CU’s diversity efforts challenged
CU says programs aren’t race exclusive
By Brittany Anas

This article originally appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The University of Colorado should spend more money on student scholarships and less on its diversity administration, according to a report released Monday from a free-market think tank.

Also, CU should request an outside audit so there is an objective investigation into how much money the state’s flagship spends on its diversity programs, authors from the Golden-based Independence Institute said in their report. The group called CU’s budget data “highly unreliable” and criticizes the governing Board of Regents for not overseeing the budget.

CU officials, though, say student recruiting and academic programs aren’t race exclusive, so the numbers can’t be easily dissected.

“My goal is to have diversity be so pervasive, and such an integral part of what we do, that we can’t tell where the boundaries are,” CU Chancellor Bud Peterson said.

The university, Peterson said, has increased student scholarship money.

A “First Nations Scholarship” has helped the university attract more American Indian students this year. Also, CU determined that its dozen LEAD Alliance programs were successful, and the school last fall increased scholarships for students participating in the programs from $1,000 a year to $1,500. The programs serve minority and first-generation students and focus on their professional goals or opportunities for post-graduate education.

The Boulder campus this month decided to create a “vice chancellor of diversity, equity and community engagement” position to oversee diversity efforts. CU will soon launch a nationwide search to look for candidates for that high-level administrative post.

The Independence Institutes’ Campus Accountability Project says that instead of expanding administrative costs, more money should go toward pre-collegiate programs that prepare students for college and financial aid.

In 2006, CU said it spent nearly $22 million on its diversity efforts, but noted that figure does not include academic programs, like the ethnic studies or women’s studies programs, the report says.

Now CU administrators say it’s difficult to pinpoint how much money is spent on diversity projects since there is a campus-wide effort to weave it into all programs.

“We’ve spent the last three years trying to find out how much CU spends in the name of diversity,” said the reports’ lead author Jessica Peck Corry in a statement. “We’ve finally gotten an answer: CU has no idea.”

Peck Corry, a CU graduate and former student-government leader, also served on panel of business and civic leaders that worked over the past year to help improve diversity and the campus climate at CU. She was an outspoken critic of the process.

Camera Staff Writer Aimee Heckel contributed to this report.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Brittany Anas at (303) 473-1132 or anasb@dailycamera.com.

U. of Colorado at Boulder Is Criticized for Its Diversity Expenditures

By PETER SCHMIDT

This article originally appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education
January 17, 2007

A Colorado think tank critical of affirmative action has issued a report alleging that the University of Colorado at Boulder has little idea how much money it spends on various diversity efforts and poorly manages such expenditures.

The libertarian Independence Institute, based in Golden, Colo., says in a report issued on Monday that the state’s flagship campus has greatly understated how much it spends on diversity programs and devotes a disproportionate share of such funds to paying administrative salaries rather than helping minority students.

The Boulder campus’s efforts to promote diversity involve “an unknown number of programs that receive an unclear amount of funding for an uncertain number of employees who serve an unspecified number of students,” the report concludes. It recommends that state lawmakers and the university system’s central administration undertake an independent investigation of the campus’s diversity spending practices.

A spokesman for the university, Bronson R. Hilliard, on Tuesday challenged many of the report’s findings and called some of it “a distortion,” but said officials there were still reviewing the report and were not yet ready to rebut it point by point.

Mr. Hilliard said the report conflated expenditures by the flagship and the system, and he argued that the institute’s researchers had asked university officials to do an impossible task: to sort out exactly how much of the money budgeted for programs that serve all students goes toward helping minority members. “It is a very fundamental disagreement we have with their interpretation,” he said.

Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the University of Colorado system, said the system had in fact accounted for its expenditures on diversity programs and had been “quite forthcoming” in releasing such information. And G.P. (Bud) Peterson, chancellor of the Boulder campus, said the report mischaracterized some spending, by, for example, classifying as “administrative” expenditures on the salaries of people who work with minority students to improve their graduation rates.

