To Chief Diversity Office

To: Chief Diversity Office
From: Higher Education Consultant
Date: 19th March 2019
Subject: Institutional-wide diversity and inclusion strategic plans
Part 1:
1. Harvard University
Harvard University is evidently a diverse institution that valued diversity and inclusion. At Harvard, the administrators, faculty, staff, and students representing various races, interests, ages, and backgrounds come to pursue their common goals (Harvard.edu, 2019). Harvard works towards providing an environment that promotes inclusiveness of culture and racial diversity. The assistant to the Harvard University President has an office whose mission is to deliver a sustained and wholesome effort towards the development, advancement, and coordination of inclusive excellence, equal opportunity, and diversity (Harvard.edu, 2019). At Harvard employees get equal opportunity notwithstanding their race or gender. Labor organizations, employment agencies, educational institutions, local governments, and private employers’ applicants and employees get protection against discrimination from federal laws.
The mission of the office of the Harvard University’s assistant president is to deliver sustained equality and diversity initiatives, policies, and programs to the university (Harvard University, 2019). The H-OAP (Harvard-Office of Assistant President) collaborates with the president’s office, the students, vice president, deans, staff, faculty, departments, and units across the schools and divisions to achieve this mission (Harvard University, 2019). The objective of the efforts is to develop an understanding around the campus about the importance, complexity, and centrality of inclusiveness in the administrative and academic endeavors. Secondly, the H-OAP fosters understanding about the diverse working and learning environment and assigns meaning to the significance and meaning of equity outreach and equal opportunity efforts (Harvard University, 2019).
Harvard University staff, students, administrators, visitors, faculty, and alumni represent people from highly heterogeneous, and interconnected global communities with wide ranging and unique abilities, interests, competencies, and experiences. H-OAP works to support and apportion value to the idiosyncratic talents and contributions of the community members (Harvard University, 2019). The strategic plan, reports, leadership initiatives, advising, training, outreach, programmatic efforts, and talent management plans are characterized by the emerging and historic research and scholarship, and the local equal opportunity and federal categories and guidelines (Harvard University, 2019). The H-OAP believes in the affirmative action and compliance with AA/EEO laws, procedures and policies. The charter on affirmative action defines the responsibilities, role, and authority of H-AOP office.
Harvard has become the home for academic personnel, faculty, staff, and students from various circumstances, identities, places, and backgrounds (Harvard University, 2016). The institution through the task force on belonging and inclusion brought various perspectives, passions, and commitments. Excellence and justice makes it necessary to build the institution’s efforts around belonging and inclusion. The university has achieved excellence through fostering of discovery, creativity, and learning. This is why Harvard ought to be seen as an inclusive society supporting the success of everyone through integration of every single person into the academic, professional, and social life.
Diversity and inclusion have been presented as an integral component that defines the Harvard University community through the H-OAP office. Harvard has earned global recognition due to its fair admission criteria and an honest attempt at ensuring this objective is met. Over and above upholding diversity and inclusion at the human resource and employee level influential institutional positions are subject to the same principles. This has indeed made Harvard a signature world-class institution.
2. Oxford University
The mission of this institution is to advance learning through research, teaching and dissemination by any means (University of Oxford, 2018). The vision is to work as a unit and unite the students, alumni, colleges, students, divisions and faculties in order to deliver world class education and research (University of Oxford, 2018). This is achieved through means that offer support to the local, national, global, and regional societies. On inclusion and diversity Oxford university believes that people form the foundation of the successes of the university and the research, academic, and professional quality (University of Oxford, 2018). The support staff forms a critical constituency of the future of the university. According to the University to remain a global teaching and research institution Oxford must continuously recruit, attract and support individuals with talent and offer an inclusive, diverse, open and fair environment that makes it possible for flourishing and growth (University of Oxford, 2018).
The processes and policies espoused by the University’s human resources offer a framework for faculties and departments to provide assistance to students and to provide answers to the external environment that is continuously changing (University of Oxford, 2018). Oxford University gives people priority by embedding an inclusive and supportive culture (University of Oxford, 2018). The diversity of the university staff is achieved through the action plan which includes the race equity charter, Athena SWAN, Mindful Employer, and Equality Index known as Stonewall Workplace (University of Oxford, 2018).
Compliance with the diversity, inclusion, and non-discrimination laws, regulation, and standards seem to be the bedrock and modus operandi at Oxford University. Although compliance with the law is important there seems not be to a genuine and beyond scope effort from the school administration to institutionalize and uphold the diversity and inclusion principle and a central and fundamental component guiding the institution. Harvard has the H-OAP office specifically mandated to moderate and uphold diversity and inclusion. Likewise Oxford ought to establish a system and office that guides and governs the diversity and inclusion principles.
