgment. The primary domestic challenge facing us during the next decade will be to embrace the opportunities such developments offer while offsetting the polarizing tendencies they may generate.

A diverse community serves its members by providing them with a window on the world. Enlightenment requires knowledge of the diverse ways in which important matters are viewed across the world and across time. A diverse community provides its members with a cosmopolitan perspective, a sense of global citizenship enabling the maintenance of appropriate perspectives on world problems and possibilities. Cosmopolitan individuals resist zero-sum solutions that pit winners against losers. They behave more responsibly than individuals whose frame of reference is narrower. Cosmopolitan men and women develop the habits of citizenship necessary to withstand the centrifugal forces of the new global economy. People who have been exposed to a diverse community feel a greater responsibility for others, because they know we all share a common history; we all participate in a common culture; we all share a common fate.

A diverse community provides its members with the skills necessary to be productive in a multicultural environment. Students must learn to view things from the perspective of others and to discover mutually beneficial resolutions. University graduates will spend substantial portions of their careers working with groups of superiors, subordinates and peers, suppliers and customers, mentors and mentees who may have a disability; who come from different racial and ethnic backgrounds; and who have different sexual orientations. Pursuit of positive civic change will require a variety of new coalitions. The student who learns how to work effectively in these new and diverse situations will be at an advantage.

A diverse community is an inclusive community. It should be open to people from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and to those possessing a wide variety of talents. Traditionally, diverse communities actively sought to encourage the participation of an extensive mosaic of students: the scholar, artist, athlete, and civic activist; students from urban and rural settings; the international student; students from every economic background; and students with minority religious perspectives. More recently, diverse communities have sought to complement their already diverse population by including a more comprehensive spectrum of students. Greater efforts have been expended to bring into the community students from all ethnic groups; to create a student population that is more diverse in age, gender, and sexual orientation; to provide access for students with disabilities.

A diverse community encourages membership in small groups, and implies the freedom to belong to multiple groups simultaneously. Because being together generates awareness of each other's similarities and differences, the opportunity to meet and interact with people whose experience, talents, and ideas are different from one's own is essential. It is important to find commonality within diversity and promote opportunities for positive contact and interchange. This generates understanding within the group and makes it possible for mentoring to occur.

   

Any discussion of multiple group affiliation must acknowledge a second type of diversity which emphasizes within-subject (i.e., individual) diversity rather than between-subject diversity. For example, an individual student belongs to a variety of groups corresponding to his or her cultural background, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.


The Great Seal of the United States includes the motto: E Pluribus Unum -- "One out of many." Today, the "one" will not exist unless the "many" out of which it is constructed includes the multiple diversities of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and people with disabilities.

University Efforts

The University has a variety of campus-specific programs and services designed to enhance diversity. For example, the UC Davis Diversity Planning Council recently completed a comprehensive plan designed to diversify the curriculum and student body, as well as the administrative, staff, and faculty ranks (see University of California, Davis, 1992). In addition, several Universitywide policies and programs are highlighted below.

Undergraduate Admissions Policy. Diversity is a central element of the University's policy governing the make-up of its undergraduate population. The University's admissions policy, as adopted by The Regents in 1988, states:

The University of California has an historic commitment to provide places within the University for all eligible applicants who are residents of California. The University seeks to enroll, on each of its campuses, a student body that, beyond meeting the University's eligibility requirements, demonstrates high academic achievement or exceptional personal talent, and that encompasses the broad diversity of cultural, racial, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds characteristic of California.

The University's admissions policy for undergraduates also includes consideration of special circumstances that may have affected an applicant's life experiences. These circumstances may include, for example, disabilities, personal difficulties, low family income, refugee status, or veteran status (see University of California, 1990).

Outreach. The University has initiated outreach programs to recruit traditionally underrepresented students to the University. Prominent programs include the Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP), which focuses on increasing the number of University-eligible high school graduates. EAOP participants have attained eligibility for admission to the University at rates considerably higher than those of their non-participating counterparts statewide (University of California, 1993). In addition, the University's Immediate Outreach Program provides admission and follow-up support to 12th graders participating in EAOP and to EAOP graduates who enter a community college (University of California, 1990, 1993).

The University also has implemented outreach programs for its graduate and professional school programs. One example of this is the Student Academic Services (SAS) program at the San Francisco campus. SAS attempts to encourage the admission of nontraditional students in health science fields, by providing counseling, tutoring, financial aid, and a comprehensive orientation program.

Support Services. Since 1976, the University has augmented both academic and non-academic support services available to the general student population with additional funds to provide more focused and intensive services for low-income and student affirmative action (SAA) students. The services offered generally include the following: 1) orientation and bridge programs aimed at helping students acclimate to the campus; 2) academic, career, and personal counseling; 3) learning skills assistance; 4) financial support; and 5) mentorships and graduate school preparation efforts (University of California, 1990, 1993). For example, the UC Riverside SAA Five Year Plan includes a component designed to link SAA students with information concerning career paths requiring graduate study, research opportunities, and sources of graduate financial assistance to increase SAA student enrollment in graduate school (University of California, Riverside, 1991). Similar activities and programs have evolved for older, re-entry students, students with disabilities, student athletes, and veterans.

Faculty and Staff Diversity. The University's efforts in achieving a diverse workforce have met with some success. According to recent statistics (September, 1992), underrepresented minorities (i.e., African American, American Indian, Asian American, and Chicano/Latino) comprise 13.5 percent of University executive positions, 17.3 percent of management and professional positions, 28.6 percent of administrative and professional staff positions, and 45.2 percent of staff personnel positions. In addition, women comprise 26.1 percent of University executive positions, 41.5 percent of management and professional positions, 62.9 percent of administrative and professional staff positions, and 64.4 percent of staff personnel positions. (University of California, 1992a).

The University's efforts in increasing the number of women and minorities within the faculty ranks have led to a steady increase since 1979. While minorities and women comprised 30 percent of the University faculty as of 1990, it is acknowledged that the University has much to accomplish before the goal of a diverse faculty will be achieved (see University of California, 1992b).

Challenges

How do we create a safe and intellectually vital campus community for all students, especially given racial tensions in society at large, misunderstandings concerning affirmative action, and variations in academic preparation? In what ways should we communicate to all campus community members the value of a diverse student body to the educational mission of the University?

Diversity and Educational Excellence. The connection of diversity to the primary mission of the University should be more clearly articulated. One way to do this would be for the Universitywide Administration to articulate admissions criteria that reflect the importance of diversity in the attainment of educational excellence. In addition, the University must delineate better the role of affirmative action and its relationship to creating a diverse community. Current misunderstandings related to the University's affirmative action policy contribute to tensions which undermine students' sense of belonging to a campus community. For example, students begin to doubt themselves when they experience resentment from their peers who question their competence and their qualification for admission to the University. As discussed in Chapter 1, when students begin to question whether they really belong, their motivation to continue their studies is threatened.

Faculty Diversity. The lack of diversity among the faculty is seen by some critics as one of the primary obstacles to creating a better sense of community at the University. Many students need faculty role models who represent and celebrate the University's basic mission of research, teaching, and community service and who are sensitive to the unique challenges of a diverse student body. Because many historically underrepresented students are the first members of their families to attend college, these faculty members become pivotal models to which they can aspire and are often their greatest source of encouragement.

Whether or not students have access to faculty members who are sensitive to their needs can often influence whether a student remains motivated to graduate, and ultimately, to enroll in graduate studies. The extent to which faculty succeed in encouraging historically underrepresented students to enter academia will have an enormous impact on the pool of potential faculty that the University, as well as other colleges and universities, will have to choose from in creating a diverse faculty for the future.

Sensitivity to Diverse Backgrounds and Learning Styles. Students at the University travel in many different worlds and come from a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Faculty and staff must continue to meet the challenge of interacting with a diverse student body who may have different learning styles. This requires that faculty and staff members not only be sensitive to students' needs, but that students too be willing to communicate their needs. Both must take responsibility in creating a community where it is safe to communicate basic needs and values. (The issue of psychological safety and its importance for an academic community is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.)

In developing an appreciation for diverse backgrounds and learning styles, the University should support the efforts of faculty whose scholarly expertise provides insight and understanding regarding the impact of diversity on the University. For example, research into the learning styles of students from different cultural backgrounds has provided faculty with meaningful information for the development of more effective teaching methods. In addition, research by Astin (1993), analyzing survey responses of 25,000 students from around the country, found that:

[E]mphasizing diversity either as a matter of institutional policy or in faculty research and teaching, as well as providing students with curricular and extra-curricular opportunities to confront racial and multicultural issues, are all associated with widespread beneficial effects on a student's cognitive and affective development...including increased cultural awareness...commitment to racial understanding...participation in cultural activities, citizenship, commitment to developing a meaningful philosophy of life, and reduced materialistic values (p. 48).

Empirical research on a variety of fronts can buttress administrative efforts to make University campuses more hospitable to the increasingly diverse student body, as well as generate the kinds of beneficial effects noted by Astin (1993) for all members of the campus community.

Recommendations Supporting Diversity

1) Administrators at the campuses and the Office of the President should communicate more effectively the benefits of the University's diversity goals to the primary mission of the institution.

2) Administrators at the campuses and the Office of the President should delineate better the role of affirmative action in supporting the mission of the University, as well as its relationship to diversity.

3) The University should continue to support, as well as enhance, its efforts to diversify the undergraduate and graduate student ranks so that they better represent the diversity of California's citizenry.

4) The University should continue to support, as well as enhance, its efforts to diversify faculty and staff so that they better represent the diversity of California's citizenry.

5) In addition to diversifying the community, the University should support an environment that is welcoming toward people from these new and diverse constituencies, as well as create an environment that nurtures and sustains their work in the community.

6) The campuses and the Office of the President should provide faculty and staff, including teaching assistants, with opportunities to learn more about the diverse backgrounds of their students and the unique challenges this diverse student body often represents for teaching and research. These opportunities could be in the form of seminars, lectures, colloquia, as well as informal gatherings at the
departmental level.

7) The University should support the efforts of faculty whose scholarly expertise provides the community with insight and understanding regarding the impact of diversity on the University.

Chapter 8: A Celebrative Community

[A] college or university is a celebrative community, one in which the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared.

Carnegie Commission, 1990

Every community should celebrate its history, and, in this sense, should strive to become a "community of memory" (Bellah, et. al., 1985, p. 333). A celebrative community should be actively involved in retelling its history; the painful as well as exemplary; not only stories of suffering received but of suffering inflicted. A celebrative community should tie its members to the past while turning each member toward the future. It should provide a context of meaning within which individual aspirations merge with the aspirations of the community; where individual efforts contribute to a common good.

In a celebrative community, individuals participate in the practices -- ritual, aesthetic, and ethical -- that define the community as a way of life and define the patterns of loyalty and obligation that keep the community alive. The traditions of a celebrative community should offer opportunities for each individual to join in the community fully. It should celebrate the cultural center that binds the members together into a community while honoring the diversity that underlies individualism. While a celebrative community should defend traditions, it should not promote traditionalism. The goal of a celebrative community should be to reappropriate the past in the light of the present, mindful of the distortions that corrupt the past of every tradition.

Celebration offers the University an opportunity to reaffirm important traditions, clarify evolving group identities, and provide access to new voices. The Carnegie Foundation (1990) notes that, "As colleges and universities become...more and more diverse, campuses should find ways to celebrate, not just tradition, but change and innovation as well" (p. 60).

This guiding principle should extend not only to the more obvious ways of celebrating community -- ritual, monument, athletic events, art, and architecture -- but also to the beliefs and everyday actions that are practiced at each campus of the University. It is through such expressions of celebration that the community may hold itself up to the lofty standards of new identity and time-honored tradition. Through celebration we tell ourselves stories of who we are, where we have come from, and where we hope to go.

The characteristics of a celebrative community are described below:

¨ A truly celebrative community must be all-inclusive. In acknowledging the desirability of adding new ways of celebrating community, the University community should be larger, not smaller, than it was before.

¨ Each moment of celebration must provide the University with a fresh opportunity to honor and praise all that is good about the University and worthy of celebration. For example, the increasing Universitywide popularity of celebrations associated with ethnic traditions, such as Cinco de Mayo, as well those celebrations acknowledging groups and traditions heretofore unsung, such as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Awareness Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday observances, Asian Heritage Week, and Disability Awareness Month, commemorate and honor the University's increasing diversity.

¨ Celebration is the primary process by which community is both strengthened and reaffirmed. In a celebrative community, members should find ways to identify with their community and, in the process, make clear how they belong to one another.

¨ Finally, by honoring what is good, celebration helps the community to know what is worth holding on to from the past and what new experiences are worth endorsing in the days to come.

University Efforts

Examples of efforts on campuses are numerous, especially in student life. Below is a summary of the ways in which a celebrative community can be promoted:

Rituals. Easiest to visualize, rituals constitute a good place for the University to reaffirm the importance of a celebrative community. New student convocations and commencement are the University's most traditional rituals and remind community members why they belong. Athletic events, concerts, artistic performances, and other activities add lustre to membership in the campus community. Because these out-of-the-ordinary events are the most obvious points of reference for a celebrative community, their proliferation and nurturing are a must.

Symbols. Myths, beliefs, and heroes are more subtle symbols by which we celebrate community, partly because they are not immediately obvious to the college freshman (or first year faculty or staff person), and also, because they are not linked to specific seasonal events on campus. Yet these sublimated symbols are equally important in defining a sense of community; the unpublished myths, beliefs, and heroes of a campus provide community members with potentially deep emotional linkages to invest fully in the campus experience. For example, the Berkeley "Free Speech Movement" of the mid-1960s, while at times violent and counter-productive, has passed into University lore as the preeminent symbol of student activism and influences to this day the manner in which the University administration consults with students regarding University policy.

Everyday Activities. Celebration must not only honor what community members do that is out-of-the-ordinary or subliminal, it must also extend to the day-to-day activities of the community. This means first and foremost that what is done in the classroom is important to achieving and maintaining a celebrative community: the course content, the pedagogical techniques, the faculty, and the class culture all contribute to the collective vision of the community and demonstrate why it is important to belong. The importance of celebrating community also must extend to student advising, faculty research, and all the ways students, faculty, and staff interact with one another.

The Products of Celebration. That which is produced in the service of a celebrative community is important, because it represents what was worth preserving at that moment in time. Monuments and icons, art and literature, architecture and space, music, poetry and drama, when summed, communicate to each community member and to future generations of the community, the most important values and traditions of the University. These manifestations are both ephemeral and permanent. For example, several events for the 1984 Summer Olympics were held at UCLA, including gymnastics and tennis. In addition to serving as a host of this world-wide celebration of athleticism and sportsmanship, UCLA gained several permanent athletic facilities that serve as a constant reminder to the campus community of the noble and enduring ideals of the Olympic Games. Such symbols at UCLA and other campuses have celebrative value for many years to come and so their creation and reaffirmation deserve appropriate care and support.

Challenges

Creation of new celebrative rituals and myths must not come at the expense of worthy traditional ones. Knowing which old and new rituals and myths to support and nurture will be a critical skill for those in Student Affairs given the task of choosing to fund some at the expense of others.

Ultimately, budgetary and other decisions emanating from the Chancellors' and Deans' offices will affect which new rituals and myths are encouraged and which are not. There may be need for a conscious University policy to encourage new expression that celebrates both the common elements of the University community, as well as its increasing diversity.

Recommendations for Celebration

1) Each campus should review its history both as an individual institution and in its relation to the University as a whole in an effort to discover events, symbols, and individuals that are worthy of celebration.

There is a curious lack of discussion of the history of the University. Unlike other colleges and universities, the faculty, staff, and students at the University of California appear to know little about its historical foundations. Part of the reason can found in the relative youth of some campuses. Still, the Task Force believes that the rich history of the University presents an excellent opportunity for campus celebration, embracing current and past community members in an academic timeline of enormous importance.

2) In reviewing possible topics for celebration, each campus should consider the extent to which the event bonds all members of the community.

Celebrations need not be all things to all people. But it is important that campus-specific or Universitywide celebrations provide an opportunity for all members of the community to participate if they choose.

3) Universitywide or campus-specific celebrations should be connected to the mission of the University.

Celebrations ought to highlight the very best outcomes of the University including excellent teaching, superior academic achievement, exceptional scholarship, and devoted public service. These kinds of celebrations honor not only the individual, but the University community as well.

 Part 2: Issues Affecting Community at the University

We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an escapable network of mutuality.

Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968


It is not enough to state simply the principles of community at the University. The principles must be linked with the central issues and concerns that affect the day-to-day functioning of the University. Campus Life (Carnegie Foundation, 1990) suggests that once a college or university has developed principles of community, the institution should use these principals to form a "campus compact" -- a framework to be employed in shaping policies and procedures relating to campus community:

To adopt the principles as a campus compact would signal the seriousness with which the enduring values of the institution were understood and embraced. All members of the community would be reminded of their importance and, as a compact, the principles could be referred to, with authority, and passed on from one student generation to another...While affirming principles surely will not resolve all differences of opinion, it would, we believe, help lift the level of discourse and provide an appropriate framework within which campus decisions might be made (p. 65-67).

The Task Force concluded that the seven principles of community provide the necessary guidance for the University to move forward in its efforts to enhance community on each campus, as well as the University as a whole. Moreover, these principles provide standards by which to assess the progress of the University in achieving its central mission -- research, teaching, and public service -- as well as reach a number of specific goals, including student, staff, and faculty diversity. Finally, it was hoped that this framework would allow the Task Force to investigate systematically a number of current issues that affect campus community, such as campus safety and affirmative action.

The following section presents a set of critical issues the Task Force believes is currently affecting the quality of the University community and that can be assessed using the seven principles of community just described. The Task Force identified three issues which are central to the development of an enhanced community for Student Affairs at the University:
1) Diversity, Affirmative Action, and the Community; 2) Campus Safety; and 3) Building Bridges Among Campus Groups. While each of these issues could have been analyzed using all seven principles of community, only the most relevant principles for each issue are presented.

Chapter 9: Diversity, Affirmative Action, and the Community

We can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic human link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breath the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

John F. Kennedy, 1963

The creation of diverse colleges and universities and the continued use of affirmative action policies as one means of achieving this diversity are important issues facing postsecondary education institutions. At the center of these issues are educational access for all qualified Americans and, by extension, the opportunity to participate fully, as well as to prosper, in the mainstream of American life.

For well over two decades, the University of California has attempted to create a University which provides equal access for all qualified citizens of California. As described in
Chapter 7, the University's undergraduate admissions policy, as well as the mandate from the California Master Plan for Higher Education, specify that the student body of the University should encompass the broad diversity of the State of California. The fundamental tenet of diversity is that, in addition to providing educational access to all eligible citizens of California, bringing together diverse groups of individuals within an academic setting will ultimately lead to an enhanced learning environment. This belief is an extension of the traditional view of the academic community where a diversity of ideas is encouraged and nurtured in order to produce the very best scholarship.

One method of increasing diversity on college and university campuses has been through affirmative action. In particular, the University of California has made a strong commitment to increase the number of students who have significantly lower eligibility rates for the University, including African Americans, Chicanos, Latinos, and Native Americans. University efforts designed to increase the number of these students on its campuses include special academic preparation and recruitment programs, as well as admissions consideration and financial support. In addition, the University has sought to increase the number of students from these groups that are eligible to attend the University through its Early Academic Outreach Program.