“Do I believe we are doing things in the absolutely most efficient and optimal manner? No,” Mr. Peterson said. But, he added, “Do I believe we are wasting money? Absolutely not.”

The controversy over the report highlights the difficulty in precisely tracking university expenditures on diversity, which at larger institutions may be promoted by hundreds of programs housed in a wide range of administrative offices and academic departments. In response to past Chronicle inquiries about their spending on diversity programs, officials at several colleges have said they do not track how much of their budget goes toward promoting diversity, and have privately acknowledged that they are hesitant to try to come up with such numbers for fear of providing ammunition to critics of affirmative action.

The Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project began pressing officials at the University of Colorado at Boulder to release budget numbers three years ago. In a written statement accompanying the report released on Monday, Jessica Peck Corry, the project’s director, said, “We’ve spent the last three years trying to find out how much CU spends in the name of diversity. We’ve finally gotten an answer: CU has no idea.”

Ms. Corry added: “In our view, diversity should be all about helping disadvantaged kids get to college, but clearly, as our report indicates, CU’s diversity leadership is more concerned with adding administrative positions than with trimming waste that would free up resources for scholarship dollars.”

The report says that, of the $21.8-million that the campus has reported spending on diversity programs, just $4-million goes toward student scholarships. It notes that Chancellor Peterson has acknowledged that the $21.8-million figure is “not even close” to a full total for the campus’s diversity expenditures.

On Tuesday, Mr. Peterson said the line between expenditures on diversity and expenditures on education in general is blurry, and he likes it that way. “My goal is to have diversity be so pervasive, and such an integral part of what we do, we can’t tell where the boundaries are,” he said.

Copies of the report are available at the Independence Institute’s Web site.

Copyright © 2006 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

In response to the Independence Institute’s report finding mismanagement of CU diversity funds, two Colorado lawmakers are calling for the state auditor to get involved.

Two seek audit of diversity spending
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News

January 18, 2007

Two GOP lawmakers called Wednesday for an audit at the University of Colorado in response to a report by the Independence Institute citing a lack of accountability in spending on diversity programs.
A CU spokesman, however, said the report distorted financial information that CU officials provided to the Golden-based think tank, which advocates limited government. But he added that CU officials would gladly cooperate with an audit if one is ordered.

Rep. Cory Gardner, of Yuma, and Rep. Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, sent a letter to state Auditor Sally Symanski asking for an investigation into how CU’s Diversity Administration spent its budget of nearly $21.8 million last year.

The lawmakers say they were alarmed at the institute’s claim that CU spent far more than that without adequate oversight, analysis of the results or fiscal transparency.

“So here we are with demands for increased spending on higher education and we have a program that not even the people running it have any idea what its costs, according to this report,” Gardner said.

One of the central points contained in the 14-page report is that CU data on diversity spending is “highly unreliable,” despite the work of a 40-member commission appointed by CU President Hank Brown to study the programs.

“One year after (the commission) first met, CU-Boulder’s diversity administration still houses an unknown number of programs that receive an unclear amount of funding for an uncertain number of employees who serve an unspecified number of students,” the report charges.

Specifically, the report questions the validity of the $21.8 million budget estimate, quoting Boulder Chancellor Bud Peterson as saying the figure is “not even close to what we’re spending.”

But CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the report distorts what Peterson actually said. He said the root of the misunderstanding is a disagreement over what “diversity” means.

Hilliard said Peterson takes a broad view of diversity to include students with different ethnic, gender, intellectual, geographic and socio-economic backgrounds.

Independence Institute researchers, on the other hand, were interested only in separating out what CU spends on ethnic diversity, he said. When Peterson alluded to spending more than $21.8 million, Hilliard said, he was referring to spending on other kinds of diversity as well.

It’s difficult to segregate out those costs when counseling and courses on ethnic studies are open to all kinds of students, he said.

“They’re sort of suggesting that we parse out our services based upon ethnicity, and that simply is not the case,” Hilliard said.

