Timeline, progress, & meetings

Timeline Fall 2016-Spring 2018

Fall 2016

Concurrent sub-committees: climate survey; structural planning; hiring; pilot programs evaluation.

Spring 2017

Climate Survey results released on 7th March 2017 (Tue).
Concurrent sub-committees working on: structural planning; training; documentation of diversity effort at the university level; pilot programs.

Late March

Community Forum 1
23rd March (Thur) 12:15-1:30 p.m. SMT 114
Community Forum 2
29th March (Wed) 4:30 - 5:45 p.m. SMT 217

Late April

Final Presentation
21st April (F) 1:15 - 3:00 p.m. SMT 114

May 15th

Recommendations submitted to President Kelly

Progress Feb - July 2016

Frank Rudy Cooper was appointed as the Senior Adviser for Diversity and was the facilitator of the Task Force from February to July 2016. During his tenure, Frank has accomplished a number of tasks.

1. Task Force

  • Reviewed about 75 applications for 20 spots on the Task Force.
  • Produced documents on the charge of the Task Force.
  • Facilitated meetings of the Task Force.
  • Charged the Task Force to produce a strategic plan.

2. Hiring practices

  • Researched and selected changes in hiring processes.

3. Professional development

  • Researched, created, and executed professional development training for administrators, faculty, students, and staff on implicit bias, microaggressions, and discussions about identity.

4. Student events

  • Promoted student and community events to signal Suffolk commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

5. Climate survey

  • Oversaw the climate survey.

Meeting dates and Minutes

Next Meeting

none scheduled

Past Meetings

April 1, 2016 
April 29, 2016
June 29, 2016 
July 27, 2016
August 24, 2016
September 22, 2016 
December 2, 2016 
February 3, 2017 
February 28, 2017 
April 4, 2017 


Friday, April 1, 2016

Attendees: Margaret McKenna, President, Frank Rudy Cooper – Facilitator, Linda Brown, Levi Wesley Smith, Michele Rosenthal, Robert Smith, Felicia Wiltz, Abraham Pena-Talamantes, Melanie Jenkins, Regina O’Neill, Dominic Thomas, Maria Toyoda, Michael Dello Iacono, Rachael Kipp, Mickey Lee, Carolina Garcia, Sheikh “Nash” Abu Nasher, Saleena Son, Christine Dillon (minutes) Absent: Tia Fioravante, Cherina Clark

Item 1. Welcome and Introductions. Everyone introduces themselves and tells a story about their name.

Item 2. President’s Charge. President McKenna thanks everyone for agreeing to serve and states that the charge of this committee is to have an action-oriented plan that addresses ways in which this university can plan, improve and implement more diversity throughout the Suffolk community in a concrete, timely manner. This university has a tradition to reach out to those who are not served by other universities and she hopes to build on that tradition.
President McKenna states that she is committed to providing support and resources to make this initiative work.

Item 3. Group Photograph. Mr. Cooper states that the group photo will be taken at next meeting.

Item 4. Timeline. Mr. Cooper discusses the proposed timeline for this semester.
Today, the group will discuss what success looks like.
The 2nd meeting the group will discuss “where we are” and break into sub groups to help determine this. The topic of meeting 3 will be determined at the end of the current meeting.

Item 5. Safe space rules. Mr. Cooper proposes that the group agrees to 3 safe space rules:
• Do not quote people. People have to feel safe to speak their mind without being quoted.
• Challenge each other
• Feel free to say what we really feel

Item 6. Definitions. Diversity and Inclusion. A school is more diverse when it has staff, administrations, faculty and students from a broad array of backgrounds, life experiences, social positions, along the lines of race, cultures, sexual orientation, nationality and so on…
The group discusses the scope of what the terms “diversity” and “inclusion” should include.