At the undergraduate level, these affirmative action activities have proven to be quite successful. Since 1976, the number of students from student affirmative action (SAA) groups increased 166 percent, while during the same period University enrollment grew by only 36.6 percent overall (University of California, 1993). Moreover, students from SAA groups comprised 18.5 percent of all undergraduates in Fall 1992, up from 9.9 percent in Fall 1976 (University of California, 1993). Finally, between 1976 and 1986 the number of Bachelor's degrees conferred upon students from SAA groups rose by 26.9 percent (University of California, 1990). In the midst of these encouraging statistics, however, it should be noted that the enrollment of SAA students has declined since 1989, an alarming trend that should direct the University to recommit its efforts in this area to prevent the erosion of hard fought gains achieved over the past decade and a half.

Student Views of Diversity and Affirmative Action

The success of the University's diversity and affirmative action efforts has not shielded the University from criticism -- criticism that, at times, has strained the campus community. While many argue that the University has a long way to go to ensure that all of its campuses encompass the diversity of the State, equally potent forces contend that the University has placed too much emphasis on achieving its diversity and affirmative action goals. Numerous articles and books have been published in the last few years focusing on this debate, placing the University in a media spotlight unrivaled since the student demonstrations of the 1960s.
How has this debate affected the campus community? What are the feelings among University students regarding issues of diversity and affirmative action? To evaluate these questions, the Task Force contacted the directors of the student affairs research units on each campus to solicit campus-based empirical research focusing on campus community, diversity, and affirmative action. While the research reviewed here is not definitive and should be viewed as preliminary, the data do shed light on the state of the University community within the context of diversity and affirmative action.

In general, undergraduate students on at least two University campuses, Berkeley and UCLA, report being conflicted and ambivalent about the need and value of diversity and affirmative action policies. While there is evidence of widespread support for the general concepts of diversity and pluralism on University campuses, less support is noted for specific affirmative action plans designed to contribute to this diversity. For example, at Berkeley and UCLA, where the student body is perhaps the most diverse in the nation, survey research indicates strong support for the idea of creating a diverse campus community (Astin, Trevino, & Wingard, 1991; Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991), or, more generally, "pluralism," which is defined as "promoting greater understanding among people with different beliefs or backgrounds" (Jacobi & Shepard, 1990a, 1990b). However, students indicate much less support for specific policies of affirmative action (Astin, et. al., 1991; Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991).

While it would be inappropriate to extend these findings to all campuses of the University, the ambivalence noted at Berkeley and UCLA is consistent with students sampled nationwide. According to a recent national poll, only 34 percent of students surveyed support affirmative action if such a policy is perceived as providing special "preferences" for underrepresented students. However, nearly half of the respondents support the idea of providing "special consideration" to underrepresented students rather than specific "racial preferences" (Collison, 1992).

Student ambivalence regarding diversity, pluralism, and affirmative action cuts across several campus groups. A closer inspection of campus-based research reveals that, while White students generally indicate the least amount of support for affirmative action and related diversity policies (Astin, et. al., 1991; Jacobi & Shepard, 1990a, 1990b), students from other groups, including African Americans, Asian Americans, and Chicanos, also are ambivalent. In a carefully constructed and thoughtful study focusing on the changing racial and ethnic makeup of students at the Berkeley campus and the impact of these changes on the University, the Institute for the Study of Social Change, in its report titled, the Diversity Project (1991), notes that the policies of diversity and affirmative action pose complex and troubling questions for all students:

[W]hile it can be said that students could be divided into two camps of those for and against a policy of diversification [through affirmative action], it would be ultimately inaccurate because it fails to capture the deep and gnawing reservations among the supporters, and some strong sympathy even among detractors (p. 15).

Even among graduate students at UCLA, where a greater level of cognitive sophistication might prevail with regard to complex social policies and practices, there is general support for policies of diversity, but much less support for achieving diversity through the use of affirmative action (Jacobi & Shepard, 1990b).

Student confusion and ambivalence regarding the policies of diversity and affirmative action may reflect a dilemma that troubles many Americans. The Institute for the Study of Social Change (1991) found that the White and Asian American students interviewed denigrated affirmative action policies, because the policies were seen as working against them by allowing "unqualified" applicants to be admitted to the University. These students believe that admissions policies should be color-blind and that admission to the University should be based on merit only. Of course, a "merit-only" admissions policy encompassing a narrow view of merit might work against a policy of diversity -- a policy these students openly support -- by accepting only students with the very highest test scores and 4.00 grade point averages, rather than selecting from the top 12.5 percent of students that the Master Plan for California Higher Education calls for at the University of California.

For White and Asian students, diversity may be seen as a general policy of educational access, without strict boundaries or parameters, while affirmative action is conceptualized as a "zero-sum" game in which there are winners and losers. However, when diversity is conceptualized as a precise policy with specific effects, rather than a vague and abstract goal, at least one study suggests that students may even have doubts about the advantages of achieving a diverse campus community. Astin, Trevino, and Wingard (1991) found that while over 90 percent of UCLA undergraduate students believe that diversity is a goal that should be actively promoted by students, staff, and faculty, 58 percent believe that the goal of diversity results in the admission of underprepared students, 41 percent believe that affirmative action policies lead to the hiring of less qualified faculty and staff, and 40 percent believe that UCLA is placing too much emphasis on diversity at the expense of enhancing its prestige as a top research University. It should be noted that African American and Chicano students' responses consistently reflected a belief that diversity efforts do not lead to admission of underprepared students, the hiring of less qualified faculty/staff persons, or the undermining of the campus' image as a top research institution (Astin et. al., 1991).

Regardless of student support or opposition to diversity and the policies of affirmative action at the point of admission, this issue continues to generate considerable debate on college and university campuses across the country. While such institutions are perhaps the ideal places for this issue to be discussed openly, it also is true that the debate has become heated and, in some instances, malicious, promoting a resurgence of ethnic and racial intolerance. A nationwide survey of presidents of research/doctoral institutions found that inter-racial and inter-cultural relations were listed as the second greatest issue affecting campus community, second only to substance abuse (see American Council on Education, 1989).

Student Perceptions of a Just Community

Ambivalence toward the University's diversity and affirmative action policies is certain to affect one of the basic elements of the University community, the idea of a just community. As the 1992 civil disturbances in Los Angeles tragically demonstrated, a belief in the essential justice of social institutions is necessary before communities can build long-lasting bridges among disparate groups and interests. On a less dramatic, though no less important scale, the University must be certain that its educational and administrative structures are fair and just to all groups.

Campus-based research at Berkeley and UCLA suggests that some White and Asian American students in particular have begun to question University admissions policies that consider race and ethnicity as viable criteria for admission. Conversely, other groups, including several that have been traditionally underrepresented at the University, argue that the University has not done enough both to admit and support underrepresented groups at the University. While vigorous debate regarding the way in which the University should meet the educational needs of the citizens of California is a vital and appropriate topic of discussion, the Task Force believes that this debate represents something much deeper; that the essential fairness of the University is in question and that University policies and practices may be perceived by some as unfair or unjust.

The perception, whether accurate or not, that the University is unfair or unjust strikes at the heart of the University mission and jeopardizes the creation of an enhanced campus community. Preliminary research suggests that conflicts over the fairness of admissions policies may contribute to increased tensions within the University community. Campus-based research provides telling, though by no means direct, evidence of greater inter-group tension or intolerance. For example, a survey administered at UC Davis (Low, 1991) indicates that perception of racial harmony has decreased for all students since 1987 and is particularly low among African American and Chicano students. In addition, the survey reports an increased number of students who believe that racial intolerance is a major problem at UC Davis. This assessment is more pronounced among ethnic minority students.

At UCLA, research indicates a wide disparity between White students and traditionally underrepresented students supporting the goals of pluralism at UCLA (Jacobi & Shepard, 1990a, 1990b). In addition, a survey of incoming freshmen students indicates significant differences among White students and traditionally underrepresented students on issues of racial tolerance and diversity (Shepard & Hensen, 1989). The authors warn that these differences may be the source of racial conflicts and divisions throughout the undergraduate years.

While inter-group tensions and conflicts have not been linked empirically with ambivalence toward diversity and affirmative action policies, the Task Force believes that such ambivalence must surely contribute to campus disharmony and, in any event, signifies a need for the University to address directly and forcefully issues of diversity, affirmative action, and a just community.

A Diverse Community Endangered?

In addition to the Task Force's concerns regarding the extent to which students view the University as a just community, student ambivalence toward diversity and affirmative action policies endangers the University's goal of achieving a diverse community and, with it, all of the advantages -- intellectual and cultural -- that it fosters. As discussed previously, a vital aspect of the University's mission is to admit students that reflect the broad diversity of the State. This type of diversity is seen as essential for the creation of an enhanced campus community and a quality University education. The view that diversity is not related to a vibrant campus community or is not linked to educational excellence subverts the goals of diversity. The ambivalence demonstrated by students concerning affirmative action goals should give the University pause as it seeks to create an enhanced campus community.

But what is the goal of a diverse campus community? A diverse campus is not in itself a goal if it brings together diverse individuals who never interact or who are prevented from creating an "intellectually and socially vital campus community." The word university means "totality of a group" (Horowitz, 1987, p. 23) and, within this context, the University of California must bring together groups in a manner that allows all to participate and contribute to the University community. A diverse community, then, is the creation of a climate -- not only of tolerance -- but of "mutual enhancement" in which, "A special value is placed upon contribution to the whole, or to the common collective experience, because contributing members bring something to that experience that is unique" (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991, p. 54). This University ideal was expressed early in this century as a national goal by philosopher Horace Kallen (1915, 1924). Kallen notes that:

[T]he United States [is] a union of...cultural diversities...a democracy of nationalities, cooperating voluntarily and autonomously through common institutions...a multiplicity in a unity, an orchestration of mankind (Kallen, 1924, p. 116 and 124).