Symanski said she had not received the lawmakers’ request, but would forward it to the Legislative Audit Committee, which decides if an audit is to be done.

Redefining moderate voters
By Jessica Peck Corry

This column originally appeared in The Denver Post on 01/17/2007

As Colorado enters a new political era this month under complete Democratic control for the first time in five decades, notions of what constitutes “mainstream” might just be up for grabs.

Reporters and politicos - so eager to define individual voters as liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat - find themselves in a predicament: Most Colorado voters in the last election simply defied such categories.

In November’s election, 41 percent of all voters supported legalizing marijuana, a number greater than the 40 percent who voted for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez. In all, 636,938 voters wanted marijuana legalized, 11,000 greater than the number who backed Beauprez.

While once considered a rallying cry of hippies and peaceniks, marijuana legalization is now a position supported by economics professors and family physicians. Colorado could become one of the first states to end pot prohibition. (In Alaska, adults can possess marijuana in their homes under a court interpretation protecting it as a right to privacy).

Despite such widespread support, the media unanimously held that November’s bid for bud fell flat, with headlines like “Pro-pot proposal takes a big hit” and “Marijuana amendment goes up in smoke.” Beauprez’s bid, on the other hand, was largely recorded as a casualty of a national trend where mid-term elections rarely see gains for the majority party. This, according to strategists, coupled with dismal support for President Bush and the war in Iraq, was enough to take him down.

Beauprez’s name is already being floated for a 2008 U.S. Senate bid. Just as Beauprez’s prospects are alive and well, so are marijuana’s.

Are Colorado voters becoming more liberal? The results of other ballot initiatives prove that such an assumption would be premature. Amendment 43, which solidified marriage as being between one man and one woman, earned 55 percent of voters’ support. Meanwhile, Referendum I, voted down by just a 52 percent majority, would have established a set of legal rights for same-sex partners.

The old categories may just not fit anymore. Aspiring political scientists were once taught a 40-40-20 model, with 40 percent of voters conservative and 40 percent liberal. The remaining 20 percent, we were taught, was where candidates should spend their focus. This “Middle Majority” is growing, now representing closer to 40 percent of America. These individuals tend to have a vibrant libertarian streak while still maintaining conservative social values in their own lives.

Under this framework, November’s results make sense. These voters represent a new mainstream, believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but also that monogamy should be encouraged in the homosexual community (and can be done so by establishing legal rights for gay couples). Most in this group support legalization because they are tired of the government taking billions away from important priorities like education and health care, and instead frittering it away on a failed militarized drug war. It was this group of voters who overwhelmingly re-elected Gov. Bill Owens in 2002 but defeated Beauprez, a candidate holding most of the same policy positions as Owens.

Of course, there is one other explanation of November’s results that makes sense: Money talks. In 2006, Democratic organizations outspent Republicans in Colorado for the second major election in a row, by a margin of more than 2-to-1. Their 527 committees, funded by unions and coupled with support from liberal millionaires like Jared Polis, Pat Stryker and Tim Gill, pumped more than $4 million into raising Bill Ritter’s positive name identification in the final weeks - more than Ritter spent in his entire campaign.

Democrats now hold the leadership reins. They have a chance to prove they are different. They’ll be wise to remember that today’s mainstream voters should not be misunderstood as moderates. They simply want government out of their lives, except when it comes to protecting constitutional rights, basic services, and individual freedom.

Jessica Peck Corry (jessica@i2i.org) serves as a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute, where she specializes in civil rights, higher education, and land use policy.

Jessica Corry will appear on the “Mike Rosen” show this morning on 850KOA to discuss fiscal accountability at CU-Boulder. Call in to the studio line at 303-713-8585.

CU’s fiscal irresponsibility a threat to low income students
by Jessica Peck Corry and Aaron Ross Powell

Originally Appeared in the Denver Daily news on January 14, 2007

Three years ago, the Independence Institute asked the University of Colorado at Boulder how much it spends on diversity. Finally in December 2006, we got our answer: CU has no idea.

