Diversity Demands to the UMN Administration Introduction We are reminded that the University of Minnesota is a land grant institution

and that as such, its mission is to promote access to higher education and collaborating to advance knowledge benefiting communities, the state, and world (http://landgrant150.umn.edu). It seems that to the current policy makers of this University, being diverse is not about being a person of color, a LGBTQ person, a differently-abled person, or a working-class person. In the diversity framework of this University, being diverse is only about having the appropriated language to define yourself as diverse even when you dont belong to any of the previously mentioned communities. This runs dangerously close to traditional colonialistic thinking, colorblind racism, and cultural appropriation. In doing so, the essence of actual diverse experiences, epistemologies and intellectual productions are consistently devalued and/or erased. In this setting, specific incidents and multiple climates of racism, homophobia, ableism, and classism are ignored or denied. We are continuing a conversation that began in 1492, and that was highly visible during the 1969 Morrill Hall Student Takeover. This conversation was most recently revitalized by the Whose University? Campaign in 2010-2011. In continuing the questions that were asked at that point, and still in conversation with the leaders of that campaign, we emphasize the need for permanent and substantial structural changes as well as a sustained commitment to equity within the University. Statement of Autonomy As a burgeoning social movement, Whose Diversity? has no desire to seek formal recognition from the University of Minnesota as a student group. We appreciate the administration inviting students to voice concerns over the state of diversity at the University through various public forums. However, the unequal power relations established within these forums leave concerned students and aggrieved members of surrounding communities at a severe disadvantage in their efforts to affect meaningful changes. We believe that these institutionalized dialogues actively stifle difficult and opposing perspectives about what diversity means for us as a University. What does it mean when diversity reflects not substantive diversity but instead an institutional management of minority difference (the incorporation of minorities into the universitys mission)? How does the University confront this form of cosmetic diversity? Without wr estling with these important questions the University cannot, in good conscience, uphold its image as an institution committed to community engagement and diversity. We believe that dialogue and negotiations must take place on equitable terms and within spaces conducive to the selfdetermination of all parties involved. Part of our deep reservations of becoming a subsidiary of the University comes from the sobering histories of other student movements. We have witnessed the potential for earlier movements to become beholden to the broader set of power relations that obstruct substantive efforts at actual diversity within the University. Remaining autonomous protects us from the very real threat of cooptation. We are not solely referring to the cooptation of our efforts as a movement, but the appropriation of our ideas, identities and culture. Becoming beneficiaries of various privileges associated with formal student group recognition would make us complicit in reproducing a homogenized notion of diversity. While homogenized diversity may seem oxymoronic, it remains a salient part of the Universitys identity. Subscribers of this form of diversity are beholden to existing power structures and the interests of university administrators, the majority of whom are not representative of historically

marginalized students. Our decision to remain autonomous is not only beneficial to us as a movement, but also to the University itself. All public institutions require an independent system of checks and balances to ensure that organizations are fulfilling their missions to the people they serve. We have willingly stepped up to be this system of checks and balances to ensure that the University uphold its commitment to diversity. When necessary, we will remind the University that diversity is a process, not an event or moment that can be achieved by sprinkling a few faces of difference on catalogs and advertisements. By assuming this responsibility, we are helping the University fulfill its own mission at broader community engagement and public service. In return for our efforts, we are not asking for University funding or sponsorship. Instead, we ask that the University respond to the mandates of its own conscience by engaging in constructive dialogue with us over our demands and expectations to foster an academic community conducive to the intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth of all individuals.

Demands With this in mind I. We expect engagement with substantive, instead of cosmetic, diversity. We demand the university fundamentally reorganize its goals and priorities to include access and justice for local communities within the Twin Cities. As a public land grant university, access and justice for working class communities in the Twin Cities should be the priority. This means reconsidering who benefits from the transformation of the UMN into a world-class public research university. We demand the university redefine its commitment to diversity in a manner that always includes historically marginalized communities; that it be transparent and state who it means by diversity in all of its communications concerning this issue, and that it honor the commitments it has made to these communities. That is, if it states that the following communities embody diversity People of color, including underrepresented groups and new immigrant populations People with both visible and invisible disabilities People who identify as women People of various gender and sexual identities and expressions First-generation students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (https://diversity.umn.edu/aboutoed) ...then it must serve and support them in action and not just word. II. We expect that the recruitment, retention, and graduation of students from historically marginalized communities will become a priority. We demand the university immediately remove language from its admissions application that questions prospective students about their prior convictions and criminal offences, as well as their history of expulsion, suspension, and/or probation in their former institutions (as stated in the UMN Freshman Application for Admissions, 2014). We believe this is an issue of equity and justice, given that people of color are disproportionately targeted for expulsion and suspension in the education system and

disproportionately profiled, convicted, and incarcerated in the criminal legal system. If these questions must be asked, then they can be asked after students have been considered for admission. This would be in line with the Ban the Box law that Governor Dayton passed in 2014, which removed questions regarding applicants criminal background from initial job applications. We demand improved active recruitment of students at the community college level, and a commitment to support these students with adequate resources, financial and otherwise. This includes orientation activities that parallel those of incoming freshmen, a mandatory tour of the second floor in Coffman Memorial Union and of Appleby Hall, and literature that includes all of the resources readily available for students. In solidarity with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), we demand that the administration prioritize recruiting students of color until the university accurately reflects the demographics of the nation. We demand the U of M create and implement a plan for meeting certain benchmarks: In one year, the university student body should be proportional to one-half of the Twin Cities demographics of non-white groups. (For example, the student body should be 9% Black in one year compared to the city demographics of 18% Black residents). In two years, the university student body should be proportional to three-fourths of the city demographics of non-white groups. (For example, the student body should be 13.5% Black in two years compared to the city demographics of 18% Black residents). It is critical that the university make a fundamental and permanent commitment towards campus diversification.