Item 7. Group work. What does success look like? The group breaks into smaller groups per the agenda and works on the task.
The group reconvenes and discusses data requirements needed to move toward success. Data from institutional research, benchmarking, demographics on students, faculty and staff, student interviews, policy/procedures, “underground” organizational information, climate survey,

Item 8. Administrative. The group moves on to discuss administrative issues; support, bios, structure of task force. Mr. Cooper states that the next meeting will be held on April 15, from 1-3pm and asks the three chairs (Melanie Jenkins, Mickey Lee and Felicia Wiltz) to please communicate with their groups regarding change equity/groups/inclusiveness and summarize further info needed.

No further business and meeting adjourns at 3pm.
CM Dillon

Wednesday June 29, 2016

Attendees: Abraham Pena-Talamantes, Robert (Bob) Smith, Carolina Garcia, Cherina Clark, Dominic Thomas, Frank Rudy Cooper, Levi Smith, Linda Brown, Margaret McKenna, Maria Toyoda, Melanie Jenkins, Michael Dello Iacono, Michele Rosenthal, Sheikh (Nash) Nasser, Rachael Kipp, Lisa Vigliotta, and Tia Fioravanti. Absent: Micky Lee, Regina O’Neill, Felicia Wiltz, Elizabeth Ching-Bush

Sub- Committees report back to the group on their research and findings:

1. Climate Survey
Melanie Jenkins summarized the work of this sub-committee by summarizing results of her survey of the whole Task Force.Frank Rudy Cooper noted that Professor Harper of University of Pennsylvania Education School will submit a bid to do a Diversity Climate Survey. He also noted that Sue Rankin’s consulting group cannot do such a survey on our schedule. Finally, he reported on several conversations he has had with Helene Perdue of Modern Think consulting. Theirs is more of an engagement survey. There was general discussion of the merits of a more general engagement survey versus a diversity-focused survey. President McKenna summarized the general consensus by saying that we need a diversity-focused survey.

2. Faculty Hiring
Bob Smith summarized the work of this sub-committee. They want feedback on a checklist versus a long explanation in a hiring guidelines manual. The overall tension is between brevity and depth. There is also tension between shared methods and a school-by-school approach.
Task Force members generally agreed that all faculty hiring committees should have a diversity plan at inception of hire. President McKenna summarized a general consensus that all members of Hiring Committees should be trained on diversity, or at least the Chair. Others noted that if people don't know how to find diversity within a field, Human Resources can provide links to professional associations. One member suggested that members of the Hiring Committee should have to initial boxes in a checklist for best practices of hiring at each stage. Human Resources might be able to initiate such a process in Workday (different from Jobsites).

3. Staff Hiring
Lisa Vigliotta summarized the discussion of the sub-committee. We need more advertising on Diversity.com. We should invest in an annual contract with them.We should set ground rules. We should also make recruitment plans. We can use other schools' checklists to create the Plans.
A member of the Task Force asked, can we post on Affirmative Action jobs? Yes, as needed.
There was general consensus that all hiring should emphasize our desire for racial minority candidates by saying something like, "Actively seeking …"
There was discussion of our On-Boarding process for new hires. It was generally agreed that we need to always include our commitment to diversity in on-boarding, while lengthening and indvidualizing the processes.

4. Faculty Training
Dominic Thomas summarized the sub-committee’s discussions. He noted that we could make things worse through training by emphasizing difference instead of focusing on individuals. There is a question of using Push (required) versus Pull (interest-garnering) methods.
There was a concern that Suffolk doesn't have a Diversity page. It does, including a statement about the Task Force.http://www.suffolk.edu/explore/60092.php.
It was noted that Wake Forest sells their training. We need to remind people that diversity does things for us (the business case).
Levi Smith summarized further research by the sub-committee. We should focus our training on unconscious bias. Suffolk doesn't have online resources like UCSF. NC St. has great Implicit bias test.

