A motion from the Committee on Diversity raised three incredibly important — albeit distinct — issues facing Syracuse University at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting. The motion prompted a long and passionate discussion — but what that discussion was about, the senate members and attendees may not be entirely sure.

Three major issues concerned the senate members, three issues that should have been explicitly separated: a commitment to student diversity, a new admissions strategy, and SU’s reputation and competitiveness. Much of the discussion approached these issues as though they have a causative relationship — but they do not.

Discussion of the first issue, diversity, quickly revealed it was not a contestable issue at all. Every contributor prefaced his or her statement with a genuine tribute to the importance of diversity in its traditional definition: religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality and disability. No one questioned diversity’s merits in an academic setting. The final result was a motion to reaffirm SU’s longstanding dedication to diversity without any changes to university policy or practice.

Changes to the undergraduate admissions strategy marked the second distinct issue. Chancellor Nancy Cantor made clear that the admissions strategy has indeed shifted to attract and accept greater numbers of students from outside the Northeast. This change corresponds with the shifting student-age demographic in the United States, which is no longer centered in the Northeast. The change ensures long-term economic and enrollment sustainability and, as described, has nothing to do with ideological or moral motivations. Cantor said the decision to increase geographic diversity outside the Northeast is one many universities are facing.

The third issue wrapped up in Wednesday’s debate was a perceived decline in SU’s institutional competitiveness and reputation. Administrators chose to argue SU’s competitiveness has not declined, as they no longer consider traditional metrics like admissions rate and average GPA and SAT scores the best ways to rate SU’s success. Several faculty members argued that if our peer institutions value these metrics, then SU must as well, especially if no precedent exists for valuing different institutional qualities.

Despite nearly an hour and a half of discussion, the state of SU’s reputation remains debatable and incredibly urgent. If anything was clear Wednesday, it was that more discussion about this topic is needed. Many senate members expressed an interest in open discussion about the changes to SU’s reputation. When this discussion continues, it must be stripped of morally loaded, obvious — and frankly unrelated — issues like the value of diversity. A second open forum this semester would likely be the best venue for such a discussion.

Beckie Strum is the editorial editor of The Daily Orange, where her news analysis appears occasionally. She can be reached at opinion@dailyorange.com.

Published on March 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm