When will our reports lead to action?

Earlier this year, the School of Medicine announced the appointment of a new Assistant Dean for Underrepresented Faculty Development, a promising step toward addressing concerns many students and faculty have voiced about discrimination and bias on campus. This new dean will be charged to specifically ensure that diverse faculty in the School of Medicine are properly supported in promoting their careers in research, teaching and mentoring with the hope of ensuring that these faculty continue their careers at Duke successfully.

At the level of the University, however, the announced position of Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement to be housed in the Provost’s office has yet to be filled despite its importance in carrying out many of these same roles. Of note, no similar position within the Provost’s office currently exists to ensure recruitment and retention of undergraduate and graduate students of color or to broadly address the issues of diversity and inclusion at Duke despite indications of this need.

More than a year ago, the Faculty Task Force on Diversity published a comprehensive report outlining the importance of a diverse faculty in ensuring diverse scholarship and appropriate mentorship for students and trainees, but found that Duke lags behind peer institutions in hiring and retaining women and faculty of color. At the same time, the results of the 2015 Faculty Survey showed that both women and minority faculty members indicated lower satisfaction than counterparts on key metrics of success and a greater likelihood to leave Duke for positions at other universities.

Additionally, the important findings of the Faculty Task Force on Diversity report dissatisfaction with the resolution of faculty reports of bias, harassment, and discrimination by the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE). The Task Force on Bias and Hate report also noted that OIE did not consistently handle or resolve complaints and recommended the formation of other university units to address these real concerns with ultimate oversight by the Provost’s office. Given that these findings, a study specifically addressing the satisfaction of all community members who have reported instances of concern to OIE seems warranted. Without forcefully addressing instances of hate and bias and providing restorative justice to community members damaged by prohibited conduct, no amount of supportive action will help to retain diverse faculty and students at Duke.

With faculty reports well over a year old and the Task Force on Bias and Hate’s report approaching six months since publication, we are troubled by the lack of more visible action to address the well raised and researched concerns outlined at the level of the University. The recommendation of the task force to provide iterative updates on progress towards implementation of the recommendations seems to not have been followed. We therefore suggest that the task force follow the example set by the other universities mentioned in its report and develop a website providing specific information about progress made to date.

Ultimately, the cycling nature of the university student population must not lull administrators into thinking that issues of diversity and inclusion on campus will not exist four or eight years from periods of great community consternation. The faculty results indicate these concerns are ever present. Students must continue to hold the University accountable to the implementation of the recommendations of its numerous reports and studies. With pressure from students, hopefully the University will be more diligent in extending support to our diverse community.