This self-study has aimed at producing a comprehensive overview and evaluation of diversity on campus. There were a number of challenges: finding the appropriate documentation from the enormous amount of data which has been collected, formulating the crucial issues, and identifying appropriate comparison groups both on and off campus. The following summarizes our findings:
The substantive sections of this report covering undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty provide an overview of representation on campus that is summarized in Fig. D.7. The undergraduate student population is generally the most diverse ethnically and the faculty the least diverse. The UC/UCSC defined goal for new enrollments of African-American students is 7.9 percent compared to actual enrollments equivalent to 2.1 percent of freshpersons and 2.9 percent of undergraduates. For Chicano students, the goal is 15.9 percent compared to enrollments of 9.8 percent of freshpersons and 9.0 percent of undergraduates. For Latino students, the goal is 3.4 percent compared to 4.0 percent of both freshpersons and undergraduates. With the exception of the target for Latino students, we are far from reaching these goals.
Figure D.7 includes fall 1992 entering freshpersons (1718 individuals), total fall 1992 undergraduate enrollment (9264), fall 1992 graduate students (908), staff as of 10/92 (1596), and faculty as of 7/92 (436). Where necessary, groups counted separately in some constituencies (e.g., Chicano and Latino) have been combined to facilitate comparison to constituencies where they are classified as a single group (Hispanic). The horizontal lines in the bars for student groups divide Chicano (below the line) from Latino (above the line) and Asian American (below the line) from Filipino (above the line).
[Figure D7 Unavailable]
Representation by gender varies considerably among the various campus constituencies as well. Undergraduate students in fall 1992 were 57.3 percent women and 42.7 percent men, while graduate students were 46.1 percent women and 53.9 percent men. These proportions varied substantially by division and by major subject within divisions. Staff members at all ranks were 60.8 percent women and 39.2 percent men, with large and systematic variation by level from a low of 16.7 percent women in the executive program to a high of 63.5 percent in the staff program (which accounts for two-thirds of all staff). Faculty members at all ranks were 28 percent women and 72 percent men, with variation by rank (with women more heavily concentrated in the lower ranks) and by division. To some extent, the distribution by rank within both faculty and staff is a function of the recent focused affirmative action efforts and may prove partially self-correcting with time. Nonetheless, the overall figures give some indication of the magnitude of the gap yet to be overcome.
Our efforts to evaluate diversity raised a number of concerns. It is clear that the definition of an appropriate vision of diversity for an institution such as ours is problematic. Reaching a consensus on such a definition will require that we define the long-term institutional responsibilities that such a vision implies. The extent to which changes in immediate recruitment strategies can influence the composition of campus populations is limited by the eligible pools in the relevant category. This limit on what short-term efforts can achieve, however, points to the importance of establishing longer-term goals for increasing campus diversity. For example, if Chicano students are underrepresented in the institution due, at least in part, to lower rates of UC eligibility among Chicano high school graduates, what role should UCSC play in raising this group's eligibility rates? The fact that lower UC participation rates by underrepresented students will impact faculty composition as much as ten to twenty years in the future gives the institution a powerful motive to assume a more proactive stance.
We encountered expressions of concern that the institution pays more attention to recruitment of individuals representing diverse groups than to their retention and successful career development, whether that career is the progress of a student toward a degree, of a staff member toward professional accomplishment, or of a faculty member through the ranks. A related concern arose about the nature of "success" here or about "who fits in." Others asked whether the institution has correctly defined "success" in its diversification efforts, has managed to create a climate of tolerance and mutual respect, and has moved toward a positive celebration of a more diverse population. It seems that UCSC, like society more generally, has yet to devise ways of evaluating diversity that will prove meaningful to its many constituencies.
Despite the concerns metioned above, UCSC has made substantial progress in diversifying the campus since the last review. It is also gratifying to report that a number of changes are under way. Some had already been undertaken at the time of the Steering Committee's formation; others have since been initiated in response to draft versions of this report. For example,
All of these steps can be expected to improve the effectiveness of the institution's efforts in this vital area.