In solidarity with SDS, we demand the administration begin lowering tuition to increase accessibility for working class Minnesotans. Rising education costs create an economic squeeze that both pushes existing students into debt and prevents poorer Minnesotans from ever attending. This prevents diversity of class and race, as non-white racial groups continue to be systemically impoverished and excluded from economic mobility. We demand the university have available affordable housing in a central location on campus for those of lower socioeconomic status at a rate that students can afford. This would ensure all students can be a central part of university life, and dont experience it exclusively on the periphery. This is in response to the increased construction of the luxury apartments along Washington Avenue and in Dinkytown.

III . We expect an emphasis be placed on the well-being of people from historically marginalized communities. We demand an equal opportunity to succeed without enduring the mental anxiety of not being able to focus on and afford the universitys academic life. Therefore, we demand the university establish an emergency fund to provide assistance for students from

historically marginalized communities in dire need of financial support. This fund would be designed to keep students from becoming homeless, going hungry, or experiencing any emergency situation that threatens their health and well-being, as well as their ability to function as a student. We demand cultural competency from medical, counseling and mental health services. The mismatch in biographies and consciousness between students of color and the medical providers that treat them, especially those in counseling and mental health services, should be immediately addressed and corrected. This includes having more medical providers of historically marginalized identities whose work is rooted in social justice. It also includes having professionals who are conscious of how our lives are informed by social justice-oriented ideologies.

We demand a Reporting Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation statement (https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/reportingdiscriminationandharassment) be attached to every syllabi, and that all students be made aware that they may submit anonymous reports. This statement must clearly detail a necessary commitment by faculty to the creation of safe spaces for historically marginalized communities within the classroom and clear options for students to file formal grievances against students, staff, and faculty who commit acts deemed racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. We demand effective means be provided to address grievances with regard to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. There needs to be transparency within the Office for Equity and Diversity about what the process entails, who receives complaints, and what the consequences are for perpetrators and repeat offenders. We demand the university give marginalized students, staff, and faculty equal opportunity to implement change without threat of suspension, dismissal, and/or attacking our right to organize. This includes providing adequate funding and support to the organizing avenues historically used by marginalized communities within the campus e.g. the student cultural centers, ethnic/cultural faculty associations, student organizations, ethnic studies departments, and union representation and engagement. We demand that the permanency of the student cultural centers (SCCs) be ensured and funded by the university. We demand paid staff who will handle the logistics of scheduling and accounting. We want an end to all required reviews and evaluations of these spaces that threaten their permanency. The SCCs are critical in order to fulfill the universitys commitment to providing education for a diverse community, and often carry the burden of ensuring the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of people from historically marginalized communities. We demand access to at least one gender-neutral restroom in every building on campus. We demand that all University buildings be compliant with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). The current signage on the second floor of Coffman is not compliant with the ADA.

IV. We expect an emphasis be placed on a comprehensive educational experience for all students. We demand a restructuring of the curriculum across the university to include substantially more courses that value, teach and understand the histories, cultures, politics and socioeconomic realities of marginalized peoples. We demand an acknowledgement that the university exists as a product of colonial processes. We demand the university require all students to take at least one ethnic studies course offered in one of the three ethnic studies departments, (Chicano and Latino Studies, African and African American Studies, or American Indian Studies), or the Asian American Studies Program. We demand that all students be required to take one course that deals with gender nonconforming issues in the Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies Department or any of the courses endorsed by the GLBTA Programs Office. Since it has been the experience of both undergraduate and graduate students of color that there are not enough faculty of color to serve as our advisors, We demand the university expand all underfunded and understaffed ethnic studies departments and program to include a minimum of 8 faculty lines, at least 2 of which must be senior faculty members. We demand that this process be initiated within the next academic year (FY 2014-2015), and that hires be made in each successive year until these numbers are achieved. We also demand that new hires of faculty of color be made in all departments that currently have one or zero representatives from historically underrepresented groups. We demand that faculty and new hires be paid competitive salaries.

We demand that within two years the university will have at least 2 faculty members of color engaging in critical race and ethnic studies scholarship with a social justice emphasis in every department, and that they be paid competitive salaries. We demand that the university give students of historically marginalized backgrounds an opportunity to play a role in the hiring processes of faculty of color. We demand CLA advisors and recruiters with cultural competence in ethnic studies. We also demand departmental advisors in ethnic studies departments who are culturally competent in these areas. We demand for increased exposure to histories of activism initiated by marginalized communities through the creation of an archive of historical documents and photographs, and that this archive be readily available to the public. Additionally, we demand a display that features these histories be created and located in a centrally located space, such as the second floor of Coffman Memorial Union. There should be

transparency about the university and its past dealings with race relations. V. We expect the acknowledgment and respect of surrounding communities. We demand that the University of Minnesota Police Department eliminate racialized crime alerts. We demand a halt to all projects initiated by the university and a withdrawal of public support for development projects that gentrify and displace local communities, such as the luxury apartment developments in the vicinity of the university. Instead, the university should concern itself with nourishing and restoring relationships with local communities and community intellectuals. Opportunities for bi-directional engagement and education should be welcomed and promoted by the university. The university needs to recognize the wealth of knowledge and culture that exists outside of the walls of this university, and not just see these spaces as spaces for expansion. Moreover, further securitizing campus and displacing local communities will only make these goals more difficult to achieve.

Most histories continue to teach us not to understand and not to hope. But the struggle for transformation also continues, stubbornly insisting on other stories, other visions. . . The hope persists of grasping lessons from the past to help shape the future Elizabeth Martnez