Promotion & Tenure DEI Statement of Values
Promotion and Tenure DEI Statement of Values
Diversity is important to us. As a core value in our School of Education, diversity matters first and foremost as an acknowledgement of the individuals who make up our community. We respect and celebrate differences related to aspects and intersections of race, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, political and religious beliefs, nationality, socioeconomic status, job title, neurodiversity, and age. In doing so, we are committed to affirming the professional legitimacy of each individual in our community (O’Meara et al., 2018). Additionally, diversity is integral to our collective commitment to conducting and promoting work that matters. Diversity enhances our understanding, drives innovation, and invites creative problem solving and critical thinking (see Cooke & Hilton, 2015; Holger, 2019; Page, 2008). As a Carnegie designated community-engaged institution, our engagement with partners in diverse communities not only enhances our collective research impact, but also contributes to implementation science––the process of ensuring that the experiences of community members in school, community, and health care interventions are responsive to their needs and based in evidence (Lyon, 2016). The outcome of this commitment to engagement in diverse communities is improvement in both the quality of the science we produce and in the lives of those we serve (Freeman & Huang, 2014; Lyon, 2016; Page, 2008; Sommers, 2006). In articulating our values relative to diversity, equity, and inclusion, we are not lessening our expectations and standards; in fact, we are strengthening them.
Scholarship
Knowledge. We value scholarly work that pushes the boundaries of knowledge, especially around issues surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion. We encourage faculty to conduct scholarship that broadens our thinking and that crosses and transcends disciplines. This work centers individuals, communities, and topics often marginalized or ignored in mainstream research and this work questions, challenges, and counters structures that have long upheld a status quo.
Diverse research methods. We value the diverse methods and approaches needed to conduct this work. Research related to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., participatory action research, ethnographies) often requires considerable investments of time and the mobilizing of collaborative interdisciplinary research teams.
Metrics. We acknowledge that traditional metrics used to assess the rigor of scholarly work are fraught with biases that disadvantages scholars of color and/or scholars who conduct DEI scholarship. Limited outlets are available to scholars who conduct work in this area (Griffin et al., 2013). Therefore, in the context of faculty evaluation, we recommend the use of a diverse set of metrics to best shed light on the quality, scope, and impact of a colleague's scholarly work and overall productivity.
Teaching
Knowledge. We value courses and course content that foreground topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. We value pedagogical approaches and strategies that invite students to reflect on their own privileges and biases and disrupt mainstream norms and approaches.
Metrics. We acknowledge that teachers of courses that includes DEI topics, which can be deemed "controversial," often receive lower student evaluations as a result (Sue et al., 2011). We also acknowledge that faculty of color are often asked to teach courses that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which ultimately limits their opportunities to teach other courses in their program. We further acknowledge that faculty of color are often excluded from opportunities for mentorship (Diggs et a., 2009; Zambrana et al., 2015) that could support and advance their instructional design and delivery.DEI Values Statement | Spring 2021
Student evaluations. Student evaluations of teaching have historically included negative biases toward instructors based on their gender, race, ethnicity, accent, sexual orientation, or ability-status (Chávez & Mitchell, 2019; Kreitzer & Sweet-Kushman, 2021). We acknowledge that to evaluate teaching fairly, we will need to examine multiple sources of information, including observations and artifacts. We value non-traditional modes of evaluation and seek to eliminate, to the extent possible, the adverse impact of teaching evaluation without the need for faculty of color to provide a detailed rationale.
Service
Community engagement. We value engagement in the community and service and extension work related to DEI. We encourage faculty to continue to partner with local schools, non-profits, and other community stakeholders. We recognize the substantial time commitment of this work.
Metrics. We recognize that metrics to evaluate service may be biased against faculty of color. We acknowledge that faculty of color may have limited opportunities to serve in internal service roles and that those they are assigned may not display their leadership skills or abilities related to governance (Freeman et al., 2019). We acknowledge that faculty of color are consistently overlooked or viewed as incompetent in outward-facing university service (Rauhaus & Carr, 2020). As a result, we acknowledge that to evaluate their contributions we will need to examine their impact on the governance of the organization in other ways (e.g., informal leaders that may extend beyond a role or title).
Cultural taxation. We value our faculty of color’s time. We acknowledge that women and faculty of color are often overburdened with service and often participate in “invisible labor,” such as serving as the diversity voice in their program, informally meeting with diverse students, serving as an informal consultant (Padilla, 1994). We acknowledge that faculty of color are often tokenized and used to fill the “person of color” slot, while also minimizing their voice and/or relegating them to tasks that do not translate to leadership skills (Arday, 2018). It is our collective wish to convey to faculty of color that they are important and valued members of the School of Education community and to ensure that all tenure-eligible and non-tenure eligible faculty are treated fairly both in the promotion and tenure process and in the annual merit review process.DEI Values Statement | Spring 2021
References
Arday, J. (2018). Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring the Black and ethnic minority (BME) experience. Management in Education, 32, 192-200.
Chávez, K., & Mitchell, K. M. (2020). Exploring bias in student evaluations: Gender, race, and ethnicity. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 270-274.
Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (2015). Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science.
Diggs, G. A., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2009). Smiling faces and colored spaces: The experiences of faculty of color pursing tenure in the academy. The Urban Review, 41(4), 312-333.
Freeman, R. B., & Huang, W. (2014). Collaboration: Strength in diversity. Nature News, 513(7518), 305.
Freeman, Jr, S., & Krier, K., & Al-Asfour, A., & Thacker, R. (2019). An Examination of the barriers to leadership for faculty of color at U.S. Universities. Informing Science, 16, 361-376.
Griffin, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Harris, J. (2013). Marginalizing merit?: Gender differences in Black faculty D/discourses on tenure, advancement, and professional success. The Review of Higher Education, 36(4), 489-512.
Holger, D. (2019). The business case for more diversity. Wall Street Journal.
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2021). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1-12.
Lyon, A. R. (2016). Implementation science and practice in the education sector. Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/Implementation%20Science%20Issue%20Brief%20072617.pdf
O’Meara, K., Templeton, L., & Nyunt, G. (2018). Earning professional legitimacy: challenges faced by women, under-represented minority and non-tenure track faculty. Teachers College Record, 120(12), 1-38.
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Research news and comment: Ethnic minority scholars; research, and mentoring: Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24-27.
Page, S. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition. Princeton University Press.
Rauhaus, B.M., & Carr, I.A., (2020) The invisible challenges: Gender differences among public administration faculty, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26, 31-50.
Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597-612.
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R. H., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2011). Racial dialogues: Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 331–340. doi:10.1037/a0024190
Zambrana, R. E., Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Douthirt Cohen, B., & Eliason, J. (2015). “Don’t leave us behind:” The importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority faculty. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 40-72.