5. Staff Training:
Michele Rosenthal summarized the work of this sub-committee. The Colleges of the Fenway consortium had a good menu of training on diversity and other topics. Suffolk pulled out of that consortium. It was noted that, right now, there are some clubs getting diversity-type trainings. Some suggested that we have optional training, but participation should be recognized; e.g., with a sticker, notation in one’s employee file, etc.
It was suggested that we could use the CTSE for an FPLC program on diversity. It was also noted that we might consider training on pronouns.

6. Student Training:
Nash Nasser summarized the sub-committee’s discussions so far. The group has looked at CRLS, Harvard, etc. Carolina Garcia's social justice training is great, but one must apply. Can Suffolk promote being involved in diversity as a great thing?
A member of the Task Force asked what other schools are doing for graduate versus undergraduate. Mandatory training? How successful?
A member of the Task Force noted that our Undergraduate orientation has a four corners exercise as well as a skit on diversity that were good. We could add diversity training in large courses with TAs. Our commuter-based structure makes this tough.
Another member of the Task Force noted that Undergraduate orientation was positive, but crammed. Another commented that some club leaders get trained at a THINK conference. Under SLI. LEAP is on the Cape. It was noted that we could invite the theatre department to help with orientation

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Attendees: Marisa Kelly, Levi Smith, Linda Brown, Abe Peña, Sheikh Abu “Nash” Nasher, Maria Toyoda, Lisa Vigliotta, Frank Rudy Cooper, Michael Dello Iacono, Michelle Rosenthal, Regina O'Neill, Dominic Thomas, Lizette Rivera, Cherina Clark, Elizabeth Ching-Bush, Melanie Jenkins, Micky Lee. Absent: Rachael Kipp, Carolina Garcia.

1. New chair
Marisa Kelly introduced Micky Lee as the new chair.

2. Climate survey feedback
The sub-committee presented a draft of the climate survey. The task force members read through it and gave comments. No major problems were found. Demographic questions were suggested.

3. Timeline of the task force
Micky Lee aims to conclude the work by April 2017. The next large group meeting will take place in March 2017, by that time we will have the first draft. There will be community meetings for feedback in March. The final report and presentation should take place in April 2017. Micky will work with sub-committees on their part of the report. Members received sign-up sheet to select sub-committees to join.

Note taken by Micky Lee

December 2, 2016

In attendance: Marisa Kelly, Sheikh Abu “Nash” Nasher, Maria Toyoda, Lisa Vigliotta, Frank Rudy Cooper, Michael Dello Iacono, Michele Rosenthal, Lizette Rivera, Elizabeth Ching-Bush, Melanie Jenkins, Micky Lee, Robert Cirame, Tiffany Martinez, Phyliss St-Hubert. Absent: Linda Brown, Cherina Clark, Michelle Driffill, Rachael Kipp, Regina O'Neill, Abe Pena-Talamantes, Levi Smith, Dominic Thomas, Katherine Whidden, Felicia Wiltz.

1. Climate Survey Results Documents
Three sets of documents were distributed: 1. Summary of results; 2. Comparison of average response charts; 3. Correlation. Write-in comments were produced but not distributed.

2. Summary of results
A breakdown of all the responses according to groups (faculty/instructor, academic administrator, university staff, student). For some of the responses, two values are coded in red. It means there is a significant difference of the responses between two groups. For example, for Q1 “How would you rate the climate at Suffolk University?”, the mean score of university staff is 3.41 while that for student is 3.76. It means students view the climate in a more positive light than staff members. For questions where no value is coded in red, it means there is no significant difference between the responses. Some questions were raised for specific questions.
Q6 There is a significant difference between how faculty/instructor and students view positive climate in relation to political beliefs. A question was raised of when the survey was administrated. As of 9th Nov (the day after the election), there were 652 responses. On the results sheet, 580 people answered Q1. So it can be assumed there was not a sharp increase in survey participation after the election.
Q20 The results may show students feel Suffolk is more exclusive of all factors (other than disability status and age) than faculty/instrutors. There is a consistent discrepancy between the two groups.
Q21 Students feel the residence halls are more exclusive than the classroom. Maria suggested the difference can be explained by some recent incidents in the residence halls.
Q23 The “overall mean” score for all responses may not be accurate.
Q24 There is a significant difference between students' satisfaction (mean: 3.41) with the policies than university staff (mean: 3.00). However, the mean score for academic administrator is 3.53 and that for student is 3.41. Melanie explained the number of responses mattered as well.
Q25 For some items, three figures are coded in red. Melanie explained it is a three-way variance. So the responses of two groups are significantly different from that of one group.
Q38 Lizette asked if “What is your citizenship status” should be asked. Melanie said the question did not ask if someone is documented or not.

