Op-Ed: Increased faculty diversity benefits all students

Stanford is known for its diverse student population, and the numbers show that students come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds: roughly 50% of the student body self-identifies as people of color. There is a history of student activists fighting for the creation of community centers, ethnic studies programs, and community resources — a legacy that continues today. But what is Stanford University as an institution doing to show it cares about diversity within the academy?

Yes, we see our diverse identities reflected in the syllabi in many of our courses. But we do not often see these identities reflected in the professors teaching those courses. According to 2010 data from the Diversity and Access Office, only 25% of professors are women, compared to 48% of undergraduates. A staggering 79% of faculty are White, compared to 35% of undergraduates. This severe underrepresentation of women and people of color is troubling, and efforts should be made to correct this discrepancy.  We should also consider the possibility of faculty diversity beyond the current quantified identities: an increase in the amount of LGBTQ-identified professors, professors with disabilities, and other populations underrepresented in academia.

Research conducted by scholars like Sylvia Hurtado demonstrate that diverse faculty and curricula are essential to improving the educational experience for all students, particularly students of color. These faculty can provide mentorship and intellectual opportunities to ensure that all of Stanford’s students can succeed in this intense academic and social environment.

The lack of faculty diversity is not a new concern on campus — students have been advocating for increased faculty diversity since before the Black Student Union “took the mic” from the university Provost and issued their list of demands in 1968. However, a recent incident involving a visiting professor has given us reason to remind the campus community that diversity of faculty continues to be a pressing problem. And it serves as an opportunity to reflect on the ways in which this issue is about more than just representation and mentorship.

An article by Stanford’s Joel Brinkley, a Hearst Visiting Professional in the Department of Communication, illuminated the problems that occur when an institution of higher education offers a diversity of class subjects without an accompanying diversity of professors. In his article, Professor Brinkley demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the lived experience of Southeast Asian students, using his intellectual position to demean the region’s peoples without considering how his argument might be offensive and harmful to many Asians around the world, let alone the Asian-American students on this campus. He described Vietnamese people as “aggressive” and “gruesome” consumers of dog meat, a supposed contradiction to the economic success of the country.

The problematic portrayal of Vietnamese people in Brinkley’s article demonstrates the need for more education on Southeast Asian history, culture, and issues, and the need for faculty from those particular backgrounds who can foster a deeper, more holistic understanding of ethnic and cultural differences among students.

There are currently very few professors who study or teach about ethnic and cultural identities. Those who do are highly valued on this campus, but we still have very few professors who can sufficiently understand a culture and communities’ complexities and intricacies through their own lived experiences and perspectives. The recent incident with Professor Brinkley serves as a reminder of the importance of enhancing faculty diversity at Stanford. It is not simply a matter of what material is taught, but who is teaching it.

As was reported in last Tuesday’s issue of the Daily, the undergraduate representatives of the Asian American Activities Center (A3C) Advisory Board created a survey to gauge the academic and research interests of Stanford students to inform the Board’s advocacy efforts. This is a move in the right direction, but the Stanford community as a whole must demand a faculty as diverse as the student body itself.

ASSU Community Action Board
Asian American Activities Center (A3C) Student Advisory Board Undergraduate Representatives

  • Sal

    Why don’t they just strive to hire the BEST faculty instead of trying for the most diverse. Should they really pass up the professor that is the very top in his field just because they aren’t the right race, culture or gender? Shouldn’t all races and genders beheld to the same standards? Will Stanford really have the best if they try to hire percentages of each minority? Then what happens when the white race is the minority, like it is in the 25 and under in California?

  • A student of color

    I’m a POC but I’d rather have a professor of color hired because she was the top of her field than because we didn’t have enough brown people. The POC professors I’ve had have been highly influential, but in part because I know they made it by merit. Unless the Action Board believes that POC are discriminated against in the hiring process (which they didn’t argue in the article), we shouldn’t hire anyone other than the best professors. Diversifying the undergrad population will eventually have a “trickle up” effect. In the mean time, leave my professors alone.

  • pol_incorrect

    Sure, let’s apply affirmative action in the school of medicine. Let’s not hire the best available heart surgeon, regardless of his/her skin color, and let’s instead make sure that the top priority is that there are many “minority” heart surgeons. BTW, if I ever need heart surgery, and said policy were to be adopted, I would probably have my surgery somewhere else.

