By Maureen Murphy

A disappointingly small group of students (about 30) attended the Student Government all-school meeting Oct. 15 that addressed the new Diversity Initiative and included an update of the school’s strained budget situation. Held in the Gene Siskel Film Center, the handful of students who did show up were scattered sporadically throughout the theater, leading one to believe that the school community is a disjointed one. The large, darkened room affected the discussion; it was both difficult to see and hear audience members when they were asking questions.

And, most important, a more effective discussion might have occurred if more people had shown up. Perhaps it is unfair to blame the lack of effective advertising; there was also an all-school faculty meeting scheduled for the same time in the 112 S. Michigan ballroom. Despite there having been a faculty meeting regarding the diversity initiative the previous week, that meeting was also not particularly well attended (more staff than faculty were in the audience). It is surprising that so few people were present since two hot topics — the school’s financial situation and the 36 S. State St. building — were scheduled to be discussed.

One student at the meeting found this planning and attendance snafu particularly bothersome. He stated, in regards to the highly prioritized Diversity Initiative: “My big concern is how can there be any progress at the student level when there is no progress at the [faculty] level, and what good does it do to have an open forum [for faculty rather than a required one] ... because it pretty much allows the participants to decide if they want to participate? ... I’m wondering how long will it take before something is put down if people aren’t going to show?”

Indeed, the architects of the Diversity Initiative are aware that it will take the whole community in order for the now loosely structured program to be effective.

Kendra Coleman, director of Multi-cultural Affairs, said, “It’s not going to be something that is going to be successful ... if only the administration or the president or the deans of the school say ‘this is what diversity means to us so you guys do it’ ... or just a small group of people that [say] ‘this is what we want.’ It really has to be a community effort.”

The goal of establishing a community effort was a main goal when the Diversity Initiative was conceptualized two years ago, and a community dialogue has been going on since. After AIC and SAIC presidents Jim Woods and Tony Jones collaborated in rethinking the way diversity is defined and respected in the institution, discussions were initiated.

Tony Jones, explaining the nature of these dialogues, said, “We had a series of town hall meetings ... on both the museum side of the institution and the school side as well, and these were open discussions for anyone that wanted to come. ... After that we did a series of other meetings called Diversity Awareness meetings and we asked for volunteers from the whole institution ... so it was quite a wide range of people from all over the institution.”

And the Diversity Initiative still seems to be in the discussion stage. A loose conceptual framework has been developed, which includes the four key points of inclusiveness, representation, critical assessment, and empowerment. Jones emphasized that these components of the Diversity Initiative will function as a core value both in the school and the Art Institute.

But because discussions around the Diversity Initiative are still going on, the initiative seems abstract and theoretical. Felice Dublon, dean of students, acknowledged this. “

One thing we recognize is that what we’re talking about may appear so abstract that it’s hard to grab on,” Dublon said.

Despite this, Dublon offered some specific plans that have stemmed from the Diversity Initiative. “

We hope by 2004 the average student that participates in the First Year Program will be taking, through an undergrad research seminar ... classes and having discussions [that deal with] issues of diversity,”Dublon added.

Dublon also spoke, with excitement, of the number of classes already in the curriculum that are included the course bulletin category of “Global Identity and Difference.” There are about 120 classes that fall under that umbrella, including topics that range from “‘Race-ing’ Art History: Its Past, Present, and Future” to “Hatha Yoga.” Hopefully, such courses will influence classes
that are required for undergraduate students.

Dublon also discussed how SAIC’s hiring practices will be influenced by the Diversity Initiative. She offered the example of pro-actively expanding the pool of job candidates that human resources has to choose from when hiring a staff member. “

If there’s an open position in the school, it’s not just a matter of putting an ad in the Chicago Tribune and hoping people apply. ... We want to have an international pool of candidates, so what we have to do is be very smart about how we advertise our jobs and then once we get this pool, which will hopefully be much larger; then we also have to be deliberate [about] who we bring on campus and who we have to interview those people,”Dublon said.

However, one issue that hasn’t been completely formalized within the Diversity Initiative, but is considered by Coleman to “be on the radar,” is the issue of critiques. Two audience members mentioned the concern that many students and faculty are not approaching critiques in an inclusive manner. In the past, F News has reported the problem that minority, gay, and international students have encountered during critiques: that they are expected to create “minority,” “gay,” or “cultural” work and are assigned these aesthetics or social histories whether or not those issues were present in or even relevant to their art. Also, some students feel pressured to represent their race, sexual identity, or culture in their work, and feel that their “difference” becomes the matter of the critique, not their work.

The forces behind the Diversity Initiative are drumming up involvement throughout the school community through focus groups and small discussion groups. However, the low turnout at the all-school meeting seems to indicate that many regard diversity to be of low importance at SAIC, or that many are unaware that these dialogues are going on. If diversity is to be a core value of the way SAIC operates, as was asserted, the Diversity Initiative heads are going to have to tackle the arduous task of emphasizing and publicizing why diversity should matter.

 

ON THE GOOD SIDE • SAIC achieved a two percent increase in enrollment this year, and the number of international students is higher than ever. • Despite budget problems, new programs such as a Master’s in Fashion Design and a full degree in Architecture are being planned.

ON THE BAD SIDE • The façades of our buildings are expensive. The estimate for repairing the façades (as is required by the city of Chicago): $1.5 million for 837 W. Jackson, ; and $600,000 for 116 N. Michigan (the part of the Michigan building that’s above Cosi). • Taza, who rented their space from SAIC, disappeared in the middle of the night, leaving the school in the financial lurch.

TO BE DETERMINED • The Board of Trustees has given SAIC until next summer to make a decision about the 36 S. State Building.