Kallen called this conception "cultural pluralism." This idea has been linked with the campus community by the Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body at Berkeley (1991). In their final report, Promoting Student Success at Berkeley: Guidelines for the Future, the Commission defined the ideal campus environment:

A pluralistic community is perhaps the best model for an educational enterprise that is based on excellence, diversity, and humanity. In such a community, everyone comes together in a common search for excellence, even though they may differ in various ways and may approach the educational mission from diverse perspectives...While diversity describes the many differences that exist, pluralism involves a larger vision that both celebrates differences and cherishes commonalities (p. 30).

This model has yet to be fully achieved at the University. Instead, as was described in Chapter 1, we have a situation in which some inter-group interactions have been characterized by tension and hostility, driven at least to some extent by confrontations over scarce resources like admissions spaces and funds for student programs. This "zero-sum version of diversity" (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991) may produce separation of groups and the establishment of enclaves in which contributions to the community as a whole are less than optimal. While this model of diversity is preferable to the "melting pot" variety, in which students of all backgrounds lose their individuality and assimilate into a majority vision, it is not as optimistic as cultural pluralism.

The achievement of a culturally plural community will not produce a community free from dissension, because, "The challenge of this [pluralistic] vision is to balance the dialectic inherent in competing claims of differences and commonalities" (Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body, 1991, p. 30). This ebb and flow has always been part of the intellectual experience of the University and is, in fact, one of its most treasured characteristics. Cultural pluralism adds to this exchange and strengthens it.

Recommendations for the Creation of Diversity and Community

In light of the ambivalence and confusion among students and others associated with the University's diversity and affirmative action policies, and given the importance of these policies in maintaining educational access and a quality education for the citizens of California, the Task Force recommends the following actions:

1) The University must better communicate its affirmative action and diversity policies to the campus community as well as to the citizens of California, including explicit rationales for the application of these policies in admissions and student services.

Diversity and affirmative action often mean different things to different people. Indeed, research indicates that student understanding of diversity and affirmative action policies is incomplete, especially when applied to the University's undergraduate admissions policies. Thus, there is a need to educate both the University community and public about the basic aims of affirmative action and diversity; how these policies operate; and, most importantly, how they benefit students, staff, and faculty, as well as the citizenry of California.

   

This confusion also may apply across ethnic and racial background. At Berkeley, researchers found that Chicano/Latino, African American and Native American students, though supportive of diversity and affirmative action efforts, were no more knowledgeable about the reasons for such policies than Whites and Asian Americans (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991).


2) The campuses as well as the Office of the President should address misperceptions and misinformation about affirmative action and diversity.

In addition to providing basic information about affirmative action and diversity as described in Recommendation 1, the University must address the misperceptions that flourish regarding the University's affirmative action and diversity policies. Outreach efforts should be designed to counter perceptions of many community members who:

¨ frequently overstate the degree of underpreparation among students admitted under affirmative action, assuming that the differentials between groups are much larger and more significant than they are;

¨ tend to attribute all competition for admissions to affirmative action, when, in fact, substantial competition for admissions would exist even if all admissions were based on grade point average and test scores alone;

¨ do not understand affirmative action -- how it operates, why it exists, and how it benefits the University, the State, and all students, staff, and faculty; and

¨ do not appreciate the level of educational privilege and advantage often accorded to higher income families or the level of educational disadvantage and deprivation accorded to lower income families.

3) The University's policies of diversity and affirmative action must be articulated within both a short-term and long-term vision of the University's role in California society.

Diversity, affirmative action, and all of the attendant issues like educational access, admissions, and academic quality are interdependent and cannot be dealt with separately. The University must articulate these issues in a manner that acknowledges their complexity while reinforcing the University's commitment to these policies.

4) The University must better link the creation of a diverse University with its central educational mission.

"While the motto of 'diversity and excellence' is widely used, it is not widely believed" (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991, p. 49). Thus, one of the first steps in this process is to articulate a comprehensive admissions criteria that couples the benefits of diversity with educational excellence. Admissions criteria must be linked directly to the mission of the University, a mission that includes a commitment to diversity.

In addition to admissions, the University also must better link diversity with its mission of research, teaching, and public service. Intellectual diversity, for example, is enhanced through policies that encourage nontraditional scholarship, curricula, and teaching methods.

5) The University must explicitly acknowledge that the policies of affirmative action and diversity, in addition to their advantages, are controversial and raise a variety of issues, including admissions practices at the University, educational equity, and access to higher education for all Californians.

No policy is perfect or impervious to criticism and, given the fact that affirmative action is perhaps the most controversial policy of this age, criticism -- fair and
unfair -- is likely to continue. Yet, by affirming its relative advantages for the University and for the State, while addressing directly the concerns that this policy generates on both ends of the political spectrum, the University will go a long way toward creating an intellectual climate that is direct and honest about its educational mission and, at the same time, helping to create an hospitable climate for all members of the University community.






6) Campuses and the Office of the President must support affirmative action as a comprehensive policy affecting the composition of the entire University community.

Affirmative action is more than a student admissions policy. It is a long-term commitment to student success, which includes a range of support services such as peer support programs, counseling, and academic skills assessment and assistance. Campuses must renew their efforts to assure not simply the admission of traditionally underrepresented students, but their retention and graduation from the University as well. In addition, affirmative action must continue to be used to diversify the faculty and administrative ranks.

Chapter 10: Campus Safety

[B]y community we overcome the beast in us and become one with our neighbors; yet in community, too, we combine and organize our hates. A community may last for millennia, and yet may be shattered in decades. A community must be held together by ideas and words, and yet can be split by clenched fists.

Daniel J. Boorstin, 1963

The safety of students is one of the primary reasons for the existence of student affairs offices. Student affairs professionals work hard to assure the physical and psychological well-being of their students so that students will be free to perform at their highest intellectual level. Predicted budget cuts to student affairs programs, including such vital services as psychological and academic counseling, evening escort assistance, and student health centers, threaten the campus community. Inasmuch as the physical and psychological safety of all members of the campus community is linked inexorably with the mission of the University, a campus that is unable or unwilling to meet the basic physical or psychological needs of its students will undermine their academic performance. Thus, one of the central challenges for University administrators, faculty, and students in creating an intellectually and socially vital campus community is to create safe havens -- places where students feel a sense of physical and psychological safety and are truly bound to the goals and aims of the University.

Physical Safety and a Caring Community

The degree to which the University is a caring community may help to reveal the extent to which a campus is physically safe. How safe are our University campuses? To what extent are programs and services designed to protect the community effective? What additional measures are needed to assure protection?

Violent Crime. According to crime statistics reported by the National Campus Violence Survey (see Carnegie Foundation, 1990), the reported incidence of crime, especially violent crime, has increased in recent years on many college and university campuses (see also Lederman, 1993). In addition to the highly publicized murder of several students at the University of Florida in 1990, the University of California has experienced several tragic crimes, including a hostage situation and death of a student in 1991 and the 1992 murder of a student on the Berkeley campus.

These incidents, including a startling increase in reported "date rapes" and more general concerns about the personal safety of students on University campuses (see, for example, Caserio, Evans, Herrera-Sobek, Songolo, & Wong, 1989; Jacobi, 1989; Low, 1991) have created understandable alarm for students and their parents and have damaged the cohesion of the campus community. State and Federal lawmakers have attempted to address these concerns with passage of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 and State Assembly Bill 3918, Student Safety (as amended by Assembly Bill 1094). These statutes, among other things, require colleges and universities to report systematically the type and extent of crime occurring on their campuses and distribute this information to members of the campus community.

Violent and property crimes do occur on the University's campuses. However, it is important to note that the University's crime rates, relative to the surrounding community, are low. Recent statistics reveal that the occurrence of violent crime on University campuses was 94 percent lower than the overall California rate and property crime was 44 percent lower (University of California, 1992c). Random acts of violence notwithstanding, the nine campuses of the University generally are safe places to live and work, so long as members of the community exercise reasonable caution and common sense and make use of the services and programs designed for their protection.

Nevertheless, members of the campus community have become increasingly concerned about their personal safety and security on our campuses. While such concerns are reasonable reactions to a nation seemingly unable to address effectively the rising tide of crime in our cities and towns, excessive concern must eventually tear at the seams of the University community because students, faculty, and staff will be distracted from their academic goals.

University Crime Prevention Efforts. Primary among efforts to reduce campus crime are the campus police departments. The University police are mandated by State law to provide protection to the nine campuses, as well as the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. The University has a total of 345 officers, not including support staff, ranging in size from 83 officers at Berkeley to 15 officers at Santa Cruz (University of California, 1992c).

In addition to campus police forces, campuses have initiated a number of new programs and services designed to create a safer campus community. Among these programs include escort services on several campuses. For example, at UC Riverside, escorts help ensure safe transport of students and other members of the community from the campus to the residence halls, student apartments, and parking lots during late evening and early morning hours. Evening van services have been expanded at several campuses so that students and others need not walk alone on campus at night. Emergency response systems have been installed at Berkeley and UCLA which provide community members with direct telephone service to campus police departments. Finally, several campuses have improved lighting around campus grounds.

During new student and residence hall orientations, students are presented with information designed to increase their personal safety and the security of their belongings. At UCLA, for example, the housing office familiarizes students with essential safety and security issues and provides a comprehensive handbook that addresses a variety of campus security issues and the ways in which students can seek help. Some of the topics include rape and sexual assault, fire prevention, and earthquake preparedness. For members of the campus at large, workshops and seminars are offered on a variety of personal safety issues, such as rape prevention and sexual harassment.