3. University of Cambridge
Cambridge University affirms its commitment to the pursuit of equality, academic excellence, equal opportunity, inclusion and proactivity in the approach to the equality of people (University of Cambridge, 2019). The university encourages underrepresented groups, values diversity, and champions the culture of inclusion (University of Cambridge, 2019). The University values diversity. Cambridge University recognizes the relevance of strengthening inclusion and equality, and of encouraging respect, dignity, and the sense of belonging for all races and ethnicities (University of Cambridge, 2019). The aim of the institution is to enhance racial equality by way of driving organizational and cultural chance in order to make sure that the institution excels in its support for and attraction of Asian, minority, and black students and staff. The University strives to cultivate a favorable environment for open race related challenges and issues of racism (University of Cambridge, 2019). The 2015/2016 Diversity and equality report of Cambridge University had the following facts: Twenty per cent of their students admitted in 2015 came from the minority and black ethnicities. 25.3 per cent of undergraduates, 36.9 per cent of postgraduates, and 38.7% research postgraduates came from the BME (Black & Ethnic minority) groups (University of Cambridge, 2019).
Despite the statistics and figures, Cambridge University has failed to uphold and practice the diversity and inclusion principle. The institution has very comprehensive principles in theory but not in practice. It is clear that there is not enough personnel and manpower to enforce the guiding principles on hiring and admissions. It is an embarrassment that the institution barely admitted 2 black students from the year 2015 to 2017 (The Guardian, 2019).
Achieving racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and regional equality in the higher institutions of learning is always a challenging affair. Some institutions work very hard to achieve equality and inclusion but somehow end up falling short of their own expectations. Although Cambridge University has put genuine efforts towards achieving inclusion and diversity in the student and staff body reports from The Guardian (2019) indicated that the university had no record of admitting any black student or had only admitted a single black student between the year 2012 and year 2016. The disturbing news were released following release of statistical data revealing that an excess of one in the Cambridge University colleges had not admitted any black student between the year 2015 and 2017 (The Guardian, 2019).
Although the strategic plans of all the universities (Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge) point to a resolution to fight for and sustain inclusion and diversity at all levels only Harvard has demonstrated a practicable approach towards achieving true equality and inclusion. Oxford and Cambridge Universities have inclusion and diversity in principle although they fall short in practice. The best way to achieve equality and inclusion is to dedicate an entire office with financial resources and enough manpower to push the diversity and inclusion agenda just like Harvard has done through the H-AOP office. It is not enough to believe in something if there are no demonstrable efforts towards achieving what you believe in.
Part 2:
Socioeconomic status makes it possible for wealthy families to engineer consulting in preparation to help students pass their ACT or SAT exams. It is noteworthy that both these exams are coachable. After going to a campus, the socioeconomic status of a student affects their achievement outcomes and experiences. According to Walpole (2003) students who come from low socioeconomic status backgrounds have different habits and cultural habits as compared to the students who come from high socioeconomic status backgrounds. Going to college does not mean that the student from low socioeconomic background rises socially or economically to a similar level as that of their peers. Although students from the low socioeconomic background have higher propensity to rise as compared to the parents, the students from a higher socioeconomic background will continue to enjoy an unfair advantage (Walpole, 2003).
The students with a lower socioeconomic background who have enrolled to four years of university or college have to work more and therefore get less time to study. Such students are also less involved in classrooms and as a result report lower GPA scores compared to the students with higher socioeconomic status backgrounds (Walpole, 2003). Moreover, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds earn lower income, achieve lower academic results when compared to their peers from higher socioeconomic status (Walpole, 2003). In addition, stats also show that the ability of the college students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to convert their education into gainful economic profits is higher than that of their peers from low socioeconomic backgrounds but who never attended college (Walpole, 2003). This notwithstanding, college students who are disadvantaged in their socioeconomic status still struggle socially and economically as compared to their higher socioeconomic status peers.
Meaningful interactions can be hampered where corruption is used as an means to gain university admission. This is because the otherwise qualified and deserving students are left out in favor of the unqualified but privileged students. Meaningful interactions can be achieved by establishing new admission standards that are not based on standardized test scores. Test scores may only be a reflection of families’ willingness to spend more on tutoring their kids to perform well in the SATs and ACTs. Emphasis should be less on the tests since students who can afford costly help with their SATs will still make it. The focus should be on verifiable participation in sporting activities, and proven performance records from high school and other learning institutions. Focus should not be in a single test examination that only tells so little about the abilities of the student.


References
Harvard.edu (2019). Diversity and Inclusion. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from https://hr.harvard.edu/diversity-inclusion
Harvard University (2019). Mission Statement, Office of the Assistant to the President Institutional Diversity and Equity. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from https://diversity.harvard.edu/pages/about
Harvard University (2016). Pursuing Excellence on a Foundation of Inclusion, Harvard University Presidential Task Force on Inclusion and Belonging. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from https://inclusionandbelongingtaskforce.harvard.edu/files/inclusion/files/harvard_inclusion belonging_task_force_final_report_full_web_180327.pdf
The Guardian (2019). Cambridge University's poor diversity record highlighted by report. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/03/cambridge-colleges-poor-record-on- diversity-highlighted-by-report
University of Cambridge (2019). Equality, diversity and inclusion, Student wellbeing. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from https://www.studentwellbeing.admin.cam.ac.uk/equality-diversity- and-inclusion
University of Oxford (2018). University of Oxford Strategic Plan. Retrieved 19 March, 2019 from http://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Strategic Plan 2018- 23.pdf
Walpole, M. B. (2003). Socioeconomic Status and College: How SES Affects College Experiences and Outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 1, 45-73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044