  • eyeroll

    To the rest of the commenters: do you really think that it just so happened that the most deserving candidates were 79% white and 25% women? Does that sound like just a coincidence? There are implicit racial/ gender based factors affecting job selection all the time.

  • pol_incorrect

    Red herring. The point here is not WHY we have that disparity but whether Stanford should comprise the quality of the faculty in order to have more “diversity”. What I, and I think the others, say is a resounding NO. If you want to increase the diversity of the faculty, the university should work towards increasing the pool of wanna be faculty members with different backgrounds, but it should not compromise the quality of heart surgeons based on “diversity” considerations. And I must say that to increase that pool, Stanford, and other elite institutions, do a horrible job because of affirmative action in undergraduate admissions. These university compromise in the quality of admitted students in undergrad based solely on “desire for diversity” to the point that black and Hispanic applicants (even those who come from wealthy backgrounds) have an easier time getting admitted than better qualified Asian and white students. The end result is that these undeserved admits end up majoring in easy majors avoiding a demanding life in academia altogether. If these schools want to increase the pool, they should start working in the high schools, helping deserving students reach their full potential. And I am not talking only about the most obvious (financial aid) but mentorship of students, etc. There are many minority/women who have gone to become great experts in their respective fields. They don’t deserve their accomplishments to be cheapened by the suspicion that they were beneficiaries of affirmative action.

  • A. Student

    Diversity, for the sake of diversity in academic leadership possitions is super harmful to students… we should only have the best… if there is any issue of discrimitation that should be addressed harshly, but diversity for the sake of diversity is demeaning for those who have been hired, and a waste for the students. If anything we should encourange unrepresented minorities to work hard, and achieve the level of excellence we expect of faculty.

  • Dana

    Something that is perhaps overlooked in this op-ed: most professors grew up in the ’50s, ’60s, 70′s and ’80s , times when racial and gender discrimination were greater barriers to success, and this is certainly a key factor in the lower numbers of minorities and women represented in faculty today. The student body, however, grew up in the 2000s, and some are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. You can’t become a professor on the spot as institutionalized prejudice subsides; you have to have grown up when things were fair (of course there are plenty of exceptions, but I’m talking in averages). Thus, there’s a fairly logical time delay between when things start getting fair for young people and when minorities/women are fully proportionately represented in prestigious adult career positions such as elite college professors. You mentioned that 21 percent of faculty here are POC (well, you said that 79 percent are white, and I did a little math). In the US, as of 2011, ~34 percent of people are POC. I fully expect that this 13 percent gap will be closed in 20-30 years, when todays POC undergrads at Stanford (who are actually overrepresented relative to their national numbers) enter academia and get tenured positions. Time delay needs to be taken into account if you’re trying to compare the representation of POC and females in faculty (whose status in academia is influenced by the policies and prejudices of several decades ago) to their representation in students (who can more directly benefit from today’s policies and attitudes.)

  • ???

    who are you and how are you relevant to Stanford?

  • Diversity is Good

    I love how the comments for any article about diversity immediately turn into “Affirmative Action is bad” … whether we agree or disagree with the policy, can we at least acknowledge that diversity is a good thing, which is the point of this article?

  • OldFart

    How about arguing for diversity of opinions rather than diversity of gender, race, etc. That’s what Stanford – and other universities – desperately need when over 80% of professors self identify as liberal.

  • SDS

    Um, look at your faculties. Are they diverse? No. Is it a lack of quality candidates of color? No. Then why? Because lilly white faculties have internalized the same racism as everyone else except they are better at deluding themselves–through a thicket of theory–that they are not. The wispy blonde who speaks the “subaltern discourse” (my, because we ARE enlightened!) will always will over the large woman of color with the same credentials. And, the smoke and mirrors is the editorial above (it’s a whole genre, really) that discuss the impact of faculty diversity as if it’s actually happening. Once lilly-white, always lilly-white. Oh yes, the token non-white will be there but is buried by whiteness of the faculty majorities.

Login to your account

Can't remember your Password ?

Register for this site!