A debate lasting more than an hour broke out at the University Senate meeting Wednesday after the Committee on Diversity presented its one-page motion recommending Syracuse University continue its policy of inclusion and diversity.

The committee presented the motion in response to the February USen meeting when, according to the motion, ‘it was argued that SU was pursuing a policy of diversity and

inclusiveness at the expense of ‘selectivity.” Disagreement about how the motion was written drove some discussion, which resulted in members rephrasing one piece of the motion before it passed with a handful of about 60 present senate members voting against it.

The Committee on Diversity found it important to address the incorrect view that inclusivity in student admissions may compromise selectivity, said Micere Githae Mugo, a professor in the Department of African-American Studies who presented the motion and fielded the discussion that followed.

The motion moved USen to endorse Syracuse University’s pursuit of inclusiveness in admissions practices and recommended SU to ‘continue’ its policy of inclusion and to support the goals of academic excellence and diversity as complementary. The motion originally stated the university should ‘expand’ the policy.

As soon as the motion was put on the floor, David Bennett, the senate member who began the discussion at the February USen meeting, stood up to respond. Bennett said he felt the motion mischaracterized his view on the subject and that being an inclusive institution is a noble and admiral goal.

Bennett was originally concerned with if and how the university was changing its policy on admissions, he said. He asked Don Saleh, vice president for enrollment management, to explain who was making the decisions on changing the admissions policy. Saleh told him it was a group of three or four, Bennett said.

Saleh denied ever saying a select group had made the decision.

‘I cannot believe that, that would be my response,’ Saleh said at the meeting.

Bennett continued to speak for more than 10 minutes, noting his concerns about the university’s reputation and how it was changing during a time of a near 60 percent admissions rate. He pulled out a copy of U.S. News and World Report’s analysis of universities and pointed to an article naming SU an ‘A+ School for B Students.’

USen members spoke out during Bennett’s talk, asking him to open the floor to others with questions and comments, as well as requesting that Bennett keep the rest of his response to no more than five minutes.

Mugo said the Committee on Diversity welcomed the discussion and had no problem with Bennett speaking up.

As the meeting went on, discussion broadened into three parts: diversity, the university’s recent history with admissions and the motion presented.

Ian Ludd, a freshman political science major and undergraduate student representative for USen, said he thought Bennett’s presentation was being misconstrued and confused as a discussion on diversity.

‘Everyone here agrees that diversity is important, but I don’t think that’s what Professor Bennett is presenting,’ Ludd said.

Instead, it was a discussion on the near 60 percent admissions rate, Ludd said. He had no answer on whether the rate was good or bad, but a civil discussion should be happening, he said

Steve Weiter, a member of the Administrative Operations Committee who issued the report, said the issue was never about diversity and whether or not SU was meeting those goals, but rather about admissions policies and the acceptance rate.

‘We were beginning to look like everybody’s safety school,’ Weiter said.

As the committee looked into the issue, questions arose on the quality of accepted students, given how many were being granted admission, Weiter said. He said he did not know if diversity should have ever been included in the discussion.

Saleh said he thinks there is an ‘old way’ of describing admissions success, looking specifically at criteria such as SAT scores and GPA. But he likes to look at the strength of the class by looking at the characteristics students are bringing to campus, he said.

During the past 11 years, application numbers have significantly risen, Saleh said. The trend is a result of a lot of hard work and the rise in SU’s reputation, he said.

There has been no change in university policy regarding the admission of more diverse students, Chancellor Nancy Cantor said. But Cantor said she ‘absolutely’ supported a discussion about selectivity across campus.

The increase in admissions and any change to admissions strategy reflects the university drawing more students from beyond the Northeast, which has a shrinking population of college students. Should SU look to draw more applicants from places like California, it must accept more students from the area because those students have a lower chance of choosing SU.

‘What we have not done in the process is change anything about the quality of the class,’ Cantor said.

But Stephen Sydor, a freshman international relations and economics major and undergraduate representative for USen, said the high admissions rate was still a concern to him. An increase in applicants could mean more students may see SU as an easy school to get into, he said. He also expressed a concern about the value of his degree.

‘As a student, when I graduate, if an employer looks and sees you came from Syracuse University — what does that mean?’ Sydor said.

Qi Wen Li, a senior biology major who attended the meeting, countered Sydor. As someone who recently went through graduate school interviews, she said she did not feel interviewers were judging her based on where she studied as an undergraduate, but rather her own accomplishments and skills.

It was the longest meeting USen held this academic year so far, lasting about an hour and a half. The meeting ended just after 5:30 p.m., after the Committee on Academic Affairs gave a report in the executive session. Throughout the meeting Jonathan Massey, the presiding officer, kept members conscious of the time.

Samuel Gorovitz, a member of the Committee on Academic Affairs, said he has seen overall discussion in USen shut down because of ideological disagreement. He agrees with being an inclusive school, but the discussion about it should not be sidestepped so easily, he said.

‘On more than one occasion, I have been a witness to someone expressing a view contrary to the position taken by the university and challenged — not on the merits of the case, but as morally deficient,’ Gorovitz said. ‘And I think that is shameful.’

dkmcbrid@syr.edu

Published on March 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Contact Dara: dkmcbrid@syr.edu | @daramcbride