Additional Measures. The work of the University police force, as well as the efforts of other staff and volunteers in helping to secure the campus environment, have worked well to maintain a degree of security on our campuses. While these efforts are essential to the well-being of the community, the Task Force believes that there is a limit to the effectiveness of formal campus security forces and programs. The most effective means of assuring security and safety is for the community to realize that campus safety is a shared responsibility.

Each member of the campus community must contribute to its safety, in a manner similar to the "neighborhood watch" programs developed in cities and towns across America. The University must enhance its efforts to educate community members about their roles in contributing to campus safety. Thus, in addition to complying with State and Federal laws requiring annual publication of crime statistics, the University should continue to develop campus safety programs that increase the vigilance of community members and provide opportunities for community members to learn how they can enhance their safety and the safety of others. Such safety programs should have the effect of empowering and encouraging community members to contribute to the collective security of the campus community, rather than paralyzing them with fear through the use of scare tactics.

Finally, new students and their parents, as well as staff and faculty, need to understand that University campuses are very much like cities and a part of the community that surrounds them. While it would be idyllic if each University campus was removed from the problems of the community that surrounds it, such a view is unrealistic.

Substance Abuse: A Matter of Discipline

As noted in Chapter 4, a disciplined community is one in which standards of conduct for all members are devoted to the mission of the University. Students and others in this special community should comport themselves in a manner that maximizes their intellectual potential. However, this goal is threatened by the increasing abuse of alcohol and drugs by members of the campus community.

Substance abuse, especially alcohol, has been listed as the number one campus life issue in a recent survey of college and university presidents (Carnegie Foundation, 1990). Surveys of entering freshmen reveal that 85 to 90 percent are regular beer drinkers, and, on some campuses, at least 40 percent of all undergraduates report heavy consumption of beer and other alcoholic beverages (Mills, 1985; Presley & Meilman, 1992). Survey research completed at the Davis campus noted that nearly 30 percent of respondents indicated that they engaged in "binge drinking" on one or more occasions in the two weeks prior to the administration of the survey (Hunziker, 1992). Finally, while drug use on campus has steadily declined since 1980 (with the notable exception of cocaine), it remains a serious concern among student affairs professionals and others, especially given the prevalence of drug abuse and drug-related crime across the nation (Carnegie Foundation, 1990; "Alcohol No. 1 Problem," 1987).

Alcohol and drug abuse are enormously complex problems and often exist long before a member of the community enters the University. Still, it is in the University's best interests to address this issue, because substance abuse threatens the campus community in two ways. First, it undermines the ability of students, as well as faculty and staff, to do their best work. A 1992 survey, for example, found a linear, negative relationship between alcohol use and grade point average (Presley & Meilman, 1992). Second, substance abuse has been linked to vandalism, harassment, and crimes of violence, such as physical assault and acquaintance rape (see Eigen, 1991; Sherrill & Siegel, 1989). In particular, the Carnegie Foundation (1990) found a link between campus crime and excessive drinking; a connection noted by others for some time now (see, for example, "Higher Education's Drinking Problem," 1982). This only contributes to a community increasingly beset with concerns about the physical safety of community members on campus.
The reduction of substance abuse has received significant attention, both from the University and the Federal government. The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1989 and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 are designed to maintain University campuses and workplaces that are free from illegal use, possession, or distribution of alcohol or of controlled substances. The Drug-Free School and Communities Act, in particular, requires that the University inform all students about the health risks, standards of conduct, and legal sanctions associated with alcohol and drug abuse. As a result of this statute, the University revised its substance abuse policies and campuses renewed their efforts to make their communities more aware of the problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse.

Substance abuse policies, however potent, will do little to reduce the abuse of alcohol and drugs if they are not linked with a University commitment to support the tenets of a disciplined community. Rules and regulations, if promulgated simply as punitive devices to control behavior, will not be effective. Reason and discipline are core values of the University and should be used as the foundation for the development of codes of conduct. Students, staff, and faculty should understand that the standards of behavior for an academic community are high to assure the very best scholarship; that it requires discipline of the highest order to participate in and contribute to the University community; and that all members have an obligation to engage in behavior for the common good of this community.

Psychological Safety and an Open Community

In addition to physical safety, the University must be psychologically safe, meaning a place where members strive to create an environment free of harassment, intolerance, retaliation, or like measures designed to subvert basic values of the institution including "free, rational, and humane investigation and behavior" (Giamatti, 1988, p. 47). Yet, members of the University community have expressed concern about incidents of harassment and racial intolerance (see Low, 1991; Mercer, 1990; Nelson & Baker, 1990). It is imperative that University members feel safe to express themselves without fear, in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect.

Psychological safety and how it relates to the climate of the University and openness within the community can be analyzed within the context of the free speech versus "fighting words" debate. The University has attempted to balance free speech and open discourse with the "fighting words" policy which was enacted to discourage language that promoted an actual or likely violent response. Opponents claim that it is a violation of First Amendment rights, while others believe that the University community must deal directly with words or attacks which are designed to denigrate or impugn the racial, ethnic, or cultural background of another community member.

It is unlikely that this debate will be resolved to the satisfaction of those who hold the most extreme views. However, the fighting words debate has served a valuable purpose at the University, because it has engaged the community in a discussion of the value of free speech and the degree to which members of the community feel safe to express their views, whether in the classroom or on the quad. The debate also serves as a reminder to all members of the campus community that while free speech must be encouraged as essential to the intellectual process, how we communicate with one another is just as essential. Moreover, in a University community, it is not enough to revel in the freedom of speech by venting personal frustrations or giving voice to internalized racial hatreds. Rather, the goal of discussion and debate at the University is to inspire members to express themselves in a way that encourages discourse. This, of course, requires greater discipline because each member must listen and speak constructively and with sensitivity. But to achieve this, a community must have a climate that is psychologically safe for all expression, even that which is irresponsible.
Having argued for the importance of psychological safety for the expression of ideas, the Task Force feels it is necessary to emphasize that such safety is not easily nor completely achieved. While each member of the University is required to interact with civility and respect toward all members of the campus community, disagreement and argument are part and parcel of the intellectual milieu of the University and standards of civility -- though absolutely essential in order to encourage the promotion of research and teaching activities -- may be different for different people. As noted, the University community is a much different place than it was even ten years ago. Because members of the community come from a wide range of backgrounds, their value systems might be in conflict with the values of the institution as a whole, their peers, faculty, and staff.

How does the University assure an open community that is psychologically safe for all of its members? An exemplary program on the Berkeley campus called Project DARE (Diversity Awareness Through Resources and Education), is designed to sensitize faculty, students, and staff, to the multitude of communication styles and values that members of the community bring with them to the University. As University community members become more familiar with the values and backgrounds of this increasingly diverse academic community, they will feel safer expressing themselves without feeling "cut off," judged, or misunderstood. Interpersonal interactions will be viewed as an opportunity to share different learning and communication styles within the context of a pluralistic community.

Safe Havens

Task Force members believe that the University must renew its commitment to build and support safe havens on the campuses. In the years to come, the University may be faced with difficult decisions regarding what services are truly necessary at the University. Such decisions cannot be rendered, however, without an explicit commitment to creating safe havens for one another, even when resources are limited, as we attempt to do more with less. Solomon-like choices demand thoughtful assessments as to which services are essential to campus safety.

Recommendations for Improving Campus Safety

1) Campuses should continue to work with the police and safety personnel in their surrounding community to help ensure the personal safety of students on and off campus.

Several campuses already have close links with police, fire, and other safety agencies in the surrounding community, and these linkages should be supported and strengthened. On the Riverside campus, for example, local police agencies meet with members of the campus community, particularly students from underrepresented groups, on a quarterly basis in order to sensitize each group to the concerns of the other.

2) Campuses should develop methods to increase the vigilance of community members in making their environment more secure.

Police and other safety agencies, regardless of their size and efficiency, can never substitute for community members who make an effort to watch out for one another. Programs and services should be expanded that provide members of the campus community with the knowledge and forethought to deal effectively with safety and security problems in the residence halls, on the campus, and in the classroom.

3) New students and their parents, as well as others entering the University community for the first time, should continue to be informed at orientation sessions regarding safety issues and the ways in which they can help secure their personal security.

Crime does occur on University campuses and all members of the community, especially new ones, should be made aware of safety and security issues unique to each campus.

4) Campuses should continue and expand their substance abuse awareness and referral programs, particularly those which address the relationship between substance abuse and crime.

All campuses of the University have programs and services to increase student awareness of substance abuse issues, as well as referrals to community agencies for treatment.

5) In order to assure psychological safety, campuses should continue to encourage free and open debate among community members, while, in the process, promoting civility and sensitivity towards one another.

Conflict and debate are essential elements of a free society and are particularly important to an intellectual community. While free speech should be supported and encouraged, the University should better delineate the responsibilities that come with this important liberty, including, at a minimum, civility and sensitivity to diverse points of view.

6) Faculty and relevant Academic Senate committees should continue and expand their efforts toward diversifying the faculty.

In order to create a better sense of psychological safety for all members of the campus community, it is important that the faculty reflect the racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the State. One of the advantages of a diversified faculty is the creation of role models. Role models provide students with an important source of motivation that may translate into greater expectations of success. Such expectations help create a psychologically safer campus community.

Chapter 11: Building Bridges Among Campus Groups

The multiversity is...not one community but several...[It] is a city of infinite variety. Some get lost in the city; some rise to the top within it; most fashion their lives within one of its many subcultures. There is less sense of community than in the village but also less sense of confinement. There is less sense of purpose than within the town but there are more ways to excel.