3. Comparison of average response charts
The first 14 pages show the differences in responses in graph format.
P. 15 & 16 is a cloud analysis of the write-in responses. The larger and darker a word is, the more frequently it is mentioned.
p. 17 A thematic analysis of the write-in comments. Each of the responses is coded according to themes.
p. 18 A breakdown of how many times a specific word is mentioned in the write-in comments.

4. Correlations
The highlighted boxes show the positive correlation between two items. For example, Q5 and Q7 are highlighted, it means the more one rates the climiate positively, the more satisifed one is with the climate.

5. Written comments
Copies of the write-in comments were not distributed because three names were mentioned and some respondents gave too much information to reveal personal identity.

6. Dissemination of the results to the Task Force
We agreed that the four documents should be disseminated as soon as possible to Task Force members. Names and personal identification information will be removed to ensure anonymity. There are identifications where such changes are made, such as “[Name] is not a good role model” or “I am a [demographic info] student taking [a graduate class]”.
Task Force members will be asked to not share the results with others yet, there should be a ppt to contextualize what the data mean. The write-in comments may also need to be further summarized because they are 17-page long.
Sub-committee members are welcome to ask Melanie for specific data and how to interpret them.

7. Dissemination of the results to the community
Melanie suggested that the results may need to be condensed before presenting it to the community. Frank however thinks not sharing the full results will be intrepreted as being secretive. Marisa sees the value of having the raw data for social scientists to work on for their own purpose. It is agreed that the community will have both the raw data and the Task Force's interpretation of them. Maria suggested a “10 giveaways” that describes the Task Force's assessment of the data. Micky suggested the written comments can be abbreviated so that themes can be drawn. Marisa suggested that we indicate how many times a theme is mentioned.

8. Next steps
The documents will be released to the Task Force asap.
A January meeting will be scheduled for Melanie to show the “10 giveaways” ppt and to discuss when, where, and how the summary and the raw data will be disseminated to the community.
In that meeting, we will also have the Hiring sub-committee to report their recommendations.

Note taken by Micky Lee

February 3, 2017

In attendance: Lisa Vigliotta, Michele Rosenthal, Abe Pena-Talamantes, Joyya Smith, Rachael Kipp, Aileen Depot, Maria Toyoda, Melanie Jenkins, Sheikh (Nash) Nahser, Levi Smith, Michael Dello Iacono, Linda Brown, Marisa Kelly, Lizette Rivera, Elizabeth Ching-Bush, Felicia Wiltz, Jennifer Bonardi, Rachel Kipp, Micky Lee

Absent: Regina O'Neill, Katherine Whidden, Robet Cirame, Cherina Clark, Phyllis St-Hubert (study
abroad), Dominic Thomas

1. Outline of the report introduction; data of gender/race diversity
Micky presented the documentation ppt prepared by Felicia and Micky. They asked the Task Force two questions: whether it is necessary to give a narrative of the statistics of gender/race diversity among faculty, staff, and students; why so many staff members chose “unknown” for their race/ethnicity.
Melanie will double-check on the staff data regarding the “unknown” race.
Marisa asked for clarification of what “international” faculty means. Melanie explained that they are currently on a work visa. Marisa thinks the data may be skewed because international faculty members who became Green Card holders and citizens also contribute to diversity.
Michele thinks it is important to tell a story, especially if we want to tie the statistics to the recommendations.
Maria suggested the narrative can be about changes. Felicia and Micky will look at the data collected in 2005 and 2010. Unfortunately, no staff data were collected in those years.

