By John J. Davenport

On Wednesday, I learned the university is strongly considering adding a Vice President of Diversity in response to the concerns that emerged last year and were much-discussed on campus (as well as in the president’s helpful letters to our community). I recall something about such a VP position in December 2015 in the report of the Task Force on Gender and Race put together by the Faculty Senate, but had not thought much of it at the time.

While I understand the push in this direction, as a member of the Budget Planning Committee, please let me register a couple pleas to consider alternatives that may be more productive in the long run. As the temporary leader of the Peace & Justice program, I also have a special concern with this issue—though what I say below represents only my opinion, given my limited information and fallibility, and not any kind of statement by the P&J program.

While I know many universities have been adding such a VP position, and while I am as concerned as my colleagues about racial bias incidents and expressions of student discontent, I cannot see how this is going to help us get to the root of our problems. A new VP, along with attendant staff, could cost over $500 thousand a year. This would be sufficient for 15 to 20 scholarships for minority students, including perhaps five with full rides (for example, full tuition and dorm fees). While there are other minority-student scholarships available from foundations, we could focus on recruiting talented students from our own five boroughs of New York City and nearby in New Jersey and Connecticut. We could also fund 10 new scholarships and two new faculty positions, which are already sorely needed in some departments. We have been told that diversity-hires are possible but have not been assured that there is any funding for this. Well, $500 thousand could fund at least four such hires of varying ranks.

Why should these kinds of priorities be sacrificed to add a new administrative office that can, at best, be a cheerleader for the cause of more racial tolerance and awareness in our programs, which in itself does nothing to change any biased attitudes or address any deeper resentments? While I am sure the person hired would have the best of intentions, faculty members are capable of improving our programs without an expensive cheerleader. We could, for example, move the American Pluralism requirement to freshman year, broaden its coverage and even connect it with an expanded set of service-learning options such as peer institutions, similar to what Tulane has in its freshman program. With NYC as our living set of exhibits, this should do a lot more to educate our students about the different experiences and challenges faced by various groups. But maybe the fear is that this would be a very expensive program to run, if (say) half the American Pluralism courses had service-learning connected with them. It would not be cheap, but I bet that $500 thousand could cover most of its costs.

A lot can be done with half a million dollars. I serve on the university’s task force for Social Innovation and we dream of having just $100 thousand to work with. With $200 thousand we could do incredible things, like setting up fellowships for students that would encourage even those with heavy work-study or loan burdens to get involved in ventures that are aimed directly at improving the lives of people struggling under the burdens of poverty, under-education, poor health care and financial illiteracy. We could help John Hope Bryant set up a Bronx office for his Hope organization, which helps poor citizens improve their credit scores (just one example). While we are working to raise money for these initiatives—which have the potential to raise the university’s profile, attract lots of alumni interest and really impress high school students considering applying to Fordham, it is painful to think that the university would instead add half a million dollars in new annual operating expenses. These would amount to merely a symbolic gesture, a bureaucratic band-aid on a wound that does nothing to heal it. There are at least 10 ways that money could be better spent. We have existing offices, such as Campus Ministry, that could handle most of what a VP for diversity might be able to do. We already have an Office of Multicultural Affairs with four good staff members, as well as other staff members in Student Life focused on diversity issues and related student organizations.

The university needs to be cutting administrative personnel in some areas, which have expanded massively in the last 20 years, according to faculty studies. I know that our leadership is aware of this, and thus there have been hiring freezes and budget squeezes in every area. As a result, some offices, such as Student Life, might even need more positions and better salaries at this point. My sense from looking at budgets is that we need to find between five to seven million dollars in annual operating cuts and replacements with new endowment proceeds to both ensure that we are on a balanced trajectory and provide at least one to two million dollars for new initiatives prioritized by the faculty.

If we came up with a list of options and polled all faculty members, I doubt that many would put a VP of diversity at the top of the list. Funding for conference travel commensurate with a research university would rank much higher, along with more faculty positions in crucial areas, and perhaps for the Social Innovation initiative (once faculty members understand all that it promises). We also need temporary housing for new faculty and visiting faculty, as well as seed money for well-conceived centers that would raise our scholarly profile. These proposed centers are sitting in limbo because of financial constraints.

These are just a few examples, and my colleagues can add many more to the list. In this situation, while other more important priorities are on hold or are scrimping for every dime, adding $500 thousand for a new administrative office that would be a mere fifth wheel is offensive. Faculty members need to have a stronger role in helping to decide such budget priorities.

In over 18 years here, I have not been one to object publicly to central administration directives or plans. I try instead to speak privately with individuals rather than write editorials. It is not my desire to stir up more upset in this sensitive case. But I feel a strong duty to speak out in this case, and I will try to circulate this plea to colleagues at both FCRH and FCLC.