Clark Kerr, 1963

Changes in the makeup of the student body have led to an increased emphasis on the part of students to gather in groups emphasizing racial, ethnic, or cultural group identity. This has led to concern that the University community will soon be characterized by enclaves of distinct groups which will not participate in the core of campus life and, in the process, will not participate in the development of an enhanced campus community. Critics, mostly in the media but also by thoughtful commentators of University life, assert that such separatist tendencies imperil the campus community and impoverish the intellectual and social life of students (see, for example, Schlesinger, 1992; Steele, 1990).

In its review of the University community, the Task Force acknowledges the danger in students isolating themselves from full and active participation in the myriad of intellectual and social riches of the University. However, the Task Force concluded that, while there is evidence of renewed student interest in interacting in groups formed on racial, ethnic, and cultural identity, this trend is neither as widespread as previously noted nor as unwelcome as some would like to suggest.

The Value of Group Membership

It should come as no surprise that American institutions of postsecondary education always have been characterized by the presence of a wide variety of campus groups. Some are an outgrowth of the academic curriculum, for example an engineering club, while others are associated with extra-curricular activities as in the case of fraternities and sororities (see Horowitz, 1987). This, of course, is true of the University of California. In fact, on several University campuses, there are so many student organizations that one or more staff are assigned to do nothing else but register and coordinate student organizations, as well as monitor their adherence to campus rules and regulations.

Equally unsurprising is the conclusion from numerous researchers that although students seek membership in campus groups for a variety of reasons, most do so for the psychological benefits of belonging which is a powerful force for academic survival on University campuses. Indeed, such membership has clear educational benefits:

The likelihood of a student's staying in college and making progress toward a degree depends, to a considerable extent, on whether the student feels that he or she belongs somewhere on that campus. We emphasize somewhere, because studies suggest that a students need not feel wholly comfortable with the dominant campus culture, but that he or she needs to 'find a niche, however small' (University of California, Berkeley, 1990, p. 10).

Traditionally, higher education researchers have viewed retention and graduation as positively correlated with academic variables such as test scores and grade point average. More recent evidence, however, reveals the importance of non-academic measures. For example, the extent to which students are associated with peer groups has been shown to affect student persistence. Students who persist and graduate from college have been shown to have more supportive peer associations than students who dropout or stopout (see Caloss 1989; University of California, 1989).

The Disadvantages of Group Affiliation and Fears of Campus "Balkanization"

While it is clear that student affiliations with campus groups have psychological and educational benefits, there are situations in which these associations may be counter-productive. For example, if the values of a campus group are in opposition to the basic tenets of the University, there is clear cause for concern. Horowitz (1987) notes that fraternities, in their earliest incarnations, were formed as an anti-intellectual response to the academic curriculum of America's first colleges and universities.

A second and more widespread problem involves students who spend excessive time on group activities at the expense of personal educational goals. Academic advisors know well this problem and counsel incoming freshmen during new student orientation to be wary of joining too many campus groups in the first term or two, lest they find themselves on academic probation after the Fall term grades are posted.

Recently, groups formed on the basis of racial, ethnic, or cultural background have been criticized for creating "balkanized" campuses. Balkanization, the critics charge, encompasses not only the two problems just discussed -- conflict between group and University values and excessive group commitment -- but, more significantly, a move to become separate from the University community.

While the Task Force discovered that students form groups based on racial, ethnic, or cultural background, they found no evidence suggesting that this behavior stems from a propensity for greater isolation or separatism from the campus community. The fact that more groups are being formed based solely on racial, ethnic, or cultural background appears to be a natural outgrowth of campuses that have become more diverse in recent years. In addition, these groups seem no more disaffected by the campus values than traditional campus groups, for example fraternities (see Horowitz, 1987). Which is to say that students, throughout the history of American collegiate life, have had a fairly healthy skepticism for the goals of the academy.

The University is the center for a myriad of student groups and organizations. It is a measure of the University's success in creating an open community that such groups continue to flourish. Nevertheless, while groups are not systematically isolating themselves from the larger campus community, there is some evidence that groups are suspicious of the motives and goals of one another and may, as a result, be hesitant about initiating contact. The discussion of campus balkanization is but one example of concern over the emergent racial and ethnic cohesiveness of some student groups and it gives pause to those who would believe the University is -- or should remain -- racially and ethnically homogeneous. This perceived divisiveness is particularly critical, because it conflicts most centrally with the concept of a "diverse" community. Students must be able to move freely among groups and to have multiple-group affiliations in order for the benefits of living and working in a pluralistic environment to be realized. The goal of a diverse community, mutual enhancement, cannot be achieved unless groups interact. Research conducted on the Berkeley campus illustrates well the disadvantages of group isolation:

No matter what the group (a fraternity, women athletes, a political organization, etc.) every one of them felt misunderstood and stereotyped by others. One consequence of this feeling is that people are even more likely to polarize into isolated groups that have less and less contact with each other -- contact that could actually dispel some of the myths and stereotypes (whereas the lack of contact leaves the myths intact and may even reinforce them). (Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body, 1991, p. 57)

The Importance of Bridge Building in a Diverse Community

Given these suspicions and mistrust, it is critical for all campus groups to begin to build bridges of understanding, respect, and trust in order to create a truly diverse community. From our discussion thus far, it is clear that student affiliations formed on the basis of ethnic, racial, or cultural background are not substantively different from other campus student subgroups. The more important concern for all groups is the degree to which they serve important University and student needs. Do they support the educational goals of the student? Are they congruent with the mission of the institution? If students are coming together to explore more deeply their ethnic, religious, or cultural identity, or simply a common interest, their experience will not only contribute to their own educational background but also to the vitality of the University community as a whole. If, on the other hand, students are congregating due to a need to find solace from an inhospitable campus environment, then something must be done to identify and rectify the source of alienation. Multiple group affiliations are ways to share in the fruits of a pluralistic campus community, but also to enhance the campus community as a whole.

One of the benefits of an increasingly diverse University is that students will not only affiliate with a number of groups, but there will be a greater heterogeneity of experience within groups. Moreover, the University community will be strengthened when we find ways to support both student immersion in their own culture and multicultural participation. Over time, students generally move back and forth between these two approaches, and both are probably necessary to their intellectual and personal development, as well as to the overall strength of the University community.

Recommendations for Building Bridges Among Campus Groups

Student affiliation in a variety of groups is a positive and necessary characteristic of student life at the University of California. Bridge building will occur when groups begin to share their interests with other groups and where members "come to see one another as resources, recognizing different and complementary competencies [rather than becoming more isolated]" (Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991 p. 53). Now that most University campuses are no longer racially or culturally homogenous, students will begin to rely more and more on "finding their niche" among the larger, multi-cultural, pluralistic community.

One avenue for bridge building within a pluralistic academic community comes from student participation in community and public service projects. This issue has gained nationwide publicity recently given President Clinton's support for a national service plan. But such service has been practiced at the University for over a hundred years. Current projects involve students, as well as faculty and staff, in addressing local community concerns such as homelessness, alcohol and substance abuse, environmental pollution, and literacy. These efforts, in addition to serving the needs of the surrounding community, bring together individuals from many backgrounds working toward a common goal. This represents the best kind of bridge building because it links members of the academic community with one another, employing their unique skills, talents, and knowledge, in the service of local concerns.

Bridge-building is becoming more vital with the changing demographics of the University. With different groups comes an even more dramatic need to build a common or shared sense of community and responsibility, as well as to engage the talents of individuals in pursuit of common goals. How can this be achieved?

1) New traditions and/or ceremonies should be established that blend traditional academic rituals with rituals that include new cultural groups.

2) All campus and Universitywide ceremonies such as freshman convocations, commencement ceremonies, and other gatherings (e.g., alumni festivities) should serve to strengthen the links among all members of the University community, as well as the surrounding communities.

3) Campuses should identify and encourage the creation of "commons" where faculty, staff, and students come together informally.

4) Campuses should continue to provide psychologically safe opportunities for students to engage in inter-ethnic and inter-cultural gatherings and discussions, both formal and informal.

5) Faculty and staff who serve as "bridge builders" should be recognized and rewarded for their efforts to enhance their communities. Likewise, student-run programs that build bridges among different groups should be supported and recognized for the important role they play.

Chapter 12: A Task Force Research Agenda

During the course of the Task Force's deliberations, a number of provocative questions were posed. The questions ranged from very specific inquiries about standard measures of community, such as graduation rates, to questions of a more philosophical nature. Some of these questions lend themselves to empirical analysis while others require normative answers. Additional inquiries lend themselves to the methods used by historians while others lend themselves to the methods of sociologists. Some are best addressed by humanists while others seem to fall within the purview of social scientists. All the questions are interesting and vital to achieving a better understanding of what we call campus community.

The Task Force began its deliberations by asking the following: How do we define community? The Task Force put forward seven elements to define a community, and in doing so, laid the foundation for an answer to a second and equally important question: What do we mean by a "good" community? A number of qualities relating to the normative assessment of a good community are contained within this Report. The purpose of this section is to suggest a limited agenda for research that will begin to explore a set of empirical questions directly related to the assessment of campus community.

How do we assess a campus community? The members of the Task Force posed a number of questions directly related to this question. The questions fall into three general areas: an assessment of the criteria used to select individuals for admission into the community; an appraisal of the current state of community on campus; and an inquiry into the factors which cause students to leave the community prior to the completion of their degree.

Criteria Used to Select Students for Admission

The Task Force raised a number of questions relating to the selection of students for admission into the community, including:

¨ What does the University's eligibility standard measure?

¨ What are the best or most appropriate measures of an applicants's academic ability and achievement? Are there other measures that should play a more prominent role in the admissions process? For example, what role should factors such as motivation, aspirations, creativity, maturity, and responsibility play?

¨ What are the factors which account for lower levels of academic achievement among some students from some groups?

¨ Might some students who struggle or fail at one University campus have a greater likelihood of success at another campus? How is this related to academic preparation and admissions issues?

An Appraisal of the Current State of Community on Campus

The greatest number of questions posed by the Task Force focused on the assessment of the current state of campus community. Some of the questions posed include:

¨ To what extent are University students members of multiple communities?

¨ What are the fundamental variables that influence building and joining communities?

¨ What are the factors that accelerate or retard the process of building and joining communities?

¨ Is there a critical size for successful communities?

¨ What determines the vigor by which boundaries between one group and another are defended?

¨ What programs or services are most effective in creating safer campuses?

¨ How is psychological safety enhanced on our campuses?

¨ What are the critical bridges which need to be constructed among different campus groups and what are the variables that encourage bridge-building?

¨ How does the campus physical environment affect the way communities are developed?

¨ How does the community surrounding the campus affect the way in which campus communities are constructed?

The Factors Which Cause Students to Leave the Community

Colleges are composed of academic and social communities, each with its own characteristic patterns of interaction and norms of behavior. Achieving membership in a campus community involves participating in both the academic and social communities. A significant body of research into student persistence has demonstrated that one of the major reasons for withdrawal from college is due to a failure to become integrated into either the academic or social communities. Research has found that experiences which promote a student's social and intellectual integration into the college community are likely to strengthen the individual's commitment to the institution and result in higher levels of persistence. Conversely, the absence of experiences which encourage integration tend to lead students to disassociate themselves from the social and academic communities and eventually withdraw.

The members of the Task Force, recognizing the importance of persistence as a measure of the viability of the campus community, suggested that research be undertaken into the factors which account for student persistence and withdrawal. The Task Force put forward the following questions:

¨ What institutional factors encourage/discourage academic and social integration at the University?

¨ What role do factors such as finances, housing, and transportation play in encouraging/discouraging academic and social integration into the campus community?



Chapter 13: General Recommendations

Throughout this Report, the Task Force has presented recommendations that relate specifically to the topic discussed. In this chapter, however, the Task Force presents more general recommendations of which the purpose is to extend the findings of the Task Force to the unique concerns of community on each campus.

1) Each campus of the University should establish its own campus community task force that includes broad student representation.

The work of the Universitywide Campus Community Task Force should be continued by campus-based committees composed of students, staff, faculty, and members of the surrounding community. These committees should extend and enhance the framework of the Universitywide Task Force to campus-specific community issues.

2) The Office of the President should convene a meeting of the University's institutional researchers to discuss expansion or modification of the issues raised in the Task Force Research Agenda.

In Chapter 12, the Task Force delineated a series of research questions relating to campus community. These empirical questions are best addressed by campus-based researchers who are well equipped to follow-up on unique campus concerns.

3) The campuses and the Office of the President should add the seven principles of community as essential criteria in the evaluation of programs and services.

In addition to the traditional criteria used to evaluate programs and services, campus administrators should be cognizant of the seven principles of community and the extent to which these principals have been supported, encouraged, or enhanced by the programs and services under evaluation. In order to strengthen the University community, programs and services that support the principles of community should be retained whenever possible.

4) The campuses and the Office of the President should add the seven principles of community as an additional element in performance evaluations.

Campuses and the Office of the President should recognize and reward superior performance on the part of faculty and staff who support or enhance the campus community.

Appendix A: Members of the Campus Community Task Force

   

The Task Force would like to acknowledge the work of staff in Student Affairs and Services at the Office of the President, including Margarita Kleven, Elaine Miller, Emilie Rivera, Patricia Romero, Rosa R. Sanchez, and Veronica R. Sanchez for their assistance in coordinating Task Force Meetings and in the production of this Report.


Name Title Campus

Michael Aldaco, Director, Admissions & Outreach Services, Office of the President
Karen Biestman, Coordinator, Native American Studies, Berkeley
Dario J. Caloss, Principal Analyst, Student Affairs & Services, Office of the President
Susanna Castillo-Robson, Director, Student Affairs & Services, Office of the President
Trevor Chandler, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Diversity Programs, Davis
George Chang, Associate Professor, Nutritional Sciences, Berkeley
Troy Duster, Professor of Sociology, & Director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change, Berkeley
Veronica Escoffery, Student, Irvine
Eleanor Fontes-Fulton, Director Educational Programs for Diversity, Davis
Dennis J. Galligani, Assistant Vice President, Student Academic Services, Office of the President,
(Task Force Chair)
Robert Gentry, Associate Dean of Students, Irvine
Amy Glick, Assistant Analyst, Student Affairs & Services, Office of the President
Stephen J. Handel, Principal Analyst, Office of the President Student Affairs & Services
Francisco Hernandez, Dean of Student Life, Berkeley
Maryann Jacobi, Director, Student Affairs Information & Research Office, Los Angeles
Carl Jorgensen, Associate Professor Sociology, Davis
Francine Martinez, Dean of Students, Third College, San Diego
Horace Mitchell, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Campus Life, Irvine
Gary Morrison, Deputy General Counsel, General Counsel of The Regents, Office of the President
Kim Nakahara, Student, Davis
Myron H. Okada, Associate Director, Academic Affairs, Office of the President
Jane Permaul, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Administration, Los Angeles
Gregory Portillo, Principal Analyst, Academic Affairs, Office of the President
Paula Rudolph, Assistant Dean, Graduate Division, Santa Barbara
Alma Sisco-Smith, Director, Student Academic Services, San Francisco
Janet Vandevender, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Divisional Affairs Office of the President, Santa Barbara
Lea Van Meter, Director, Disabled Student Services & Veteran Services, Santa Cruz
Gregory K. Tanaka, Research Assistant, Student Affairs Information & Research Office, Los Angeles
Allen Yarnell, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student & Campus Life, Los Angeles
Michael Young, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, Santa Barbara
Zizwe, Director, African Students Program, Riverside





Appendix B: Irvine Campus Principles of Community


PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY

UCI is a multicultural community of people from diverse backgrounds. Our activities, programs, classes, workshops, lectures, and everyday interactions are enriched by our acceptance of one another, and we strive to learn from each other in an atmosphere of positive engagement and mutual respect.

Our legacy for an increasingly multi-cultural academic community and for a learning climate free from expressions of bigotry is drawn from the United States and California Constitutions and from the charter of the University of California, which protects diversity and reaffirms our commitment to the protection of lawful free speech. Affirmation of that freedom is an effective way of ensuring that acts of bigotry and abusive behavior will not go unchallenged within the University. Tolerance, civility and mutual respect for diversity of background, gender, ethnicity, race, and religion are as crucial within our campus community as are tolerance, civility and mutual respect for diversity of political beliefs, sexual orientation, and physical abilities. Education, and a clear, rational, and vigorous challenge are positive responses to prejudice and acts of bigotry.

The University's nondiscrimination policy, in compliance with applicable federal and state law, covers treatment in University programs and activities as well as admission and employment. UCI expects all those affiliated with it to adhere to the letter and the spirit of University nondiscrimination policies and related federal and state laws.

Allegations of physical abuse, threats of violence, or conduct that threatens the health or safety of any person on University property or in connection with official University functions will be investigated promptly, and where found to exist, appropriate actions will be taken in accordance with University policy. (See Sections 51.16 and 51.28 of the Policies.)

All who work, live, study, and teach at UCI are here by choice and, as part of that choice, should be committed to these Principles of Community which are an integral part of the guidelines by which the University community can successfully conduct its affairs.


Approved: November 1, 1988


Appendix C: Davis Campus Principles of Community


PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY

The University of California, Davis is first and foremost an institution of learning and teaching committed to serving the needs of society. Our campus community reflects and is a part of a society comprising all races, creeds, and social circumstances. The successful conduct of the University's affairs requires that every member of the University community acknowledge and practice the following basic principles:

¨ We affirm the dignity inherent in all of us, and we strive to maintain a climate
of justice marked by respect for each other. We acknowledge that our society carries within it historical and deep-rooted misunderstandings and biases, and therefore we will endeavor to foster mutual understanding among the many parts of our whole.

¨ We affirm the right of freedom of expression within our community and also affirm our commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency towards all. We recognize the right of every individual to think and speak as dictated by personal belief, to express any idea, and to disagree with or counter another's point of view, limited only by University regulation governing time, place, and manner. We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity, and respect.

¨ We confront and reject all manifestations of discrimination, including those based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, status within or outside the university, or any of the other differences among people which have been excuses for misunderstanding, dissension or hatred. We recognize and cherish the richness contributed to our lives by our diversity. We take pride in our various achievements, and we celebrate our differences.

¨ We recognize that each of us has an obligation to the community of which we have chosen to be a part. We will strive to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring.

Approved: April 20, 1990


Appendix D: Berkeley Campus Statement Regarding Respect and Civility


RESPECT AND CIVILITY IN THE
CAMPUS COMMUNITY

The University of California at Berkeley is a public institution of higher education committed to excellence in teaching, research, and public service. Our student body represents the diversity of our state, and will provide its future leaders. Together, the students, faculty, and staff form our campus community, which reflects a variety of backgrounds and cultures. The quality of life on and about the campus is best served by courteous and dignified interaction between all individuals, regardless of sex, ethnic or religious background, sexual orientation, or disability.

Therefore, the administration of this University publicly declares its expectation that all members of the campus community will work to develop and maintain a high degree of respect and civility for the wealth of diversity in which we are all fortunate to live and work together. This civility and respect for diversity ought to flourish in an atmosphere of academic freedom that is considerate and tolerant of the ideas of others. The administration of this University expects you to consult the student conduct code for specific regulations regarding respect and civility.

Approved: June 16, 1993


Appendix E: Academic Senate Statement on a Fair and Open Academic Environment



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE



STATEMENT ON A FAIR AND OPEN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT


The University of California is dedicated to bringing the benefits of higher education to all of its students. To that end, it is the University's policy to provide a fair and open academic environment; one in which all students feel encourage to realize their potential, and one that is free from practices, whether intentional or not, that may affirm or reinforce stereotypes based on personal characteristics such as race and gender.

In order to help implement this policy of providing a fair and open academic environment at the University, the Academic Senate, as the body responsible for carrying out the University's educational mission, calls on its divisions, faculties, and departments to initiate the following actions:

1) Establish programs designed to raise the awareness and sensitivity of faculty and staff to potentially prejudicial or discriminatory practices and behaviors, encourage faculty and all staff members dealing with students to participate in these programs, and distribute information on non-discriminatory teaching and advising methods to all faculty, advisors, and teaching assistants.

2) Assure that effectiveness in creating a fair and open environment is considered in the evaluation of teaching.

3) Inform all new faculty, staff, students, and administrators of the University's commitment to a fair and open educational environment.

We call on the Office of the President to join the Academic Senate in the implementation of these actions.




Approved by the Academic Council on July 13, 1988

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC SENATE



Plan for Implementation of the Statement on
a Fair and Open Academic Environment


1. CURRENT RESOURCES INVENTORY

The President of the University is requested to direct each Chancellor to inventory those individuals, offices, and organizations on their campus which now have a direct bearing, active interest or program associated with the issues of a fair and open academic environment. The listing of such resources should be forwarded to the UCEP for its information, and printed for campus distribution in packets listed in #2.

2. INCREASING FACULTY/STAFF AWARENESS

The President of the University is requested to forward a Fair and Open Academic Environment policy and information packet to each member of the faculty in the University. The packet should include: A) a copy of the Statement on a Fair and Open Academic Environment adopted by the Senate; B) the President's personal letter of transmittal endorsing the contents and value of raised awareness; and C) a copy of the local campus inventory along with the local Chancellor's endorsement.

UCEP also recommends that you give consideration to including either a letter of endorsement from the Chair of the Academic Council or a letter of endorsement from the Chair of each campus Academic Senate in the campus specific packets.

After the initial distribution, the Fair and Open Academic Environment policy and information packet should be placed in the hands of each new faculty member and teaching assistant at the beginning of their employment by the University. The packet should receive appropriate emphasis in the process of orientation of teaching assistants and new faculty.

3. PROGRAM REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT

The University Committee on Educational Policy and the administration should cooperate in an annual review of the packet contents and the status of a fair and open academic environment

Approved by the Academic Council on May 17, 1989.

References

Alcohol seen as no. 1 campus abuse problem, despite concerns about students' drug use. (1987, March 25). Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. 32, 34.

American Council on Education, (1989). National Survey of College and University Presidents. Reported in: Change, September/October 1991, p. 23.

Astin, A. W. (1993, March/April). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change, pp. 44-49.

Astin, A. W., Trevino, J. G., & Wingard, T. L. (1991). The UCLA Campus Climate for Diversity. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

Barber, B. R. (1992). An Aristocracy of Everyone: The Politics of Education and the Future of America. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habitsof the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper & Row.

Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the Ivory Tower. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Boorstin, D. J. (1963). The Decline of Radicalism. New York: Random House.

Caloss, D. (1989). Towards a Comprehensive Plan for the Study of Retention and Attritionof Undergraduate Students at UCSB: A Review of the Literature and Some Observations. Santa Barbara: University of California, Office of Budget and Planning.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (with a forward by Ernest L. Boyer). (1990). Campus Life: In Search of Community. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Caserio, M., Evans, G., Herrera-Sobek, M., Songolo, A., & Wong, R. B. (1989, July). Chancellor's Think Tank on Diversity. Irvine: University of California, Office of the Chancellor.

Collison, M. N-K. (1992, March 25) Young people found pessimistic about relations between the races. Chronicle of Higher Education, 38 (No. 29), pp. A1, A32.

Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body. (1991). Promoting Student Successat Berkeley: Guidelines for the Future. Berkeley: University of California, Office of the Vice Chancellor.
Davis, B. D. (in press). Tools for Teaching. New York: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Egner, R. E. & Denonn, L. E. (Eds.) (1961). The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Eigen, L. D. (1991, September). Alcohol Practices, Policies, and Potentials of American Colleges and Universities: An Office for Substance Abuse Prevention White Paper. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Giamatti, A. B. (1988). A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World of the University. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Higher education's drinking problem (1982, July 21). Chronicle of Higher Education. p. 1.

Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present. New York: Knopf.

House, J. S. (1981). Work, Stress, and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hughes, L. (1959). Selected Poems. New York: Vintage.

Hunziker, C. M. (1992). Alcohol and Drug Use Among Undergraduates: Responses to a1990 Survey at UC Davis. Davis: University of California, Student Affairs Research and Information.

Institute for the Study of Social Change (1991). Diversity Project. Berkeley: University of California, Institute for the Study of Social Change.

Jacobi, M. (1989). Student Services Assessment: Report on Undergraduate Student Problems. Los Angeles: University of California, Student Affairs Information & Research Office.

Jacobi, M. & Shepard, C. (1988). Planning for UCLA's Future: An Assessment of Student Needs (Phase I). Los Angeles: University of California, Student Affairs Information and Research Office.

Jacobi, M. & Shepard, C. (1990a). Student Services Assessment: Report on UCLA as a Community (Undergraduate Sample). Los Angeles: University of California, Student Affairs Information and Research Office.

Jacobi, M. & Shepard, C. (1990b). Student Services Assessment: Report on UCLA as a Community (Graduate Sample). Los Angeles: University of California, Student Affairs Information and Research Office.

Kallen, H. M. (1915, February 18, 25). Democracy versus the melting pot. The Nation, 100, pp. 190-194; 217-220.

Kallen, H. M. (1924). Culture and Democracy in the United States. New York: Boni & Liveright.

Kerr, C. (1963). The Uses of the University. New York: Harper & Row.

King, M. L., Jr. (1967). Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? New York: Harper and Row.

King, M. L., Jr. (1968). Remaining awake through a great revolution. In J. M. Washington (Ed.), The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1986, p. 269) San Francisco: Harper.

Lederman, D. (1993, January 20). "Colleges report 7,500 violent crimes on their campuses in first annual statements required under federal law." Chronicle of Higher Education. p. A32-A44.

Low, J. M. (1991). The Davis Environment: A Report of Student Opinions. Davis: University of California, Student Affairs Research and Information.

Mercer, J. R. (1990). Campus Climate for Women Graduate Students at UCR, 1989-90. Riverside: University of California, Office of Affirmative Action.
Mills, K. C. (1985, May 14-15). An overview of the problems of students and substance abuse. Proceedings of the University of California Student Affairs Conference on Students and Substance Abuse. Berkeley: University of California, Office of the President, Student Affairs and Services.

Nelson, R. & Baker, H. (1990, May). The Educational Climate for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students. Santa Cruz: University of California, Office of Analysis and Planning.

Presley, C. & Meilman, P.W. (1992, July). Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: A Report to College Presidents. Southern Illinois University (Carbondale): Student Health Program Wellness Center, Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Studies.

Reeves, R. (1982). American Journey. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Schlesinger, A. M. (1992). The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton & Company.

Shepard, C. & Hensen, J. (1989). 1988 CIRP Freshmen Data Report: Attitudes and Values Regarding Intergroup Tolerance and Diversity. Los Angeles: University of California, Student Affairs Information and Research Office.

Sherrill, J. M. & Siegel, D. G. (Eds.) (1989). Responding to Violence on Campus: New Directions for Student Services, Number 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steele, S. (1990). The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. New York: St. Martin's Press.

University of California, (July 1989). The Forces Influencing College Student Persistence: A Review of the Literature. Oakland: University of California, Office of the President, Student Research and Operations.

University of California, (1990, January). Undergraduate Student Affirmative Action Five Year Plan, 1990-1995. Oakland: University of California, Office of the President, Admission and Outreach Services.

University of California, (1992a, September). Report on University Staff and Management Affirmative Action Programs. Oakland: University of California, Office of the President, Office of Business and Employment Affirmative Action.

University of California, (1992b, May 6). Report on Affirmative Action Programs for University Academic Employees and Graduate and Professional Students. Oakland: University of California, Office of the President.

University of California, (1992c). Annual Report and Crime Statistics. San Diego: University of California, Police Department.

University of California, (1993, May 5). Report on the University of California Undergraduate Student Affirmative Action Programs. Oakland: University of California, Office of the President, Student Academic Services.

University of California, Berkeley, (1990, June). Excellence Through Diversity: Undergraduate Education at Berkeley. Berkeley: University of California, Office of Undergraduate Affairs.

University of California, Davis (1992, January). Building a Diverse Campus: Toward a Comprehensive Plan for Achieving Diversity at UCD and UCDMC. Davis: University of California, Office of the Provost.

University of California, Riverside (1991). Undergraduate Student Affirmative Action Five Year Plan: 1990-1995. Riverside: University of California, Educational Opportunity Program/Student Affirmative Action Office.

Winds of change buffet academe (1992, November 16). Christian Science Monitor. p. 9.

Wolf, R. (1969). The Ideal of the University. Boston: Beacon Press.

Back to the Student Academic Services page
Go to the University of California Office of the President Page

Last modified Tuesday, April 1, 1997
Copyright 1997 The Regents of the University of California
Problems? Please contact the SAS Webmaster.