2. Hiring recommendations
Lisa presented the recommendations. (Please refer to the slides once they are modified based on the
suggestions in 3.)

3. Discussion of hiring recommendations
Levi asked if there is any implicit bias training for search committee members. Lisa said this is not the current practice, but the sub-committee recommends it.
Michael asked if there is a policy of sending out rejection letters. Lisa said applicants receive a letter if they don't advance to candidacy.
Lizette asked about staff and administration hiring. Lisa said some of the recommendations will also apply to non-committee-based searches.
Lizette thinks the post-doc programme is a good idea.
Marisa suggested to the sub-committee that pre-doctoral graduate fellowship be considered. They will have a reduced teaching load and will receive on-the-job training. They will also be less expensive than post-doc. But it has to be a living wage. Other additional benefits: tied to hiring needs; turning that line into a tenure track line.

4. Climate Survey ppt
Melanie presented the ppt that summarizes and contextualizes the climate survey results. (Please refer to the slides once they are modified based on the suggestions in 5&6.)
How faculty thinks about equity at Suffolk may be found out more from the survey results of Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA. (Faculty was invited to complete the survey on January 20 by Sebastian Royo).
Melanie thinks the results point to the Office of Disabilities Services needing a strategic initiative and more resources.

5. Discussion of Climate Survey
Lizette asked about the breakdown of data regarding years of service among different groups of employees. Melanie said the raw data shows the years of services among faculty, staff, and administrators.
Marisa thinks the climate survey should tie to the Suffolk Strategic Plan.

6. Dissemination of Climate Survey Results
Levi suggested that we will send out the data, then follow up with a community forum.
Elizabeth said we should have people to ask questions in a forum.
Melanie thinks the climate survey has multiple purposes, one of which is to have the community to make more recommendations.
Marisa suggested that we add a couple of slide to emphasize what the Task Force will do to address the concerns.
Rachael thinks we should include the Task Force mission and the subcommittees in the slide.
Lisa thinks we should have a lead of the Suffolk Strategic Plan.
Michele suggested that a letter be sent out along with the attachment to contextualize the climate survey.
Melanie said the files should be protected, and members need to log in to view the results.
Micky said she will add a few slides to Melanie's ppt. She asked when we should disseminate it.
Michael thinks as close to the first community meeting as possible, such as the week before Spring Break.
Micky asked members to look at the summary of the write-in comments. She thinks we should distribute the summaries, but not the 18-page comments because some comments are long.
Michael wonders if the summary has anything new to add because the ppt has covered many grounds.
Marisa thinks it is essential to distribute both because people would think we are hiding something.
Maria thinks we may do a content analysis of specific words. Melanie said that part is done and distributed in last December.
Michele thinks it is important for us to prepare the senior administration to address the concerns raised in
the survey.
Marisa suggested that we send the ppt, the raw data, and the summaries two weeks before Spring Break to the upper administration.
Melanie thinks the above practice can be modelled when survey results are released in the future.
Jennifer thinks the community forum should ensure people who are shy to have a way to give comments.
Nash thinks we should have a contact e-mail when we send out the survey results. Marisa thinks there
should be a specific e-mail for climate survey.
Lizette thinks we should have specific sessions for students. Marisa thinks mixing students, faculty, and
staff is essential. Micky thinks we can always have specific sessions after the two community meetings if
different groups want to share comments that way.
Jen suggested cross-promotion, such as handing out cards about the community forum at the Shaun King
event on Feb 8, 2017.

