The growing diversity bureaucracy

[Beliavsky]

Diversity Forever by Heather Mac Donald - City Journal
The University of California backs a tax hike to support its ever-expanding bureaucracy.
20 September 2012

The University of California, San Diego has done it again. Last year, it announced the creation of a new diversity sinecure: a vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.

************************************************** ****

A previous article by MacDonald on this topic is

Less Academics, More Narcissism by Heather Mac Donald - City Journal

I am tired of paying for this nonsense and want federal and state subsidies to "higher education" to be scaled back.

[tk21769]

The tooth-to-tail ratio of faculty to administrators has increasingly tipped toward the tail (administrators) in recent years. This appears to be a factor in driving up college costs. So I think it's a cause for concern ... although you risk side-tracking and inflaming the discussion by singling out the "diversity" aspect.

The Washington Monthly - The Magazine - Administrators Ate My Tuition

[ucbalumnus]

Originally Posted by tk21769

although you risk side-tracking and inflaming the discussion by singling out the "diversity" aspect.

Perhaps because the OP and the article writer are more concerned about that in particular than the overall administrative bloating?

[zobroward]

"vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion"
the job involves using a shovel, because you sling bull droppings.

I wish schools would focus on getting the most qualified students the best education. instead they waste money on make work nonsense positions.

[Beliavsky]

Originally Posted by ucbalumnus

Perhaps because the OP and the article writer are more concerned about that in particular than the overall administrative bloating?

I think an obsession with "diversity" is a substantial contributor to administrative bloat, so mentioning their connection is not a "sidetrack".

[tk21769]

The WM article I linked above cited a proliferation of "vice presidents, associate vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, provosts, associate provosts, vice provosts, assistant provosts, deans, deanlets, and deanlings, all of whom command staffers and assistants". Staffers include "IT specialists, counselors, auditors, accountants, admissions officers, development officers, alumni relations officials, human resources staffers, editors and writers for school publications, attorneys, and a slew of others."

So what is the evidence that "diversity" is a more substantial contributor to administrative bloat than other drivers such as IT, fund-raising, or admissions marketing? If it is, and it adds little value, then by all means reduce it and direct the savings into financial aid for low-income students.

[turbo93]

Much as I hate the expense of diversity this and diversity that, as a hyphenated American who grew up in a 99.5% un-diverse country I would say the expense can be justified. Diversity is not about how many 2nd generation ethnic doctors' 2400 SAT kids you can attract and retain, it is about creating an intellectual ecosystem where everyone is given a chance.

We may over-do the implementation, and we're paying for it, but at the end it's the price we have to pay if we want to keep this great experiment of a country running.

[TatinG]

Imagine the poor and elderly paying an increased sales tax so that this woman can get her bloated salary and bloated benefits for a do nothing job. (And yet this same university lost some of its science professors to a private university which offered better pay).

[Momzie]

At our university there's a sort of swearing in for new faculty and staff every September. This year I counted and the ratio of new staff to faculty was ten to one.

The numbers get even stranger when you start looking at the jobs of the new administrators. Does a university with 200 foreign students really need 15 people to 'administer' them? Does a college with 150 gay people really need an office with 8 people to 'administer' them? 30 disabled students and 15 people to 'administer' them? The ratios truly are astounding.

I also wonder how this would play out in the future if we did end up with some system of universal, free public higher education. My sense is that likely there would be ONE university per state designated as being "good for people who are disabled" and only one university would thus have that particular bureaucratic office. The same for international students, homosexuals, etc.? Perhaps.

The problem is that a small LAC is now required to have the same sets of administrators as a massive flagship state university. While the University of Wisconsin can probably absorb the extra costs associated with all these new positions, the ratios do end up looking downright bizarre at a college like Williams, where one estimate suggests that there is now one administrator for every ten students -- but what's the alternative? Tell anyone who might need some extra support "Oh, you can't go here? We can't afford to provide the resources you might need."

Also, a lot of it comes down to legal liability. We need a massive bureaucracy to 'administer' frats because they're kind of known for doing stupid things. OTOH, maybe the solution is to move them all off campus, get everyone to sign a waiver, or alternately to shut them down. Personally, I don't think tuition should be used to 'administer' them.

[Hunt]

The way to get rid of bloat is to eliminate any positions that don't directly help me or my kids. Right?

[Momzie]

Why would you assume that more bureaucrats means more helpfulness? for anyone's kids?

That's kind of like assuming that bloating public school educational budgets leads to more learning -- of the sort that they have in Camden, NJ and Washington, DC. Did you even read the articles? If there's so much extra money floating around that an administrator can steal 400,000 dollars or 600,000 dollars and no one even notices, then how exactly does that benefit my kid or yours? Unless you have too much money and can't figure out how to waste it yourself. In that case I have a few ideas . . .I'm sure everyone on CC does.

[LakeWashington]

Heather MacDonald is not known for her objectivity.

[ucbalumnus]

Originally Posted by Beliavsky

I think an obsession with "diversity" is a substantial contributor to administrative bloat, so mentioning their connection is not a "sidetrack".

Or maybe focusing on that is a way of inciting political activists about spending "their" money on black and brown people that they do not like, even though there are plenty of other much bigger wastes of money in university administration and various levels of government (or potential wastes of money, like the itchy trigger finger on starting wars without thinking them through that some seem to have).

[skrlvr]

So we put the crips in one institution, the queers in another, the foreigners in another...right?? That this just happens 'naturally' as the result of a universal free public higher education?? And I guess these would be 'separate' but 'equal' institutions?

I know you didn't mean it like that, but it's attitudes like this which fuels the need for these adminstrative positions.

[artie1]

The idea that anyone is in the current day and age trying to put "queers" or "foreigners" or anyone else in separate institutions is ludicrous.

The fact that someone would post such a rant reminds me that having a college education does not automatically mean that they have learned the use of logic or reasoning (I am basing this on an ssumption-that the poster is college educated).

In fact, as far as I know, there have not been cases of college students being turned down on the basis of sexuality.

It should be a blank slate for all competing for college spots. I believe there are laws in place to prevent discrimination.

Let's try to use reason in our arguments, not blind emotion.