In January 2006, with much media fanfare surrounding the first meeting of CU’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity, CU publicly released budget figures stating that it spent $21.8 million on diversity efforts in 2005. When we looked at the numbers, they didn’t add up.

We asked CU for more specifics. A program director for CU’s Office of Diversity and Equity said the publicly released number wasn’t meant to be accurate, but was rather “a conservative estimate of our annual expenditures.” Around this time, we were told that the publicly released diversity budget was far from complete — only including funding for programs “with a service component, as opposed to academic programs.” Academic programs focusing on diversity, including Ward Churchill’s Ethnic Studies department and Boulder’s Women’s Studies program, we were told, were not included.

We were confused, and asked to meet in person with administrators for further clarification. In December 2006, CU-Boulder Chancellor Bud Peterson dismissed the $21.8 million figure entirely, saying “it’s not even close to what we’re spending.”

Despite not knowing how much it spends in the name of diversity, CU-Boulder recently announced an “Action Plan” that includes immediate and significant funding increases for diversity programming. CU-Boulder’s Provost has said that administrators are also exploring adding another administrative position for diversity. They believe that having assistant vice president and associate vice chancellor positions aren’t enough to manage their growing bureaucracy.

Two quick questions: What is diversity and why is it so expensive? Based on CU’s action, we’re not sure. In our view, efforts to diversify CU’s student population should focus on helping students of all races excel in higher education. CU has a different perspective, funding programs that encourage students to segregate themselves on the basis of race with little focus on enabling poor students to attend CU. CU’s diversity administration employs hundreds to advance roughly 400 different programs and initiatives, while it devotes only 18 percent of its budget to scholarships.

All the while, CU President Hank Brown has publicly stated that CU needs millions more over the next five years to catch up after recent funding shortfalls have threatened reputable programs, including CU’s top-rated medical school. It’s hard to be sympathetic for money woes, when CU-Boulder’s diversity administration throws around money with reckless abandon, resists efforts to be accountable, and adds administrative costs at every opportunity.

Diversity can play an important role at a university. When it consumes tens of millions of precious higher-ed dollars annually, diversity may be more of a threat to low income students seeking nothing more than basic funding to attend college in Colorado.

This week the Independence Institute released a report offering our own blueprint for improving accountability at CU-Boulder. The report titled A Color Scheme: Questions Raised by Accounting and Business Practices Within the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Multi-Million Dollar Diversity Administration, is available at www.IndependenceInstitute.org.

The time has come for an independent investigation into CU diversity spending; we are providing this report as a blueprint to legislators and CU leaders to initiate such an autonomous audit.

As Colorado’s working families plan for rising tuition costs, they deserve a university that is as committed as they are to sound budget and fiscal planning. The future of our state — and the education of our neediest students — may just depend on it.

— Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@i2i.org), is the director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project and serves as a commissioner on CU’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Diversity. Aaron Powell served as a CAP research associate in 2006. They are co-authors of “A Color Scheme: Questions Raised by Accounting and Business Practices Within the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Multi-Million Dollar Diversity Administration.”

CU chancellor gaining kudos for diversity plan
Peterson updates strategy to boost minorities in Boulder
By John Ingold
Denver Post Staff Writer
01/11/2007

Boulder - A couple of months ago, Jasper Peters, a University of Colorado student who is a member of the school’s Black Student Alliance, attended a meet-and-greet for black high school students hosted by CU chancellor G.P. “Bud” Peterson.

There, Peters met a woman who had once attended CU but transferred because she said she felt unwelcome. The woman was so concerned with the campus climate for minorities that she was reluctant, three decades later, to let her daughter attend the meet-and-greet, Peters said.

“But after hearing what we all had to say, she said she felt much better about her daughter wanting to go to CU,” Peters said.

