“Higher Ed Leaders Spotlight” features stories and perspectives from higher education leaders dedicated to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the higher education workforce.
Dr. Carmen Suarez is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Educational Administration and Higher Education Department of Southern Illinois University Carbondale. She served as vice president for global diversity and inclusion at Portland State University and the founding chief diversity officer of the University of Idaho.
What would you say is the main benefit of working in higher education, and the top challenge?
The chance to do extremely meaningful work is super satisfying. We're all here for the purpose of the students, helping them achieve their goals to the best of our ability, partnering with them, and hopefully meeting them in a way that is one of equity and equality.
Because of my field, the most challenging though is you're an expert at the table, and you're telling people how you know things need to be done and they argue and they think they know better. People don't argue with accountants when they tell you this is how you should do things, but people seem to have many opinions and not necessarily respect DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] as a profession.
And another challenge is we don't value education. I find it appalling that we don't invest in our institutions of higher education. That's fact, that's quantitative. You look at the contributions, state and federal, over the years. And we have been greatly hobbled by, not only the lack of financing, but the direction of the financing. We focus on STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] rather than STEAM [science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics]. I read some articles recently that in the U.S. we're actually becoming less inventive and less creative. For over a hundred years, we've led inventiveness. And we're not anymore.
You’ve said “follow the money” to see how seriously higher ed takes DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] as well.
The continuing inclusion of DEI as a unit in the C-suite is ongoing—and rarely if ever is it given the budget that matches its centrality. Is it DEI operationally? Some counter that by saying, well, when we add it all together—scholarships, small unit level efforts like the speakers they bring in, or professional conferences that might have some DEI emphasis, plus diversity professionals across the units and the central budget for the (Chief Diversity Officer), or certain coursework. It still doesn't add up, nor do we give the power of the purse and the portfolio of responsibilities to the CDO as we do for the other chiefs of academic affairs, student affairs, finance and administration, university advancement, and athletics. So I and others keep following the money.
What are the key areas needed to grow the field?
One, organizational culture and climate. We have done a decent job with student recruitment and the work continues on graduation rates. We still need more effort and success at faculty and staff recruitment and retention. Affecting both is a core and critical issue---that of culture and climate. Writ shorthand, culture is our values, explicit and implicit, and how we model them, share them, teach and transmit them to those new to the organization. Climate is how we feel about our organization and how we make others feel. How do we make each member of our organization feel welcome, wanted, accepted, valued, and partnered with for success? We need to focus on deeper dives regarding the concept of diversity education—two-hour workshops don't do the job. It is an area of professional development for faculty and staff, and should be part of required curriculum for all students in any degree program.
Two, we need to address our own organizational gaps and shortcomings that impede the success of some--and this is a focus on both structural and systemic issues. It is policy and procedures, hierarchical structures, calcified ways of decision making that are normative-centric—addressing these are also part of our work now and in the future. We must address the trees and the forest simultaneously.
Why do you feel we shouldn’t shy away from using the term “Affirmative Action”?
We had an understanding of affirmative action and then the other side chose to give it a terrible connotation. All it was, and is, is acting affirmatively to try to change the system and create a more hospitable, welcoming place, and fix it up so that you're not using normative values. Looking at it like healthcare. I have my body and if there's something wrong with my heart, my liver, it makes my whole body not feel so good. If I get a hangnail even, it hurts like heck and I might have to go to a podiatrist. So too for organizations. There needs to be coordinated examination and evolution across the many different pieces for the whole organization to be healthy.
Is there a group that needs to be considered more when it comes to DEI initiatives?
I find, because of getting to be in the Midwest and then the West, that a lot of the country has no understanding of the issues for our tribal sovereign nations and how we shirk our attention to that group at places where we don't have a high enrollment, because it's 1% or less than 1%. Well the resources are such now that that's very unacceptable. Focusing on numbers is so normative and a shirking of responsibility, especially under a DEI lens. We must learn and teach about the history and experiences of our Native peoples of this country and globally. That means facing the unvarnished reality of forced removal from tribal lands, the boarding schools, the cultural decimation, and more. We must understand that we enjoy today this great nation on the backs of many peoples, and most central, the first peoples of these lands.
Any advice for schools as they navigate through the challenges presented by the pandemic?
For the immediate future, we know that COVID greatly impacted communities of color much more harshly. Those that lost jobs, the numbers in terms of positive cases per capita were higher, the numbers of not doing the vaccine are higher per capita. And these are students coming back to a college campus who maybe have had people die or be sick at a higher rate, or been sick themselves with lingering aftereffects. We need to understand a differential approach to our COVID victims and not be judgmental about those that chose not to vaccinate. Which is hard, I think, for a lot of people. There’s nothing wrong with requiring vaccinations. It is one way to continue to show people and demonstrate that the vaccines for the most part are safe. But there is no trust in government-sponsored medical stuff. I've had people say, ‘God it was so long ago, when are people going to get over it.’ That's called historical trauma—higher education is where we got the phrase from.
*
About the Author: Harold Gutmann is the director of brand and marketing strategy at Santa Clara University. He is a longtime writer and editor who is proud to work in higher education, and encourages all job seekers to consider it.
#FeaturedContent#Profile