Panelist seeks audit of CU diversity program

BOULDER

A member of University of Colorado president Hank Brown’s commission on diversity is again calling for an audit of CU’s diversity programs.

Jessica Peck Corry of the Independence Institute also asked
Brown in a letter Tuesday to denounce “race-focused” scholarships. In December, Brown announced a $1 million gift and a pledge to raise $7.5 million for scholarships for low-income students and students of color.
“Why does CU feel the need to continue trying to fit every student into a specific race box?” Peck Corry’s letter said. “Today’s students, coming from every socioeconomic background imaginable, deserve better.”

Opinion
——————————————————————————–

Churchill Findings Raise Opportunity for Real Reform
Jessica Peck Corry
May 22, 2006

Email this page
Printer friendly page

Thank goodness for Ward Churchill. For the next fifteen minutes-or perhaps for just the seven remaining of the professor’s national spotlight-the public will be watching to see how the University of Colorado plans to respond to findings that he managed to gain tenure despite the fact that he habitually lied, cheated, and deceived his way to the top.

Earlier this week, a CU committee of five academics found that Churchill flagrantly plagiarized, misrepresented, invented, or otherwise misused historical data to further his polemics relating to U.S. treatment of American Indians.

After authoring a 125-page report on the allegations against Churchill, just one of the committee members found that the misconduct warranted an outright termination of his contract. The other four members said suspension of between two and five years could be sufficient. Ward Churchill has gotten his due process and the facts speak for themselves. If such egregious misconduct only gets you suspended from working at the university, what exactly gets you fired?

This question exposes a second flaw to the committee’s work. Members failed to ask an essential-albeit politically incorrect-question about CU’s hiring practices. Simply put, does race matter in the hiring, promotion, and tenure process? Well documented reports verify that Churchill was hired and rushed through the tenure process-despite not having a doctoral degree or a proven academic record-because CU believed he would aid the university’s affirmative action efforts. Despite this, the committee did not address racial considerations in faculty appointments.

Churchill claimed American Indian status. Once it was exposed that Churchill was just another white guy parading around as an Indian, were his views any less desirable at CU? Does being white, make Churchill - a beneficiary of affirmative action - less desirable as an employee. Because he is white, would it make firing him more palatable? If he is fired, could Churchill claim that it is because he is white instead of American Indian?

While the committee’s findings of guilt are a good first step, they are just suggestions until CU takes serious action. Administrators and top professors, if they are courageous, will jump at the opportunity to address the most taboo subject on America’s college campuses: tenure reform.

Earlier this spring, another committee of CU professors drafted a report noting that CU must do more to ensure that tenure isn’t abused as it was in the case of Churchill. This report, like so many drafted by CU in the aftermath of scandal, will gather dust on a bookshelf, and more professors will slip through the cracks into the deep abyss of almost impenetrable lifelong job protection, unless CU decides to take on the subject of race and social promotion among its faculty.

Many professors defend tenure as a means to protect academic freedom and free speech. Unfortunately, in today’s classrooms, tenure is all too often not about protecting quality of research or the First Amendment, but rather a defense of improper conduct and weak scholarship. Students deserve better.

Tenure’s supporters also say that without it, a university cannot attract the top faculty it desires. Such a view is short-sided. By thinking outside the box, CU could create a national model for other campuses to follow. This new system would protect free speech by establishing a clear review process of any and all allegations related to research content, classroom discussions, or academic scholarship, while also eliminating job protections for academic misconduct or other related non-protected offenses.

Ward Churchill, while certainly a thorn in the sides of countless university administrators, could be the greatest gift CU has received in years. By making sweeping changes to allow for the protection of good professors and the termination of bad ones, CU will regain the loyalty of so many alumni, parents, students and supporters who are now just stunned and disillusioned.

See today’s Rocky Mountain News for the latest on efforts to curb eminent domain abuse in Colorado. Corry expresses concern that home rule cities will try to excempt themselves from standards approved by legislators this session.

In the May 4th Boulder Daily Camera, Corry questions CU’s rush to findings concerning diversity issues.

An excerpt:
“I see them as a rubber stamp for the status quo,” said Corry, a CU alumna and director of the campus accountability project for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden. “These findings are going to find themselves on the bookshelves collecting dust.”

See May 4th edition of the Rocky Mountain News for Jessica’s take on CU’s diversity findings. She questions why the university is rushing the investigation into its diversity administration.

In the May 4th Denver Post, Jessica takes on CU’s announcement of more funding for race-specfic scholarships.

See the May 2nd Denver Post for Jessica’s take on the gender wage gap.

24 cents not a lot to lose for liberation
By Jessica Peck Corry

Feminists want me to believe that I’ll earn 24 cents less on every dollar than my husband. I have a simple question for them: What’s the problem?

At the state legislature in Denver this month, some politicians are grandstanding on what they call the “gender wage gap.” Saying that Colorado women earn 76 percent of what men earn, Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, added, “Women must work nearly seven days to earn what the average man earns in only five.” She was joined by her Senate colleagues to vote 25-10 in support of a toothless resolution that urges Colorado employers examine their pay practices and place more value on the contributions made by women in the workplace.

Sounds like a good idea, but for Colorado’s thousands of employers, it’s not quite this simple.

Basic census figures show that men work more hours; take more hazardous and physical jobs, including construction or law enforcement; are more likely to move to an undesirable location for a higher salary; and work in more technological industries that allow for less human contact. In many of these fields, higher salaries come with tremendous risk: Today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, males account for 92 percent of all workplace deaths.

My experience bears out these truths. My husband works long hours to put food on the table. I, on the other hand, split my days between caring for our little girl and working at a job I love, but one that won’t ever make me rich. I’ll happily give up a lot more than 24 cents on every dollar if it means I can continue to live every mother’s dream of having a great family and a great career.

Warren Farrell, author of “Why Men Earn More,” argues that wage discrepancies can largely be accounted for through the different choices most commonly made by men and women in the workplace. According to Farrell, a man’s choices often lead to more money, while a woman’s lead to a better quality of life.

Farrell, whose claim to fame includes being the only man ever elected three times to the board of the liberal National Organization for Women, notes that women approach the workplace differently, seeking to balance priorities between professional satisfaction and personal gratification. While women live better because of such choices, it often means they have smaller paychecks.

Farrell also argues something that the feminist establishment will never admit: Women now earn the same or even more than men in many cases. When they make the same choices as men, including choosing the same career fields, being equally aggressive in salary negotiations and not taking time off to raise kids or care for elderly parents, they achieve pay equity.

All of this is not to say that discrimination doesn’t exist, or that when it does occur, it shouldn’t be promptly remedied. Today’s courageous women can and do fight back through litigation and existing legislation.

For those who believe government bears the burden of ensuring wage equity, however, there are few affordable options other than forcing women to work longer hours, make longer commutes, or go into male-dominated fields that command higher salaries.

This month, a sparse group of fewer than a dozen women trekked down to the Capitol to support Windels’ resolution. “Legislators tell me they’re not hearing about this issue,” says Betty Spence, president of the National Association of Female Executives. “Women across the country need to demand more aggressive action by government to combat these inequities.”

Women aren’t speaking out because they celebrate living in an era where they have many choices - and money isn’t the final consideration.

Spence, Windels and others in the feminist movement have gotten so lost in the numbers and the belief that government is the answer to all of our problems that they can no longer celebrate what should be the most basic foundation of feminism: freedom.

To all the men in the world who work endless hours to earn those extra 24 cents, I have one thing to say: Thank you.

Jessica Peck Corry (jessica@jessicacorry.com) is a policy analyst with the Independence Institute.