Just six months on the job, Peterson has earned cautious optimism from on-campus and outside groups looking to improve racial and ethnic diversity at CU-Boulder, even as his policies draw the scorn of groups such as the Independence Institute.

Peterson has been updating members of a blue-ribbon diversity commission this week about his plan to improve campus diversity. The plan contains programs that Peterson hopes to implement or expand to recruit more students of color, improve faculty and staff diversity, create more rigorous educational programs and improve the climate for minorities on campus.

Some of the ideas have been publicized, such as home visits to recruit prospective students. Others - such as a program to get the names of every minority student in Colorado who scored well enough on the SAT or ACT to attend CU in order to encourage them to apply - have not.

Not mentioned is an idea Peterson got the go-ahead to implement last week: creating a new vice chancellor position for diversity, equity and outreach.

Such a position, akin to a presidential Cabinet post, would coordinate all of CU’s disparate diversity programs and initiatives, work jointly with the city of Boulder on creating a welcoming environment for minority students and give a voice to diversity concerns at the campus’ highest-level meetings.

Peterson said the position - other vice chancellors are responsible for student affairs or graduate studies and research - places diversity among the top priorities on campus.

“It helps send a positive signal that diversity is important and it’s something we’re working on,” Peterson said.

CU-Boulder has a disproportionately low number of minority students compared with the state population and has suffered from unwanted publicity from occasional ugly incidents, such as a racist death threat e-mailed to a student leader last year.

This school year, the number of minority students at CU reached record levels. Peterson said improving campus diversity is a worthy goal.

“It makes us better,” he said. “It brings perspectives and ideas and opinions and thoughts that otherwise would go unrealized.”

Peterson’s enthusiasm for diversifying the campus - he has met with minority student groups on campus as well as prominent community groups - has won applause.

“I’m confident the effort he’s making will be positive,” Peters said. “We’re all going to have to work really hard.”

The Rev. Paul Burleson, president of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, said alliance members are excited about Peterson’s plans.

“It’s promising,” Burleson said. “I think it’s going to be a challenge for the chancellor and also for the community to come together with some positive plans and not just be on the drawing board or it would be a horse and pony show.”

The Independence Institute, a Golden-based think tank, released a report criticizing CU-Boulder for what it called a lack of accountability and wasteful spending on diversity.

“(CU) just doesn’t seem to ever properly diagnose the problem,” said Jessica Peck Corry, the director of the institute’s Campus Accountability Project and a CU graduate. “The problem is poor kids can’t afford to go to CU. And CU’s response is to pump more money into the administration.”

Peterson said he can’t say for certain how much the university spends promoting diversity because his goal is to have diversity efforts permeate everything the university does.

“Not everyone will support what we’re doing,” he said. “But it’s the right thing to do.”

Staff writer John Ingold can be reached at 720-929-0898 or jingold@denverpost.com.

Institute questions budget for diversity
By Chris Frates
Denver Post Staff Writer
01/11/2007

The Independence Institute criticized the spending and budgeting practices regarding diversity efforts at the University of Colorado at Boulder, according to a report to be released Monday.

The report says the university’s budget data is “highly unreliable” and calls on the school and other officials to independently investigate its diversity spending.

CU president Hank Brown said any requested funding information should be available fairly quickly.

“I think we’re still struggling to figure out the right formula, so we’re trying a lot of different things,” he said of diversity programs.

The authors also called CU- Boulder’s diversity mission “unclear” and urged officials to scrap the programs and “focus on outreach to disadvantaged students of all races.”

“For minority students coming from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, a support system will still exist. For those not coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, however, such students will not be targeted as being in need of special assistance,” the report reads.

CU-Boulder officials should end “ethnic-specific counseling” and any suggestion that diversity programs are “race-specific, race- selective or race-restrictive.”

Lead author Jessica Peck Corry said the report did not take a stand on whether race should be considered at all.

“We’re trying to stay away from the ideological debate of should race matter in admission,” Corry said.