Notes taken by Micky Lee

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

In attendance: Lisa Vigliotta, Michele Rosenthal, Abe Pena-Talamantes, Joyya Smith, Rachael Kipp, Aileen Depot, Maria Toyoda, Sheikh (Nash) Nahser, Levi Smith, Michael Dello Iacono, Lizette Rivera, Elizabeth Ching-Bush, Felicia Wiltz, Jennifer Bonardi, Rachel Kipp, Micky Lee, Regina O'Neill, Katherine Whidden, Robet Cirame, Melanie Jenkins.
Absent: Linda Brown, Phyllis St-Hubert (study abroad), Dominic Thomas, Marisa Kelly

1. Training recommendations
Refer to slides.

2. Discussion of training recommendations
Lizette asked about diversity training. Maria said faculty members have been undergoing mandatory diversity training in Spring 2017. Michele mentioned the Colleges of Fenway consortium has a robust training program. Lizette mentioned CTSE and ODS work on diversity training for faculty, but staff was not invited. ODS training is open for staff but few staff members join. Michael thinks training for students, staff, and faculty can be done in daylong events such as the proposed Ram Inclusion Day and CTSE technology symposium. Katherine mentioned we need to know what staff thinks is the most important things to learn.

3. Structural planning recommendations
Refer to ppt and handout. Sub-committee called 24 schools and asked: who manages diversity? Who is responsible for what offices (staffing, financing, grant-based work, training)? Elizabeth mentioned students want to have a go-to person. For the last CDO position, there was no structure to enhance what needs to be done. There was some confusion about what that person ought to do (Title IX, PDCA, ODS, and OCAA). Lizette thinks a VP of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity will cross border.

4. Discussion of structural planning recommendations
Michael wondered if the position should be someone outside the administrative structure. Jen mentioned the proposed VP can be useful at empowering employees to have difficult conversations. There was question about what the VP should do and what HR should do if staffing issues appear. Katherine thinks HR can raise awareness that it can deal with staff issues.

5. Discussion of both sets of recommendations
Elizabeth suggested someone should oversee the bias reporting system. There is a discussion of whether the current form is easy to locate or not. Micky mentioned one function of the reports is to collect data.
Regina thinks the job description of the proposed VP is comprehensive. It shows how important the job is. She wanted to know about the current structure because she was interested in understanding how everything fit together. Lizette said they compared different job descriptions. The key is not to disrupt the current structure. But we need a central person because diversity issues are not isolated. Regina agreed that understanding the issues holistically is a good idea.
Lisa suggested we should let the VP know how success should be measured. Lizette added that the VP will have a strategic plan.
Some raised the issue of whether the Presidential Search Committee should be informed of the Task Force concerns. Levi will talk to the SGA President, Micky will talk to the CAS rep.
Lizette asked about new employee orientation. Lisa mentioned there were regular orientations a few years ago. But HR will have focus groups for new employees to learn of their needs.
Lizette asked about who will be in charge of Ram Inclusion Day. Micky replied it is not a priority so it probably won't take place in 2017-18.

Tuesday 4th April, 2017

2:00 – 3:00 p.m.
King's Chapel Conference Room

In attendance: Jennifer Bonardi, Lisa Vigliotta, Aileen Depot, Levi Smith, Maria Toyoda, Joyya Smith, Felicia Wiltz, Micky Lee, Regina O'Neill, Katherine Whidden, Robet Cirame, Melanie Jenkins

Absent: Abe Pena-Talamantes, Michele Rosenthal, Elizabeth Ching-Bush, Rachael Kipp, Sheikh (Nash) Nahser, Michael Dello Iacono, Lizette Rivera, Linda Brown, Phyllis St-Hubert (study abroad), Dominic Thomas, Marisa Kelly

Item 1: Non-inclusive language in climate survey results write-in comments

The comment is “Also, there is a lot of corruption among our administration on the board and also in [an unit]. [NAME] is not qualified to be in [his/her] position and [he/she] should not be operating as [ADMINISTRATION] officer. [He/she] is ineffective in that role and from my experience many students that have interacted with [him/her] in that capacity have left feeling worse than they came into. [He/she] does not support students or defend them to the extent that someone in the [ADMINISTRATION] position should.”
Three options were presented: (1) Retain the comments and add why “he/she” is preferred: because a gendered singular pronoun was used in the original comment; (2) change “him/her” into “them”, and “he/she” into “they”. Add a note that a singular person was mentioned; (3) change “him/her” and “he/she” into “the person”.
Jen thinks the plural pronoun “they” is not too confusing and readers will not be misguided that the comment refers to more than one person. Maria suggested that we use [_____] instead (option 4).
Nine people were present, result: option 1 (0 vote); option 2 (2 votes); option 3 (0 vote); option 4 (7 votes). Micky will change the language and update the file to be uploaded on the website.

Item 2: Discuss the recommendations of structural planning: Office/Division of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity
In the 28th Feb meeting, the structural planning sub-committee put forward a proposal which was reviewed by three other Task Force members. They raised the question of which existing units will be moved under the new office. Aileen asked why the Office of Diversity Service (ODS) would be a collaborator instead of part of the new unit. Levi refers to the ODS website and thinks the VP office will be more about policies and procedures. Bob asked if others are doing the same jobs, why not moving different offices under the new office. Maria thinks the position should help administration to get things done. There should be accountability and consequence, but she is not sure if a new office will cut through the red tape. Katherine said having such an office will make people outside the office say diversity is not their job. She mentioned that a similar office was created three times. Felicia thinks a VP will help organize strategies for which other offices will operate, act as a spearhead of university leadership.

Item 3: Job description of the position
Katherine thinks at present the job has no outcome, it is unsure what will be accomplished by this person. She thinks we should not set someone up for failure. We need to know the goals delivered by this person.
Levi thinks the VP should link to the strategic plan. One responsibility is to promote training from a staff perspective.
Maria agrees with Felicia that the position would facilitate information sharing and co-ordinating. But the end goal is not clear. Past experience shows it is not the failure of the person, but institutional structure. Having this position will not overcome the biggest obstacle.
Regina asked if institutional culture should come before the structure could support it.
Maria thinks funding through priority would enable diversity to be embedded in programs (academic, activity) and classroom experience. The new position may create silo and the person may not work at Suffolk culture.
Katherine thinks it will be helpful to set targets, such as where we are today, where we want to be, and what the goals are.
The discussion shifted to training. Bob mentioned his company requires inclusion training. Melanie asked what the expected outcome is, what the university gets. Bob said the university will have a culture.
Felicia mentioned AAC&U has resources on diversity training. Mandatory training may not be a good idea. Need to think from a professional development perspective. Faculty feels no incentive to buy in.
The discussion shifted to hiring.
Melanie asked how to think about goals and whether the ones who draft the ad should work with HR.
Katherine thinks Suffolk employees should reflect the student body. In some places, given three equally qualified candidates, the person who is the least represented in that position should be hired.
Melanie asked if there will be token hires in this case.
Katherine emphasizes this applies to cases where the shortlisted candidates are equally qualified. She also mentioned implicit bias and implicit preference hiring. The Strategic Plan is about how to operationalize the hiring, to begin a process.

Item 4: Feasibility of the position
Micky asked if a new VP should be hired after the next President is chosen. Maria thinks it is premature to have this position regardless of who the president is because we'd better figure out what we want first.
Katherine mentioned we need a strong organization development person: how to give feedback, how to hire, how to do performance review. She is afraid that a VP in diversity will make the issues isolated, not diffused.
Regina asked if there is any successful model in other colleges.
Felicia mentioned Cornell has five diversity officers. Melanie also mentioned a Provost at Tufts.
At this point, Micky asked if the sub-committee makes the job description more specific and set up targeted goals, how many people would feel uncomfortable with having the recommendation in the report. Four people said they would feel uncomfortable. (Micky did not ask how many would feel comfortable).
Regina asked if we could postpone the deadline of the report, Micky said no because we have postponed it for one semester and people will be taking time off after May.

Note by Micky Lee